GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA FORD MOTOR CO OF CANADA CHRYSLER CANADA
MAYORS OF THE GREATER TORONTO AREA
GROCERY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS OF CANADA
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, NATIONAL OFFICE
LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 183
BRANTFORD REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday 1 September 1992
Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, Bill 40
General Motors of Canada; Chrysler Canada; Ford Motor Co of Canada
Maureen Kempston Darkes, vice-president, corporate affairs and general counsel, General Motors
Cody Cooper, manager, labour relations and safety, Chrysler
Max MacLean, manager, labour relations and hourly personnel, Ford Motor Co
Mayors of the greater Toronto area
Hazel McCallion, mayor of Mississauga
Grocery Products Manufacturers of Ontario
Kathryn Rowan, director, provincial affairs
Mike Krueger, vice-president, human resources, Colgate-Palmolive Canada Inc.
Bill Frakes, vice-president, human resources, Unilever Canada Ltd
Louise Binder, vice-president, human resources, Lily Cups Inc
Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario
Larry Galajda, vice-president
Peter Large, executive director
Jose Pereira, manager, employment advisory services
Project Economic Growth
Howard Kaufman, vice-president, secretary and general counsel, Xerox Canada
Oshawa Chamber of Commerce
Fred Ball, chairman, government affairs committee
Andy Emmink, member, Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade
Robert Armstrong, member, government affairs committee
Kim Warburton, member, government affairs committee
Canadian Union of Public Employees, National Office
Judy Darcy, national president
Muriel Collins, national executive board member for southern Ontario
Helena Aguiare, president, CUPE local 2295
Luis Aguiare
Dofasco Inc
Robert J. Swenor, senior vice-president, corporate administration
Oakville Chamber of Commerce
John Hogg, president
Jackie Cutmore, executive vice-president
Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183
Daniel McCarthy, counsel
Walter Ruszczak, industrial coordinator
Tony Dionisio, president
Daniel Drache
Labatt's Ontario Breweries
Peter Edwards, manager, human resources, Metro Toronto operations
James Winter
Brantford Regional Chamber of Commerce
Dan Housser, chairperson, political awareness committee
Amdahl Canada Ltd
Sussannah Kelly, director, human resources and government relation
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:
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND) for Mr Klopp
*Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Dadamo
*Phillips, Gerry (Scarborough-Agincourt L) for Mr Conway
*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:
Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South/-Sud PC)
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Decker, Todd
Staff / Personnel:
Anderson, Anne, research officer, Legislative Research Service
Fenson, Avrum, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1000 in committee room 1.
LABOUR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUTE 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): Good morning. It's 10 o'clock and we're going to proceed with our first presentation.
GENERAL MOTORS OF CANADA FORD MOTOR CO OF CANADA CHRYSLER CANADA
The Chair: Appearing here first are General Motors of Canada, Ford Motor Company of Canada and Chrysler Canada. Would you please tell us your names and your titles, if any, and proceed with your comments. Please try to save the second half of the half-hour for exchanges and questions.
Ms Maureen Kempston Darkes: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for providing us with the opportunity to make this presentation. I am Maureen Kempston Darkes, vice-president of corporate affairs and general counsel, General Motors of Canada Ltd. With me today are Max MacLean, manager of labour relations and hourly personnel at Ford Motor Company of Canada, and Cody Cooper, manager of labour relations and safety at Chrysler Canada. On behalf of the motor vehicle manufacturers, we welcome the opportunity to submit our comments on the proposed reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
The automotive industry is an important industrial sector in Canada, representing approximately 7% of the gross domestic product. In 1991, the Canada-United States trade in automotive products was approximately $53 billion, 27% of the value of total goods traded between Canada and the United States. The Canadian automotive industry directly employs approximately 140,000 Canadians in the manufacture of vehicles and components, while an estimated 350,000 Canadians are employed indirectly. Most of this employment is situated in Ontario.
All operations are focused around synchronous, just-in-time inventory and manufacturing systems enhanced by the capability of our Canadian supplier community. Over 600 Ontario companies employing more than 75,000 people supply tooling, parts, equipment and services worth over $13 billion annually to Big Three assembly plants in Ontario, Quebec and across North America.
The automotive industry is focused on a number of strategies to manage its business better, improve productivity and reduce costs, as well as to produce products and offer services that meet the highest standards of quality and value. We have implemented demand-driven manufacturing systems to reduce production times, lower operating costs and reduce inventory, while simultaneously increasing product quality and improving our responsiveness to react to market changes.
One such technique is flexible scheduling of assembly plant production. It provides a method to better control the order in which jobs flow down the assembly line, to utilize labour and equipment more efficiently and to match production more directly to products our customers want. Operations are centred on manufacturing systems which require a continuous synchronized flow of raw materials and finished products.
Roughly 90% of all production components arrive daily on a just-in-time concept. For example, at GM Canada, Lear Seating Canada builds and delivers seats within hours of receiving an order electronically transmitted from the plant. The result: better inventory management and lower costs.
However, there are risks related to just-in-time delivery systems. We are vulnerable to any interruption in the flow of material, whether it results from a truck border blockade or a strike at one of our suppliers. A strike at critical suppliers is felt immediately in terms of plant shutdowns and could result in massive employee layoffs at vehicle assembly plants and component facilities across North America.
In terms of the reforms proposed in the Ontario Labour Relations Act, we do recognize that the government has made several changes to the original labour reform proposals. However, we continue to have very serious concerns about the impact the proposed legislation will have on jobs and longer-term investment in the province, particularly for automotive part suppliers.
Let me deal with the subject of replacement workers. The domestic North American automotive industry has invested considerable time and resources in order to implement a modern, just-in-time, sequenced system for delivery of materials from suppliers to production facilities. These measures are representative of the industry's actions to be competitive on a global basis and to secure employment for our people in Ontario. These systems, which often involve minimal lead time, have provided significant improvements in operating flexibility, quality and cost. The philosophy going forward must be one of continuous improvement if our industry is going to survive and prosper in Ontario.
The just-in-time system is potentially vulnerable to labour disputes within the supplier community. The government's proposal to prohibit replacement workers during a strike would seriously erode the ability of Ontario-based suppliers to maintain scheduled deliveries to the auto industry's North American facilities. In fact, such proposals may force Ontario-based suppliers to enter into uncompetitive collective agreements which in the long term may result in the loss of those jobs should the supplier be unable to supply parts to the auto industry at competitive prices. Alternatively, such suppliers could be forced to relocate to other jurisdictions to enable them to ensure continuity of supply of parts to the vehicle assemblers at competitive prices.
The first objective of legislation which regulates collective bargaining should be to create a system which encourages the parties to a collective agreement to bargain to constructively reach an agreement which respects the legitimate needs of both parties. It has been recognized for years that the potential exists that bargaining will reach an impasse and a strike will occur. A basic tenet of labour relations has been to maintain a fair balance in these disputes. Workers who strike are allowed to work elsewhere and/or receive strike benefits financed by the union as a whole.
In the past, the law has recognized that an employer may decide to continue operations in the face of a strike, and indeed may hire replacement workers. The proposed change in the law to prohibit replacement workers during a strike has no demonstrated need. It is merely a proposal to increase the bargaining power of unions.
We strongly believe that if this change is made in the law, it will discourage investments and new jobs in the province. It could cause suppliers to quietly leave, with the resulting loss of jobs, because suppliers can no longer supply the auto industry with parts on a continual basis at competitive prices.
Given the North American scope of the arrangements between the automotive suppliers and assemblers involving just-in-time delivery systems and the growing trend towards long-term sole-source commitments, it is essential that the automotive manufacturers be assured of unimpeded delivery of materials from Ontario suppliers. This issue is one of paramount importance, not only for the manufacturers and suppliers but also, we believe, for the government of Ontario.
One of the most common motives for operating during a strike is to ensure the preservation of the business, not only during a strike but after its conclusion.
We believe the proposal to effectively ban the use of replacement workers during a strike will foster neither economic growth nor investment. The proposed revisions would only enhance the current aura of uncertainty pertaining to the sourcing of materials in Ontario. Certainty of parts supply is critical to vehicle assemblers.
We are also concerned that the severe constraints on the use of replacement workers could disrupt our own assembly and component operations in the event of a strike by a smaller union within our plants, such as the United Plant Guard Workers of America, the Ontario Nurses' Association or the International Union of Operating Engineers or the Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers. It is conceivable that a strike by one of these unions could put all other employees at the strike site out of work. Should this event happen, it would hinder the ability of our assembly plants to be considered as sources for future production allocation.
Although the proposed legislation will permit employers to have the work performed at another location or through a contracting-out arrangement, it makes little sense to do so. Many employers will not have the capacity to transfer the work, particularly manufacturing operations with high quality criteria and specific and complex tooling requirements.
Also, if it is accepted that a supplier can continue to supply from another location or jurisdiction, then surely the supplier should be permitted to operate from its own location. In any event, once work is transferred out, it may never return to the struck location.
1010
To proceed with this recommendation will unduly tilt the balance of power between the parties in favour of the unions. The problem with this proposal is that it is allegedly designed to correct picket line violence. However, picket line violence results not from the use of replacement workers but from mass picketing. If reform is to be meaningful in this area and the real potential for picket line violence minimized, then provisions must be included in Bill 40 which limit picketing to its real purpose: conveying information about the strike.
Stiffer penalties should be considered for those individuals causing the violence on the picket lines. No provisions should be included in Bill 40 which impede the access to and egress from an employer's premises so that it can get its raw materials in and finished goods out during a labour dispute. The right of the union to withdraw its service must be balanced by an employer's right to attempt to carry on business. The essential economic balance between the parties can therefore be maintained.
In our view, the proposals should be amended to provide that employees of a struck company from other facilities would not be considered replacement workers. It should also be a fundamental right for an employee participating in a strike to change his or her mind and return to work at any time of his or her own choosing.
At this point, I'd like to turn the podium over to Cody Cooper of Chrysler.
Mr Cody Cooper: I'd like to address the issue of the organization of security guards.
We believe that the proposal to allow security guards to be represented by an all-employee union would place these employees in a serious conflict-of-interest situation. Security guards are responsible for both internal and external elements of security. If a security guard is a member of the same union as an employee a guard must question on an issue of theft, substance abuse or safety, the guard would be placed in a situation which could compromise effectiveness in terms of the ability to act in the best interests of maintaining the security of the facility and the safety of the other employees.
It is simply unrealistic to suggest that security guards would objectively monitor, control and report on the organization and picketing activity of individuals in their own trade union.
The conflict of interest would become most apparent during a labour dispute involving non-security employees. The duty to the employer could entail the requirement to report and testify later against a fellow union member. This could well result in practical difficulties in the arbitration process, where a security person would, at best, be a reluctant witness presenting evidence against a fellow member of the same union. It is arguable that the security person would be subject to internal discipline by the union, given the active testimony against a fellow union member.
We strongly recommend that the present requirement that guards be represented by trade unions which represent guards exclusively be maintained. Our companies have established a mature relationship with the United Plant Guard Workers of America, and we support its representation to this committee to retain section 12 of the act in its current form. Section 12 of the existing act represents a carefully tailored response to the need to balance the legitimate security requirements of the employers while maintaining the right of employees to organize and bargain collectively.
Also, when investment decisions are made, the ability of our facilities to maintain the security of assets from theft and fire and the ability to respond to all emergencies is a factor in such decisions. The security of billions of dollars of buildings and high-technology machinery and equipment should not be made another impediment to future investment in Ontario.
I'd like to turn this over to Max MacLean.
Mr Max MacLean: I'd like to deal with the issue of the powers of the arbitrator and the labour relations board.
The reform proposals provide for a broadening of the powers of arbitrators. We have two specific concerns with this proposal. The first concern relates to the power of arbitrators to interpret the provisions of a collective agreement, in that it is proposed that arbitrators will be authorized to decide the real substance of the differences between the parties, mediate disputes etc.
The purpose of the arbitration process is to provide a mechanism for the interpretation and application of the contractual terms agreed to by the parties to a collective agreement, and the current law is designed to provide final and binding decisions in a relatively short time frame without the complexities associated with the courts. In our view, the system works and the parties understand it, and no changes are required.
Secondly, it is proposed that arbitrators have the power to interpret and apply all employment-related statutes, including the Human Rights Code. Should arbitrators be empowered to interpret employment-related legislation, a myriad of conflicting decisions will almost certainly arise. Again, we believe that the powers of an arbitrator should be restricted to interpretation of the collective agreement. In our industry there are mechanisms for settlement of human rights complaints internally. If this process fails, an employee may file a human rights complaint. Surely this gives the employee adequate due process.
Similarly, if an employee or the union feels that provision of an employment-related statute has been breached, the complainant can lodge a protest with, for example, the employment standards branch if the complaint relates to the Employment Standards Act. Giving arbitrators the power to interpret employment-related laws will only serve to increase uncertainty among employers as to how laws should be interpreted. This uncertainty will not lead to a climate of improved labour relations as envisioned by the government.
It is also proposed that the powers of the Ontario Labour Relations Board should be broadened. We believe these changes, as proposed, have no demonstrated need and will not improve labour relations in the province and have the potential to have a chilling impact on investment in the province of Ontario.
The proposed legislation gives the labour board the power to impose collective agreement provisions. Currently, the parties to a collective agreement are required to resolve their own differences in negotiations. This makes sense in terms of employer-employee relations because these are the parties that have to make the agreement work.
The purpose section of the bill states that bargaining is to improve the terms and conditions of employment. It is not difficult to envision a situation where a union may wish to bargain a new demand which the employer finds unacceptable for competitive reasons. The labour board would, however, under the bill, have the power to impose the union demand and the new collective agreement under the authority of the purpose clause, as it would improve the employees' terms and conditions. However, this imposed provision could render the employer uncompetitive. Should this happen, the employer will either be forced out of business or forced to move his business outside of Ontario. Neither of these consequences make sense to us, nor do we believe they would make sense to the people of Ontario.
It is absolutely essential that the range of the arbitrator's jurisdiction be limited and confined to issues that arise out of a collective agreement between the parties if we are to maintain good management relations in Ontario. Similarly, to broaden their scope of review to include all relevant employment law will take arbitrators into areas where their expertise may be limited and result in conflicting interpretations in the related uncertainty, which is not desirable from either party's point of view.
Also, it is essential that the powers of the Ontario Labour Relations Board be maintained as they are. The board has traditionally under current law been focused on a balance between management and labour and facilitating the parties reaching collective agreements. To broaden the powers of the board to impose terms of a collective agreement has no demonstrated need and will likely lead to job losses in Ontario.
The next subject I would like to address is adjustment and change in the workplace. Government proposals would require the employer and the trade union to negotiate an adjustment plan under certain circumstances. These proposals, however, are unclear in many respects, particularly with regard to the alternatives that will have to be considered by the parties in the event that they are unable to agree.
The auto industry and the CAW negotiated a landmark job and income security program during the 1990 negotiations which established job and income security protection for employees affected in restructuring and closure situations. We believe these provisions meet all of the requirements of section 20 of Bill 40. In fact, we believe the auto industry program was the model for the drafting of Bill 40. Bill 40 must ensure that where collective agreements provide for structural change and termination, these agreements be deemed to comply with section 20 of the act and no further obligations are incurred in the event of a closure.
The proposals contained in Bill 40 mandate specific negotiation requirements universally, irrespective of whether or not the parties have already bargained similar arrangements. It is absolutely essential that this requirement only apply where a collective agreement fails to deal with this issue.
I'd like to turn the chair back to Maureen.
Ms Kempston Darkes: The time allotted to us today does not permit us to cover all issues of concern to us. We will be tabling with you a fuller brief, and in that brief you will find other comments and issues of concern, in particular the subject of contract tendering in the service sector and the requirement to maintain existing service contracts even where they aren't competitive; concerns over the consolidation of bargaining units by the Ontario Labour Relations Board; also, the right of the unions to picket third-party premises, and finally, concerns with certain aspects of the purpose clause. We would ask that you take those comments into consideration in your deliberations.
In conclusion, we believe that the automotive industry will continue to play a very large role in Canada's economy. It is imperative that labour, management and government work together to find solutions to critical issues facing the industry, to allow the automotive industry to invest, to grow, to generate profitability and to provide a base of employment to create and sustain a high quality of life and prosperity for the citizens of Ontario.
Again, Mr Chairman, thank you for listening to our comments. We are prepared to answer any questions which you or your committee members may have.
1020
The Chair: Thank you. I hope the automotive industry continues to play a large role in St Catharines' economy.
Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Thank you for your presentation. You've touched on a great many areas, and Mr McGuinty will have a question after myself.
I have one question not on your presentation. It is on some information we received earlier that, after the tabling of this piece of legislation, there was a meeting called for and convened in the city of Detroit with the Deputy Minister of Labour and representatives from the three automotive companies, talking about this particular legislation. I'm wondering if you can confirm that type of swirling piece of information, if such a meeting was convened and if you're at liberty to discuss what the gist of that meeting was about.
Ms Kempston Darkes: Mr Offer, I was not part of that meeting. I can confirm, however, that such a meeting did take place in Detroit. I believe the deputy minister was there and he undertook to explain some of the reforms to a number of people. I have no other information on the meeting at this time.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Unfortunately, time doesn't permit us to get into all of the issues you raise, but one of the things you may very well be aware of is that your industry is held out as proof positive, as irrefutable evidence, that the concerns that are being advanced by business are but hysteria; that in your heart of hearts you really believe Bill 40 won't wreak havoc on Ontario's economy; that the reason you're that proof positive is because you continue to pour money into the province, and if you felt Bill 40 was of major concern, you would not continue to do that. So since you're held out as that example by the government, I'd like you to respond to that today, please.
Ms Kempston Darkes: We have at General Motors a very long history of doing business in Ontario and we would obviously very much like that relationship to continue. However, it must be recognized that in order to maintain our facilities, they must be fully competitive to compete in a global context. That means when we look at new investment plans, our plants must compete with those in other provinces as well as in the United States. It means we must be able to maintain a good working relationship with our national and local unions, to continuously improve our flexible working arrangements. It also means we must have the assurance that we will be able to continuously operate our plants to meet our customers' needs and supply the components that we do supply to all GM facilities across North America. So yes, we have a long history of investment in the province. We must remember, however, that all of our plants must retain their full competitiveness if we are to continue to play such a large role in this province.
Perhaps Ford and Chrysler would also like to address that issue.
Mr MacLean: I think from a Ford perspective, I certainly wouldn't consider the Ford investment as an endorsement of these proposals. I think in one case the decision was well along before this government got elected, and in the other case, it certainly was a decision from a purely business point of view that put a new product in a plant. We've had absolutely tremendous cooperation from the CAW people there, a great work ethic and a quality producer of automotive products.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I'd like to pursue the point made by Mr McGuinty, because for the past four and a half weeks you have been held up as an example by the government of a group of people who are continuing to invest and don't seem to be concerned at all about Bill 40.
You said in your opening comments, Maureen, that this could lead to loss of jobs and long-term investment. That would happen if the government does not do what --
Ms Kempston Darkes: We are concerned that if we are unable to source parts on a continuous basis from the Ontario parts supply community, we would have down time in our major manufacturing facilities in Canada as well as the United States. We must remember that Ontario-based suppliers not only supply the GM Canada system but they also supply General Motors Corp in the United States. Our concern is that if we cannot be guaranteed a continuous source of supply of those parts, then we would have to consider placing those supply contracts elsewhere.
Similarly, I would point out that we have a number of smaller unions that operate with us in our major manufacturing facilities. For example, we have the United Plant Guard Workers, the nurses' union, the electrical workers; if one of those smaller unions were to go on strike and we were unable to replace those workers, we could have a situation, for example, at our Autoplex facilities in Oshawa, where perhaps a few workers could literally put thousands of workers off the job. We need to guard against those types of situations happening. For that reason we are asking the government to reconsider the legislation in the area of replacement workers, to help us guard against that and to create a greater assurance of supply of components to the North American operations.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to hear from Mr MacLean from Ford. You said that your decision to go ahead this year was made several years ago. If this bill were to be passed in its present form, what type of investment commitment would you be making in the future?
Mr MacLean: I can't answer that. That would be pure speculation on my part.
The Chair: Thank you. We've got to move on to Mr Huget. If you want to save him some time, Mr Hayes would like to ask a question too.
Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I certainly will.
The Chair: But it's entirely up to you.
Mr Huget: I'll save some time for Mr Hayes. I guess in the interests of spurring along a lively debate, I should ask which one of you makes the best vehicle, but I won't do that. The purpose of the act in a lot of cases is to modernize and update the Labour Relations Act. I want to touch on a specific issue that you raised, and that is the one of security guards and a perceived conflict of interest. In every other province in Canada, including the federal jurisdiction, security guards are allowed to join the union of their choice. In Ontario, under the amendments, there is indeed even a provision that if there is a perceived conflict of interest as determined by the board, there is the opportunity to have a separate bargaining unit.
My question to you -- and I'll defer to Mr Hayes after that -- is, what makes Ontario security guards different from every other province in Canada? Why would they be in conflict and the rest of the country not?
Mr Cooper: At least from our perspective, I would have to say that they're unique in our circumstances, because the vast majority of our facilities are in this province and we don't have this issue to deal with elsewhere. We have a good relationship with this group in this province at this point and would like to continue it.
Mr Huget: Do you have facilities in Quebec, sir?
Mr MacLean: We have small facilities but they are not represented in that sense with respect to security.
Mr Cooper: I think having it in a separate bargaining unit or another local of the same union doesn't resolve the obvious conflict of interest to me.
Mr Huget: I'm just a little confused as to why Ontario workers would be in conflict and they're not deemed to be in conflict anywhere else in the country. I'm just trying to make a distinction as to what makes our security guards different from every other group of security guards in the country in terms of conflict of interest.
Mr MacLean: I guess the thing that surprises me, at least from our perspective -- certainly the union that represents our guards is opposed to the changes, so you'd probably better ask them.
Mr Huget: I ask everybody. Pass to Mr Hayes.
The Chair: He left you 45 seconds.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Forty-five seconds, oh my gosh.
I worked at Ford so I know what the best cars are.
Mr MacLean: The answer's no, Pat.
Mr Hayes: The answer is no. I have negotiated with Max. Max is never -- you don't have to negotiate this stuff. But it's not in the contract when you ask him for it.
I think it has proven in the Big Three that the relationship with the CAW here -- sure there might have been some struggles over the years, but you have a very good relationship. Especially with health and safety, for example, supervision and the workers themselves jointly work together on training programs and such. I guess you have proven that there are decisions made to expand here in Canada because of that workforce and because of strong union leadership and cooperation.
1030
I guess what puzzles me is this: You do have this kind of cooperation and it has been successful. So what is the reason that other employers you even deal with, and the workers, should not have the chance to have that same kind of relationship? In other words, what I'm saying here is that it was proven in the Big Three that management and the union can work together, and yet this legislation is making it a little easier for workers to become organized and have the same kinds of benefits and wages.
Mr MacLean: If I may respond first, I'll reference two things you said. We have had some struggles, I believe was your context, and yes we have. We've been in the business with the CAW and the UAW for 50 years, and it's taken us a very long time to develop the kinds of relationships we have today.
You also mentioned health and safety. I would argue that our reputation in Canada in that arena, with our principles, is not the best. We do have a lot of good things going in terms of joint programs and so on, but we also have an awful lot of problems, relative to the abuse, that a company has the right to refuse.
The Chair: I want to thank you for appearing today on behalf of General Motors, the Ford Motor Co and Chrysler Canada. We appreciate your participation. Take care.
MAYORS OF THE GREATER TORONTO AREA
The Chair: the next participant is spokesperson Mayor Hazel McCallion from the city of Mississauga. We've got your written submission and it's been distributed. It will be made an exhibit and will form part of the record. Please go ahead, your worship.
Mrs Hazel McCallion: Good morning, Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. This morning I'm representing the mayors of the greater Toronto area. We have been meeting now for three months on the economic recovery of the GTA, which we feel is a very major part of the province, and we're concerned about the economic situation that exists in our area.
There's considerable concern expressed in the municipal sector, and I'm sure many organizations have been here on this since the release of the discussion paper.
First of all is the effect on the economy. We're all very concerned about the unemployment and about welfare rolls bursting at the seams, and we're just not in with free trade and all the impact. There are advantages to free trade, but the disadvantages. It's all come to making a crisis situation in our area, so we welcome the opportunity to discuss this legislation with you.
We do not necessarily disagree with your objectives. They do not justify, though, the inevitable consequences. Proposed changes to the legislation are expected to result in major changes in collective bargaining, relationships and union organizing activity. By increasing the scope and power of unions, municipalities and business will be further constrained and unable to meet economic challenges.
A recent survey -- and I'm sure it's been mentioned to you a number of times -- says that Ontario stands to lose approximately 295,000 jobs and $8.8 billion in investment over the next five years if proposed changes are implemented. This translates into a loss of provincial taxes of at least $2.5 billion and approximately $500 million in municipal taxes, and you know that at the present time we're scratching to keep our heads above water in the municipalities.
Ontario has already lost 400,000 permanent jobs as the result of the current recession. Personal business bankruptcies are at a record high and the unemployment rate is over 11%. Clearly, we cannot afford another economic setback in this province. Also, the unity question has certainly discouraged global investment in Canada as well as Ontario.
We want to deal with two issues, with the economic issue, and then we want to deal with how this affects municipalities providing services to the citizens of Ontario.
The mandate of economic development professionals in GTA municipalities is the attraction and retention of commercial and industrial business from around the world. This is the area the global investors look to.
Negative impact of the proposed legislation is already being felt in local economic development efforts and initiatives. At our meeting on Friday, there were mayors who indicated -- one mayor has gone to Italy to attract investment. The question of the proposed labour legislation was certainly raised, and also the Pacific Rim.
Increased collective agreement powers as proposed in Bill 40 bring the issue of business climate and labour stability to the fore, a clear message from the business community that these increased powers for unions in collective bargaining relationships will put them at a serious disadvantage to compete globally.
The proposed legislation will remove any incentive to locate or expand a business in this province -- and business has spoken out on this to the province; they are speaking out to us in the local municipalities -- and will lead to layoffs and business closures in the long term and prolonged vacancies in commercial and industrial properties.
Right at the present time, 25% of our industrial capacity in Mississauga is vacant. Losses in industrial and commercial tax revenue will place a higher burden on residential taxpayers, a burden many residential taxpayers will not be in a position to support. That's the economic issue. Globally, an expansion within our municipalities, in our opinion, will be very seriously affected.
Let's go to the municipal services' concerns. The significance of this legislation on municipalities' ability to provide public services is somewhat more complex. The relationship between a municipality and its residents is unique. Unlike the private sector, residents have paid for an existing level of service through taxation and are unable to source an alternative supplier like they can in the private sector. These services are in the public realm because they are necessary, and would not be viable or practical if left to the private sector.
The most significant implication for municipalities is the ban on use of replacement workers. In the event of a strike, residents will be denied services they have already paid for through their taxes -- not that they're going out to buy it; they've already paid for it and they're not getting it.
The proposed legislation allows for the use of specified replacement workers to the extent necessary to prevent danger to life, health or safety.
Expected complications relating to interpretation and delay in response to emergency situations: In the event of a strike, municipalities are required to use bargaining unit employees if the trade union gives consent and if employees are willing and able to do the work. In an emergency situation, delay caused by disagreements on these matters between municipality and union could result in serious implications in life-threatening situations.
The primary intent of the municipality is to prevent the occurrence of danger and total disruption by use of ongoing preventive maintenance and monitoring. We must be able to respond quickly to any problem that occurs. If we don't, we sure hear about it, because they say: "We've paid for that service. We've paid for that response and you're not providing it." It's not a case of going out and buying it.
Municipalities will be in constant conflict with unions over what constitutes grounds for use of replacement workers. Contracting out will become a viable alternative in order to protect citizens.
A very important concern is liability to the municipality if essential services are not maintained during a strike. For instance, a flood: We say, "Well, sorry, we're just into a discussion now as to who's going to go and plug the broken watermain." Or a spill of dangerous goods into our storm drainage: "Well, I'm sorry, we really don't know yet how we're going to deal with it. We're into discussion." I can assure you, that would be a very interesting experience to have.
1040
Even during normal operations, a municipality may encounter lawsuits alleging negligence in the maintenance of its infrastructures. Let us give you a very simple example: Missing stop sign not replaced promptly; fatal accident occurs; municipality held liable. We didn't get out and replace it because we're discussing. Who's going to do it? The people are on strike. Will the non-union people agree to do it? If they don't agree, we have nothing. Do we go out and hire somebody to do it? We can't.
I think we have to get down to basics, very, very basic. Since the municipality's the only provider of such services and the services are necessary, there is no competition to keep prices and wages in check. We're not into competition. Unions will be hard pressed not to use new-found powers to push for unreasonable wage and benefit settlements -- there's no question about it -- which will translate into unrealistic tax increases for municipal taxpayers. In the absence of economic pressures, the only control mechanism is the tolerance level of the taxpayer, and the tolerance level of the taxpayer today, we know at the local level, is zero, nothing less or more.
I think the 1,000 people who attended a meeting in Toronto last night are an example that the taxpayers are fed up with politicians, they're fed up with government and they're not going to tolerate it any more. That's the message we're getting at the local level, and I'll be very surprised if you're not getting it at the provincial level.
On behalf of the mayors of the greater Toronto area, we request the province to defer the proposed changes. Set up a municipal-provincial task force to address our particular municipal concerns, which we do not feel have been addressed or recognized. It's been directed more, in our opinion, to the private sector.
The task force should deal with the restriction on the use of replacement workers, which will impact the ability of the municipality to deliver services during strikes, the negative perception that proposed changes will discourage economic development, when the economy is already extremely weak, expansions within the province and international investors' comments regarding the uncertainty of the Ontario labour climate. I don't believe that the global investors have even taken the time to analyse or to read the proposed labour legislation. They just say, "We're leery of it, we just don't want to gamble and therefore we'll stay away from the province of Ontario."
There are more details in our presentation, but we seriously say to you that the province, in making these proposed labour legislation changes, is not aware of the implications on providing the services to the citizens of our province that they have paid for in the local taxes, and we can't provide something we've already levied them for. That's quite different to going out and buying toilet paper, because if you can't get it from one company, you can get it from another company. We have no choice. We ask you to defer the legislation and set up a task force to deal very specially with the municipalities' concerns.
We believe that this proposed labour legislation is affecting our economic development. We heard from all the economic development officers -- they were together -- and the economic development officers of the greater Toronto area are going to work with the greater Toronto area minister, Ruth Grier, to see how we can turn around the economic situation in the GTA. We're in deep trouble as far as attracting industry is concerned. When you know the vacancy in commercial buildings in Toronto and the surrounding area and the vacancy in industrial buildings, I can assure you, we don't see any bright light on the horizon.
In our opinion, to sum it up, what a time to bring in the proposed labour legislation. I'm not saying it's unnecessary, but what a time to bring it in, when we're knee-deep into a recession, knee-deep into competition second to none for investment throughout the world. Here we are, doing something that is limiting our ability to compete.
Mr Chair, that's our presentation. We hope the province will realize that this labour legislation has a very serious impact on the municipalities of this province.
The Chair: Thank you kindly. Five minutes per caucus.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much, Mayor McCallion, for your presentation. I'm pleased you've had an opportunity to provide the unique perspective of the municipality. I think that perspective has been totally overlooked in this entire discussion on Bill 40.
Would you just summarize for us what it is that you are suggesting the government do at the present time as far as the municipal sector is involved?
Mrs McCallion: Very concisely, we would like the proposed labour legislation deferred and a task force set up to deal with our specific concerns, which in our opinion are in no way dealt with in the proposed labour legislation. I don't think the impact on municipalities has been realized by the province in bringing forth this proposed labour legislation, and we would like an opportunity as municipalities.
AMO has taken the same position: defer it, set up a task force and let's sit down and see, very clearly, how we can deal with the very serious implications this is going to have on providing needed services to the people of Ontario. They can't go and buy from somebody else. They not only buy it from us, they've paid for it; they've paid for a service they are not going to get.
Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Madam Mayor, you're speaking on behalf of AMO and the GTA mayors, and I know you've done something very exceptional in that you've had meetings in Mississauga of all the GTA mayors, which hasn't been done in any other formal format before.
When the GTA mayors, as you say, represent 4 million people, almost half the people in this province, when you meet and talk about emergency services -- which is, from your presentation this morning, very clearly outlined -- have you looked at directly requesting the province, at least in the interim, if it won't defer it, to declare municipal services an essential service? I'm thinking about 1979, with our famous derailment in Mississauga. Where would we be today with a derailment like the one we had in 1979 if we had a situation of a flood or a spill?
Also, I know you're a hydro commissioner. I know the provision of electricity isn't a matter just of light and heat; it's water and sanitary sewers and pumps working for all of those. They're not luxury services, they're not a matter of whether a factory operates or not initially; it's a matter of survival, of the health of the people you represent. There would be a potential, would there not, for a tremendous crisis at the local level if we didn't have access to electricity in terms of protecting the health of people with the supply of water and sanitary sewers? I'm just wondering whether AMO or your GTA mayors have looked at declaring some of these services an essential services, regardless of Bill 40.
Mrs McCallion: We'll certainly have to look at it. The Municipal Electric Association has put in a very detailed presentation. We didn't cover hydro, but we certainly support the MEA's position. This is very serious if the hydro goes out. We get complaints now that it affects businesses in their operation, for one thing, but when it starts to affect the services -- I think Florida will tell you what it is to be without hydro for a while.
I guess we're hoping that if they don't defer the bill, they will defer it in regard to the municipalities, because we see absolutely nothing that indicates they dealt with how this proposed labour legislation would affect municipalities and the provision of essential services to the citizens of Ontario.
1050
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Good morning, your worship. How are you this morning?
Mrs McCallion: Good morning.
Mr Hope: I want to focus on the first part of your presentation. You talked about the Ernst and Young study and about offshore investment. You've made reference to the study, and I wanted some of your views. I wonder how many jobs have been lost because of the business community's campaign against the legislation, airing what its perception is of this legislation, which is discouraging investment. I wonder how many jobs we've lost because of that campaign, which is making it very difficult for your economic development officers to promote Ontario as a good place to do business.
And I'm wondering about the impact, especially in Mississauga, of the free trade agreement, because I know in my own riding we're being devastated. Most of it is American-based corporations restructuring themselves and moving to the United States on lower wages.
We're talking about your taxpayers, and I'd really like to focus on that aspect. You talk about the loss of jobs, the bankruptcies; we know a lot of the banks are going in and serving notice on some of the small parts manufacturers without notification. But I'd like to talk about the taxpayers themselves, who have been possibly victims of plant closures without any justification for a plant closure, which also affects your tax base. I don't see any reference, within the economic climate, because you made reference to the free trade agreement and now the possible Mexico-US-Canada free trade agreement, and nothing being done to bring investment into this country by stopping the offshore producer -- I'm just wondering why there isn't anything in your presentation, representing the GTA, about making businesses more accountable to the taxpayers you represent, about making sure that justification is served when a plant is closed.
Mrs McCallion: You've done a beautiful job of summing up the problems we're all in. This proposed labour legislation is just another kick at it. I agree with you that some of the publicity that has gone out that has said that jobs are being lost because of the proposed legislation is not helpful to us. We don't disagree with that at all. We've got so many problems that we're frustrated with all the problems we have: free trade, manufacturing going to the States. Now, we're gaining some in Mississauga; we keep a very close watch on this and we are making some gains, but we're still losing.
So we have free trade, and I believe your party -- I assume you're NDP -- is as concerned about this as we are, no question about it. That's exactly what we're trying to get across to you. We've got so many problems, why add another one? We're now going to be dealing with free trade with Mexico, where their wages are very much lower.
We're concerned about the rising welfare rolls; last year, $85 million in the region of Peel. Unemployment is at 11% in this area. I mean, gracious. So what we do is, when we're down, give another kick.
Mr Hope: But your worship, isn't the labour law like speed limit signs? As long as you don't go over the speed limit, you don't have to worry about getting a ticket, but if you go five, 10, 15, eventually you're going to get a ticket. As you break the law, you eventually pay for it. Isn't it true that if you treat your workers with respect and dignity, this law won't even need to be looked at because you won't have to worry about a trade union coming into the workplace?
Mrs McCallion: Sir, if the product is too highly priced, you can't sell it, so the worker can't make it. It's as simple as that. If you can't sell your product, there are no workers.
The Chair: We speed along to Ms Murdock.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Much of your presentation dealt with the possibility of an emergency situation or not being able to get work done. I notice at the very end, in the recommendations, you refer to subsection 73.2(2), which wouldn't really address your concern, but subsection (3), in conjunction with subsection (15), would directly address your concern. I'm wondering whether your intention would be to use that, because on page 14 you say --
The Chair: Perhaps you can give her a chance to answer that. Go ahead, ma'am.
Mrs McCallion: On that basis, Mr Chair, it's interpretation. The legislation opens the door to say, "These things can happen." It opens the door, but it doesn't close the door. And the point is, let's separate municipalities from a company.
Ms Murdock: I understand the distinction.
Mrs McCallion: I worked for the private sector and I know how you can deal with it. I'm talking about municipal services, and we are limited. We can't take time to sit down to figure out how we're going to stop that broken watermain. We can't take time to sit down and decide how we're going to put a stop sign up. We can't take time for that. It's got to be done immediately. And liability on the municipalities -- we've talked to our insurance people. It's going to go up, I've got to tell you.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Offer, go ahead, please.
Mr Offer: Good morning, Madam Mayor. There are two areas I'd like to address with you this morning. One is the call you have made of the need for an impact study as to how this legislation will affect municipalities. I can tell you, though, that there has been that call from a variety of other sources, primarily the business community, and to date the government has not conducted any impact study. They continue to work on the basis that it is impossible to conduct such an impact study.
For your information, as has already been indicated, we have heard concerns from the local municipal services: How are they going to repair a stoplight if there's a work stoppage? How are school boards going to operate if there happens to be a strike where there are bus drivers? The children's aid societies are concerned about how they are going to deal with children if there's a work stoppage.
So the examples which you bring forward today are extremely important, especially on page 11, when you talk about real life. We're talking about what really goes on in the municipality: How to repair a sign, what to do with water supply, garbage collection, the public library.
You call for an impact study. I take it that you see no difficulty in there being able to be conducted such a study for municipalities in light of Bill 40.
Mrs McCallion: No, I see no problem at all, and we feel very strongly that it's absolutely essential.
The proposed labour legislation applies to the private sector and the municipal sector. There is a major difference between two, and the proposed labour legislation has not recognized it at all. They talk about safety and health, it is true, but interpretations -- we had a labour lawyer in front of us to go over this. I can assure you that he outlined to us some very serious implications that we've got to be concerned about. Sure, there's wording in the legislation that says for motherhood statements, public safety and health -- there's a cost factor and then the liability associated with it that we're very concerned about, and we would like that dealt with. We're not saying don't change it, but please let us have the opportunity to explain to the government our position as municipalities, which is quite different from the private sector.
We're concerned about the economy, and we mentioned that. Talk to the mayors who have gone to the Pacific Rim and to Europe trying to attract investment into their municipalities. Talk to them. They'll tell you.
Mr Offer: Even on that point, I was listening to the question of Ms Murdock to you, and she alluded to the bill, where there can be an agreement. Your point is made. The fact is, how is it that municipalities are going to be able in any way to predict what's going to happen two and three months down the line? How are they going to predict under this legislation how many people are going to be needed to repair a stop sign? How many people are going to be needed to person this library service? How many people are going to be needed to maintain parks and recreation services? It's impossible.
The Chair: Perhaps Mayor McCallion can respond to that. Go ahead, ma'am.
Mrs McCallion: I say I think he's expressed it.
The Chair: You agree.
Mrs McCallion: How do we determine it?
The Chair: At that, your worship, we say thank you to you, ma'am, for appearing here on behalf of the GTA communities.
Mrs McCallion: Mr Chairman, I take exception to that. Please, I beg you, as a mayor -- I'll tell you, they don't call their member of Parliament when there's a broken watermain or a stop sign missing or the hydro's turned off; they call the mayor and members of council. We are accountable.
The Chair: Quite right.
Mrs McCallion: I beg you to recognize this as you deal with this proposed labour legislation. Don't put your heads in the sand. If you want to deal with the private sector, deal with it.
The Chair: Thank you kindly for being here this morning and for participating in this process. You've represented the views of the GTA communities effectively. Take care.
Mrs McCallion: All MPPs should be mayors before they become MPPs.
Interjections.
Mrs McCallion: You agree with us.
Interjection: We do.
The Chair: Or at least city councillors.
Mrs McCallion: I'm not sure about city councillors. You better be a mayor; then you get a call.
The Chair: You'll get my mayor all upset if he starts thinking about that.
1100
GROCERY PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS OF CANADA
The Chair: The next participant is the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada. Would they please come forward and have a seat. Here we are in disarray. Anarchy reigns in the committee room. Please seat yourselves in front of a microphone, tell us your names, your titles, if any, and carry on with your submission. Your written material is being distributed and will form part of the record by virtue of being made an exhibit. Please go ahead because we only have 30 minutes.
Ms Kathryn Rowan: Good morning, everyone. My name is Kathryn Rowan. I'm with the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada. Joining me today for the formal part of the presentation is Mike Krueger, who is with Colgate-Palmolive. He's vice-president of human resources. Also joining me for the question and answer period of this presentation are Louise Binder, vice-president of human resources with Lily Cups, and Bill Frakes, vice-president of human resources with Unilever Canada.
GPMC appreciates this opportunity to present its views on the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The views we will present today are shared by other food industry associations, including the Bakery Council of Canada and the Ontario Food Processors Association. It will not surprise you to hear that our organization and its members oppose the proposed amendments for many of the same reasons you have heard from other business groups. However, we want to outline for you the unique position our industry occupies in the Ontario economy and emphasize the far-reaching consequences if these proposed amendments become law and further erode our competitive position.
First, I'm going to describe the environment in which our members currently operate. We feel it's important for you to see the linkages between our industry and other segments of the Ontario economy. Second, Mike Krueger will review the proposed amendments which our members feel their businesses cannot withstand. In closing, he'll provide you with recommendations which we feel at a minimum must be implemented if our industry is to be competitive and add value to the Ontario economy.
GPMC is the national association representing 165 companies which manufacture and market nationally branded food, non-alcoholic beverages and other consumer products which are generally available at grocery stores and food service outlets.
Our members' activities play a significant role in the economy, particularly in Ontario. Across Canada our members purchase $12 billion in agricultural products every year. We account for almost 10% of the gross domestic product. Although our products are distributed across Canada, 50% of food, beverage and non-food grocery products manufacturing is concentrated here in Ontario. In this province, food and beverage manufacturers alone employ roughly 90,000 people and are a major source of income for Ontario farmers. Member purchases also support core industries, including producers of steel, paper and other packaging materials, and service industries such as trucking, warehousing and the advertising community.
The industry is one which is in the midst of dramatic change. Global competition, freer trade, changing consumer demands, agrifood policies and the environment are just some of the issues which are transforming our industry; and because the agrifood industry in Canada was traditionally well protected, the adjustments we are making are especially difficult.
Furthermore, about three quarters of our members have plants in both Canada and the United States. As tariff barriers fall, these companies have the option of producing on either side of the border.
It's not a decision which can be easily avoided or attacked as an ill effect of foreign ownership. A company which continues to manufacture at a higher cost in Canada will soon have no market for its goods because retailers, under consumer pressure of their own, will strive to acquire inventory at the least possible cost. Our retail customers also have options. Many have indicated to us that if they can't purchase products in Canada at competitive prices they will go elsewhere, and they're doing so.
Both manufacturers and retailers in Canada are handicapped by higher costs for dairy and poultry products. Dairy ingredients, for instance, cost Canadian processors much more than US processors. Skim milk powder costs about 20% more and cheese costs 25% to 30% more. Further, processors of poultry products in Canada may pay from 30% to 60% more for boneless chicken parts compared with similar processors in the United States. This alone can account for roughly 40% of the finished product cost.
We are also at a disadvantage from a productivity standpoint. Last fall, GPMC undertook a comparative analysis of wage and benefit costs in similar plants in Canada and the US. For the average Canadian food manufacturer, the per-unit wage and benefit costs can be from 225% to 858% higher than in the US.
You're probably wondering what this has to do with labour law reform, since agrifood policies and free trade agreements are, after all, largely federal government matters. As I mentioned to you earlier, it's vital to understand the environment into which you are introducing yet another element which erodes our industry's ability to compete.
Frankly, it's not the time for this type of reform. Business in Ontario is reeling from the effects of the recession, and its ability to compete has been further battered by increased direct and indirect taxation such as the previous government's OHIP payroll tax and recently increased personal income taxes, by the federal government's increase in UIC contributions, by the possibility of further environmental legislation and by the costs on business and the taxpayer, imposed by a whole range of programs including pay and employment equity and higher minimum wages. Any one of these measures may appear to have sound social merit. Collectively and cumulatively, these programs have tremendous adverse economic consequences for business.
Put as directly as possible, these reforms on top of all these other measures will have a devastating effect. They make the province a less attractive location for capital investment. Capital investment is the lifeblood in business. We are not talking about lowering wages; we are talking about creating an environment in which we cannot just survive, but where measures introduced encourage investor confidence and capital so that quality jobs can be retained and expanded.
In all this North American rationalization that was alluded to earlier, we should be mindful of the excess capacity that already exists in the United States. I point to recent US history as an example, when thousands of jobs moved out of the high-priced northeast to the lower-cost Sunbelt states. A similar migration has begun from Ontario. If it continues, it will not only jeopardize our own industry and its workers, but also deprive Ontario farmers and agricultural workers of their major source of income.
Generally, business executives will not give these as the reasons a company is relocating or not expanding. However, you will hear that large companies are rethinking their investment activities.
The goal of this government must be to create an environment which welcomes investment that will allow us to produce goods more effectively and compete in the global market so that we can sustain jobs in the industry and throughout the economy.
I'd now like to turn the floor over to Mike Krueger.
Mr Mike Krueger: Thank you, Kathryn. Before detailing the amendments which we hope this committee will recommend, let me mention that our members, through GPMC, are working in a positive effort to ensure that our agrifood industry remains healthy.
One of our important initiatives is the Canadian Grocery Producers Forum, which we established last year with the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. UFCW is Canada's largest private-sector union, representing some 175,000 workers, many of them in our members' plants.
Working cooperatively, the UFCW and GPMC are developing a vision document for the future of our industry. We also have established committees which are examining issues of competitiveness, training and adjustment and the environment. We believe we must build on relationships like this if we are serious about improving labour-management relations in this province.
We have undertaken these initiatives because we both recognize the need for a new partnership between labour and management, exactly the kind of partnership these labour law reforms purport to encourage but, quite frankly, do not address. Instead, we believe that they arbitrarily distort the balance of power which must exist for fruitful negotiations, and they will without a doubt lead to an increase in confrontation between organized labour and management.
1110
GPMC and the UFCW were among the first groups to meet and discuss our concerns with this bill. While we were unable to come to a common position and we've agreed to disagree on this one issue, the discussion gave us a better understanding of the other's position.
The process has not hindered our partnership in the Canadian Grocery Products Forum. We continue to recognize that it will take cooperation and compromise to ensure that we preserve our industry for the future. We had no option but to take labour reform off the table if we were to continue to discuss issues of mutual concern. At an individual level, however, companies don't have the luxury of putting aside labour relations issues. They must deal with them.
Turning now to the specific provisions of the labour law reform before this committee, I want to list briefly the provisions which are of greatest concern to our members. GPMC membership includes companies, by the way, with both union and non-unionized workforces. Approximately 41% of our total workforce consists of hourly paid, unionized employees.
There are many aspects of these amendments which concern our members. Among the most pressing are, and not necessarily in order of priority, making the purpose clause a substantive part of the legislation; provisions dealing with organizing activities, certification and automatic first collective bargaining arbitration; OLRB determination of bargaining units; access to third-party property; provisions covering services which are contracted out and, lastly, the right to continue operating during legal strikes.
Although we believe the changes must occur to all of these proposed amendments, there are three in particular which we believe can and must be addressed, because they have the greatest impact on our members. The three specific aspects of the proposed amendments to which we are recommending changes are the purpose clause, provisions relating to the certification process and employers' right to continue operations during a work stoppage.
Including a purpose clause in the body of legislation is virtually without precedent. While we can accept it as a statement of principle, we believe making it a substantive part of the legislation, subject to OLRB and perhaps judicial interpretation, represents an unwarranted infringement on the collective bargaining process. Making it mandatory that collective bargaining "improve terms and conditions of employment" ignores the economic realities which force companies in times such as these to maintain the status quo or even seek concessions from all stakeholders.
We believe this clause will force a company struggling for survival to choose between being accused of bad-faith bargaining or simply shutting down for ever because it cannot table an offer which contains improvements. We recommend, therefore, that the purpose clause be removed from the substantive portion of the bill and treated as is traditional for such clauses.
In any case, we believe there is a serious legal question as to whether there is a requirement for this amendment, given section 8 of the Ontario Interpretation Act, which reads, "The preamble of an act shall be deemed a part thereof and is intended to assist in explaining the purport and the object of the act."
Many of our members express concerns related to amendments dealing with the organization process, certification and automatic first collective bargaining arbitration. Taken together, we believe these provisions reduce a union's incentive to bargain in good faith for a first contract. It is obvious too that the rights of an individual who wishes not to be represented by a union will now be eliminated.
However, our recommendation concerning this section is the addition of a requirement that ratification votes be by a supervised secret ballot, the most powerful tool in a democracy and the one which can ensure that the true wishes of employees are accurately measured.
The provision which has attracted most public attention is that which effectively prohibits companies from continuing to operate in the event of a strike. This provision destroys the axiom on which labour relations has been founded: that workers have the right to withdraw their services and the companies have the right to continue production.
It is the hope of this legislation's sponsors to create an environment where companies will so fear strikes that they will grant virtually any union demand to avoid a work stoppage. They should examine the Quebec experience. According to statistics quoted by the Human Resources Professionals Association of Ontario, since anti-replacement legislation was enacted in Quebec in 1976, that province has accounted for 36% of Canada's striking employees, compared with Ontario's 24%. From 1986 to 1991 inclusive, Quebec had more than twice as many workers involved in strikes as did Ontario, and averaged 224 strikes per year compared with 193 in this province. Copying Quebec's labour legislation is not going to bring about industrial peace and cooperation, one of the stated aims of these reforms.
By way of amendment, we urge the committee at the very least to ease restrictions on the use of replacement workers so that management from other locations may be used to continue operations. Modifying these amendments as we have proposed will restore some of the balance in economic power which is necessary for true and meaningful negotiations.
To recap, three main points which our members believe must be addressed are as follows:
1. Remove the purpose clause from the substantive part of the act.
2. Ensure that ratification votes be by a supervised secret ballot.
3. Ease restrictions on the use of replacement workers so that management from other locations may work to continue operations. Workers at the struck location who are not part of the bargaining unit should be allowed to work.
In closing, I would remind the committee that the grocery products manufacturing industry holds a unique place in Ontario's economy and that our industry is already struggling with a very difficult environment. We cannot afford more shocks to the system, and losses in this sector will rebound up and down the whole agrifood chain. While our members have many concerns with this proposed legislation, we have focused our attention on three specific areas which are the most crucial to our continued survival as a vital part of the Ontario economy.
We urge the minister and the government to seriously consider these proposals in light of the damage that could be done to our economy if these provisions are enacted. Without a strong economy and the companies capable of competing in the global market, there will be fewer jobs to organize and it would be a hollow victory indeed for organized labour.
Therefore, on behalf of our own member companies, the workers we employ, the agricultural sector we support and the myriad of suppliers from whom we purchase goods and services, we ask that these amendments be reconsidered and redrafted to maintain the present balance in labour-management relationships in Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. Three minutes per caucus.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Thank you very much for coming forward with your presentations. I notice on page 6 that one of your recommendations in your conclusion is the easing up of replacement workers. I don't believe personally that people should have to pay with their lives or serious injuries as a result of replacement workers being brought on.
There is an example in my own riding of what can happen: There's a monument set up where when replacement workers were being used and they got into a battle. People brought out their hunting rifles and after the dust settled there were 11 people on the ground. Three of them were dead and eight ended up in the hospital until they recovered.
When you talk about replacement workers -- when somebody is on strike and losing their chance of livelihood in the future, emotions get very high. This is just an example of what has happened in the recent past in my riding in Reesor and I just wanted to know your feeling, if there is a way of stopping conflicts of this kind which end up in people being killed and maimed for life. Do you have any comments on that?
Mr Krueger: Yes, I do.
Mr Wood: It does happen.
Mr Krueger: Let me address that in a little different light. You're talking about one situation -- one which I'm not aware of evidently, which is very serious just by the nature of the way you described it. Of all labour relations, 99.9% are resolved in a satisfactory manner. The other small percentage where there are strikes -- I have never heard of any one being shot and killed -- three people being killed -- at least not in Ontario. It may have happened.
1120
Mr Wood: There's a monument at Highway 11 right at Reesor siding.
Mr Krueger: When did this happen?
Mr Wood: That happened just about 25 years ago, I guess.
Mr Krueger: Twenty-five years ago, all right. So what you're saying is some people, and you're saying they were strikers, took the law into their own hands and literally committed murder against some people who were trying to earn a living doing a job. Now, that is unlawful, and I don't know how else to answer that.
Mr Wood: Well, it's an incident -- and I don't want to go any further -- where something does happen that the use of replacement workers can get very serious.
But we'll get back into one of the reasons why the bill was brought forward: the major changes in the workplace and changes in the work habits, more women in the workforce, more minority groups. I'm wondering if you agree with me that since the amendments were brought in -- the last amendments were made in 1975 -- there has been a dramatic change in the workforce.
The Toronto Star this morning gave an example that since free trade was brought in, there's an example of one person who has to work three part-time jobs of less than 20 hours a week to make a living. I'm just wondering what your feeling is. Do you see in the service sector and the areas of this kind that the workplace and the workforce have changed drastically since 1975 when previous amendments were made?
Mr Bill Frakes: Yes, there is change in the workforce. We see that because we live with it every day, and part of what we look at is the necessity for us to have the flexibility to adjust to that. Part of the difficulty with the proposed legislation is that it would restrict our flexibility in dealing with a workforce in a global economy. Just as the workforce within Canada is changing, you must recognize that our competition is changing at the same time.
You referred earlier to strike violence, and I'd like to comment on that. Obviously, there is no company that would condone such activity. The difficulty with the proposed legislation is that it would increase the possibility of such violence, the reason being that you are throwing off the balance that exists today between organized labour and business.
When you do go into negotiations, the incentive now would be for the union, because the balance has shifted, to be more prone to strike, knowing that the company would be placed in a position where it could not replace, it could not operate. That balance exists today very nicely. When we go into negotiations, we know we have to settle and we want to settle. Obviously, the best approach is not to get into a strike situation.
Mr Offer: Mr McGuinty has a question. Just prior to that, just by comment, I noticed that Mr Wood, in his question, referred to the fact that there have been no changes made to the Labour Relations Act since 1975, or however you want to do it. We all know that's just a perpetration of a myth. There have been many changes to the Labour Relations Act, almost on a yearly basis. Tell the truth, in other words.
Mr McGuinty: I would take issue with the words spoken by my colleagues opposite. The issue of violence on the picket line and that being used as a justification for not using replacement workers is, to me, a red herring. It's a bit of smoke. The statistics provided by the Ministry of Labour show that in recent history there is very little violence on the picket line. Furthermore, we have in place and we have always had in place laws prohibiting violence, prohibiting intimidation, prohibiting harassment, and they are all found within the Criminal Code. If there's a problem, it's been in the absence of proper enforcement of that law.
What I want to deal with, however, is the issue of a secret ballot. We've been told countless times by representatives of labour that we are naïve in the extreme to believe that it is somehow possible to conduct a secret ballot within the context of an organizing drive in the workplace, in that employers are bound to somehow exert some kind of undue influence, somehow act inappropriately, and that it's simply impossible to create some kind of atmosphere where fairness will prevail. I'd like you to respond to that, please.
Mr Krueger: There are presently many jurisdictions in which secret ballots are held, not only in the labour relations area but any type of elections you have. There's no difference between the type of secret ballot that would be held in a labour relations forum as would be held in a public election, and fairness is ensured by the provincial government officials holding that vote. British Columbia is one of the best examples I can think of, in which there are many supervised secret votes, votes held by the government, and there's no undue influence exerted by anyone. It is a government-supervised vote.
Mrs Witmer: I thank you very much for your excellent presentation. What you've certainly brought here today is a unique perspective from the grocery product manufacturers. I think we have an indication that Bill 40 wants to apply to all sectors in the Ontario economy, and that's simply not possible. You've certainly indicated the severe impact it could have on your industry if it were put forward as proposed.
I'm pleased to see your support for the supervised secret ballot vote. I put out a private member's bill in November 1991 on that very issue. There seems to be a consensus, at least among the management groups and many individuals in this province who are looking for that type of protection, that type of fairness and the opportunity to freely express their opinion as to whether or not to join a union. So I'm pleased to see that.
Your greatest concern is the replacement worker section. If the government does not make the change you're proposing, which would allow management from other locations to come in and continue your operations, what type of consequences will there be for your industry?
Ms Louise Binder: Our greatest concern is that the balance between labour and management at the bargaining table will be so eroded from the management perspective that in fact we will not be able to do anything but accede to all the requests of labour at the bargaining table. We will not have the opportunity to withstand a strike in any fashion whatsoever. So we will be completely left without any protection at all at the bargaining table.
Ms Rowan: If I could also add a comment, you heard earlier from the auto manufacturers who talked about just-in-time delivery etc. We face a similar situation, particularly in the food and beverage sector, in terms of spoilage. So the costs that accrue to a company in that sector alone are significant.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is with respect to the purpose clause. You've got an excellent brief and the thing that jumps out at me is the fact that you're saying that the purpose clause is virtually without precedent in legislation. I'm very concerned that we are forcing the OLRB to become an advocate for unions as opposed to being a neutral body. Could you comment on that, expand on it?
Ms Binder: The point we're making about the purpose clause is not that the existence of a purpose clause is without precedent, but that the inclusion of it as a substantive part of the legislation is almost without precedent. In fact, the point we're also making is that we're not even certain whether there's any requirement for so doing. The purpose of a purpose clause is well explained in the Interpretation Act.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada. We appreciate your coming here this morning. You've made a valuable contribution to this process. We're grateful.
1130
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO
The Chair: The next participant is the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario. Would they please come forward, have a seat and tell us their names or titles, if any, and commence with their submissions. Please try to save the last half of the half-hour for exchanges and dialogue. Your written material is being distributed. That will be made an exhibit and form part of the record. Go ahead, please.
Mr Larry Galajda: Good morning, Mr Chairman and committee members. My name is Larry Galajda, P Eng. I'm an elected vice-president of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario. I'm here today on behalf of Harry Angus, P Eng, the president of the association, who regrets not being able to be here today.
With me today are Peter Large, P Eng, the executive director; Jose Pereira, manager of employment advisory services; Eric Smythe, P Eng, manager of complaints and discipline; John Keating, P Eng, general secretary; Hanna Pilar, manager of public relations, and finally, George Piper, our registrar.
The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, which I'll refer to as APEO, greatly appreciates this opportunity to address the standing committee on resources development on the subject of Bill 40. This presentation is a follow-up to a letter which we sent to the Minister of Labour in February, in which we commented on two issues included in the discussion paper, called Proposed Reform of the Labour Relations Act.
At that time, we expressed concern about the issue of replacement workers in situations involving public health and safety. In this presentation we will address the same issue in light of specific clauses found in Bill 40 and we will make several recommendations for your consideration.
Before starting, I would like to take a few minutes to describe the mandate of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario. APEO came into being with the passage of the first Professional Engineers Act by the Ontario Legislature in 1922. Full professional status was achieved in 1937, when APEO membership was made mandatory for those who wanted to practise professional engineering.
The primary role of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario is to serve and protect the public interest. APEO is a self-governing organization with about 61,000 members. APEO is responsible to the people of Ontario for licensing professional engineers, maintaining professional standards and upholding a code of professional conduct and ethics which guides engineers in their relations with the public, employers, the public and other engineers.
The association's main responsibilities in serving and protecting the public interest include establishing minimum standards of entry to the profession, licensing individuals who meet the minimum standards, ensuring unqualified persons are prevented from practising engineering, and discipling members for professional misconduct. We operate under the Professional Engineers Act of Ontario, chapter 13, Statutes of Ontario, 1984, and we are accountable directly to the Attorney General of Ontario.
The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario is not here to take sides. We are here to represent the public interest, not that of employers, bargaining units or any other interest group. Rather, our purpose is to alert this committee and the public to the threat to public life, health, safety and environmental damage that the enactment of section 73.2 of Bill 40 will bring about.
Our concerns are specifically with subsections 73.2(3) through 73.2(19) of Bill 40 with regard to situations where life, health and safety are concerned; the use of replacement workers in those situations; a bargaining unit's veto power in allowing replacement workers to work in those situations; the procedure for reaching agreement between the employer and the bargaining unit, and the inadequacy of subsection 73.2(10) with respect to identifying and dealing with emergency situations.
It is a fact that on many work sites hazardous materials, machinery and equipment must be maintained, monitored and controlled under the direction of professional engineers. If such hazardous materials, machinery and equipment are not properly maintained and monitored at all times, there will be a danger to life, health, safety and the environment.
As examples, water and sewage treatment plants, as well as thermal generating stations and blast furnaces, are seldom shut down. If not properly monitored and maintained at all times, there will be a danger to life, health, safety and the environment. It is our view that subsection 73.2(3) describes pre-emergency situations such as these.
Subsections (4) through (9) say in effect that the bargaining unit has to agree with the employer that a pre-emergency situation exists involving danger to life, health or safety; the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises, or serious environmental damage. If the bargaining unit does not agree that a pre-emergency situation exists, then the employer has to follow a long and complicated procedure to appeal to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
This may put the public at risk with respect to life, health and safety. In addition, the employer will be at risk with respect to assuming liability for danger to life, health or safety; the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises, or serious environmental damage until a final decision is made. This in fact makes life, health, safety and the environment a part of the bargaining process at the negotiating table. Bargaining leads to compromise. Life, health, safety and the environment should not be compromised.
The safeguarding of life, health and safety has always been the prime purpose of the practice of professional engineering, as outlined in the Professional Engineers Act of Ontario. One of the association's responsibilities is to ensure that unqualified persons are prevented from practising professional engineering.
Bill 40, subsections 73.2(4) through 73.2(9), puts the bargaining unit in a position to judge whether public safety is at risk. This is a direct violation of the Professional Engineers Act, section 12. Further, there is provision in section 41 of the act for penalizing those in contravention.
In other words, Bill 40 would ultimately allow the bargaining unit to make professional engineering decisions involving danger to life, health and safety, which is dangerous and unacceptable to professional engineers, and ultimately the public. The bargaining unit would in fact be exercising authority without being accountable to the public for the impact of the decision. At the present time, employers are held solely accountable for serious environmental damage under environmental legislation; similarly, employers are obligated to adhere to proper safety practices as a condition of being insured.
The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario recommends that subsection 73.2(3) be rewritten to indicate that solely those who are accountable will decide when a pre-emergency situations exists involving danger to life, health or safety; the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises, or serious environmental damage.
We further recommend that subsection (3) be a standalone clause and that subsections (4) through (19) not apply in the case that (3) applies.
A further issue exists in the procedure that subsections (3) through (19) outline. If an employer believes a pre-emergency situation involving life, health, safety, machinery or the environment exists, and needs workers to prevent a disaster, the employer must notify the bargaining unit to get its agreement. Further, the bargaining unit may specify that either replacement workers or bargaining unit employees are to help out in the emergency situation.
This agreement and procedure may be dangerous for several reasons.
The procedure described in subsections (4) through (9) relies on a process to reach an agreement during a strike or lockout when the parties are likely to be antagonistic. Although subsection (7) refers to prompt notification by the bargaining unit, agreement may not be reached in sufficient time to prevent a pre-emergency situation from becoming a danger to life, health or safety; or leading to the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises, or causing serious environmental damage.
Secondly, if the bargaining unit and employer cannot agree, subsections (11) through (13) outline the additional procedure of appealing to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which may delay the decision in a pre-emergency situation even further. Situations describing section 3 do not lend themselves to any delay.
1140
Under Bill 40, in a lockout or strike situation, the professional engineer may be prevented from carrying out his or her duties as specified under section 86 of regulation 538-84 of the Professional Engineers Act. Specifically, a professional engineer will be prevented from "acting to correct or report a situation that the practitioner believes may endanger the safety or welfare of the public."
This puts the professional engineer in conflict with the bargaining unit leadership, which may not view the situation in the same light. In strike situations, emotions run high. The decision to use special replacement workers should rest with the employer, who will ultimately be solely responsible for any negative results with regard to life, health, safety, machinery or the environment.
The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario recommends that the use of replacement workers be the sole decision of those who are accountable when subsection 73.2(3) applies.
The third issue concerns emergency situations. Subsection 73.2(10) may be interpreted by some as dealing with our concerns. However, it is too vague. There are no definitions of the term "emergency" and no time frames with regard to the procedure in an emergency situation. The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario is obliged, under the Professional Engineers Act, to safeguard the public. We are obliged to act not only in emergency situations to save lives and control damage but to prevent emergency situations from occurring in the first place. By the time an emergency happens, it's already too late.
We recommend once again that subsection (3) be a standalone clause and that subsections (4) through (19) do not apply in the case that subsection (3) applies.
In summary, let me restate that the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario is not taking sides with regard to collective bargaining. Rather, we believe that section 73.2, as written, puts the general public at risk when the employer and the bargaining unit fail to agree on what constitutes a danger to life, health, safety, machinery and the environment.
The Chair: Thank you for a submission that is precise and focused. I suppose that's what engineers do, so I wouldn't expect any less. Mr Ward, five minutes, please.
Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): Gentlemen, I'd like to thank you for your fine presentation. Just for my own interest and to gain some background about your association, you run a closed shop, do you not? If I wanted to be a professional engineer in Ontario, would I have to pay compulsory dues to your organization?
Mr Galajda: It is not as simple a procedure as that. You do have to qualify through a series of application procedures. Perhaps Peter could give --
Mr Peter Large: With respect, Mr Ward, we do not run a closed shop. That's the first point. But thank you anyway. We do not run a closed shop. The admission to our profession, like any other, is open to anyone who qualifies, and the qualification, admission standards are the same for anyone.
Mr Ward: So if I didn't want to pay my compulsory fee, I could still be a professional engineer in Ontario?
Mr Large: No.
Mr Ward: So I have to pay a compulsory fee, just so I understand. I'm trying to get some background here.
Mr Large: With respect, the compulsory fee, as it's put, in fact is the fee paid by members to run a self-governing profession at no cost to the public.
Mr Ward: Which is your organization.
Mr Large: That is our organization.
Mr Ward: And the administration costs that go with it.
Mr Large: Yes, sir.
Mr Ward: Okay. The Canadian Society for Professional Engineers: That's a separate organization?
Mr Large: Yes, it is.
Mr Ward: And they're as reputable as your organization?
Mr Large: The Canadian Society for Professional Engineers is in fact a group of professional engineers who have chosen to organize themselves in a particular way to provide services, as they see it, to the membership. They're professional engineers who have met all the standards that others have.
Mr Ward: They wear that ring.
Mr Large: They happen to. They're licensed like anybody else.
Mr Ward: Is it their position that the labour law reform, or updating the labour act, would not inhibit the responsibilities of the Professional Engineers Act?
Mr Large: Sorry, the question again?
Mr Ward: Are you aware of their position, whether or not they suggest that updating the labour act, the proposed Bill 40, would not inhibit the responsibilities of the Professional Engineers Act?
Mr Large: We're not aware of the CSPE's position.
Mr Ward: It's my understanding that it's their opinion that Bill 40 would not inhibit. That's just my understanding. They also suggest that since your organization is to ensure that the act is properly administered, your organization's prime concern should be whether or not Bill 40 infringes on your ability to administer that act.
Mr Large: I think that's our central position, that indeed Bill 40 as it's written suggests to us that the public interest may very well be endangered. The CSPE is a group of engineers that does not speak on behalf of anyone other than CSPE, although it is a member of the association of professional engineers. They have a view. It's a legitimate view, I have no doubt.
Mr Ward: It's just that whenever you hear two differences and they're all professional engineers, I guess you have to decide who's speaking for whom or who has reputable opinions, and I understand that your organization and theirs are both reputable in their own areas.
Mr Large: With respect, one more time, the CSPE is a group of engineers who are licensed by our association -- no question -- and are members of it. They represent their own particular interests and have a view. The AEPO represents the public interest as we presented today.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Murdock, very briefly, please.
Ms Murdock: I want to thank you for actually being so focused and not as wide-ranging as many of the presenters have been in terms of discussing this.
Particularly, I want to ask you about subsection 73.2(15), which is, "The employer and the trade union may enter into an agreement governing the use, in the event of a strike or lockout, of striking or locked-out employees and of specified replacement workers to perform the work described in subsection (2) or (3)."
There's no time limit, it doesn't have to be done during a strike situation, it can be done during the life of an agreement or it can be done at the time of collective bargaining, it can be done at any time in terms of designating who specified replacement workers would be --
The Chair: Perhaps they can respond to that, Ms Murdock.
Ms Murdock: Yes.
Mr Jose Pereira: The position of the association was that matters of health and safety were not bargainable. In other words, you're saying section 15 allows for bargaining on what is and what's not. No?
The Chair: Okay. Mr Offer.
Ms Murdock: No, but he's not going to give me any more time.
1150
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I found it extremely helpful and I think it's really zeroed in on an area of the legislation which I think you have highlighted as being, for want of a better word, defective for your purposes.
I really have two questions in this area. The first is, could you help me out and focus me in terms of the type of situation where you might be called on when these problems would arise?
Mr Galajda: I'll try to use an example that is close to my own professional employment. It has to do with one that we referred to here on water treatment plants. An example would be that every water treatment plant in operation in Ontario -- and urban municipalities provide water to the people for consumption -- is under the responsibility and care of a professional engineer. In the actual day-to-day operation, that engineer delegates that responsibility of operation to technicians, employees and staff who would operate the water treatment facility.
If an incident occurred, simply just in the chlorination of the water -- we have lots of automated procedures on how to chlorinate water, but accidents do occur, and excessive chlorination of water can be a life-threatening situation to the people who consume it -- the professional engineer has to be able to take immediate action to correct that situation.
If he is prevented by a process that delays him being able to get workers into the workplace to rectify that situation, then the threat is to the public in that they consume the water that's been overchlorinated, which can be hazardous to their health.
Mr Offer: That example is quite helpful for myself.
My next question deals with the fact that it would seem to me there are probably other pieces of legislation that might dictate to you that action is required. You may have your own code, but there may be other pieces of legislation where you'll come into conflict if you don't act, yet you're bound, potentially, by legislation in which you can't act. I'm wondering if that is a concern.
Mr Galajda: I believe it would be. There are a variety of codes that apply to the building industry: the Ontario Building Code, the Canadian electrical safety code. Structural engineers are required to certify that buildings are safe for occupancy. There are a host of conditions that could be presented, even in temporary works facilities: scaffolding that's being erected that falls down, acts of vandalism that could occur on sites before they're even completed. It's hard to be specific in such a very broad category.
Mr Offer: As far as I'm concerned, you've made the case.
Mr McGuinty: I'm not sure if I really have a question, gentlemen. I just want to thank you for your presentation and for the particular focus you've brought to it. When we're talking about legislation at Queen's Park, it's the kind of thing we discuss in the abstract, in a somewhat rarefied atmosphere, without any real understanding of the implication it has on the front lines.
The second comment I would make is that we have heard often from representatives of the business sector and of labour. These are big boys and big girls, quite adept at fending for themselves, but it's not that often we hear about someone speaking on behalf of the public interest, and I want to commend you for that.
Mr Turnbull: Thank you very much. An excellent presentation.
Just by way of preamble to my question, I had a phone call this morning from a member of your association who suggested that you didn't have a mandate to speak here today. I think basically that should be taken care of in the last paragraph of your summary which says that you're not taking a position on either side with respect to collective bargaining, you're just talking about the general public interest being at risk. Hopefully, my constituent is satisfied with that.
In view of the very significant safety hazards that the public could be exposed to, do you not think it would be reasonable that matters of health and safety should completely supersede the labour act in all matters?
Mr Galajda: I believe that's the position we're suggesting this committee consider for refinement to the writing of the act.
Mr Turnbull: So when we refer this back to the House, and indeed in clause-by-clause, we should in some way incorporate some reflection of that, notwithstanding this bill, which I suspect is going to be passed, because the NDP have the largest number of seats, as you well know. The Conservative Party thoroughly intends to get rid of this piece of legislation when we form the next government, but in the meantime, gentlemen --
The Chair: Sure, Mr Turnbull. It reminds me of a promise to bring in public auto insurance.
Mr Turnbull: Yes. That was then and this is now.
The Chair: Don't tell me about leaders' promises.
Mr Turnbull: So, gentlemen, we should incorporate that into the body of the legislation.
Mr Galajda: We would appreciate it if you would do.
Mrs Witmer: I don't have a question, but as Labour critic for our party I certainly do appreciate the very concise presentation you have made. It certainly will help us to bring forward these amendments on behalf of the public.
The Chair: I want to thank the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario for its interest in this matter, for its comments today and for sharing its views with us. You've made a valuable contribution to this process and this committee is grateful to you, gentlemen. Take care.
Mr Offer: Just on a point of order, Mr Chairman: You will recall that last night a motion of mine was put forward.
The Chair: Yes, returnable at five o'clock.
Mr Hope: Mr Chairman, a question for legislative research, two areas in which I'd like legislative research to find the information, if possible: In any jurisdiction in North America or in the European countries, does the law of plant closure justification exist? Also, on the educational perspective of things, in any jurisdiction, both in North America or Europe, does the curriculum in history provide for labour history? In any of the education systems that exist in North America or in the European countries, is labour history a part of the curriculum in the history courses? Those are the two areas.
The Chair: We are recessing till 1:30. Thank you, people.
The committee recessed at 1157.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1330.
PROJECT ECONOMIC GROWTH
The Chair: We're ready to resume. The first participant this afternoon is Project Economic Growth. Please tell us your names, titles, if any, and proceed with your submissions. Your written submission has already been filed as an exhibit and will form part of the record.
Mr Howard Kaufman: Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. My name is Howard Kaufman; I'm vice-president, secretary and general counsel for Xerox Canada. With me are Larry Morden, corporate vice-president of human resources for Ault Foods, and Jason Hanson, a solicitor with Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt.
We're very pleased to have the opportunity to appear before the committee today as representatives of Project Economic Growth, which is often known by its acronym as PEG, and we'd like to share some views we have on Bill 40.
My remarks today will cover three areas. First, I'd like to tell you briefly about Project Economic Growth and hopefully clarify some of the misconceptions that exist about who we are and what we have done.
Second, I'd like to provide an overview of the content of our position paper on Bill 40 which has been distributed to you. In the paper, we put forward a number of principles for meaningful reform and propose seven key amendments and alternatives to the government's proposed Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act.
Time does not allow us to cover each proposal in detail, so we've elected to highlight three for you today. We've provided as well a copy, as I mentioned, of the paper of my remarks.
You'll notice we have chosen not to spend our time today focusing on the economic impact of the proposed changes or on the absence of what we believe is a meaningful process that would have allowed employers to participate in developing fair and balanced labour law reform. These remain important issues for us, but they have been covered very thoroughly by many other presentations. Thus, we do not wish to belabour a point but, equally, we do not wish it to be forgotten.
Let me start off, therefore, with a few comments about Project Economic Growth. PEG is an ad hoc coalition representing some 500 small, medium and large employers from across the province. Contrary to the views expressed in a recent Ontario NDP publication, we are non-partisan and have no affiliation with the National Citizens' Coalition.
PEG was formed late in the summer of 1991 to promote economic growth in the province. We stated our fundamental belief that both unionized and non-unionized workplaces are valid and dynamic models of economic activity. Even before the release of the November discussion paper, PEG had called on the government to bring the workplace partners together to study labour law reform and develop recommendations to enhance partnership and productivity in Ontario's workplaces. In fact, since September 1991 we've written 15 letters and met with dozens of government officials to try to establish just such a process.
However, faced with the introduction of the bill on June 4, and with no advisory group with whom to build consensus on labour law, PEG made a conscious decision to deal with the substance of the legislation. We don't agree with it, but if the government is determined to pass Bill 40, it must be significantly improved if it is to form the basis of Ontario's future labour relations.
In July we put forward a series of alternatives that will help offset those provisions we believe will cause adverse economic impact, and we also put forward alternatives to help restore balance to the bill.
We have met with officials of the Ministry of Labour to discuss a draft of PEG's paper, and we've joined with the All Business Coalition and the More Jobs Coalition to submit a separate, thorough written analysis of Bill 40 conducted by industrial relations practitioners who are involved in our coalitions.
We sincerely hope that these analyses will be seriously studied and that the hundreds of hours of work put into them will result in concrete improvements to the bill. That's what we're here to talk to you about today.
PEG doesn't oppose the reform of Ontario's labour laws. We believe, however, that reform must prepare our workplaces for the future, not the past.
Fair and balanced reform should respect certain fundamental workplace principles. These include removal of unreasonable barriers faced by unions, freedom of individual choice and protection of employee privacy, and respect for an employer's need to produce and deliver products and services at cost-competitive prices.
In keeping with these principles, PEG's proposals for balanced labour law are based on the following six criteria, all of which have interwoven into them the fundamental principles I've just enumerated to you:
1. Labour law reform must be fair and balanced and, as a total package, should favour neither unions nor employers.
2. Labour law reform should be based on true workplace needs and the elimination of unreasonable barriers faced by unions.
3. Labour law reforms must respect an individual's right to full and complete information and the protection of privacy. An individual's decision to join a union should be based on a free choice after having received adequate information.
4. Labour law reform must not restrict Ontario's businesses from producing and delivering quality products at cost-competitive prices.
5. Labour law reform must be designed to encourage workplace harmony, cooperation and flexibility while improving the productivity and competitiveness of the employer.
6. Labour law reforms must respect the rights of those not directly involved in a labour dispute.
We hope the committee members will agree with us that these are valid basic principles. They form the foundation for the improvements we put forward in our position paper.
In the written presentation which we have distributed to you, we have highlighted a number of areas in which we believe the bill can be greatly improved. These are not the only areas, but they are the key ones.
The paper provides details on our proposals for amendments to provide a fairer and more balanced purpose clause, and for alternatives to streamline the union certification process, provide employees with balanced information and allow them to make informed decisions through a secret ballot.
We also propose amendments to the proposed replacement worker provisions to ensure that strikes at sole-source and just-in-time suppliers recognize that these businesses really are essential services to their national or international customers. A proposed definition of legal picketing is something we put forward. It is not included in the bill, and we believe it should be.
Another proposal is for amendments to the proposed consolidation of bargaining units so as to more accurately reflect the wishes of the employees in the affected units and the legitimate interests of the employers.
We ask that alternatives to the proposed automatic access to first-contract arbitration to support the primacy of collective bargaining be considered.
Finally, there is a proposal for the public review of appointments of Ontario Labour Relations Board members so as to maintain confidence in the board by workers, unions, employers and generally the public at large, and to ensure board impartiality.
We would be happy to discuss all of these proposals with the committee, but in the interests of time, as I mentioned before, we will focus on three: the certification process, the use of replacement workers and a legal definition of picketing.
Let me start with the certification process. The bill puts forward several amendments to the act designed to facilitate trade union organizing campaigns. In order to ensure that any new certification process respects fundamental principles of fairness, freedom of information, the protection of privacy and the rights of unrelated third parties, the bill should be amended so that employees are provided with complete and balanced information. It should ensure freedom of choice through a secret ballot process. PEG proposes that the bill be amended to allow for the following certification process in place of that put forward in the bill:
Union organizers would only be required to obtain signed membership cards from a percentage of the proposed bargaining units -- something lower than 40%, whether it's 25% or 30% -- to trigger the process.
Employees would not be required to pay a membership fee when signing a union card.
Union organizers would notify the board and the employer of their intent to organize a given workplace and provide evidence that they have signed union cards from the requisite number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit.
The board would determine the appropriate bargaining unit and whether the union has that requisite percentage, as well as obtaining the names and addresses of all employees in the proposed bargaining unit from the employer.
The board would then solicit and obtain written information from both the employer and the union with respect to the impact of certifying a union in that workplace; in other words, allow each side to present its views for consideration by the employees in question.
The board would then distribute the information received from the union and the employer to the targeted employees, as well as the generic information package. This package would be developed by the board for use in union organizing campaigns. It would include information on the right to and significance of trade union membership, union fees, significance of strikes and a lot of other things like that. All of this information would then be posted in the workplace during the campaign.
1340
The board would call and hold a supervised secret ballot within a reasonable period of time, and the costs of that vote would be paid equally between the employer and the union. Certification would be granted upon a simple majority, 50% plus one, of those casting the ballot.
Coercion by employers and union organizers would be prohibited. If employers are found to have committed an unfair labour practice such that the true wishes of the employees cannot be ascertained, automatic certification would be granted; if unions are found to have committed an unfair labour practice, they would be precluded from certifying a union in the workplace in question for a full year. The board would be the tribunal required to determine whether violation in this regard has occurred.
These changes would restore freedom of choice and protection of privacy and, at the same time, remove unreasonable barriers faced by unions in today's certification process. They would go a long way to build a spirit of harmony and cooperation in the workplace.
Let me now turn to the question of replacement workers and picketing.
The prohibition on the use of replacement workers has become symbolic to both sides of the debate on the proposed amendments. For us, the bill's proposal fails to recognize the realities of the new global marketplace. Ontario's economy is largely dependent on just-in-time supply and delivery of goods and services. Many suppliers sell to major industries throughout North America. Even one strike at one of these critical suppliers could cripple an entire continental industry within days, and we've seen evidence of that in current events.
The trade union's economic sanction is the strike. The employer's balance is the ability to continue to operate. Remove one party's economic weapon, and the balance of power swings sharply to the other. Collective bargaining becomes a hollow process in this environment.
While PEG does not agree with the replacement worker provision, if there is to be one, it ought to be fair and balanced. Therefore, we suggest the following:
An expanded definition of essential services to further allow for the use of replacement workers to allow employers to maintain the production of goods, services and power supply from sole-source and/or just-in-time suppliers; prevent the spoilage of goods, including food products; protect against theft or damage to property;
Permit the use of replacement workers from any source in these situations for a period of 60 days, after which employers would be required to apply to the OLRB for an extension. Guidelines to assist the board should be set out;
Remove provisions which place a reverse onus on employers under the proposed section 73.2(14);
Stipulate that employees from facilities other than the struck facility would not be considered replacement workers;
Remove the 60% strike vote provision;
Remove the proposed new right of non-striking employees to refuse to do struck work.
What we are proposing is a window for employers to continue to provide essential services in a just-in-time environment. One of the reasons given for the government's proposals on replacement workers is that it will replace picket line violence. Our proposal, which would allow for replacement workers in limited circumstances and for a limited time, presents no greater risk of picket line violence, as even under Bill 40 managers and supervisors will still continue to cross the picket line.
If picket line violence is the problem, Bill 40 doesn't provide the solution. What is required is a legal definition of picketing, which we recommend be added to the bill, and this is the third proposal which we wish to discuss with you today.
In our discussions with the Ministry of Labour, we learned that a study on picketing is being considered, with the Ministry of the Attorney General taking the lead. While we applaud this initiative, unfortunately the results of this study will not be available in time to influence the provisions of Bill 40.
We recommend that the bill be amended so as to define picketing. In other words, its purpose is to share information; it's not designed as an economic blockade. We should define where and when picketing is permitted and outline provisions for notice to employers; set out the number of picketers that are acceptable in various situations; provide notice to third parties when picketing is to occur on their property; establish guidelines as to acceptable and unacceptable picketing practices and establish alternatives such as the posting of information in public places; define employer rights to protect property; establish a process for disciplining and dealing with acts of violence, and create an expedited hearing process to deal with organizing and create an expedited hearing process to deal with organizing and picketing activity.
We suggest these changes will provide a better solution to picket line violence than the replacement worker provisions in Bill 40. Our submission also includes a list of items where we feel clarification is necessary. When the text of Bill 40 is compared to the discussion paper and to the rationale for the changes presented in the fact sheets, there are ambiguities that need to be addressed.
Look at the example of the proposal to permit security guards to join a union of their choice. The fact sheet indicates that security guards would be placed in a separate bargaining unit if the board saw a potential conflict of interest. Yet what the bill provides is the placement only of security guards "who monitor other employees" in a separate bargaining unit. This narrows the opportunity to minimize potential conflicts of interest by potentially exempting guards who protect employer property and who ought to be placed in a separate bargaining unit.
The bill also proposes to grant the board power to combine bargaining units where the bargaining units are represented by the same trade union. The bill should clarify that the board's power to combine bargaining units cannot be used to place guards in the same bargaining unit as the employees they monitor.
In conclusion, we have heard the government speak out frequently on the need for increased cooperation between labour-market parties if Ontario is to compete in the new global economy. If we want employers and trade unions to work together to achieve greater prosperity, there must be a process whereby issues such as labour law reform can be discussed and consensus achieved.
PEG submits its position paper in the hope that the committee will take seriously our suggestions and make concrete changes to Bill 40. That would allow the process of consensus to begin. We would welcome any of your questions and we'll try and answer everything you put forward.
The Chair: Thank you, sir; four minutes per caucus.
Mrs Witmer: I'd like to congratulate the members of your group for making an excellent presentation. I really appreciate the fact that you have focused specifically on the recommendations. I'm pleased that Ms Murdock has reappeared in the room because, as you know, for a long time I have been encouraging the government to take a look at the secret ballot vote for certification, and in discussions that Ms Murdock and I have had she's often asked me for the specifics. I think what you have outlined here is an excellent process that the government could use if indeed it were to follow through and provide an opportunity for the individual.
Do you feel that if the secret ballot vote were introduced for certification and if the amendments were made to the replacement worker section, that would alleviate a great many of the concerns of the business community?
Mr Kaufman: I can't speak for the entire business community, but certainly I think a lot of the issues that have been raised would be answered by a secret ballot process to enable employees to make an informed choice, which is the key.
As to the replacement workers, we have suggested a change in light of what the government's proposing. We don't agree that replacement workers should be banned. However, if there's something to be done in this area to improve it, we think that would be an improvement many businesses would accept. There are bound to be many of our members who would still not accept that, but on balance I think it would be a significant improvement in dealing with this issue in this way.
Mrs Witmer: Further to that, I guess you know there is certainly concern beyond the boundaries of Ontario about this labour law reform. Do you see these as being two of the issues that are of particular concern to people who may be potential investors in creating jobs in this province?
Mr Kaufman: Certainly they would be, and changes to these I think would help to alleviate many of the concerns, real or imagined, that people have with the prospect of Bill 40 coming into effect.
1350
Mr Turnbull: Mr Kaufman, could you comment on the ability of multinationals domiciled in Canada to get world mandates if the bill, in its present form, gets passage?
Mr Kaufman: World mandates are something every multinational offers its subsidiaries around the world, and they're competed for on a regular basis. To the extent that people begin to think of issues as to where they would place those mandates, they take a lot of issues into account, and a bill such as this would in fact be one of the issues they would consider. It's not the only factor, obviously; there are a lot of factors that go into it. But when you're trying to compete against other nations in getting a mandate, you'd like to have as much as you can on your side. I think a bill such as this in its present form would be an unnecessary black mark or strike against subsidiaries here. We've got to compete and we've got to compete fairly. We don't want to have additional burdens or unnecessary burdens.
Mr Turnbull: Just one other quick question: You comment in your presentation that you would allow third-party property picketing but you would give notice to the owner. Can I suggest that perhaps you represent the industrial sector, where it would affect you less, and that this is more likely to affect retail operations where a shopping plaza owner, through no fault of his own, has picketing on his premises? It's perhaps a little beyond the scope of what you should be -- I'm not trying to challenge you; I'm just suggesting that perhaps it isn't an area that really particularly affects your members.
Mr Kaufman: I think it does. It may not affect as much as certain other types, but I think the principle is the same. That's what we're addressing here, the various principles. We represent a wide variety of groups, businesses and industries, and I think the principle is important. There should be service of notice when it's about to occur. I think, as a matter of principle, that would be important to us.
Mr Hayes: Thank you for your presentation. It's very well-put-together. One of the things some people have mentioned is that Ford, GM and other corporations have made investment in Ontario, but that if this bill had been in effect earlier, they might not have made those decisions to invest the millions of dollars they have. One individual stated that these plans are years ahead and to stop that now would be like trying to stop a plane in mid-takeoff.
I notice that about a year ago General Motors announced it was moving production from California into Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec, yet it's had that anti-replacement worker legislation since 1978. It makes me question how that anti-replacement worker legislation would actually hinder the operations here. And in Quebec there are stats that claim hours of work lost due to work stoppages or strikes have reduced since that time by 30%. I know you might say they've had more strikes, but there's been less time lost and they were back to work sooner in that particular province.
I really wonder why it doesn't seem to bother General Motors moving from California into Quebec when it has that particular legislation, yet it would bother us here.
Mr Kaufman: I really can't comment on General Motors specifically, but perhaps more investment would have come if there wasn't that type of legislation.
All we're saying is that there are a lot of factors that go into a decision and everything negative has to be offset by something positive. To introduce this kind of change in Ontario, we suggest, would be an additional negative. Perhaps there might be more positive elements that would offset it, but on balance we think it's unnecessary.
The experience in Quebec I think speaks for itself in some ways. Perhaps they would have had more investment in the labour area if that legislation didn't exist.
Mr Hayes: But still they weren't afraid to move in. That's the point.
Mr Kaufman: Again, I can't comment on specifics of General Motors. I wasn't a part of the decision. I suspect they looked at a number of criteria, of which this was one.
Mr Hope: When I went through the list of companies, it was interesting to hit Rockwell International of Canada. I used to be a proud employee of theirs; I'm starting to wonder why now.
Looking at this proposal on the replacement worker aspect, there are two areas I'd like to focus on. You talk about balance. I remember, during three-year collective agreements, that I used to be hand in hand with the company making presentations to other corporations, saying how good a working relationship we had, to get contracts into our workplaces. I think the campaigns that have been portrayed have had more of a negative impact than the legislation itself has.
I'm wondering about the second point you have on replacement workers, permitting replacement workers from any source for a period of 60 days. Have you ever been on a picket line, or a worker in an unemployment line who has been out of work for 60 days?
The Chair: Mr Hope, we've got to move on. These people will want to respond to you, perhaps.
Mr Kaufman: What we're trying to do is suggest a compromise in the principle, a time for people to reflect. We've seen violence on the picket line for a variety of reasons. Some people argue that it's due to replacement workers. It's a variety of reasons that fall into that category of violence. We think there is a need in this particular case to give the opportunity for collective bargaining to move forward. Moving the balance in favour of the unions, which is what we see this provision would do, we think is not fair or right, and we think balance should be struck. Therefore, while we accept in that sense the principle of replacement workers, we ask for a delay before it's fully implemented in certain particular cases. We don't think that's unreasonable to request when we're in an economy that has to have suppliers acting in a just-in-time capacity to be able to meet their commitments.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I believe your suggestions on a secret ballot are both balanced and fundamental to the freedom of choice for individual workers. The government, however, appears opposed to the secret ballot for certification in this bill, surprisingly accepting the principle of secret ballot for local unions breaking away from internationals in another bill, Bill 80. It seems to me that the government is embarking on a democracy of convenience.
My question to you is based on your presentation on page 10, where you speak about the trigger before a secret ballot commences. You say it should be something lower than 40%. Could you share with us what you believe would be an appropriate trigger?
Mr Kaufman: That's something I think would have to be discussed with a variety of groups, labour and management. I personally would believe that something in the order of 30% would not be an unreasonable number. The idea is to get a large enough group to indicate they're willing to start the process but not so low as to make it very, very easy. Once that level has been achieved, then all the employees in question have a chance to make a decision based on informed choice, with proper information.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I too appreciate the effort that's gone into this. I think you've given us some good recommendations.
I wanted to talk a little about the replacement workers. I would just comment that I think General Motors never tries to run one of its plants during a strike, so replacement workers is not an issue to them on a vehicle assembly, I think.
But on the replacement workers, you've obviously had a lot of debate around your organization, I would think, about which industries and on what basis you would reach these criteria of essential services. There are a lot of businesses that wouldn't benefit from your proposal here but would find it terribly difficult to sustain a business closure for any length of time. Many retailers, I think, would feel that if they have a strike that closes their location for a sustained period, they have real trouble getting their customers back. I think newspapers in competitive markets, if they're closed for a long period, have difficulty getting going again. I'm wondering if your organization considered other circumstances and how you arrived at these as the criteria you would use for where replacement workers could be provided.
Mr Kaufman: We had a long debate, obviously, and you can extend the list in many instances. There are a lot of examples as to where hardship would occur. But this would be the benefit if we had a dialogue within which to discuss all of this; perhaps we'd come out with a more appropriate list.
We came down with this one as most important. I don't want to denigrate the other areas or businesses that would suffer as a result of this, but we believe that in this particular instance a compromise of some sort is in order, and perhaps over time there'd be other explanations as to why in other industries it would be appropriate to do the same thing. We had to make, if you will, a cutoff point, a decision, and this is what we choose to do in the interest of making this presentation and suggestion to the government.
The Chair: Thank you. The committee is grateful to Project Economic Growth and its spokespeople today for their views and their participation in this process. We thank you and trust that you'll keep in touch. Take care.
1400
OSHAWA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is the Oshawa Chamber of Commerce. Would they please come forward, have a seat and give us their names and titles, if any. We've got your written material. That's going to be made an exhibit. It'll form part of the record. Go ahead, people.
Mr Fred Ball: Mr Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you today. I want to take this opportunity to introduce the people you see seated at the table.
On my extreme right is Mr Andy Emmink; he is a member of the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade and he operates a business knows as A. Emmink Associates Ltd. Next to him is Ms Kim Warburton, who is employed by Mediacom Inc and is a member of the Oshawa Chamber of Commerce and a member of the Oshawa Chamber of Commerce government affairs committee. Next to me is Mr Robert Armstrong, who is president of the Armstrong Funeral Home in the city of Oshawa, a member of the Oshawa Chamber of Commerce and a member of the Oshawa Chamber of Commerce government affairs committee. My name is Fred Ball. I operate a business called Ball, Callery and Associates and I'm chairman of the Oshawa Chamber of Commerce's government affairs committee.
On behalf of the Oshawa Chamber of Commerce and the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade, I thank you for providing us with the opportunity of speaking to you today concerning the government's proposed amendments to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, known as Bill 40.
The Oshawa Chamber of Commerce and the Ajax-Pickering board represent 1,300 businesses employing thousands of people. The majority of our businesses are small, with 80% employing less than 10.
It is the opinion of both business organizations that the passing of Bill 40 will dramatically impact an already weak economy base in Durham region. We have five key areas of concern, which I will highlight in brief in order to keep within the time frame allocated for our presentation.
First of all, economic climate: Ontario's economy continues to lag. Over 580,000 people are unemployed in the province and 12.5% of the workforce are collecting unemployment insurance benefits in Durham region. There are no signs of significant improvements through investment or new business locations. I'm sure you're all well aware of our situation in Durham region concerning the General Motors situation extending to its suppliers.
Whether you agree or disagree with the content of Bill 40, there is no doubt that Bill 40 is influencing decision-makers concerning investment in Ontario. Our members are very concerned that if approved in its current form, Bill 40 will most assuredly discourage investment in Durham region and in the province as a whole.
Item 2, impact of proposed changes on small businesses: Most small business people strictly focus on operating their business. Unlike larger firms, no staff is available to interpret and study government proposals. There is little extra time to volunteer for associations or boards that may be delving into legislative issues. Many rely on local chambers of commerce or boards of trade for assistance.
Small business did not appreciate until recently the implications of the legislation in the review process. In fact, other than newspaper articles, very little material has reached small business operations in our community. We are not aware of any concise or readable material being sent to our businesses from the Ministry of Labour. As a chamber, we are aware that only now some of the business operators are beginning to understand the impact of the proposed changes outlined in Bill 40, and frankly, it makes them extremely uneasy.
It is important to understand the psyche of small business operators. Most are true entrepreneurs. The majority are not unionized. Pride and sense of ownership are fundamental. Small mom-and-pop operations look to the government to create an environment that supports and encourages business growth. Profit margins are slim. Perceived lack of control and overregulation easily lead to frustration and to consider alternatives.
Item 3, the use of replacement workers: The proposal makes it illegal in most cases to use replacement workers when employees go on strike. For many small businesses, the use of replacement workers can mean the difference between survival and bankruptcy. The choice is simple: Meet union demands irrespective of merit or the ability to pay, or close shop.
While a business may not directly feel the impact of the replacement worker policy, the impact on their unionized suppliers and customers will ultimately come home to roost. Small, locally owned and managed companies are particularly at risk because they lack the resources to weather a third-party dispute.
In our opinion, the ban on replacement workers shifts negotiating power directly to the unions. Our businesses are vulnerable, and this policy makes them even more so.
Our recommendation to this committee is that you recommend that this aspect be reconsidered and, in particular, that attention be paid to the impact of the proposal on the legitimate concerns of smaller businesses.
Item 4, union organizing: There is no doubt that changes are needed to this area of the legislation. Under the existing legislation, if 55% of the employees pay $1 and sign a union card, they are unionized. It is possible to stop the automatic certification process if you get a sufficient number of card-signers to recant from their earlier membership decision through a petition process.
The proposed changes include dropping the token $1 membership fee and the threshold support to require a vote dropped from 45% to 40%. Automatic certification with 55% membership cards stands and can't be recanted under the proposed legislation.
Our concern is that the business community, whether right or wrong, views the unionization process with much alarm. To a small business person, it is often seen as a defeat or a personal insult.
Business people often believe they are victimized by a stacked automatic certification process and, if all the employees truly had an opportunity to express themselves by secret ballot, that the majority would vote against unionization. This may not be true, but it is a widely held belief. This sows the seeds for poor relations between the employer and the union representative from the beginning. The employer meets the union representative during the first-contract negotiations, believing that the union does not represent the true interest of all the employees -- definitely not a good place to start.
When Don Eastman, vice-president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, which represents 170 chambers of commerce and boards of trade in Ontario, met with the legislative committee on August 5, he requested that a secret ballot be held prior to union certification. We support this request and ask that the committee give this matter full consideration.
Item 5, first-contract arbitration: Access to arbitration will be permitted 30 days after the union is in a legal strike position. The requirement that the applicant be able to demonstrate why arbitration instead of collective bargaining is required is eliminated. Does this support good-faith bargaining? Does it encourage discussions between employers and unions?
We would ask the committee to consider whether this achieves the stated objective of promoting a harmonious relationship between labour and business.
We believe that first-contract arbitration will dramatically increase and the employers' ability to negotiate terms which are appropriate to his or her operations will be severely limited.
Our recommendation is to limit the access to arbitration and encourage collective bargaining.
Our conclusions: The Oshawa Chamber of Commerce and the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade recognize that the Ontario Labour Relations Act may need review.
Small business is only now beginning to appreciate the potential of the proposed legislation.
Small business relies on the Ontario government to protect their interests, as well as those of all citizens.
We don't believe the proposed legislation protects the interests of small business, the largest employer group in Ontario.
Our respective communities have been unfairly forced into taking sides on this legislation without fully understanding all implications. Our communities are divided unjustly: labour versus business. This should never have been allowed to happen.
We need to develop a community approach, encouraging both labour and business to participate fully in the review process and to come up with recommendations that are widely supported, not just a win-or-lose situation pitting one group against the other.
The bottom line is economic recovery. There is no disagreement here. No one wants to see Ontario's economy continue to struggle. We want jobs and economic success. This is only achievable by working together. Bill 40 is separating our communities into two camps, and while we are fighting, the rest of this country, and indeed North America, will pass us by. At the end of the day we'll still be squabbling, our economy will be worse and the only legislation needing our attention will relate to unemployment.
The Oshawa Chamber of Commerce and the Ajax-Pickering Board of Trade strongly advise that this committee recommend further review of the proposal, its impact on small business and our communities, before it is put forward for final approval.
1410
The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. Six minutes per caucus.
Mr Wood: Thank you for coming forward from Oshawa and the Pickering area. I noticed on page 3 you pointed out that you agree that the OLRA should be amended as there have been no major amendments to it since 1975, I believe. I see on page 3 you've said you agree that it needs a review.
On page 1 you pointed out that the proposed Bill 40 is influencing decision-makers concerning investment in Ontario. I just wanted to point out some of the companies that are coming into Ontario: Intercity Products Corp is moving from Illinois. They produce air conditioners. There are going to be 300 jobs in Brantford. Fleck Manufacturing -- electronics, wire harness -- is moving 75 jobs to Tillsonburg from Mexico. Fasco Motors in Morristown, Tennessee, is bringing 100 jobs into Cambridge. Westinghouse Canada -- coils for motors and generators -- is moving from Juarez, Mexico, 22 jobs into Mississauga.
In my home town, Spruce Falls Inc is a new company, and I'm proud to say that it's made a $1.2-million profit in the first seven months of its operation and is investing over $200 million in construction. They're all Canadian contracts, most of them are from within Ontario, so there is a lot of positive feeling out there even though some people would like to believe there are negative feelings out there. But I wanted to point out those positive companies that went to other countries and are moving back into Ontario and looking forward to a bright future in creating jobs. I just wanted to know what comments you might have on this.
I know there have been a lot of billboards and media print and TV and radio that some of the groups have taken up, that just the thought of amendments has produced billboards saying there's a lot of fear being created out there. But I just wanted to see what reaction you have when there are other companies that have taken the positive approach in saying, "We think Ontario's a good place to do business, and we want to move back in there and show positive economic recovery to Ontario," as well as, as I said before, a paper mill in my home town, which had been declared almost dead about 14 months ago. Now it's one of the only mills in North America that's showed a big profit and is investing over $200 million in northern Ontario. I just wanted to leave it at that and see if you had any comments.
Mr Ball: Did you want me to respond to that, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: If you wish, sir.
Mr Ball: Mr Wood, the information you've provided, some of it I knew and some of it is news to me, and frankly, it is good news. But the point we're attempting to make is that what we represent is the small business operator, the person who employs less than 10 people, and the best information we have is that 80% of the businesses in Ontario are just like us, small business.
It is good to hear of the large businesses that are making investment or rejuvenating plants -- as you said, the paper mill -- but the fact of the matter is that what we represent and the point we want to make is that small business is not doing the same thing. People are not making the investments, beginning businesses, expanding their small businesses, at the present time.
Mr Wood: Because of the recession?
Mr Ball: Because of the recession, yes, but the changes suggested in Bill 40 are not giving them a warm, comfortable feeling.
Mr Wood: I'll defer to Ms Murdock.
Ms Murdock: He's given me one minute to ask a question and get an answer, so I'll be quick.
One of the points that you made was in terms of small business only now realizing the implications or the impact that this legislation might have on it. I know that my ministry certainly has sent out information to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, assuming it would go out to other chambers. It also sent out materials to anyone who made a submission or wrote a letter and many of those were chambers from smaller communities across Ontario.
Also, there's the fact that during the consultations we heard from a a number of small businesses, particularly when we went out of Toronto on the road. So I'm wondering how that jibes. I don't see how they're just now realizing this. Also, there's the media campaign that has been quite prevalent prior to the discussion paper and after the discussion paper. It doesn't jibe.
The Chair: Does anybody wish to respond to that?
Mr Andy Emmink: Perhaps I could comment on that, Ms Murdock. The reality of operating a small business in the climate in which we've operated over the last three years has been one that's based on survival. If we as small business operators had the luxury to sit down and read every piece of paper that crossed our desks, then perhaps we would have been making much more cogent submissions at a much earlier stage in the process. But the fact of the matter is that we're trying to meet payroll, that we're trying to pay creditors, that we're trying to keep suppliers, that we're trying to make new clients. We simply don't have that luxury. For anyone who has actually lived in that environment over the past three years, it has been very tough.
That may sound like we're simply making excuses, but we're also living in the real world. Most people will concede that when something of this nature occurs, it's not until it's almost breathing down our necks that we begin to take notice, and when we begin to take notice and try to assess some of the implications and we see what it may do, that's when you see these kinds of concerns expressed here today.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the brief. You can see the challenge we have here, because the government members would say the business community is exaggerating things, that --
Mr Hope: We'll say what we need to say, Gerry, don't worry.
Mr Phillips: We hear the same thing each time: "The business community is exaggerating the problem. All the investment is taking place and you're just trying to be alarmist to protect your profit interests." We in the opposition say: "Listen, Ontario has a record level of unemployment. Plant closures in the first seven months of 1992 were 30% higher than they were a year ago and 45% higher than they were two years ago; 70% of those workers who are laid off in plant closures are unionized workers so, in our opinion, this bill does nothing to help protect them."
I appreciate your comments on small business. We have to internalize the challenge of small business. A small business manager is often the sales manager, the marketing manager, the product development manager and the human resources manager. He doesn't have time to understand everything that's coming down the pike.
We think the implications of this legislation are serious for the job situation and the investment situation. The government members say: "No, it isn't. This is not going to have a negative impact. This will pass very quickly." Can you be at all helpful to us in trying to quantify the impact that it's going to have? I don't want to be one of these people who say, "I told you so," two years from now, but I will; I guarantee you I will. It's like when I told you about how the budget was wrong and now you admit the budget was wrong.
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: No, the Treasurer himself would say that last year's budget was a mistake. Can the board and the chamber be helpful in quantifying for the members the impact on jobs this might have?
Mr Ball: Yes, we can. The fact of the matter is it already has had an impact. People have lost confidence because of the recession. The situation we are in at present is that interest rates are lower than they have been in 20 years and likely mortgage rates will decline even more. We're in a situation where unemployment is higher than it has ever been. We're in a situation where you would think that we should be now moving out of this trough that we've been in for a period of time and yet it's not happening.
I can't speak for anyone except the people we represent, the small business people. Small business people are terrified of the changes in this legislation, terrified of what the future holds, and consequently, any of those people who are in business are not expanding their businesses; they're not building new facilities; they're not hiring more people. What they're doing is they're standing still, hoping that the bank manager can be kept happy and that they can meet payroll. They're not expanding their businesses and they are not going to expand their businesses until they get a clear idea of what's going to happen to this legislation, irrespective of all the other factors that go to make up a decision in a businessman's head.
1420
Mr Offer: Do I have enough time for questions?
The Chair: Two minutes.
Mr Offer: Thank you. I'd like to carry on with your response on the point brought forward by my colleague. It seems that from your response, first, that it's self-evident there will be an impact and second, and I think very important, that an analysis as to what that impact may be has not been undertaken by the government, that you have not been sought out through whatever means possible to look at what the ramifications of this legislation may be to you and to the communities you find yourself in.
I'd like to get your comment on that and I do so looking at, strangely, a news release of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in talking about the North American free trade agreement and basically saying that it cannot be implemented without consideration for the economic restructuring of a company's trade agreements, that you have to take a look at how it's going to affect manufacturers, new investment and increased competitiveness.
The Chair: Do you want to give these people time to respond?
Mr Offer: It seems that the position of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology for NAFTA is exactly --
The Chair: Do you want to respond, people? Go ahead.
Mr Ball: I'd like to respond to the first part, and that is that the impact is already: "Don't bother doing another analysis. The impact is now." There is no business expansion in Ontario, in my region, at the present time and there won't be. People are absolutely and unconditionally terrified not only about the changes in Bill 40, but now Mrs Grier is running around wanting to convert beautiful farm land into sanitary landfill sites. Add it up.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. Certainly, you've echoed some of the concerns I've heard from small business people in my own community. They simply don't feel they've been involved in the process that has led up to the development of Bill 40. Also, many of them are just now finally realizing the impact this bill can have on their very small mom-and-pop operation.
But the question I have for you, because you are in a very unique position, as you have pointed out, being in the Oshawa and Ajax-Pickering area, is, what type of situation do you find yourselves in, in that particular area? As you've indicated, it is unique because of your dependence on a large plant. What's happening? What's the economic situation?
Mr Robert Armstrong: The economic situation as I see it in our area is that we have a large area of empty stores and empty office buildings, and we don't see any change. We've had a lot of vacant property. We don't see any development in our area at all at this time.
Mr Emmink: If I could just add to that, when you ask the question, "What's happening?" I think it could probably best be categorized as a total lack of any confidence in the future. That lack of confidence that we see resident in our businesses in the Ajax-Pickering and Oshawa areas I think has to affect the decision-making process for anyone who is thinking of investing in that area. Obviously, the reasons that are giving rise to that lack of confidence for the resident businesses have to be reasons that potential investors have to give very serious consideration to.
It's probably not stating the case too strongly to say that there is a sense of despair. To put across legislation of this nature without arguing specifically the merits -- legislation which has a perception of having a potential for creating great damage from a timing point of view -- is catastrophic.
Mrs Witmer: In the event, then, that Bill 40 were to pass in its present form -- and I have to tell you I'm not terribly optimistic that we're going to see any substantive changes -- what is the future impact going to be on your community? You've told me how you have these empty stores and there's a total lack of confidence, and unfortunately, if the small business sector is not creating new jobs, we're not seeing a lot of new job creation. What is the future potential of this bill?
Mr Armstrong: All I can see is doom and gloom. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can see small businesses going out of business. I can see them moving. We already hear of large industries moving to other areas, moving to the United States. I realize we just heard some good news -- I'm glad to hear that -- and of course we have General Motors, a large employer, in our area. To the small businessman, everything depends on what General Motors does, basically, because that's where our livelihood is. So I can think of things going down rapidly, I'm afraid.
Mr Emmink: Perhaps I could add one brief comment to that. It would be nice if this group could leave here today with some words of comfort from the government members that they will guarantee that this legislation, if passed in its present form, will not have a detrimental impact on our economy. If that guarantee is backed up by some kind of plan for financial compensation to the businesses and the families that are going to suffer economic hardship, if this government will make that kind of guarantee, I'd like to know what the nature of that guarantee would be.
Mrs Witmer: I guess that was my --
Interjection: Mr Hope has a question or a comment.
The Chair: Go ahead, Ms Witmer.
Mrs Witmer: I guess my final question to you would be, what would you ask of this government before you leave today? What request would you make? What would you like to see happen concerning Bill 40?
Mr Armstrong: I would like to see this government, as I'm sure you are doing, look at it seriously from the point of small business as well as of everyone else who's involved, and protect everybody's rights to the best of your ability so that we're all protected and we don't have horror stories down the road where we're all looking around and saying, "What happened?"
Ms Kim Warburton: I might also add, in terms of the members, that we've heard a lot about consultation, and consultation within the community. One of the things we would like to see, if it is possible, would be for this legislation to be reviewed more at a community level in concert with labour groups and with members of the community, chambers of commerce.
We keep going back to how there seems to be a lack of information. It may have been sent out; that's not really up for discussion. But the level of understanding is very poor in the community and we would like to see that change somewhat. Maybe this process could be slowed down, in terms of allowing an opportunity for further consultation in the community.
Mrs Witmer: That's a good point.
The Chair: We want to thank the Oshawa Chamber of Commerce for its participation in this process. You've played an important role and we're grateful to you. Thank you, people. Take care. Have a safe trip back home.
CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, NATIONAL OFFICE
The Chair: The next participant is the CUPE National Office, if they would please come forward, have a seat, and tell us their names and titles, if any.
I want to remind people who are visiting that there's coffee available here over at the side. It's free and it's here so that you can make yourselves comfortable and at home. It's probably one of Toronto's best kept secrets that public committee rooms are the best single source of free coffee in the city.
Interjection: Does that mean we can have one?
The Chair: You sure can.
Please go ahead. Try to save at least the last 15 minutes for exchanges.
Ms Judy Darcy: Try and save at least the last 15 minutes for questions? We will do our best.
Let me start by conveying my thanks for granting standing to the Canadian Union of Public Employees to speak on what we consider to be a long-overdue piece of legislation. My name is Judy Darcy and I'm national president of CUPE, which, as you may or may not know, is the largest union in Canada, representing 410,000 workers from coast to coast in the public sector, including approximately 220,000 women in public services.
As you know only too well, Ontario labour laws have not been significantly amended, excluding some very minor changes, for some 17 years. As we also know, a great deal has changed in the province in 17 years. Indeed, the workforce is changing very rapidly even in the last couple of years, and I'll return to that later.
1430
Since our time with you today is very short, I will also refer you to the formal brief that was submitted on behalf of the Ontario division of CUPE at your committee hearings on August 27 in Kingston. This document, which I'm sure you remember, is a more technical and detailed brief that details our position on a number of different aspects of the OLRA amendments.
I'm accompanied today by Muriel Collins, who is a member of CUPE Local 79, which represents inside workers in the city of Toronto, and is herself a worker from the homes for the aged. She also chairs our national task force on women and is a member of our national executive board representing southern Ontario.
This is Helena Aguiare, president of CUPE Local 2295, who represents building cleaners at the Toronto-Dominion Centre in downtown Toronto. With us also is Luis Aguiare, who will be translating for Helena when she addresses you later on.
They're here with me today so that together we will try and give you a picture in a few short minutes of what life is like in the real world, what it's like to be an immigrant woman working in a female job ghetto, what it's like to try to organize part-time workers under the province's existing labour laws, what it's like not just to try to organize a union but also to hold on to a union, hold on to basic rights for groups like cleaners without the successor rights provisions that will be afforded in the present law.
We make our presentation, as I said, on behalf of all of our members in Ontario, but we also make our presentations, we believe, on behalf of unorganized men and women and, in particular, on behalf of the most vulnerable and the most exploited people in the workforce: immigrant women, women of colour and part-time workers.
We've chosen to direct the thrust of our presentation today towards the effect these amendments will have on women workers in particular. Why do we do that? Because we believe that the real story behind these reforms and the story that has gone largely unreported and largely unnoticed, the one that the employer lobbies and the business lobbies, we believe, have done their best to obscure, is how these changes will affect and will benefit the most vulnerable members of our workforce: part-time workers, who are mostly women; immigrant workers in low-wage sectors, again mostly women, and people working in predominantly non-unionized settings such as the service sector, the retail sector and the financial sector, again mostly women.
I mentioned that our union is the largest union and that over half of our members are women, a fact that we believe can be attributed both to the unprecedented growth in the service sector in the last 15 years but also the growing recognition on the part of working women in the workforce that they need to have a union in order to improve their standard of living and in order to gain some measure of dignity and some measure of respect on the job.
It's no secret that these women -- and in our case women who work in hospitals, in libraries, in nursing homes, in public utilities, municipal and regional governments, universities, social service agencies, child care centres and airline and broadcasting industries, as far as the federal sector is concerned, to name just a few -- would still be earning 67 cents on the dollar compared to what men earn if it had not been for the fact that the union movement, together with the women's movement, had worked so hard for pay equity legislation and had worked so hard to achieve pay equity through collective bargaining, And even at that, there are many women who still are earning 67 cents on the dollar.
I think we all know that the Ontario workforce has changed dramatically over the last number of years. In the last 15 years, one million women have joined the workforce in Ontario. That's one million women since the Labour Relations Act last underwent major changes.
Part-time workers now make up 17% of the total labour force in Ontario. Women now make up 46% of the total labour force. Over the last 15 years there has been an increase of over one million workers in the service sector.
We think those are pretty conclusive statistics about the need for change and pretty conclusive statistics about how the workplace and the workforce are very different than they were a number of years ago.
We are not so naïve as to believe that these labour law amendments alone will mean that the problems facing working women will vanish. We see these reforms as part of a broader series of initiatives that are absolutely essential in combination to move us closer to economic and social justice for working men and women: programs such as pay equity, employment equity, advances in child care provisions and increased minimum wages. All of those measures together will go a long way towards improving the lives of working people.
A great deal has been said during this current debate over labour law reform about the so-called balance which now exists between employers and their unions; the delicate balance the business lobbies would have us believe has created what they refer to as a stable labour relations climate in this province, which, if tampered with, they say, would have devastating consequences.
Well, we have a group of 19 municipal employees in the city of Cornwall -- and I know you heard from some of them a few days ago -- who have been on strike for eight months while replacement workers are doing their jobs, and they would certainly beg to differ with that rosy description of current labour relations in this province. I would ask those business lobbies and employer lobbies to tell those workers who have lost their homes and who have suffered marriage breakdowns about the delicate balance those workers and their employers currently enjoy.
I would also ask the business lobby to say that to Nationair flight attendants, who, even though they work in the federal sector, desperately need the same kinds of reforms that are being proposed here. We're talking about a group that has been locked out -- not on strike but locked out -- for nine long months, walking the picket line, trying to get a basic collective agreement, who now earn, on average, $15,600 a year.
We are here today to say that the much-talked-about balance is about as real as the level playing field which Brian Mulroney and the federal Tory government promised would come from entering into a free trade deal with the United States; and when it comes to working women, to immigrant women, to women of colour and to women in low-paid, insecure and part-time employment, the power imbalance that exists is even more staggering.
The fact is that there are countless examples -- and we're going to present you with a couple of firsthand accounts today -- of threats and intimidation and very real barriers working women now face when they try to form a union or when they try and hold on to a union. Typically, we're talking about women who have worked for years in minimum-wage jobs with little pay and with little, if any, benefits or protections, things that most of us in this room enjoy and certainly take for granted, protections and benefits, I might add, which none of us would have today if it weren't for the battles that were fought and won by working people and their unions down through the years.
I would also like to remind the committee that, contrary to the shrill rhetoric that is coming from the business lobbies lined up in opposition to the reforms, the primary objective of these amendments is simply to remove the many barriers that currently exist for thousands of workers across the province who have been marginalized under the current law.
While I'm at it, I'd also like to set the record straight about this issue: There is absolutely nothing in these proposals which would in any way force workers to join a union against their will. Workers still have to sign a union card. They still have to vote on certification. This has not changed, nor should it.
I'd like to touch just briefly on a few of the major proposed reforms that would most benefit the most vulnerable members of the workforce: immigrants, visible minorities, part-time workers and women.
The issue of consolidated bargaining units: Currently in Ontario, the smaller your workplace is, the less likely you are to be in a union. That's because, as we know, Ontario's labour laws were fashioned at a time when the world of the workforce was a very different place. It was primarily composed of men, working for the most part in resource and manufacturing-based industries, and as we know, those days are long gone. There is little in the way of regulation or protection for those employed in smaller service sector workplaces that's written into the province's labour laws.
We believe these labour reforms will involve a giant step forward in bridging the gap for those service sector workers by allowing the OLRB to combine two or more existing bargaining units of the same union and the same employer. Workers in predominantly female sectors, like child care centres, nursing homes and so on, will finally have access to the benefits that flow from true collective bargaining. They will no longer have to face the prospect of successfully organizing a union in one day care centre or nursing home, only to be cut off by their employer and targeted for anti-union tactics while the company is free to pour massive resources into resisting further unionization. Part-time workers will now be able to consolidate with their full-time counterparts into one bargaining unit and receive the same benefits and the same protection, and we certainly applaud the proposed amendments in that area.
As far as organizing and certification are concerned, we welcome the improvements in that area which will make it a less intimidating and a less bureaucratic process. By ensuring that there will be quick hearings into alleged unfair labour practices and imposing strict time limits, by allowing picketing and organizing activity on so-called third-party property and by expanding the ministry's public education service, the government has made sure that all unorganized workers will have the opportunity to find out what their rights and obligations are.
We believe that under this new law, the now infamous Eaton's strike of 1985 might well have had a very different ending. As we know, during that very bitter dispute, workers were unable to carry out organizing or picketing activity in the very shopping malls in which they worked.
1440
All in all, these changes are aimed at eliminating the intimidation that is still used by employers to defeat organizing drives and to prevent workers from forming unions. History has certainly shown us that these tactics are used with the greatest success against immigrants, visible minorities and part-time workers, again the most vulnerable members of the workforce.
I want to talk for a minute about successor rights provisions, because these are some of the most significant amendments, I believe, and they've received very little attention in these hearings to date.
We are very acutely aware from our own experience -- and Helena will speak about this in a minute -- of the vulnerability that certain groups such as building cleaners, cafeteria workers and laundry workers in hospitals have experienced over the years in not having their jobs, wages, benefits and bargaining rights protected when their employer, a private contractor, changes, even if they continue to work at the same location.
I want to tell you the most recent example of this. This incident occurred with one of our hospital locals in the city of Ottawa. In July of this year, some 95 full-time unionized cleaners who had been working for the same contractor at Ottawa General Hospital, some of them for as long as 12 years, lost their jobs because the hospital changed contractors; 95 jobs were gone just like that. This is just the latest group of workers who have lost their jobs, their benefits or their union because of the glaring loophole in the successor rights provisions of the Labour Relations Act.
I was integrally involved in forming a committee back in 1985, called the Committee for Cleaners' Rights, that was prompted out of a situation that faced Helena's local at the Toronto-Dominion Centre when the cleaning contractor changed. Empire took over from Modern. People were thrown out the door. A certain number were rehired with greatly increased workloads, and these workers, who were then making $6.50 an hour for light-duty work and $7.50 an hour for heavy-duty work, were forced to take major contract concessions and lost OHIP.
These people were working at barely above minimum wage, and I remember some people remarking at the time that the choice facing workers when they are confronted with concessions like this in collective bargaining at the same time that this tendering process is going on is basically between cancer or pneumonia, which isn't much of a choice.
We lobbied very hard starting back then for an amendment to the successor rights provisions. There was a private member's bill introduced by Bob Mackenzie, who was then the Labour critic, and we believe this reform is long overdue and will directly benefit groups like cleaners and cafeteria workers, who, I think anybody would have to agree, are among the most vulnerable people in the workforce in this province.
Anti-scab legislation: It's been called radical; it's been called highly controversial. Why? We're talking about prohibiting employers from using replacement workers during a strike or lockout when we're all very well aware that this provision has been in place in Quebec since the late 1970s, and it has not caused the mass exodus of capital predicted by the business community back then. On the contrary, a 1991 Quebec ministry of labour report put it this way: "Our observations show that the anti-strikebreaker law is considered to have been a key factor in reducing the number of drawn-out strikes."
As for the weakness in the replacement worker provisions, we feel there are a number. I will refer you to the brief we presented last week; we and several other groups -- the OFL -- have gone into considerably more detail about it. We think we need to simplify and clarify the provisions related to contracting out, and we think we need to define the rules surrounding the designation and use of essential services better, but I refer you to our technical brief on that matter.
My job would not be complete today if I didn't comment briefly on what I believe can only be described as a hysterical reaction by the business community to these important reforms. I believe that this debate, if you can call it that, has been characterized by a high level of rhetoric and fearmongering that in fact has even alienated some more prominent members of the business community.
What we're seeing is a heavily bankrolled propaganda campaign which, if nothing else, has shown us that the power brokers in this province -- the banks, the insurance companies, the multinational corporations -- are prepared to destroy the investment climate in this province in what we believe has become largely a symbolic fight with a democratically elected government.
More than that, though, this business lobby has not been content with just lashing out at the government. It has also launched a very vicious attack on the working men and women of this province, and in particular on the organizations these workers have chosen to represent them. They've tried to convince the public that unions are undemocratic and bad for the economy, and therefore that workers should not have the freedom to easily organize; that unions want these changes because these changes are good for big union bosses.
As a woman who has come up through the ranks of Canada's biggest union and who was only recently elected president of a union that represents mainly low-paid women workers across this country, I'm here to tell you that is patently unfounded. There are few institutions in this country that are more democratic than unions. There are no organizations in this society that have fought as long and as hard for those people who are most vulnerable in our society, whether they're organized or whether they're not.
In conclusion, while we believe these amendments do not go far enough in a number of areas, we do still believe they are a bold and confident step forward for the province. They can make a real difference for the hundreds of thousands of Ontario workers, especially for low-paid women, for minority women, for workers of colour, for immigrant women.
As women, as trade unionists, as people concerned about basic economic justice, we have challenged the business community to come clean about its opposition to these reforms. We believe that its howls of protest, frankly, have far more to do with keeping women and men, and again the most vulnerable workers, in low-wage job ghettoes rather than with legitimate concern for Ontario's future investment climate.
We're here today first and foremost to set the record straight, to say that these proposed labour law reforms are not about giving more power to big union bosses and certainly not even about giving more power to the relatively better-off unionized workers in the public or the private sector. These labour law reforms are first and foremost about giving long-overdue protection to the workers in this province who need it the most.
I'd like to ask Muriel Collins now to say a few words, and then after that, Helena Aguiare.
Ms Muriel Collins: As a member of the Canadian Union of Public Employees for the past 25 years, there's much that I have witnessed and many horror stories I could recount about the struggles working Canadian men and women face on a daily basis.
For the purpose of today's presentation, though, I'm going to concentrate on just one incident back in 1983. I was involved with CUPE Local 79 in what was to be a long and bitter fight to organize the part-time workers in Metropolitan Toronto's seven municipally run homes for the aged.
You may be wondering, "How many part-time workers could there be working in these homes? A hundred, a couple of hundred?" Would you believe it was close to 900? It may also be hard to believe that it was less than 10 short years ago that this very local became the first unionized group of part-time workers in the country.
We were faced with a situation in the homes where we basically had two classes of workers: The unionized full-time workers who enjoyed decent wages, benefits and job security, and non-unionized workers who enjoyed none of the above.
What this meant in the workplace for the residents of the homes was a dramatically high turnover of what were then called casual staff, many of them racial minorities and immigrant women who were being forced to live from day to day never knowing if they still had a job next week. For many of them, the uncertainty was too much and they moved on.
When we finally decided to organize these workers, we could not meet or talk to them anywhere near the workplace. We were forced to meet them in restaurants, at bus stops and so on. Many of the workers had been threatened with termination if they were seen talking with a union organizer such as myself. But we persevered and we were successful in getting the percentage of union cards signed. That turned out to be the easy part.
What followed was a full year spent at the bargaining table trying to negotiate a first contract, with the employer using all the stalling tactics in the book. Then we spent another two years going to an arbitration board. Two years these workers waited for their first contract after exercising their democratic right to form a union.
1450
What has it meant for these part-time workers in homes for the aged? They have now moved a lot closer to having full equality with their full-time counterparts. They're by no means all the way there, but they're closer and they now have a level of job security which they had only dreamed of. More than anything, though, this unionization has stabilized the workforce in the homes, which now number 10 across Metropolitan Toronto. It has radically reduced the staff turnover rates, so the workers have benefited, but the residents have benefited in a big way and the employer has also benefited.
Looking back to 1983 and that organizing drive, I believe I can speak for those workers when I say all the headaches, all the intimidation and disruptions in their lives were worth it, because we were able to improve the quality of life for 900 working women and men. I thank you.
Ms Darcy: Helena Aguiare would like to say a few words about the successor rights issue for cleaners.
Mrs Helena Aguiare: In Portuguese.
Ms Darcy: Yes, in Portuguese, and we'll have translation.
Mr Luis Aguiare: Mrs Aguiare has worked in the cleaning industry for 20 years. She works at the Toronto-Dominion Centre downtown. She's been the local president since 1985, and the case that she's talking about happened in 1985, when Modern lost the contract to Empire, and as a consequence the employees were let go by the new contractor.
They engaged in a struggle in 1985 to make sure that workers were recognized by the new employer and with a union, but only 50 of over 200 workers were retained by the new contractor. The workers were able to retain the union; however, they lost many benefits, including OHIP.
Since 1985, every time they go into negotiations they always have in the back of their minds this situation, because they are afraid that the current employer they have will lose the contract and as a consequence they will lose their union and their rights.
Helena urges this committee and the government to implement a clause within the labour law that will guarantee successor rights so they will not face this situation again.
The Chair: We have two minutes per caucus.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you for your presentation. It's unfortunate we have so little time to discuss it further with you. One of you made an eloquent case on behalf of bringing about some kind of significant improvement to the organizing process to ensure that the rights of workers are respected.
I'm going to outline for you just briefly a process and I'd like to get your impressions of that. Union organizers would be required to obtain 20% or 30% signed cards only and there would be no requirement for a membership fee; that would be waived. The board would then notify the employer that there's an organizing drive under way. The board would obtain names and addresses of employees and provide them to the organizers. The board would supply standard information to the employees to let them know their rights and at the end of the day there would be a secret ballot.
Ms Darcy: I'm sorry, I missed the very first part of what you said and I'm not sure whose position you're stating or what question you're asking.
Mr McGuinty: I'm just outlining a theoretical process which might be used as part of the real-day organizing in order to clean up the process. One of the complaints we contend with here regularly is that workers are buffeted about by larger forces, they don't know who to believe, they're intimidated by the employers, there's coercion and there's threat of loss of work. We're trying to bring in an impartial third party who advises workers of their rights and allows for a secret ballot at the end of the day.
Ms Darcy: With all respect, we're not dealing with a theoretical problem. Those of us making our presentation today are very practical people. The reality our members face and the reality unorganized people face is tremendous barriers to organizing. I think what we're trying to do today is not to engage in a technical debate or a theoretical debate but to impress upon you the human face of this problem.
A great deal has been said about theoretical problems and about what may happen as far as the investment climate in the future is concerned. We believe, and what we're trying to say is, that the real story behind these reforms and the real story that we ask and that we implore all parties in the House to come to terms with is the conditions and the threats and the barriers that are faced by working women and by working men in this province.
I'm really not in a position to deal with theoretical issues. I don't think we're talking about a question of theory; we're talking about basic economic and social justice for working people.
Mr Turnbull: Two very quick questions and simple answers, please. Under the provision that allows security guards to belong to the same union, albeit different bargaining units, if those security guards were to go out in sympathy or not cross picket lines, who do you imagine would be responsible for public safety in that issue?
Ms Darcy: I have to say that security guards are not a group that we presently represent or are involved in organizing. There are other organizations who have come before you, namely, the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Steelworkers union, who have addressed that issue in considerable detail. I'm not in a position to respond to that at this time.
1500
Mr Turnbull: Very well. The other question I have is, in view of the fact that you're using Quebec as the example of having anti-scab legislation for a long time and you're holding it up as a paragon, are you aware of the fact that Quebec has approximately double the number of workers on average per year that Ontario has on strike, even though it has a significantly smaller population?
Ms Darcy: I think it makes much more sense to look back at what the labour relations climate was in Quebec prior to the introduction of anti-scab legislation, because in fact the statistics on strikes will bear out -- I don't have them here. I could certainly forward them to you if you haven't been presented them by anyone else.
Mr Turnbull: But why use Quebec as an example when it's got a worse track record?
Ms Darcy: Why? Because we're talking about --
The Chair: Mr Turnbull, I'm indifferent, as I've said before, as to how many people talk at the same time, but the people up there doing the translating and the people from Hansard are grossly inconvenienced. So please go ahead, Ms Darcy.
Ms Darcy: Thank you. I think what we're saying is that the experience of the labour relations climate in Quebec showed that after the introduction of anti-scab legislation, the number of people-days lost to strikes, and in particular the number of long-drawn-out strikes, was significantly reduced. The fact that we already have a better labour relations climate in this province I think simply indicates that with the introduction of legislation like this, we will see an improvement in the labour relations climate and probably a decline in the number of strikes.
Mr Turnbull: I have to suggest exactly that. We've never had that kind of labour climate. We've had very enlightened labour legislation that was brought in many years ago by the Conservatives, and consequently we have not had those conditions that prevailed in Quebec, and we still have a much better track record than Quebec in terms of strike-days lost.
Ms Darcy: I would suggest to you with respect, sir, that if you look at a situation such as the municipal employees in Cornwall, if you look at the kind of situation that was faced by both these two women in their personal organizing experiences, their personal experiences in the workforce, you would see that yes, while the labour relations climate is significantly better than in Quebec, we have a long way to go to protect the people who are most vulnerable and who most need protection.
Mr Huget: I thank all of you for your presentation. I'd like to just focus on the building cleaner issue. If I understand you properly, I guess what you're saying is that a person in that occupation could be working for an employer for 10 years or 15 years as a cleaner, and simply because of a change in the contractor -- and indeed that person would likely be the same person to go back to work for the new contractor -- in that process he loses his agreed-to salary, he loses his benefits and he loses any seniority. In fact, they lose all the way around.
Mr Turnbull's party is one that has said these changes aren't necessary at all. The opposition groups to the changes in the legislation say now is not the time. I think your issue in terms of the cleaners is a significant issue, if you could expand on that and tell me whether that's the norm or the exception. How widespread a problem is this?
Ms Darcy: I'd be happy to get some copies of clippings to you and forward them to the committee. Over the years we compiled a number of stories, a number of specific situations we were involved in, in trying to protect the workers. There are eight or 10 that I was personally involved in, in the period from 1985 to 1989 in the city of Toronto alone, so there are probably many more throughout the province that went unreported.
In situation after situation, it was a matter of the tendering process following through. More often than not, it happened at the same time that collective bargaining was under way, if we were talking about unionized workers. So you had a situation of workers, in fear of losing their jobs, being forced to accept takeaways or concessions when they were already barely above minimum wage.
As Helena said in the case of the Toronto-Dominion cleaners, they lost their OHIP, which is a very big blow for people then earning $6.50 an hour. In several of these situations, all the workers lost their jobs and they all had to reapply for their jobs one by one. It was strictly up to the new contractor whether it wanted to hire them, whether it decided to respect seniority -- in most cases it did not -- and in many cases the workload increased. The situation I just referred you to, the Ottawa General Hospital example, is just the most recent of those.
There are already successor rights provisions, as you know, but there is a glaring loophole in them that means that people who are employed by a private contractor are not protected by them. Some think this is long overdue, and we think, frankly, that closing that loophole will not only afford better protection to the workers who are presently organized, but I hope it will also encourage people to seek the benefits of a union, because very often what happens is that unionized employees are thrown out in favour of a non-union contractor.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to CUPE and to you, Ms Darcy, as president; equally, however, to Ms Collins and Ms Aguiare for coming here today and sharing as they did with us, and to you, Mr Aguiare, for your assistance. The committee is grateful to you for what has been an important and valuable contribution to this process. You've provided some unique and important insights. Take care.
DOFASCO INC
The Chair: The next participant is Dofasco Inc. Please come forward, have a seat, tell us your names. The written material has been distributed. We have Peter Earle and Bob Swenor. Go ahead, gentlemen. Tell us which of you is which and proceed with your comments.
Mr Robert J. Swenor: I'm Bob Swenor, senior vice-president, corporate administration. Peter Earle is the director of public affairs. We don't seem to have a committee any more.
Interjection: It's lonely over here.
Mr Swenor: We appreciate the opportunity to make a submission before this committee on Bill 40. We'll address three main issues.
Going back to the previous presenters, there is no black and white in this; there's only grey. But we will not try to be hysterical.
Three main issues: The first will focus on the process that's led up to Bill 40. We'll then discuss just a few of the specific proposals set out in the bill and our concerns with them. Finally, we're going to talk about competitiveness, which is really the issue behind all issues, and what it means for us as a company, for our customers and for the province.
As you may be aware, Dofasco has participated actively in the consultation process leading up to Bill 40. We made a presentation to the Minister of Labour in Hamilton in January, as well as submitting a written brief. I think we have some limited copies of that brief available.
Dofasco is also an active member of the More Jobs Coalition, along with two coalitions that represent virtually all the business organizations across the province. I want to make it clear that we have participated actively in the process, not because we are a non-union company, but because we believe this is a critical issue for us, our customers and the province as a whole.
As a large, Ontario-based company in an industry that is a significant part of the manufacturing fabric of this province, we have felt that we have had to participate in the process in a meaningful way. Having said that, the process leading up to Bill 40 has been an extremely frustrating and disappointing one that has heightened, rather than reduced, mistrust and tension between employers and unions. To understand why we say this, let's just review the process briefly.
It began in 1991 with the Burkett report. The Burkett commission was a bipartite commission, and at the end of it there was virtually no consensus on the 30 general areas that they were given to review, all of which represented the union agenda. The business community expressed serious concern with the process.
The next step was that there was a leaked cabinet submission prepared by the Ministry of Labour which discussed, among other things, the plan to "neutralize" opposition from the business community. The government tried to distance itself from this document, stating that it did not represent government policy. It was followed by a discussion paper released in November 1991, with a deadline for submissions of February 1992.
While the government was willing to meet with business and other groups to discuss the proposals, the February deadline was rigid. There were numerous meetings and submissions made throughout this period, but in reality, and contrary to what the government has stated, the process was virtually one way. Not only was this frustrating; it was unnecessary.
Having lived through the process both as a company and as part of a broad-based group, we do not understand why, on an issue as sensitive and complex as labour relations reform, knowledgeable people from all the interested parties were not brought together to come to a common understanding of the need for changes and to find creative solutions that balance the interests of all the parties. For whatever reason, the government chose an approach that locked one of the parties out of any meaningful part of the process.
The results of this unfortunate process are reflected in Bill 40. The Minister of Labour indicated that over 20 changes were made to the original proposals. The number of original proposals were overwhelming. Starting with a large number and then cutting back does not mean there was compromise or movement. Moreover, this numbers game does not necessarily mean that the changes were substantive. In fact, many were more apparent than real.
1510
We heard from at least one minister near the beginning of the consultation process that, while the government was prepared to entertain alternative proposals, there would be little opportunity for anything but minor changes. In our view, the consultation process was for public consumption, including the January hearing process. The thrust of the changes remains the same, to fundamentally alter the balance of power in this province in favour of the unions.
The minister, after some consultation, stated he was shocked that only the union presentations were being positive. In my mind, the process is analogous to my taking two of my sons -- I have three -- who have equal wealth of $1,000 and saying, "Joel, of your $1,000, I want to give $700 to Jason; he says he needs it, but we'll talk about it," and then saying to Joel: "I'm shocked that only Jason is being positive in these talks. Why aren't you positive? He says he needs this money, but we've cut it to $500 and you're still not positive." That was the consultation process.
I'd like now to briefly highlight a few of the specific proposals in Bill 40 that raise serious policy concerns from our perspective. This is certainly not an exhaustive list, but in the time allotted, it will give you some idea of the serious issues we see raised in the bill.
The first area is the proposed changes to the certification process. The Minister of Labour spoke of the bill as plotting "a course for a more open workplace, one which is more responsive and democratic." It is difficult to understand what could be more democratic in ascertaining the true wishes of employees in the certification process than a government-supervised secret ballot vote.
Currently, a union is under no obligation to inform prospective members of the effect of signing a union card, of the union constitution, or to explain dues or duties. Employers, on the other hand, must be extremely careful in what they may or may not say.
Bill 40 even further limits the ability to communicate with employees so that they may have the fullest opportunity to make their decision with all the facts presented. It shifts the emphasis in an organizing campaign from distilling the true wishes of employees to facilitating trade union certification. Under the bill, petitions or other membership evidence that an employee has changed his or her mind about support for the union after the union has filed its application for certification are eliminated. By the time news of the organizing campaign reaches the employer, all admissible membership evidence is in the board's possession. At a time when critical decisions are being made, the union organizer is the only source of information.
I spent six years as a part-time member of the Ontario Labour Relations Board. During that time, I saw petitioners being grilled by union lawyers and by union sidesmen to ensure there was no employer input or influence into their petition. Under current law and practice, petitioners are not given an easy time in demonstrating that the petition is independent.
One incident, however, stands out in my mind. It's worth passing on to this committee and is pertinent to this discussion. A petitioner who had signed a union card and had then initiated a petition was asked why he signed a union card in the first place. His answer was that he was invited to a union meeting at a coworker's recreation room. He went there, and he said, "Quite frankly, I didn't think I could leave without signing a union card." Whether or not there was real coercion, he felt there was coercion and he felt he could not leave that room without signing a card.
What this bill does is take away from him his right to change his mind after careful, individual reflection on whether he made the right decision to sign that card.
The best foundation for a high-trust relationship between an employer and union is for everyone concerned to be convinced that the union represents and has the true support of a majority of employees. A government-supervised secret ballot vote would provide that proof. I realize that's something that's in a direct opposite direction from what the government is proposing in this legislation, but it really is something that is in the US and that we should think about. It would also solve many of the procedural problems the government has identified. Petitions would become unnecessary. The dollar fee would be irrelevant. Difficulties in reaching first-contract agreements would greatly diminish.
Instead, Bill 40 proposes to abolish petitions, which are currently the only way to register a change of mind in order to get a vote. Its solution to the perceived difficulties of reaching a first contract is to allow automatic access to the first-contract arbitration upon application 30 days after the parties enter into a lawful strike or lockout position. This would permit trade unions involved in the negotiation of a first collective agreement to essentially bypass collective bargaining, thereby removing the incentive to take anything but intransigent positions when negotiating a first collective agreement. First-contract negotiations, once considered the true test of employee support for the union under our certification process, will become an empty exercise.
Bill 40's provisions concerning the use of replacement workers is another example of policy that we believe will have the opposite effect of the stated goals. Far from discouraging strikes and the animosity that can accompany work stoppages, these provisions will prolong them. Restricting the ability of an employer to operate during a strike will encourage the use of this as an economic weapon.
In Quebec, where similar legislation has been in place for over a decade, it has not contributed to economic progress or industrial stability. Businesses in Quebec -- and I recognize that this is in contravention to your last presenters -- have found alternative sources of production and have either left the province or come to rely less on the manufacturing capacity within Quebec.
Employers entering a bargaining year in Quebec are driven by the legislation to concentrate on strike survival strategies. For example, they're stockpiling, engaging outside contractors, increasing production outside the province etc. Once the strike arrives, many businesses are prepared for a long siege. As the statistics indicate, the Quebec legislation has contributed to longer, not shorter disputes.
The government has, in our opinion, failed to prove in any meaningful way the need for these and any other changes. The changes as proposed will essentially enhance the power of unions, rather than the rights of individuals to choose to be unionized or not. They are much more likely to undermine rather than foster cooperative relationships because one of the parties will have lost confidence in the balance within the legislative framework.
Furthermore, they are out of step with the economic realities facing Ontario. Perhaps we've become somewhat numb to the argument that Ontario is now part of a global economy and that we must be competitive. However, it keeps being repeated, because competitiveness is the dominant reality facing us in the private sector.
1520
In our January 1992 submission to the Minister of Labour, we indicated that in 1991 Dofasco saw over 52 steel customers, representing 7% of our market, close down or relocate. Since that time, the number has increased to 66 companies, representing about 10% of our traditional markets. This is a permanent, not a temporary loss of business and is in addition to the general drop in demand due to the recession.
We're working very hard to restructure and to retain our competitiveness in the world marketplace. However, we and the rest of Ontario's industrial base desperately need policies that make us more, not less competitive.
I'd like to draw your attention to one example. It really is just one example and it's not on point with respect to these hearings. But Ontario Hydro, which was created to support a competitive economic infrastructure, now has costs that are higher than in many other jurisdictions in North America and is talking about further annual cost increases of 8% to 10% over the next three years. For Dofasco, this means an increase in electricity costs of about $30 million to $50 million.
This is given by way of example of the competitive issues that industry is facing. It comes at a time when the price of steel has dropped to the level it was at 10 years ago. We're still looking at drops in real dollars of 4% per year compounded over the next three to five years. Obviously, our cost structure has not dropped along with the price decreases. Furthermore, prices are predicted to remain well below traditional levels in the future.
At a time of severe competitive pressures, when most businesses are struggling to survive, the province has never witnessed such energy and time being taken by the business community to work to address these labour relations issues. It's not a case of business simply being self-serving. We don't have the luxury of time to do that.
It's in the best interests of everyone -- businesses, unions, employees, citizens -- to have a healthy and growing economy. The only route to this is through education, technological expenditures, capital investment and being more productive. These proposals are the wrong policy direction at the wrong time.
I'd like to reference a recently submitted document prepared by the law firm of Heenan Blaikie in consultation with 10 senior industrial relations practitioners from a cross-section of business organizations. It's an excellent, thoughtful analysis of Bill 40. We urge you to review it carefully. It points out the critical need, in an area as broadly significant as labour relations, for further discussion. This issue demands that we sit down together now to seek the creative solutions we all need.
I'd urge this committee to not report on this bill until it has found a way to accomplish this. In our view, the best report would be to recommend to the government that the parties be brought together in a constructive way to develop these solutions. There has been no consultation. We need consultation and we need to talk about needs, issues and philosophy before solutions are brought forward and put in the form of a bill.
The Vice-Chair (Mr Bob Huget): Thank you, sir. Questions? Mrs Witmer and Mr Turnbull; about three and a half minutes.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation, and we know that you have an excellent record of employee relations.
You've indicated here that you have lost customers. You've indicated that you have lost 66 companies. Obviously, it's been necessary for your company to downsize. I'd like to ask you: How have you done this and what impact has it had on your employees?
Mr Swenor: In 1989 we had a peak of about 12,000 employees. We did an early retirement plan in 1991 and through normal attrition we got down to 10,000. We just did another early retirement plan --
Interjection: Voluntary?
Mr Swenor: It's voluntary, yes, and very generous.
We probably will be down to about 8,400 this year. Competitive pressures probably dictate that we have to get down to 6,000 people from 12,000. We are going to try to do this in the best way for our people, and we will do it in a voluntary way as long as we can and as long as we can afford it. We always want to have people leaving with a smile on their face.
Mr Turnbull: My question relates to first-contract arbitration after just 30 days. I recognize that you're not a unionized shop, but let's just look at the situation with respect to Algoma. It's my understanding -- and please correct me if I'm wrong -- that had the union accepted the terms of the contract you had offered in Algoma some 18 months before it went bust and you walked away from it, you probably would still be operating the company today. However, the union ignored the economic reality and just pushed ahead. Does it concern you that there is no wording in this legislation to direct any arbitration board to take consideration of the economic circumstances of the company?
Mr Swenor: It certainly does. First-contract arbitration -- I'm not sure the Algoma example is on point because it was not first-contract arbitration.
Mr Turnbull: I realize it wasn't first contract, but that isn't --
Mr Swenor: Having said that, the Steelworkers, despite their denial, were presented with the economic facts and there was a broader agenda. That was the Stelco agreement and Algoma went on strike. They were on the verge of bankruptcy. We have written Algoma off, but Algoma has a very difficult time and there's no doubt that the strike of 90 days contributed significantly to that downfall.
Mr Ward: I'd like to point out some information that I think would be appropriate for you and I'd like to thank you for your presentation.
Back in the spring, it's my understanding that the Minister of Labour, Bob Mackenzie, and his very capable parliamentary assistant, Sharon Murdock, went throughout the province and listened to over 300 groups, organizations and individuals talk about the discussion paper.
During that time I also met with businesses in my own community of Brantford. There were concerns other than replacement workers, which is a general concern from the business standpoint, but their prime concerns dealt with the possibility of supervisors being allowed to organize, access to employee lists, the ability of union organizers to be on company property during an organizing drive and some concern with the original wording of the proposed purpose clause.
It seems to me that during that consultation the Ministry of Labour listened to what the business community said because, lo and behold, when Bill 40 was presented to the House, the supervisors were still exempt, there was no access on company property for union organizers, there was no access to employee lists and it's my understanding that the wording was changed in the purpose clause to deal with some of the concerns the business community had. In my mind, that's actually listening to what was presented during the original consultation.
You mentioned Quebec and you said you have statistics. The statistics that have been presented, and I guess we could use both, were that in fact the days lost due to strikes when compared to the overall days of work in Quebec have been reduced by 30% since the legislation was introduced and that the representative of Quebec's major employer, when it made the decision to drop the challenge to the charter on the replacement worker restriction in Quebec, cited the stability of Quebec's labour relations climate as the major reason for this decision. I just wanted to make that clear in case you weren't aware of that information, and you may not have been.
1530
Dofasco is a good, corporate citizen and treats its employees very well. In fact, some of my friends who work at Dofasco still talk about the Dofasco Christmas party. But all employers aren't as enlightened as Dofasco and there are some employers out there whose employees feel the need to be organized, to have a trade union represent them. Under the existing act we're hearing mounting evidence of obstacles in the way of employees pursuing that wish or that direction.
Why do you at Dofasco, enlightened as you are, from a management standpoint, in your treatment of your employees -- and you'll never be unionized -- feel it's necessary to have those obstacles remain in place for employers who aren't as enlightened as yourselves and whose employees feel the need, for whatever reason, to have a trade union represent them?
Mr Swenor: I agree with you. We don't feel in great danger of being unionized. We enjoy the philosophy of our forefathers, who believed in treating people well.
Mr Ward: You still have those commercials, do you not?
Mr Swenor: No, it's not a problem for us. But as I said earlier, I sat on the labour relations board for six years and I believe there are not really many impediments to unionizing. I think this has thrown the balance of power to ensure unionization, despite what the true wishes of the worker might be, into place. I mean, people will get unionized whether they want to be or not, whether the employer's bad or not.
I feel somewhat disadvantaged in having come after the group we came after, because there is no black and white; as I said earlier, there is grey. Probably the black and white comes, as you said, with us and with the cleaning workers. I feel, though, that when you try to deal with the black and white through a legislative process, you're really hitting a gnat with a sledgehammer and you'll deal with a lot more than you thought you'd deal with.
The real issues with us are competitiveness, our customers and having customers here. People, don't be disillusioned: Capital is very fickle. It will go where it can get its best return. If they perceive that there is some competitive disadvantage -- I used Ontario Hydro as an example, but we have a number of other things -- we have enough in Ontario now to disadvantage us from the point of view of investment. One more thing will not help. We need customers. We have no threat of getting up and moving to the US. We have a big plant; we can't move to the US.
But if our customers move to the US, we are dead. We're going to die. They are moving to the US. One of the things I've heard, in the reply of the government to some criticism of the bill, is that the same provisions are in place in Saskatchewan or Manitoba or Quebec or wherever. We're not losing business to Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Quebec; it's going south. I'm not talking about the Sunbelt states and the low labour-rate states; I'm talking about Ohio and Michigan and Illinois and states which are fighting over businesses, giving free tax relief for 10 years and giving all kinds of assurances.
We don't need further negative investment. We're here. We're going to stay here. We want to do business here. As you say, we want to do business in the way that we've done it, but we have to have customers, and the customers are leaving.
Mr Phillips: Thank you for your presentation. One observation on a comment made by my colleagues over here: Our view of how the government operates in these things is -- it's almost like collective bargaining -- to put an extreme position out and back off on two or three things you planned to back off on from the start anyway. So I don't view what the government did as any significant backoff on its bill. That's an observation.
Mr Hope: Have you ever been on our side?
Mr Phillips: Yes, I have. You guys aren't alone on the side, believe me. You guys don't understand where other people come from.
The Vice-Chair: Order, please.
Mr Phillips: And you don't have a monopoly on union activity, you really don't. I'm sorry to tell you that, but you're going to have to learn that.
But back to you, sir. You bring a unique position to us, and that's your experience on the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I wouldn't mind, even though it's not in your brief, if you could give us any insight on the purpose clause and whether you've had a chance to look at the purpose clause and, I guess, wearing your hat as a former member of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, whether that would cause the labour relations board to act in any different way than it has to date.
Mr Swenor: There's no doubt in my mind that the board will have to try to give some constructive meaning to the purpose clause. They have before. If you look at the jurisprudence in the board, they have given meaning to the purpose clause before, and they will have to give more meaning to the changed purpose clause, there's no doubt in my mind. I guess I can't really say more than that.
The main difficulty with business and the purpose clause is that it talks about improving conditions and the board will look at collective agreements as having to improve. The reality of today is that we may have to look at concessions. It really is the reality of today. We're competing with people who have higher productivity or lower costs, and together we have to work towards being competitive. If we don't look at concessions, we may have to look at staying the same, but improvements may be out of the question. The purpose clause will direct the board to look at collective agreements to having to improve conditions.
Mr Phillips: Can I follow up with that?
The Vice-Chair: Very briefly, Mr Phillips. We are already significantly behind here.
Mr Phillips: Is it possible that one could be charged with bad-faith bargaining if one was to pursue a contract that could be construed as not having improved the conditions?
Mr Swenor: I believe so, and I believe the purpose clause will drive the board towards that conclusion.
The Vice-Chair: I'd like to thank Dofasco for its presentation and both of you for taking the time to appear today and express those views.
OAKVILLE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Vice-Chair: The next group is the Oakville Chamber of Commerce. Could you both identify yourselves and then proceed with your presentation. You're allocated a half-hour, and I know that all members of the committee would appreciate some time for questions and answers, so if you could leave some of that time for that dialogue, we'd appreciate it.
Mr John Hogg: My name is John Hogg. I'm president of the Oakville chamber, and beside me is Jackie Cutmore. She's our executive vice-president and has worked for the chamber for the past five or six years. She made a presentation back in February, which you people will get a copy of, and also a copy of the presentation that we're about to deliver this afternoon.
Mrs Jackie Cutmore: I had the pleasure actually of making my presentation on February 7 in front of the MPP from Sudbury and I acknowledge that. I almost thought I was going to have the pleasure of making my presentation in front of you again, until you moved.
I did think, and I apologize, that I was making the presentation to the minister. I'm not going to change it, lest I lose my train of thought as I read, if you don't mind, because we only learned yesterday at 11:30 that we were making this presentation today.
My name is Jackie Cutmore. I am executive vice-president of the Oakville Chamber of Commerce, which represents 1,000 member companies in Oakville.
Our chamber has made it a point to be informed and involved in the legislation. If you recall, Mr Minister, you spoke in Oakville on the act and the proposed changes in December, where we had a panel which consisted of business, labour and government. Since then, we have followed the lead of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and joined with many chambers of commerce and boards of trade across Ontario in expressing our strong opposition to a great many points in your proposal and the process, which really limits the democratic right to be heard.
It is not the intention of the Oakville Chamber of Commerce to create barriers between business and labour, but rather we seek to avoid this path to confrontation, which we feel is almost evident in Bill 40. Please listen to what we are saying.
1540
First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns regarding the proposed changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I especially would like to thank our MPP for Oakville South, Gary Carr, for his assistance in getting me here. I would also like to thank Steve Offer for his presentation in Oakville on Monday morning at 7:30 with Barbara Sullivan, which we also attended.
The Ontario government is deeply entrenched on a course of self-destruction in an attempt to appease a vocal minority. The proposed changes to the OLRA fail to recognize that businesses are not establishments of the government but rather investments owned by individuals and/or stockholders; they can flourish or they can simply fade away, especially in this economy.
As we review the legislation, we note that in the purpose clause there is a statement that says "promote harmonious labour relations." Legislation aimed at reducing the power and autonomy of business and increasing employee power to strike is not one of the ways to promote this harmonious relationship. In fact, this legislation will distinctly project a them-against-us attitude that will certainly not promote harmonious relationships.
The minister also advises us that workplaces are changing, and we can agree with that. These places are getting fewer and farther between. Businesses are closing; employees are being laid off or let go entirely; expenses are being kept to a minimum. Owners are the employees in some instances. One only has to look at the GM situation to understand what I am saying.
The minister also tells us that the economy is undergoing fundamental structural changes. How can somebody recognize the real situation so well and not understand what it means? People are not spending because they do not have jobs. They do not have jobs because business cannot afford to be here. House prices, interest rates and mortgage rates are at an all-time low and still people are not buying because they are not sure they will have a job tomorrow.
Mr Minister, perhaps you could explain what sort of contribution to economic renewal the working people will make when business gets fed up and folds and they don't have jobs. If indeed the goal is to promote more dialogue, discussion and problem-solving between workers and employees, then why is legislation required? Mr Minister, you asked us to assess this legislation with an open mind. Does this work in two ways? Are you keeping an open mind when we make our concerns known to you? I don't know who's kidding whom at this point, but I will continue.
There are other concerns we have -- mainly, the automatic certification when 55% of a company's workforce sign a union card. This is a substantial abuse of the personal rights of workers to make a sober, informed decision about unionization which the OLRA proposals do not address. The proposals do not even pretend to take into account the pressure workers come under from union organizers to sign up, or to ensure that workers are given all possible information to make an informed choice. The $1 financial requirement that workers presently have to make in order to join a union has even been removed.
This government is infringing on the personal right of workers to choice, and of employees, both for and against unionization, to present their arguments to fellow workers. Automatic certification will continue to poison the workplace atmosphere at a time when employees and their employers should be reaching out to each other in a spirit of cooperation and understanding in order to effectively compete in the global economy and protect jobs.
In researching information and important data for this presentation, I found the following, which are taken from credible presentations made earlier.
"Ontario statistics indicate that 96% of contract negotiations reach settlements without strike action or lockout. Only 4% of all collective agreements end in strike situations and job interruptions, and picket line violence has significantly dropped over the last 10 years."
Here is another quote: "In the last 12 years, the province of Quebec," -- which I realize we have flogged to death today -- "which is often cited by this government as having good labour relations, has had more strikes involving double the number of workers than Ontario. Mr Mackenzie has quoted in a report to cabinet that implementing the OLRA changes will cost $8.3 million over three years and require an additional 55 civil servants."
This is another quote that actually comes from Oakville: "That plant should have gone and could have gone in Ontario but, to be honest, the business environment is much more attractive in the US." That's the president and CEO of a firm in Oakville on a recent decision to build its new plant, expected to employ 200 people, in Michigan.
This last quote really does prove my next statement: "Money or capital are extremely mobile. Don't encourage business to show you how mobile."
To say that the OLRA does not need changing would be folly, but introducing such sweeping, one-sided proposals is economic madness. What we, business and the province, need is a true consultation process that works. This means breaking through the barriers of hostility and mutual distrust between government, labour and business, and having all stakeholders sit down to understand the needs of all parties and see if we cannot find common ground.
The current proposals are not the answer. The government must see that significantly altering the balance of labour relations is counterproductive to fostering economic cooperation between government, labour and business, and that it is also dangerous to the economic health of Ontario.
Most of all, we would ask you to recognize the need for business, labour and government to communicate and discuss those things which are fundamental to making Ontario a more prosperous place to do business and a better place in which to live and work. In order to do this, remember, changes in attitudes and practices will be required on all sides -- yours too, Mr Minister. It is imperative that your government recognize the fundamentals of good relationships. They cannot be legislated, but they can be built on trust and respect.
In a letter to the Oakville Chamber of Commerce the Premier says:
"Our government understands there must be a marriage and an understanding between the interests of business, labour and government. We are trying to create the conditions which will allow labour, business and government to work together for positive and progressive changes. This will require changes in attitudes and in practices on all sides."
Mr Minister, we do not feel you have understood the Premier's direction. If you had, you would have arranged discussions with all labour market partner sectors to see what all had to say and made your proposed changes accordingly.
Mr Minister and members of the committee, I appeal to your common sense to listen to the comments you are hearing from business and to recognize that businesses are the engine of economic recovery and the creators of jobs. Recognize that without business there are no employees, unionized or non-unionized, there is no spending and there is no revenue being received by governments.
Thank you for the opportunity to be one of approximately 240 of over 2,000 requests to be heard. I hope, Mr Minister, businesses all over Ontario will not have to close their doors for a few days for you to understand the impact of "no business -- no jobs."
The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr Hope: I listened to your presentation and, representing a chamber, I guess your interests are of the small business community group mainly.
Mrs Cutmore: We have Ford and Menasco and quite a few larger ones, so I'd say we are not strictly small. I would like to think we are approaching a wide range.
Mr Hope: But you represent the voice of united small business groups whose concerns you're trying to put across.
Mrs Cutmore: The voice of business.
Mr Hope: In my own community, the riding of Chatham-Kent, I talked to a number of small business communities outside their chamber jurisdictions about a program I implemented a while back with them called Workers Supporting Workers, because a small business community group is small businessmen or workers just like most people. They always prospered from the collective bargaining aspect in our area. Workers have consumer confidence when they have good-paying jobs because they're able to support the small business community in that effort.
1550
A lot of them supported a program implemented by the labour movement of supporting each other on plant closures because of the free trade issue; once they start understanding the devastation that took place after 1988 with free trade in our area, they come on stream with us. We're really questioning the chamber of commerce's approach towards the free trade agreement and its job projection. They said, "We're going to create all these jobs, jobs, jobs during free trade."
In talking to a number of the small business community, I've had one employer say: "Randy, I'm not even going to worry about the labour relations, because it's not an issue with me. I treat workers with respect. I talk to them on a daily basis. I have no fear of it. And if it's a wage increase, I would sooner give the wage increase to them than a lawyer who's going to bleed me. It's not the workers who will bleed me, but the lawyer who will."
The chamber's role is to try to encourage investment in your community, because it helps your membership also at the same time. From your perspective, don't you think the portrayal of the labour relations reform is creating more devastation to our communities? There is a lot of other uncertainties out there causing a lot of devastation to our communities. Labour relations is not. If you treat workers with respect, isn't it true they will not organize?
Mr Hogg: That's correct.
Mr Hope: You're not telling me that all these employers in Ontario are bad employers, but you're projecting that all these jobs are going to be lost.
Mr Hogg: We just listened to Dofasco talk a few minutes ago.
Mr Hope: But Dofasco is not talking about moving its plant. Dofasco was talking about staying here because it's committed to the workers and it's going to treat them with respect. But the projections of the chamber of commerce and the campaigns out there are that people are just going to pick up and leave. You're talking about my wellbeing as a worker in that workplace. I'm not about to drive myself out of a job. I don't think people are like that.
Mrs Cutmore: Mr Hope, I guess I'm confused. Your question seems to relate to the good working relationships of employers and employees. I thought that's why we were talking about proposed changes to the act, because there is the realization that there are not good relations.
Quite frankly, it's our feeling that we haven't had a great deal of reason to think these changes are appropriate, probably for the same reason as you. We have a good quality of life in Oakville. We have an excellent economy because we have growth. When you have growth, you can get injections of revenue coming in, and that's what creates the good, all-round, happy pie.
Mr Hope: But how do you get good growth? Good growth is through the working people of this province, who spend money. If they don't have the ability to spend, your business community suffers. Is that not the truth? We hear about labour laws, we hear about taxation, we hear about everything, but if I have a consumer base out there coming into my store to purchase, laws won't matter as long as I'm treating my workers with respect. If the projections are there, the consumer confidence is there, and I'm going to expand my business. If we project consumer confidence, that will help us create a better business climate in order to create profit.
Mrs Cutmore: This is an area we in Oakville are working very hard on. In fact, you will see, although I did not provide the examples in the presentation made on February 7 that perhaps Sharon Murdock would be aware of, we had a positive campaign going forward where we felt it was important to increase consumer confidence and then start a sort of ripple effect into business.
Some of what you're saying is quite true, Mr Hope, but what we're trying to say to you is that we have to create an environment for business to want to come, because without business there will not be these employees to spend in the community and create that environment you're talking about. I guess we're talking about a partnership. You have to have one and then the other, and certainly you want to work on that, and I think in a positive manner.
Actually, I had just given heck at a meeting on Monday morning that I had requested. The Premier invited me to participate, but I had not heard anything; then when I got back from the 7:30 breakfast meeting, I was told to phone and confirm my 3:30 appointment. There must have been a fly on the wall somewhere.
Mr Offer: It's good to see you again. I want to pick up on that last point about partnership, because if there's one thing that's becoming evident here, it is that Bill 40 and the perception about it, as well as its substance, have created a polarity, a division, between a great many people in this province.
You've spoken about the possibility of having the bill reviewed and things like that. Unfortunately, we're dealing with a time allocation by the government which is limiting these hearings to five weeks. We have limited debate, we have limited clause-by-clause, we have limited third reading debate. This bill is going to be law by October, and there's no question that that in itself is causing a great deal of concern to a variety of people who have come before this committee, not just the business community, but local boards of education, hydro services in municipalities. We've heard today from municipalities themselves, coming forward with concerns about the bill with respect to the issue that further study is required.
The government is going forward with this matter without knowing what the impact of this bill will be, and that is causing a real problem in terms of setting out that climate of investment in a positive way for creation of jobs.
You're the ones who carry on the businesses, you create the jobs in this province, and I'd like to get your thoughts with respect to the necessity for an impact study on this legislation.
Mr Hogg: We'd certainly like to see this thing postponed as much as possible and have the study done on its impact. There certainly seems to be no indication from the government that that's going to happen.
Mrs Cutmore: I said a very short time ago to John here how incredible I find it that both on February 7 when I made the presentation and today, how similar the presentations are, without the ability to work with other groups and ask what they have in their presentations. Quite frankly, as I said, I worked on this just from yesterday to today.
But the similarities, the absolute strong campaign against business -- you didn't get that when you did pay equity; you're not getting it with employment equity; you didn't get it with the workers' compensation changes and you didn't get it with many of the other changes.
Interjection.
Mrs Cutmore: But not with the same strength you're getting it now. Almost all the presentations have almost the same points in them, and we have not sat down together. We've had some guidance from the top, yes, about the main points and the statistics and things like that, because we do not have the time to do what perhaps other people do. They are ironically identical, the concerns we have about the loss of autonomy of business. It is business which provides the jobs, and I guess that is the fundamental point we are trying to raise.
While we are not able to know as much as you about the legislation and the points that are more technical, we get the returned envelopes from our members when they are no longer in business, and we are the recipients of the messages on the end of the phones that say, "I'm sorry, this number has been disconnected." We know there are people laid off. I think Menasco just laid off a significant number for the first time. When big firms like that start laying off, we know there is hurting going around, and the hurting is to the employee who is being let go.
We want as much for the employee as you do, because there is that harmony and satisfaction in the economy in a municipality, but we have to have that working relationship, and you cannot get it by confrontation. It has to come from working together. It's not going to be easy. It's going to be hard.
Look at you here; you're talking back and forth. There's that type of confrontation with unions, labour and business. There is a vested interest in the economy of this province, and as Premier Rae said -- and we agree and said it in our presentation -- we are committed to working towards that better relationship. We are not here to totally annihilate unions or anything like that. I think they have done well in the past. What we're saying is that we need to have the participation of business in these discussions and we need to have its concerns meshed with the different information you have, so that we have a well-rounded piece of legislation that will be following through on that commitment to quality for Ontarians.
1600
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr Carr has sent his regrets. He is unable to be here because of a previous commitment, but I know he is well aware of the concerns the Oakville chamber has because he has certainly shared them with me on numerous occasions.
I sensed a frustration as you were speaking, Ms Cutmore; in fact, almost an anger. I have to tell you, it's a feeling I share with you by the end of each day. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that throughout this entire process we're still dealing with a union-driven agenda. Although we are supposedly going through the process of consultation, I don't see any changes taking place that indicate that the government is listening to all the points of view that are being put forward. That concerns me greatly.
I guess an example of that was shortly after the minister returned from his consultation in January and February. I asked him about the secret ballot vote and he said, "Well, nobody raised that as an issue with me." I was able to quote to him many presentations which did ask for a secret ballot vote. It appears that the government conveniently chooses to ignore the points of concern that many people in this province are putting forward.
So I understand your frustration. I'm concerned that we won't see any substantive changes to Bill 40. But I would ask you, if we are to ensure that there are jobs created for our young people and if we're going to have investment in this province, what must this government do with regard to Bill 40 at the present time?
Mrs Cutmore: I think the best thing is to put a freeze on what we're doing right now and get these parties together and talk. I don't know any type of relationship that is not bettered by discussion.
We talk about a marriage here. If you noticed, I've mentioned the Premier's letter, when we asked him to be present at one of our seminars. You don't legislate marriages; you don't mandate functions in marriages. How long would you last in a marriage if you did that? You have to have discussions and you almost have to have negotiation; you have to have all parties representing their views. I think it's really crucial.
I'm just going to take a liberty with your first comment, and I hope my president here doesn't mind. I am a former politician and I am frustrated; I understand what you're going through. I understand there's this side and that side and "We believe" and "You don't believe," but I also understand that until something is passed and if an open mind is kept, if there are some good changes mentioned and if there are some good things people are telling you, there is room for change.
I believe in the democratic process and I believe everyone should be heard. I'm not just on a soapbox; I believe it so much. I guess that's my greatest frustration, because we hadn't heard: I had sent in a letter immediately, and we had not even had a response to say, "Yes, you could" or "No, you couldn't." Then for someone to say he hopes we would participate -- again the Premier -- how can we, when we don't get an opportunity like this, and only 240 out of 1200? Is this really hearing what has to be said out there?
My frustration is that I think it's important to keep an open mind. Yes, there are some philosophies of governments, but there are more important things: the people who live in this province and the businesses that employ them. I think that has to be very much a priority.
The Chair: The committee says thank you, the Oakville Chamber of Commerce, for your interest in this matter and your readiness and willingness to participate. You've made a valuable contribution. Have a safe trip back home.
LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 183
The Chair: The next participant is the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183. Would you please come forward, have a seat, tell us your names and titles, if any, and proceed with your comments. Please try to save the last half of the half-hour for questions and exchanges. Your written material will be distributed and filed as an exhibit and will form part of the record. Go ahead.
Mr Daniel McCarthy: Hello. My name is Daniel McCarthy; I'm counsel with Local 183. With me are Walter Ruszczak, who is in charge of our industrial wing, and Tony Dionisio, who is the president of our local.
Local 183 of the Labourers' International Union of North America is the largest construction local in North America, with over 14,000 members. In addition to representing construction workers, Local 183 has an industrial wing which represents factory workers, employees of property management firms and cleaners. For example, we represent all cleaners at all three terminals at Lester B. Pearson airport.
Our membership appreciates this opportunity to express its support for Bill 40. Although our support is not unqualified, Local 183 supports the government in its efforts to fashion a cooperative, consultative labour relations atmosphere and to make unions more accessible to a greater number of Ontario workers.
We are also pleased to have this opportunity to address the standing committee, as the introduction of Bill 40 has been surrounded by unnecessary hysteria. Accusations ranging from "This is the wrong time," to arguments that it will decrease Ontario's competitive position in the global economy or that it will be a disincentive for investments are specious arguments.
As I am sure the committee has heard from many presenters, Bill 40 is not innovative; it merely replicates existing laws from other Canadian jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions continue to have economies and continue to attract investment. In fact, union employers in construction bid competitively on projects while paying decent wages and benefits, because both they and the union continue to invest in our membership, becoming increasingly productive. The union makes the workforce more competitive, and the employers recognize this. They sit on the joint board of trustees of our training centre. Anyone familiar with the history of Local 183 knows that the image of a labourer as someone with a pick and shovel is no longer reality.
There are two underlying principles with which the committee should evaluate Bill 40 and submissions made on it. First, our entire socio-politico-economic system is based upon small-l liberal theories of competition, rights, and the balancing of those rights. In Canada we believe in a level playing field, in equality of access and opportunity. We urge the committee to remember that unions, through collective bargaining and political activity, are the primary method for working people to have a more level playing field. Therefore, any legislation which enhances the participation of workers in this recognized and necessary mechanism is important.
Second, it is not enough to give a worker a right without providing the wherewithal to exercise that right. Any of the proposed changes to extend the right to association must be tangible. Certainly the case of domestics jumps to mind. Most domestics are employed in separate workplaces by separate employers, and the hurdle requiring that there be more than one employee at a workplace before employees can organize effectively denies the right being extended. We would urge the committee to keep this paradigm in mind as it examines all aspects of the bill and the submissions made.
We support the extension of the access to collective bargaining for groups now excluded. In particular, we would like to address the agricultural, horticultural and silvicultural workers. We understand that workers in these groups may be addressed more directly by the agriculture ministry.
For this reason, we hope that the committee and Bill 40 will make a clear distinction in the landscaping sector. In the landscaping sector, we are not talking about what may broadly be described as agricultural workers, whether they be in a factorylike setting or not. Landscaping is often part of construction contracts, whether they be in the residential or the industrial, commercial and institutional sector. Workers in landscaping have a range of skills, from demolition of existing site conditions, timber work, landscape masonry and stone cladding works, paving and structural woodwork to sodding, seeding and planting of nursery stocks.
Currently, we have approximately 40 companies under collective agreements with the rights inherent under the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Also, we have subcontracting clauses in the ICI agreements stating that the landscape work must be done union. Clearly, the employees recognize this sector.
1610
As some of this work may potentially be horticultural or agricultural, there is a danger that this would be swept into future changes regarding agriculture and that the rights presently enjoyed by workers in landscaping would be lost. In addition, in a sector such as landscaping where there is a confluence of skills, formal recognition of landscaping as a sector would prevent costly and inefficient jurisdictional disputes. We submit that this recognition of landscaping as one of the construction sectors would remedy this. Local 183 supports the various measures which make access to union representation and collective bargaining more accessible. We support the elimination of the $1 membership fee. It does not represent any financial commitment and has become an item for delay in attempts to frustrate the certification process.
We are disappointed that the support required for certification remains at 55% and not a simple majority. We support the lowering of the percentage needed for a representation vote from 45% to 40%. We have reservations with regard to the proposed amendment regarding petitions. The main effect of this proposal is to prevent the board from considering post-application petitions from employees who claim they do not wish to be represented by a union. It would appear that pre-application petitions would be accepted.
This is certainly going to raise numerous problems, most of which will simply duplicate the problems the elimination of post-application petitions was to remedy. The OLRB will be forced to keep petitions on file where no application for certification is being made. Issues will arise such as when a petition becomes stale, or the element of coercion in signing a petition to obtain a job. As the overwhelming majority of petitions are rejected by the board, we submit that all petitions be eliminated. At the very least, sensible restrictions on pre-certification petitions should be a part of the bill. I say that as a lawyer. It would not take me too long to advise all my clients how to avoid a certification drive by simply having ongoing lists being sent to the labour relations board on a regular basis. Then we have to fight them all over again, instead of after a certification drive, when it happens. Local 183 endorses the just cause protection of employees from unfair labour practices during an organization campaign. There must be expedited hearings for persons dismissed during organizing campaigns. As we suggested in our underlying principles, the right given must be material. The right to organize would be hollow, if a worker faces the spectre of a long period of unemployment and loss of livelihood while pursuing reinstatement for exercising his or her right to association.
The proposed amendment to the act, expanding the jurisdiction of the Ontario Labour Relations Board to hear jurisdictional disputes where the parties in dispute have entered into a collective agreement requiring the reference of any different work assignments to initially select a tribunal, has our support. At present, the resolution of jurisdictional disputes is unnecessarily lengthy and expensive. It would appear that the process of consultation, representation and interim orders is a preferable solution.
The amendments in the contract services sector will assist in rectifying the widespread problems experienced in that sector under the current legislation. It would appear, however, that there are several shortcomings. The distinction being made between a subsequent contractor and a purchaser means that only some of the obligations are imported. In addition, the ultimate remedy under part XIV of the Employment Standards Act may prove unenforceable, particularly as restructuring of companies in the cleaning sector would exempt them from the provisions altogether.
The related-employer issue is a major shortcoming of the bill and, I might add, a disappointment. One method of addressing this shortcoming is to make the discretionary determination under the present legislation mandatory. As you can appreciate, in the construction industry, which is project-oriented, where sites change rapidly and companies can restructure easily, especially when compared to the industrial sector, the determination of related employer must occur expeditiously. At the very least, we submit that the related-employer issue, in addition to being mandatory, should be a matter heard before a sole vice-chair.
In conclusion, Bill 40 represents a progressive change to the Labour Relations Act. The purpose clause makes it clear that in interpreting the act the board will be in a much better position to balance the interests of workers and employers through the agency of the trade union movement. We trust that these changes will extend the right of association to a greater number of workers who will enjoy equality in access and opportunity to which too often we pay lipservice.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Mr Offer, four minutes, please.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to look into two areas. The first was an area we haven't really dealt with in any real depth so far, and that is the agricultural sector. You have brought forward some concerns about that.
I think you will be aware that currently the agricultural and horticultural operations in Bill 40 can be prescribed by regulation. In other words, the minister, outside of the legislative process and outside of committees such as this, can decide, if he wishes, who is to be covered, how they are to be covered, when they are to be covered and where they are to be covered, without affording any consultation through the legislative process. Specifically bearing in mind the concerns which you have brought forward, I'm wondering if you would be supportive of an amendment to the legislation that would say that any change to coverage in these areas cannot be done by regulation but must be done by legislation and therefore be subject to the Legislature, debate, public hearings and the like.
Mr McCarthy: Let me answer that by making two points. In the construction industry, we're accustomed to being dealt with by regulation, whether it's Bill 162 or the new employment equity legislation. Our usual concern with regulations is that the act does not preclude the regulations from becoming effective. As you are aware, the reinstatement provisions of Bill 162 preclude about 65% to 70% of our members due to the drafting of the legislation. It appears this will not be the case in employment equity. So that's my first point. We're accustomed to being dealt with specifically in regulations as an industry because we are so different.
Secondly, with regard to consultation, certainly we're never against being asked if things will work, and certainly one would hope that in the drafting of regulations there would be some kind of consultation with the players, both employers and unions, in the construction field. That being the case, we'd be comfortable.
The real reason we raise the agricultural is that in an area such as landscaping, where you've got really everything from A to Z that goes on, we're quite concerned that if clear lines are not drawn, if we don't approach it consistently, in dealing with agriculture we may be taking away rights that have been granted to organized workers. That's our principal concern, the consistency.
1620
Mr Offer: On page 5 you speak about the problem you are predicting in the area of petitions, and I think you're talking about pre-app petitions. I would suggest that one of the ways your concerns might be alleviated is if there is an amendment to the bill which would provide mandatory notice of an organizing campaign to the employees, to give to the employees notice of their rights; as such, those pre-app petitions could be, of course, centred on one particular organizing campaign. I would like to get your thoughts on whether you feel that all employees in a workplace should be given notice of their rights in a way which is free from coercion and intimidation.
Mr McCarthy: I will defer to people here who have experience in organizing drives.
Mr Walter Ruszczak: I'm not familiar with the pre-application petitions, but the ones after an application is put in definitely cause problems. As to people being aware of an organizing drive, in all those I've been involved in, every employee is aware of the fact that there is a drive going on. There are no hidden agendas, that we approach certain people and we don't approach other people. All people are approached when we're in an organizing drive.
Mr Turnbull: We had a presentation earlier this afternoon, from one of the groups I suppose you would depict as being hysterical, although I haven't detected any of these groups as being hysterical; quite the contrary. It's Project Economic Growth. They seem to put forward some interesting solutions to the problem that exists: that on the one hand, unions are saying they must have these changes to the Labour Relations Act, and on the other side, businesses are saying they can't live with these changes.
Let me just read briefly some of the details. Union organizers would only be required to obtain signed membership cards from a percentage which would be lower than 40% to trigger the certification process. Employees would not be required to pay a $1 fee when signing the card. Union organizers would notify the OLRB and the employer of their intent to organize a given workplace and provide evidence that they signed this percentage, whatever it happens to be, say 25%. The OLRB would then determine if the appropriate bargaining unit had the requisite percentage, and the OLRB would then obtain the names and addresses of the employees from the employer.
Both the union and the business would then be required to put forward, in writing, what they considered to be the salient details of the impact of this. On the one hand, the union would put forward why they think the people should be organized, and they would put forward very concisely all the costs of membership in terms of the annual dues they pay, how the money is disbursed and what the union does with those funds. On the other hand, the employer would be allowed to state what the implications of this would be, but without any suggestion that it was trying to coerce the employee. Then, based upon that, the OLRB would organize a supervised secret ballot within a reasonable period, and certification would be granted upon a straight 50% plus one in favour. Could you respond with your comments on that proposal?
Mr McCarthy: Let me begin with a note of incredulity. What they seem to be suggesting is that a union doesn't hold an organizing drive, but that a union sits down with the company and has a discussion about an organizing drive.
Mr Turnbull: That's not what they said.
Mr McCarthy: And then we campaign to try to get 51%, when in fact, given the master-servant relationship which is always underlying any employment relationship, we're not looking at a level playing field there.
Mr Turnbull: Let me suggest that perhaps the implications -- with the first-contract provisions of this bill, that after 30 days they can force a first contract, and there is no direction for the arbitrator to take into account the financial status of that company -- seem irresponsible to the potential members of your union, who as a result of driving the company under could lose their jobs, and that has happened. With the greatest respect, that has happened.
Mr McCarthy: I resent the insinuation that we would try to bargain a company under. I'm sure it has occurred, and I'm sure it's the exception to the rule.
Mr Turnbull: It certainly has, and it's well documented.
Mr Hope: Prove it.
Mr Turnbull: Algoma, my friend. That wasn't the first contract, but they drove the company under.
Interjection.
Mr Turnbull: Yes. It's great that the taxpayers have to buy it back from them after they've bankrupted the company.
Mr McCarthy: We've just gone through agreements with 11 associations in the midst of what could easily be the worst recession this province has ever seen. We've signed agreements with all three. We are extremely aware that the answer for the industry is on both partners surviving.
Mr Turnbull: You're to be complimented on that. I have no problem with that.
Mr McCarthy: It would seem to me that underlying this whole drive on first contract and this whole idea that the employer should be involved in a union's organizing drive is that unions may be irresponsible. But quite frankly, we have the interests of our members at heart.
Mr Turnbull: But I've heard many times from union presentations here suggestions that employers are often irresponsible. I would suggest there are probably equally as many cases of unions and employers who are irresponsible, but the vast majority of unions and the vast majority of employers are responsible.
Mr McCarthy: It would seem to me that the answer, then, is that your suggestion is not going to cure those who are incurably irresponsible.
Mr Turnbull: No, I agree. But I'm saying there should be a requirement that employees be fully aware through the OLRB -- an independent group without a mandate to advocate on either side -- what the implications of this would be and what the financial status of the company was. Does that sound like a reasonable proposal?
Mr McCarthy: It sounds to me like you've put a group in the centre, being the workers, and you have unions and employers arguing, on whatever ideological or practical basis and the spectrum in between, about who can offer the best service. I think it's best to let the organizing drive be a union organizing drive.
Ms Murdock: I guess sometimes people tend to forget and occasionally have to be reminded that it's workers who form a union and that the union represents those employees with their employer.
On page 3 in your section on extending the right to organize, I have a question in regard to including landscaping as one of the construction sectors, because what I read and what I'm understanding you to say is that all landscapers would automatically be in the construction sector. Do I understand correctly, first of all? Then I'll lead into my next question depending on your answer.
Mr Tony Dionisio: At the present moment, as we were saying, we have over 40 contractors who are bound to a collective agreement via subcontracting clauses that were negotiated both in the ICI sector and in the civil engineering sector.
One of the main reasons it's worked out well, number one, is from an economic point of view. As we made reference to in our brief regarding training, over the last 15 years, Local 183, jointly with management, has gone through a great expense in teaching these landscaping workers how to do in particular timber work, stone setting and the combination of many things that are done by landscaping contractors.
We've reached the point where unless we come up with a clear identity, as time goes by it would definitely create a problem and we will engage in many jurisdiction disputes.
To answer your question, in this line of work, it would make them landscaping contractors. It clearly identifies what a landscaping contractor is; in other words, hard landscaping. We're not talking about agriculture or horticulture or silviculture; we're talking about the everyday hard landscaping on a construction site. I think this is what we're looking for, its own identity. It's there but it's not being recognized and it's long overdue.
1630
Ms Murdock: I'm just going to go back to the pre-application petitions for a moment. This is strictly off the top here. It suddenly struck me as you were making the presentation and then when Mr Offer was asking you questions. As soon as you said that, as a lawyer, you would tell your clients exactly what to do in terms of how to extend it or delay it or make it almost as bad as the post-application petitions presently under the act, I thought, what would your comment be if the right to change one's mind, which we've heard time and again throughout these presentations, had to be on an individual basis, say in written form by the member, if he changed his mind, to send it to the board?
Mr McCarthy: The difficulty, we said, is that what the board is trying to identify in the jurisprudence, among other things, is whether or not there's an element of coercion, whether or not people are being persuaded, or even where there is no coercion, they sensed some. It gets extremely subjective. Whether you have a petition listing names or individual envelopes, once you get into that game of trying to second-guess a person's mind at a particular moment -- not to mention that you're going to get the person who agrees with the last person he spoke to -- it's just a real conundrum. I think where we should be focusing is that the vast majority of petitions are tossed out. There is a decertification process that's already in the act that isn't being touched and is exercised on occasion.
The Chair: I want to say thank you to the Labourers International Union of North America, Local 183. You've made a valuable contribution to this process and we're grateful for your participation. Thank you, people. Take care.
DANIEL DRACHE
The Chair: The next participant is Professor Daniel Drache from York University. Sir, please go ahead.
Mr Daniel Drache: Thank you for inviting me here today. My area of expertise is comparative industrial relations systems and the relationship between industrial relations and industrial policy.
My remarks today address the relationship between the system of industrial relations, the proposed reforms and Ontario's competitive position. I think this should even be of interest to the committee.
Analytically, the relevant question to focus on is whether Ontario's employers, either generally or in specific sectors, are being handicapped by the reforms contained in the proposed legislation. Will the reform package, I suppose, price Ontario manufacturing out of the market? This is the question that a lot of people focus on here. I want to shed some light on it.
The way I would answer the question is to begin with an assessment of the existing system. How well is it? How effective is it?
First, let me give you a few facts or remind you of a few facts. Private sector unionization in Canada has fallen persistently throughout the 1980s. Non-union employment has grown to about 1.6 million, while unionized employment is just over 200,000 in Canada. What's the situation in Ontario? Private sector unionization levels in Ontario have fallen to below the 20% figure from the 27% figure.
If we look at Ontario and compare it with surrounding American states, the figure of 20% is lower than the figure in New York and in Michigan. If we look at the wage situation, Ontario remains -- this might surprise some of you -- a relatively low-wage area in North America. Many sectors are between 10% and 20% lower than their competing American regions.
What I would draw from this is that the existing system is seriously weakened. If we take into consideration and look over the last decade at the number of new applications that are made to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the number of applications is not very great and the number of new entrants into the system is very low, roughly somewhere between its variable in the period, in the area of 2,000 new entrants into the system.
What I would conclude from this is that the system is in danger of not reproducing itself and it's in serious trouble. From my own perspective as a person who studies a lot about industrial relations and its effect on competitiveness, I would say that, if anything, the system in Ontario is investment-neutral if not investment-positive. After all, unionization levels are falling; therefore you cannot say that the industrial relations system is a disincentive to investment. I don't think that makes much sense, based on the record.
The decline of Ontario's industrial relations system can be traced to a number of factors. First, it is a factory-by-factory system and is as close to a market model of industrial relations as possible. The consequence of this is that it fragments labour. Every group of workers negotiates at the factory gate with its employer. This is a very simple, competitive model of industrial relations. It prevents workers or employers from negotiating across sectors or nationally, regionally or provincially, with some exceptions in the auto industry and in the construction industry, but these are special cases.
Second, it's an opt-in system; that is, it is not an all-in system where all employers are required to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. It's a very backward or simple system compared to the systems in Europe. This is particularly problematic because the system was designed for large-scale plants in the smokestack industries and ill serves the service industry or the service sector, which are basically small enterprises.
Third, the decline or the difficulty in the industrial relations system, and the problems that Ontario-based employers are having, do not in large measure relate to the industrial relations system. This is scapegoating of the worst sort.
To give you a frank assessment, the real problems really stem from the free trade agreement, which has precipitated a wave of shutdowns. If you trade more, you have more problems of adjustment. There are very few programs in place; therefore, there are a lot of problems. Ontario business has been deeply hurt, really, by high interest rates. It's impossible to believe that a system of industrial relations, which is not very strong, that the declining levels of unionization can drive Ontario business over the brink. I think this just defies common sense and proper logic.
The decline in Ontario's industries and in its competitiveness is much broader. I think part of the problem is the business culture. I think it is handicapped by the fact that it is a fragmented business community which does not address common problems, and this is encouraged by the industrial relations system in a number of respects. For instance, training remains a voluntary decision at the firm level. There is little incentive for all firms to invest in training, therefore this discourages skilled training and investment in the workforce.
Therefore, the consequence of this kind of voluntaristic, individualistic system of industrial relations is that it encourages business not to treat workers, its employees, as assets. Basically, business looks to government to pay for training rather than in large measure to invest in its workforce. This too has handicapped business in the present crisis.
1640
Secondly, the voluntary system has other problems for the business community. Canadian business largely does not invest in research and development. It is at very low levels compared to European countries or Japan and as a result Ontario business and Canadian business, in the global sense of the term, is not a very innovative community. It looks to short-term solutions, driving down wages, squeezing labour at the bargaining table, relying on a large, non-unionized sector to pull down wage rates and to lower working conditions.
I think we should contrast this for a moment with the case in Germany, Sweden, Japan, Belgium and Holland. These countries are basically high-wage and high-skill economies and this is the paradox. Why is it that they are competitive and successful internationally, with a high-wage, high-skill economy? Why is it that with higher taxes and a much more generous social wage, they have a better record at restructuring, competing and innovating than Ontario-based? Is it because they're organized in a collective way, business and labour, highly centralized, while in Ontario we're at the extreme end of the spectrum, a highly decentralized, voluntaristic system?
Present-day scholars no longer buy the argument that I've heard here today that a low-wage, deregulated labour market produces innovative firms and a high-wage, high-skill economy. If the committee is interested in saying, "What is the relationship between competitiveness and the industrial relations system?" the argument would be that countries that take seriously the competitive argument have to shape the market.
In the case of Japan, Germany, Belgium and Holland, and Sweden which has an economy very similar to our own, industrial relations is a key element in shaping the market. Why is this? Because they create a much tougher standard on business. Business is required by law in Germany, Japan, Sweden and Holland to invest in skills. They are required to deal with a unionized workforce. They have an all-in system, not an opt-in system. It's a strange form of industrial citizenship.
I would argue, therefore, that the bill before the committee is at best a modest step. Probably it is too modest if you take a kind of comparative international approach. For instance, let me say three areas where the bill is deficient.
It does not, for instance, address adequately the feminization of work -- the existing system of industrial relations was designed for the male worker -- which is then frequently in small enterprises in the service sector, which is largely unorganized and faces massive difficulties. In my judgement, it's very unlikely that the opt-in system will extend to women a modern concept of industrial citizenship; that is, the right to bargain collectively for work conditions and salary. Therefore, that is a problem, a limitation, and I don't think the bill particularly makes a large step forward by tackling this big question.
Secondly, I don't think the bill demands enough of business. It does not require firms to go beyond the existing system of industrial relations, for instance. I don't think it does enough to discourage redneck employers. I think the positive side of the bill really is the anti-scab, which is a small step. It is not actually at the present time all that significant, with very high levels of unemployment. If you look at the incidence of strikes in Ontario, they have fallen dramatically, with some exceptions, but I think it's an important part of a modern concept of industrial citizenship that workers be protected in this way none the less.
Thirdly, I think that if one of the intents of the bill is to create a new labour-management-government environment, the reforms do not go far enough in this respect. To achieve this end, the government really has to look very seriously at creating other forms to broaden the areas where business, labour and management can cooperate and address the serious economic and social problems that the province faces.
I think in this respect the question of an industrial strategy is an important component of reform to the existing labour code. Having said this, the current legislation then could be strengthened, I suppose. But I don't think this is on the agenda. The government is certainly under considerable pressure even for its modest efforts. But I think it would be proper that the committee take note that more is needed if Ontario is to rebuild its shattered industries.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr Turnbull, five minutes, please.
Mr Turnbull: Frankly, we're not going to give a further platform to such obvious socialist rhetoric, so we pass.
The Chair: Okay. Mr Huget.
Mr Huget: Thank you for your presentation. It's certainly becoming clearer to me that the opposition to these what I consider to be modest reforms, in my opinion, is as much opposition to change itself in terms of the industrial status quo in the country as it is to labour relations.
I have a hunch that industry in this country has evolved as being a resource-based industry and is now faced with some shifts, in terms of the industrial capacity of this country, to a more service-oriented economy. I get the sense that there's opposition to that. I also get the sense that those who want to preserve the status quo are preserving a bit of an illusion in terms of our competitive capacities and what we're able to achieve in this country under the current system. There's certainly nothing to say that we're number one; I mean, we can certainly make some improvements.
You allude to the fact it doesn't go far enough in terms of setting a new direction. I believe that government has a role in setting direction, in putting in place policies that encourage innovation rather than just enabling us to stay the same. I think in a lot of cases, and being totally non-partisan, what's happened in the past in this country is that we have indeed dealt with issues and allowed them to stay the same at the end of the day.
I think there has to be a change in direction here. You mention in your presentation that there are things we should be considering and steps we can take a little bit farther in terms of trying to make the kind of change that I think you're alluding to. I wonder if you could expand on that.
Mr Drache: The design of the original industrial relations system in Ontario grew out of the postwar compromise. It was a system essentially designed for the smokestack industries -- large-scale production. It was, after all, an important step forward, and what it offered Ontario were two things.
First, it offered an environment to promote labour stability through collective bargaining. The collective bargaining system was very important, as it turned out, because it provided a way to have a flow-on effect in terms of wages so that wages rose with productivity. It was of tremendous value to Ontario enterprises and to the business class in Ontario to have increased productivity and a transformation of consumption norms, and so this link was seen as an essentially positive one.
In the 1980s, of course, about 25 or 30 years after this system, the system experienced enormous shots, both internal and external. The external shot was, of course, increased economic integration from the south and a belief that we should open our borders to a basically American trade regardless of the costs and consequences. This in itself is possible if the government or any government puts in place programs that can manage the adjustment process, but this is not the case in Ontario.
Second, Ontario manufacturers are tremendously disadvantaged on the interest rate side. If you look at a modern business approach to what creates a strong economy, if you have record high interest rates, small firms are going to go under. It's not wages. It's very hard to demonstrate the link between wages and business failure in this province. It seems to me that the relationship is backwards.
1650
The third element which is new, of course, is the massive entry of women into the workforce and the fact that enterprises have gotten smaller. So how is this system of industrial relations, which was born in another era, going to relate to the new conditions that face Ontario?
It seems that if you look at some of what other countries do, if you don't look towards Alabama and Texas as your model, you can see that industrial relations systems not only provide a way for people to transform consumption norms, guaranteeing people an upward pressure on wages, which is inherently positive, but they also should provide a forum for employees, for unions and their employers to address a range of problems. The difficulty with the Ontario system is, it's too narrowly focused on bargaining about wages and not enough about other things.
It's quite significant, in listening to some of the presentations even briefly here today, that the idea of an opt-in system -- I mean, we don't ask employers to opt into unemployment insurance. We don't ask on a variety of things to have opt-in, and it seems to me this is a kind of bureaucratic system which engenders fights, engenders a whole culture of legalism, and it defeats the purpose of what modern industrial citizenship should be.
So my argument would be that a system that encourages industry-wide norms strengthens both the economic performance, because it means you have an economy which does not subsidize weak firms, and on the other hand you find other means to encourage small, innovative firms to stay in business, but they have to pay the going wage and they should not be subsidized on a low-wage basis.
This bill is a modest step forward, in my opinion, but it will not have the desired effect -- to create a new environment in the province at this time -- because in many respects it doesn't go to the root of the problem, which is the design of the system, this opt-in, factory-by-factory system.
The Chair: Mr Hope, did you have a brief comment?
Mr Hope: Brief comment. Now I've got to change the strategy.
On Project Economic Growth, today they said to permit replacement workers to go in for up to 60 days and, after 60 days, no longer have any replacement workers. I'm just impressed with what you said. Unfortunately, Mr Turnbull doesn't stick around to ask the questions because you're not the right viewpoint, which is probably one of the problems we have with management-labour relations. But what would you see as allowing workers to be replaced for 60 days while they're on strike collecting maybe $50, $100 a week in strike pay and supporting a family?
Mr Drache: Where you have a strike which is a conflict between management and labour, the aim always in a strike is to test both sides, their respective positions. But it seems to me that the aim of an industrial relations system is to resolve conflict. Therefore, by allowing a firm to import replacement workers, it tends to prolong and aggravate disputes. So I take the position that this should not be permitted. It does not facilitate the resolution of disputes.
If you look at practices in other countries, the idea of strikebreakers is not part of the industrial relations package in most European countries. If there's a strike, there's a strike; there's a shutdown. Labour suffers in terms of loss of income, business suffers, and the idea is that both parties, because they have an interdependent relationship, eventually have to come back to the table.
So the aim of an industrial relations system should be to permit both strikes and lockouts, but on the other hand you want to have a number of institutional means to contain them so that the strikes are short and the parties resume negotiations. I cannot see how strikebreaking helps create a better relationship between business and labour and employees in this province, so I would say that business should not be permitted.
The Chair: Mr Offer.
Mr Offer: No, that's okay. Mr Phillips has a question.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the presentation. I've got a couple of questions. I may not get to both of them. One is on your model of the workplace. A lot of the future workplaces I read about are kind of seamless workplaces where you walk in and you could never tell who the "employees" are and the "owners" are, where it's irrelevant that you have workers, and therefore a model where you have an artificial division between two groups of people is seen as something that's not consistent with the way a future system's going to work. Therefore a situation where you have a union is in those organizations irrelevant because there's no "need" for them. But the model you've talked about is one model. Why would you not at least open your mind up to the possibility that there are several different organizations that might function in a successful company?
Mr Drache: Recently, I visited the CAMI plant in the province, as well as the Honda plant. These are two of the most modern firms in Ontario, with roughly, I suppose, close to $2 billion in investment. One is organized and one is not. So in that I agree with you that you can have different models of the workplace.
Mr Phillips: Equally effective?
Mr Drache: Well, two things are happening, if I can broaden it. First of all, the CAMI model I visited in the Ingersoll plant is remarkable, because it is the kind of conventional wisdom that management will change its attitude to the workforce without unions. Just for the record, I think the research in the United States is that American companies tend to invest a lot, billions, in equipment in sophisticated sectors, but the current findings at least are that they do not invest in the workforce.
I'm saying that the role of the union is in empowering, because where you have a partnership, what the union is, among other things, is a counterweight to business's enormous power. Certainly in Ontario, unless Ontario-based business adopts the Honda model of lifetime employment and makes very significant changes in its own practices, it's very hard to see how much Ontario business would be in a position to adopt what we call the lean production Japanese model.
Mr Phillips: Is IBM wrong then?
Mr Drache: Remember the history of IBM. IBM adopted what I would call a kind of corporatist approach to its labour force. It was a capital-intensive industry, and it decided to adopt basically many of the union practices, including a grievance system, not as good I think as in a unionized factory, but they modelled themselves as a union shop without the union, and paying above-average wages.
The reason for this was the nature of their product. I visited the Don Mills plant, for instance, and you can see when you go there, because of what they're producing -- you know, banknote machines that sell for $850,000 or $1.5 million -- that they need a high-skilled workforce that doesn't need to be supervised. So it's part of the product that created the IBM model.
On the other hand, it said it would never lay off workers. It's now downsizing its workforce by 30,000. So there are problems there.
The argument for unionization is that it's the most effective instrument we have as a way for management and employees to bargain and to forge a relationship. It is a modern relationship, after all. It is a way to correct the imbalance business yields, and it's an educational instrument as well; in other words, on the question of technology, on the question of workplace practices, on the question of health and safety. It is very difficult to see how the workplace can be organized without a union presence, because the unions represent for the workforce a modern concept of industrial citizenship. If you took that away, we're saying "What do we get?" if we imagine a world without unions. My answer to you would be that the industrial relations system is the absolute key to your industrial performance.
1700
Mr Phillips: That's all I need to know. Thank you.
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: I just think you have the blinders on, that's all. I hope in the academic community you would look at other models, that's all. You undermine your credibility with me when you say that's the only model. That's all I'm saying.
I accept that in a unionized environment you can have a terrific environment, but to think that's the only one -- I'm repeating myself -- you've undermined your credibility with me. That's fine, because I understand where you're coming from. But I think as an academic you would have acknowledged that there are other models that are working exceptionally well in Canada and around the world. Because you've said that's the only model, then I have some difficulty with your presentation.
Mr Drache: Well, I just want to be clear. If we look at the Japanese case and the German case, and you say these are the countries which have the best productivity performance in metal engineering, which is the automotive core of the German economy, this is all, 100%, unionized. If you say Japan and you look at Toyota, Toyota has its own model of unionization. If you look at Honda, it has its own model of unionization.
While I certainly acknowledge you can have a range of industrial relationships, I think it is instructive that the countries which have done best over the last period are the countries which have very high levels of unionization.
Mr Phillips: But I look at the companies.
Mr Drache: Well, we can look at the companies.
Mr Phillips: Why don't you?
Mr Drache: Well, Honda, for instance. We look at a range of companies. But I think to believe that individualizing, by having a kind of voluntary industrial relations system in which priority is put on workers bargaining individually with their individual employer, is somehow going to be a step forward, a way forward for Ontario business to get itself back on track, I'd say we might have an honest difference here.
Mr Phillips: We do.
Mr Drache: I think this is very unlikely.
Mr Phillips: I think the government members would agree with you, and I don't. That's all.
Mr Drache: Well, I'm here as a witness.
Mr Phillips: I appreciate that.
Mr Drache: My area of expertise is in this area. It seems to me this is an important committee. There's been very little reform of the industrial relations bill in the province. There have been some smaller changes over the past 30 years, but this is an occasion to look at it with lucidity and to try to look at it in a comparative context.
It would seem to me that lower levels of unionization and the weakening of trade unions has not helped Ontario business get itself on track and it has not led to more investment in research and development. It has not led to a better health and safety record. It has not led to the diminishing of wage inequality between men and women. It seems to me the record speaks for itself on this point.
Mr Phillips: When you talk about a worse health and safety record, that is simply not factual.
Mr Hope: Look at the workers' compensation claims, Gerry. Come on.
Mr Phillips: It's not factual. You will see the claims dropping. So your credibility with me is --
Mr Wood: September 6, 1990, Gerry, that's what you're upset about.
Mr Drache: I don't think this should only be a partisan matter to score a few points. There's hardly anyone here; there's no one from the press. It seems to me there is a reality in this province, that Ontario is facing a deindustrialization of its industrial core, and the question is how to rebuild the core of Ontario's industry and, secondly, to look at the kind of relations between labour and business.
If it is to be an environment that is based upon a race to the bottom, bidding down the price of labour, I put it to you that business will have no incentive to invest and it will continue to operate at the margins. I find that industrial relations systems do make a difference, and if you want different outcomes, you need institutions which are going to create different kinds of outcomes. So for me, it's not an ideological question; it's a question both of getting the facts straight and, secondly, in a larger global perspective, you have to say, "Do you want to go in the direction of the countries which have a high-skill, high-wage economy, or do you want to go in the direction of a low-skill, low-wage economy?" I think this is a fundamental decision for this province.
The Chair: I want to thank you, Professor Drache, and indicate that it was because Mr Turnbull waived his time that Mr Phillips had an opportunity to ask more questions than he would have normally. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you very much for your participation in this process. We appreciate your interest and your eagerness to assist. Thank you, sir. Take care.
Mr Drache: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Offer has a motion on the floor. He moved yesterday that this committee request the House leaders to amend the motion moved by Mr Cooke on July 14, detailing the dates and times of sittings for the purpose of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 40. Is there any further discussion of that motion?
Ms Murdock: Yes, Mr Chair. We support Mr Offer's motion.
The Chair: Thank you. Is there any further discussion? All those in favour, please indicate. Raise your hands. Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Is there any other business? We're recessed until 6:30.
The committee recessed at 1707.
EVENING SITTING
The committee resumed at 1830.
LABATT'S ONTARIO BREWERIES
The Chair: The first participant is Labatt's Ontario Breweries. Please have a seat, tell us your name, your title, if you wish to, and proceed with your comments. Please try to save the second half of the half-hour for questions and exchanges.
Mr Peter Edwards: My name is Peter Edwards and I'm with Labatt's Ontario Breweries; specifically, I'm with Metro operations. I would like to thank everyone for having us here today. I know it's late in the evening and you've had many presentations. I assure you that I've come here tonight not really to give you a lecture; you've probably heard so many lectures over the course of these hearings you don't have to hear another one on what is good or bad in this act.
Instead, I've come to have more of a conversation on different elements of the act. There's not going to be a specific question period, so you can start right now if you want to ask me questions. Everything I am going to be saying will deal with individual elements of some of the difficulties that we see with the act and the proposed amendments.
There are some good things coming out of the changes; it's not all negative. In my first presentation to Mr Mackenzie a number of months ago, we mentioned a whole series of those. However, there are some things that could cause the manufacturing sector in Ontario some significant difficulty. I think a number of these changes have been crafted with the retail sector in mind and not necessarily the manufacturing sector.
I'd like to speak initially on the consolidation of bargaining units proposal. The current proposal seems to derive a lot of its history from work that has been done in other areas and in different countries, and also amendments to the Labour Relations Act under the construction industry sector where we brought a lot of disparate units together and organized and synchronized their bargaining, thereby reducing the number of strikes and lockouts and industrial disruptions. We brought a lot of harmony to the Ontario workplace, but it also had a price. We've also seen examples in Ontario where a single plant may have five different unions representing the various crafts and trades and production operations.
It seems to make sense if you look at that and say it would be good to stop all those various strikes, lockouts and sets of negotiations; you would spend more time focusing on improving the workplace relationship. However, if you adopt the proposal as it's laid out, you're going to increase the potential of industrial conflict in Ontario, particularly proactive walkouts, and additionally you're going to reduce the level of investment in Ontario. I'll explain that a little further.
In the construction industry you have a whole series of very small employers that negotiate contracts with the various unions. If they go on strike, nobody can buy those services; they're just gone. However, if you're in the industrial sector, as is Labatt's, and we went on strike, because both our Toronto and our London operations were under the same union and we were totally shut down, then the United States breweries and Molson would pick up our slack. When we came back, we would have a fraction of the market we had before. That would probably cripple us over the long run. From an economic standpoint, it would mean to us if we were going to invest we wouldn't want to have more than one operation in a province like Ontario because we'd be putting all our eggs in one basket; we'd be dropping our production.
Similarly, it doesn't really deal with the workers' issues either, because if you look at the demographics of the two plants, Labatt's Metro has an extraordinarily young workforce; the average age is under 40. If you look at the London operation, which has been there since the inception of Labatt's, the concerns are with pension entitlements and packages around that, whereas the Toronto employees are looking strictly for wages.
In those cases, to bring those together under one unit in negotiations you're having two disparate groups' interests forced into one element. They're not reconcilable. We have enough difficulties getting through negotiations now without forcing these two units to agree on one identical contract. The contracts are separate and they deal with the specifics of the location.
Specifically, in London we do all our computer-aided manufacturing production for Ontario and in Metropolitan Toronto we do all our draft production for Ontario. There are whole segments of the collective agreements and the local agreements that deal with the specifics of those operations. I know that the amendment says, "Well, if they're not fundamentally different," but that's a hard decision to make, because fundamentally those operations are the same: They produce beer and they put beer in the appropriate package, but they are clearly different operations.
Similarly, if you look at the paper industry, there are companies like Abitibi-Price that have numerous manufacturing facilities in Toronto with the same union, producing entirely different products or even sometimes similar related products. But if you shut one down, you shouldn't have to link it to the other and therefore shut down the other. You're creating a situation where the demands of both will feed off each other and eventually close down your operations in the process.
I think we're not getting at the heart of the matter with the consolidation of bargaining units either. One of the problems in the past and that continues is that you have multiple unions at a single location. For example, at Labatt's in Metro we have two unions. We have the International Union of Operating Engineers with 13 members and we have the Brewery, Malt and Soft Drink Workers with approximately 480 members.
During the last round of negotiations we concluded an agreement with the Brewery, Malt and Soft Drink Workers, but when it came to concluding one with the International Union of Operating Engineers we couldn't come to an agreement. It came to a point in time where they were going to shut down our operation for the sake of 13 members, of whom actually only three were working at any given time.
It doesn't really seem to make sense that you can have these two disparate elements. If you are going to have consolidation, consolidation makes sense at a local site. In a broader sense, it doesn't make sense to have it across the province.
Sectoral bargaining, which this is really a subset of, won't work in a manufacturing environment because of the substitutability of the product. It'll move in from the outside. If we end up closing down our whole operation, someone else will take it from us, and that someone comes from the United States. That's our major threat, as everyone knows, that we're concentrating on now.
This leads me into another aspect of it, which deals with the operation of facilities during a strike or lockout. If the status quo were to remain in the consolidation of bargaining units and in a year and a half, when our contracts expired again, we were to have the Operating Engineers and the Brewery, Malt and Soft Drink Workers, if for some reason we had difficulties with our operating engineers again, it had been our intention, under this collective agreement, to attempt to operate our plant with the two people in the plant who are certified operating engineers and management and bring in a third person from London who works there in our engineering department. This would allow us to keep our over 480 employees producing beer at our Metro plant while we sorted out our difficulties with our operating engineers.
However, under the new arrangements that wouldn't be so. We'd have to shut our operation down and the tail would be wagging the dog. That's one of the difficulties if you don't address the larger issues, such as fragmented bargaining units, and if you put in a plan something like no use of outside management workers in a location during a strike.
Another issue that has been dear to our hearts recently is the negotiation of closure packages in those discussions. During the term of a collective agreement, during the last round of bargaining, we had extensive discussions regarding our closure packages. Since then, we've provided a package that provided $1 million in additional benefits in our Waterloo closure, and we still had measurable difficulties in those areas, as you may be aware.
I'm not really sure what the benefit would be of institutionalizing further conflict. Good parties will meet and discuss and come to a conclusion and a settlement, which is what we've tried to do. If there's no binding power and if there's no incentive to come to an agreement, then why have that in the legislation? It just seems to be spurious or something that, by its ambiguity, will cause us grief in the future.
Some of the other problems we have are with the rules around third-party picketing. In some operations it seems to make sense; but with respect to our Brewers Retail, which Labatt's is part owner of, we're concerned that the presence of third-party pickets may disrupt the operation of malls, mall sites and retail store operations. That's something that is causing us some concern.
1840
It's difficult enough to get people to purchase your product any more without adding that element of third-party picket. In fact the pickets can have such a negative effect that we recently lost a day's production over a picket that didn't relate to our facility, and we'd like to see that limited in the future. Pickets do have a place in and associated with the main company and in the main location that's being struck. Spreading out across the country or across industrial locations only further antagonizes both sides and, I think, entrenches and makes a mature relationship impossible.
Those are the key elements we're dealing with today. The only additional one we had that isn't directly relevant to Labatt's, because we're virtually completely unionized, is what we call the issue of workplace democracy and that comes in two areas.
One is the use of a final vote before a strike, which we think is necessary, that all employees must be given an opportunity to vote on the final package. We'd like to see that they could vote on subsequent packages, although we can understand the reticence if they didn't, but all employees must be given that opportunity.
Similarly, with the proposed amendments to the certification, we feel that all employees must be given a secret vote if they're to join a union in all cases. We're eliminating a lot of the steps, or it is proposed that we eliminate a lot of the steps in the certification process, and if that goes through you still have to give the voice of the people its opportunity. It was known in Plato's time and it's known now that if you ignore that voice, you do so at your own peril, and I think we've got to embed and institutionalize that element of democracy into the Labour Relations Act when we put those new regulations in place.
That's really what we have for you tonight. It's not a lot. We had a very few small concerns. We are pleased to see some of the changes from the original proposals to the current proposals. We think there's a way to go yet but, like I said, you've heard it from everyone. You probably didn't need much more from us. I thank you for your time, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to entertain them on how these will affect the brewing industry.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Murdock, please.
Ms Murdock: All right. On the scenario that you gave in regard to the operating engineers where you would use two operating engineers, managerial staff and one outside manager brought in from London --
Mr Edwards: If we had to. We'd have to consider that as an option. The operating engineers basically provide the steam to the plant to run the various elements of it. They run the boiler system and you traditionally use a very small number. Depending on your arrangement, you can use as few as three or four operating engineers.
Ms Murdock: That's for safety reasons --
Mr Edwards: For safety reasons is exactly right.
Ms Murdock: I understand that, but these two operating engineers are not part of the bargaining unit and are managerial staff.
Mr Edwards: Yes. They're certified operating engineers who, through time, moved into management positions.
Ms Murdock: Okay, because under the amendments the use of managerial or supervisory staff is still allowed.
Mr Edwards: Not from other locations, from what I'm given to understand.
Ms Murdock: Not from other locations, that's correct. You wouldn't be able to use the London one.
Mr Edwards: But without the London one we wouldn't have enough people to do it by law. There's a legal number of people you have to have in a steam plant.
Ms Murdock: I see.
Mr Edwards: Those are the criteria we're trying to meet. Additionally, that would really only help us in a very short period because we can't run these people 24 hours a day and if we weren't able to use our --
Ms Murdock: It's a good idea not to, yes.
Mr Edwards: Yes. If we weren't able to use our managerial staff, we'd be in a position very quickly to shut down and then we'd have a large number of disgruntled brewery workers on our doorstep.
The Chair: Are you going to leave time for Mr Hope?
Ms Murdock: Sure.
Mr Hope: One of the areas you touched on dealt with the employment standards, which is not one that's being talked about too much, but I'm glad you brought it up because I'm trying to get a perspective of what you were saying. You said you've worked out in Waterloo a closure or a massive layoff -- I'm not sure. Was it a plant closure that was there?
Mr Edwards: It was a plant closure.
Mr Hope: An agreement that made sure workers received their wages and stuff. I have a case in my own riding in Dresden where a plant just locked its doors and left. Workers in Dresden are owed $16,000 and there is nothing there for them. Are you saying the legislation doesn't have enough teeth in it?
Mr Edwards: What I'm saying is that what you're proposing there now, I think, will only institutionalize conflict. It's not really addressing the issue of want. I understand and sympathize with the people who lost their jobs in Dresden and I know that in the last session of the Legislature numerous attempts were made to remedy either the Bankruptcy Act or the directors' liability act to get those lost wages back. What we're doing here on the closure package would not prevent somebody from walking away from an operation. Discussion and consultation are excellent tools for mature parties.
Mr Hope: He had a key role about mature parties. That's what I'm trying to get at with those workers. It sounds like your corporation has done its most corporate citizen justice to the workers, but what about those corporate citizens who do not serve justice to the community they've been in? Because not only do you victimize the families but you also victimize the community. I used those examples in Dresden because I know workers who have read the employment standards part of this legislation are saying it's not tough enough and it has to go further to protect other people who may be victims of plant closures.
Mr Edwards: Like I said, there's an old saying that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and I think that's the problem here. We've got a tool and we're trying to use the tool we have in our hand at this current time to solve a problem that can't be solved with the tool we have.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. During the presentation, you mentioned offhand that you had lost a day's operation due to a picketing that took place which didn't affect you. I'm wondering if you could expand on that, because there is a provision in this bill where that may become more common than is now the case, and I'd like to hear about your experiences.
Mr Edwards: It was slightly over two weeks ago. I'll relay the details of the event. We'd just celebrated reaching a newer percentage in the draft market than we'd previously achieved before. I was getting up to come in. We were having a barbecue for the people coming off shift. I received a call that there were pickets outside of our operation. These pickets were some employees from Waterloo, junior employees who weren't going to get positions. They would have their severance packages and of course be entitled to part of the $1-million relocation package, but there were no new positions for them and they felt something else should be done.
Our workers crossed the line, but in sympathy refused to work. Consequently, we were left with a plant that was running at 1,500 bottles a minute and nobody standing at those machines. It was quite a hairy time. We eventually brought the plant down, and before we could speak to the Waterloo pickets and point out what they were doing to us, we lost production.
Eventually you're put in a position where you wonder about the viability of a plant if you can't count on it for that production. Certain of our products are time-critical and can't be left in a phase. For example, our Genuine Draft is very time-critical. It has to move from one phase to another with lightning-like precision; if it doesn't, you lose a large batch of product and potentially short the market.
These are things we're worried about, that pickets picketing us could cause the sort of disruptions we characterized with BC a decade ago, when their places were up and down like -- in fact, we had a brewery shut down in BC because we were picketed by BC Tel, because we had telephones. We're trying to limit the strikes to those areas which make sense, and if you're going to have an information picket or a strike picket, then have it at the location of the corporation or specifically the operation that is being struck. To fan it out across the organization just seems to have a negative and destructive effect.
1850
Mr Phillips: Thank you for your presentation. I actually used to work in the London plant at Labatt's.
Mr Edwards: You know of it then.
Mr Phillips: Yes, I was on strike in I guess the late 1950s, is my recollection.
You have breweries in each province, and therefore I would think you're fairly familiar with the legislation across Canada in the various jurisdictions. We've been told this is just bringing this in line with what exists in other jurisdictions, so what are we worried about? Do you have a view on where it will leave the Ontario industrial relations package vis-à-vis other provinces when this package goes forward?
Mr Edwards: I'll give you a little bit more on my background. I did a master's in industrial relations at Queen's and then I worked with Abitibi-Price, the paper organization, in all the various provinces doing labour relations, and I'm familiar with all the acts.
Yes, some of the things that are proposed have been tried in other places. Specifically, the strike prohibition has been used in Quebec. The studies can go either way on that. In the Quebec environment, what I found through my working there is that the reason the anti-scab prohibition works is because of the environment and the people. I don't think it relates directly to the legislation itself. It depends on attitude.
If you look just south of the border and you go to Wisconsin, there is the very well-known case of Kohler where, when faced with similar prohibitions from the National Labour Relations Board, just unbolted the equipment and moved across the state line, even though it was facing regulations that would prevent it from doing what it was doing. It found a way around them. Like I said, it relies on mature parties.
I was looking at the statistics of the labour relations board itself the other day. Less than 6% of negotiations end in industrial dispute, a very small number. If you look at that number again, I think you would have an even smaller number where they actually run through. What I'm worried about is in those few instances where it's going to be critical for an employer to run.
Personally, from Labatt's standpoint, we can't see it happening now; it's not in our makeup. It was the same when we were in the paper industry; it wasn't in our makeup. It was the same with the cement industry when I was associated with that. It wasn't in our makeup to run through strikes, because we had too much invested in equipment and relationships. But if I were a small manufacturer and it was, "Get it out the door or lose the major Ford contract," I'd have to get it out the door for myself and for my employees in the future.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'm quite familiar with the Waterloo situation, as I represent Waterloo North. I certainly know the difficulties that have been experienced there.
You refer to the fact, in number 2, that you feel all employees should be free to determine whether they wish to be governed by the act.
Mr Hope: That's not his presentation.
Mrs Witmer: Oh, I'm very sorry. I thought this --
The Chair: Mrs Witmer, never apologize; never explain. Just go ahead. None of us noticed a thing.
Mr Edwards: I was wondering. I didn't remember numbering the points but I thought, "My God, I sounded rather clever on that one."
Mrs Witmer: We've had so many presentations today where we do have a written presentation but the verbal presentation doesn't seem to coincide.
Anyway, my question to you: Are you in favour of a secret ballot vote for employees?
Mr Edwards: Yes. I think it's just an element of democracy. I understand the various things that have happened in the past. There's been intimidation on both sides, but I think once you sign a card you're committed to a course of action. I was thinking about this on the way down, the whole concept of secret ballot and signing cards. A card could indicate action. If you say that once you've signed a card you don't need to vote any more, then you would say that within the United States you probably don't need an election, because most of the people who carry cards are card-carrying Republicans, so therefore you no longer need elections because, as long as the number of cards are signed, you've predetermined the result. I think it's got to be you and your pen and your conscience marking a ballot, and that's how you would make your decision, as we do every time during elections.
Mrs Witmer: I'll go back to my original question. We had a presentation today by Project Economic Growth, and they put forward a process for the secret ballot vote. Do you have any suggestions for what type of process might be used to ensure that all employees are fully informed and do have that opportunity to freely express themselves?
Mr Edwards: I'm familiar with Project Economic Growth's platform and its approach, to the extent that we've been somewhat associated with some of its views. There are a number of ways you can develop to find it. PEG's is one alternative and there are some good points to it, and obviously people have found some negative points to it. As long as both parties are able to express their views in a non-intimidating fashion and an individual is given an opportunity to express himself or herself in a secret vote, I think you're going to get industrial democracy.
We've come a long way. There are still the bad employers and there are still the bad practices but, like I said, it has to come down to the board's power to come in and set up a vote, and I think it's fairly easily done.
Mrs Witmer: You know we're into the fifth and final week of hearings and after this we're going into clause-by-clause discussion on Bill 40. What recommendations, briefly, do you have for the committee? What should we be doing when we finish on Thursday?
Mr Edwards: Talk about a loaded question. I think the committee's been extraordinarily patient in going through the large number of presentations on all parts of the industrial relations community. Go back, distil, don't worry about ideology on either part. Do what makes sense for a democratic workplace and what makes sense for an efficient and productive Ontario. I think if you use those guidelines, as broad and vague as they are -- it's like a motherhood statement -- it'll be fine.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming here.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. On behalf of the committee, I want to say thank you to Labatt's Ontario Breweries and to you for speaking on their behalf on this issue. You've made a valuable contribution to the process. We're grateful to you, sir.
Mr Edwards: Thank you.
The Chair: While we're waiting for the next participant to come forward, I want to ask the committee to note that we've received a written submission dated August 27, 1992, from Peter Kirkby. Mr Kirkby had sought standing in front of the committee but was among those people who, simply because of the time constraints, wasn't successful. He has been courteous enough to prepare a written submission, which is detailed, and has been provided to each member of the committee. It also was filed as an exhibit forming a permanent part of this committee's record. I want to thank Mr Kirkby for his interest in these matters and for his willingness and eagerness to provide that written submission.
JAMES WINTER
The Chair: The next participant is Professor James Winter. Professor, please go ahead.
Dr James Winter: Three weeks ago, when these hearings were last in Toronto, an event took place which is of grave, historical significance, although it went unremarked in terms of the mainstream press. The major newspaper corporations, and indeed the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association itself, made formal presentations before this committee, as you'll recall, opposing Bill 40. The committee heard from two newspaper chains, Southam and Thomson, which control 70% of English-language daily circulation in this country.
The committee heard on the same day from Michael Doody, corporate secretary for the Thomson chain, and David Crisp, a vice-president of Hudson's Bay Co. Both opposed Bill 40 and both ultimately report to Ken Thomson, who also owns the Globe and Mail. I don't believe Mr Doody mentioned in his presentation that the pension fund trustees at OPSEU are boycotting Thomson stocks because they object to the company's labour relations practices. The news article I read didn't elaborate on this, but I know that in the past the notoriously thrifty Thomson chain has been known to complain to employees that too much toilet paper was being used in the women's washrooms. They've also demanded that reporters buy their own copies of newspapers to read their own stories in an attempt to save costs and boost circulation.
It's not my point to centre out the Thomson chain. Indeed, Bill Ardell, the new CEO at Southam, recently said that 500 of Southam's 1,600 employees in Vancouver were excess baggage and that cutting them could save the company $30 million. What this demonstrates is that newspapers have become large, diversified corporations. One result is that freedom of the press, as we know it or used to know it, has disappeared. The blatant public lobbying by newspapers over Bill 40 is unprecedented in recent Canadian history. It poses a direct challenge to journalists' claim that they're objective, balanced, socially responsible watchdogs for the public's interest.
The English poet John Milton asked in the 17th century, "Whoever knew truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter with falsehood?" For the public, this myth of an unrestrained clash, a free market of views, continues to exist. Unaware of the corporate links, they still expect accurate and fair reporting. People continue to subscribe to the notion of an objective press. Part of the reason for this is that the media have convinced us that the business side of things is distinct from the news and the editorials, but this defies common sense and it flies in the face of the sociological evidence.
1900
Newspaper owners hire and fire. Managers assign and edit, making decisions about angles, play and prominence. All of these are subjective rather than objective decisions. The end result is that the news reads largely as these people intend it to, no matter what the intentions of individual journalists might be.
Let's use as an example the reporting on this committee's hearings over the past three or four weeks. Time after time, the corporate perspective predominates. From listening to and reading the media, one would think that this was a very one-sided affair.
It's not entirely one-sided. Occasionally there's an item with a labour perspective, for example, but overwhelmingly the emphasis is on the corporate position, with alternative views relegated to what's called the "back of the bus." We know from newspaper reading habits, for example, that readers seldom go beyond the headline and the first few paragraphs, so when the other side is sandwiched into the last few paragraphs, hardly anyone gets to see it.
We have, by the way, two prime examples of this sort of thing in two of today's Toronto daily newspapers that I picked up on the way here. The Globe and Mail, for example, from the hearings yesterday, headlined "Strikebreaker Proposals Called Too Restrictive: Labour Bill Would Strip Away Employers' Rights, Business Groups Say." That's the angle they choose to focus on from yesterday's presentations. Here's the Toronto Star: "Business Group Still Condemns New Labour Plan." This is when the Toronto media came back to it after the hiatus which occurred when your committee left Toronto and you and your committee and the issues you're discussing disappeared from the agenda.
Thus, what you have is newspapers taking a corporate stance, a management stance, at the same time that they have an obligation to report on a debate in an unbiased fashion.
Despite the prevailing myth that newspapers are watchdogs for the public interest, they've been almost entirely swallowed up by big business conglomerates with vested interests. This means that public debates such as this one are reported largely in a one-sided fashion, with devastating results for the state of discourse in society, and indeed for democracy itself.
Conrad Black is perhaps the epitome of Canadian corporate capitalism. His firm, Hollinger Inc, used to be a holding company for Dominion stores and Massey-Ferguson and the like. Now it's a newspaper holding company with 262 newspapers on four continents, including 42 in Canada.
In my recent book, Common Cents: Media Portrayal of the Gulf War and Other Events, I quote from David Radler, the right-hand man to Conrad Black, in an interview with Peter Newman. He said:
"If it should come to a matter of principle, I am ultimately the publisher of all these papers, and if editors disagree with us, they should disagree with us when they're no longer in our employ. The buck stops with the ownership. I am responsible for meeting the payroll; therefore, I will ultimately determine what the papers say."
I think that's a refreshingly candid, if chilling, admission of the impact of ownership, which contradicts claims made by chain owners, stretching back for decades, that newspapers have what they like to call "local autonomy" despite the chain ownership.
Industry ownership indicates that newspapers would back business in controversies such as the one over Bill 40. The sociological literature, including my own research, indicates that this is reflected in media content. To a very great extent, one would then expect to find it in public opinion, and subsequently in any laws that are enacted.
With no intention of underestimating the importance of what we're doing here, let me suggest that the current controversy over labour law reform may be seen as a public relations war, with corporations and the opposition on one side and labour and other public groups on the other side. But if newspapers largely line up with other corporations to propagate owners' self-interest, then who will provide the public with a balanced account? Who will help us to filter this propaganda that's coming to us?
If the media have become to a very great extent just another lobby group, then this represents a dire threat to democracy. With no wish to sound alarmist, I suggest to you that this is the case and that you consider it in your deliberations and in your assessment of public opinion regarding the OLRA.
Since I gather that the primary, if not the sole, purpose of these hearings is to sound out public opinion, I suggest that these observations are of critical importance. Outside of this room, the public is witnessing what is largely a one-sided debate, and I know from what I've already seen in this room in a short time that's not the case within these hearings.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Seven minutes per caucus.
Mr Phillips: Maybe I can start off. Just to follow up the conspiracy theory here, I gather, because you're a professor of communications, that you've done a fairly extensive study on this matter, and I would appreciate just the analysis you did. I gather you've kind of monitored the papers. Is it mainly the newspapers you see this conspiracy with?
Dr Winter: I don't see a conspiracy per se. There's not a conspiracy theory here in the sense of people sitting in a back room and conspiring with regard to the day's events. I think it's a much more complicated situation than that. It has to do with economic ownership and underpinnings, for example. It has to do with a lot of the professional norms and so forth in the journalism field. It has to do with notions, for example, such as objectivity and who is sought out in order to obtain their views and so forth. So it's a very complicated process, and I don't use the term "conspiracy" and I don't see it in that way.
Mr Phillips: But I gather you believe that the papers are in some way conspiring to distort the study.
Dr Winter: I've talked to, I've taught, I've been a journalist. I don't think journalists conspire. I think to a great extent they're actually oblivious to what it is they do and they manage to rationalize what it is they do. Again, that "conspiracy" word is a nasty word that gets bandied about.
Mr Phillips: In your analysis, what percentage would you say was taking the business side of the argument and what percentage of the stories have taken the other side of the argument?
Dr Winter: I'd have to be guessing to put it in terms of percentages, because I'm not a number cruncher and I don't have numerical totals. I think, with a growing number of my colleagues, that we get into a great deal of difficulty when we try to make sense of society around us by converting it into numbers. I would just say that the overwhelming emphasis -- this was not something that was planned. In fact, I opened these newspapers up in the hearing room.
Mr Phillips: I'm more interested in not just two papers today; I assume you've done the five-week analysis.
Dr Winter: Yes, I have. This is quite typical, however.
Mr Phillips: Could you give me the analysis, just how it has split?
Dr Winter: I can't give you any numbers. I would say that the overwhelming emphasis has been in terms of the business perspective.
Mr Phillips: On this theory, is this kind of the tip of the iceberg? Is this legislation and the way they've covered it just part of a bigger scheme that's a plot here?
Dr Winter: A bigger scheme and subplot?
Mr Phillips: Yes, in the sense that newspapers, I gather -- are they just doing it on this issue or are they doing it on more than just this issue?
Dr Winter: I think more generally the media, and newspapers specifically, tend to reflect corporate interests across the board. For example, if you looked at the coverage of the free trade agreement, the North American free trade agreement as well as the FTA, you would find somewhat similar coverage. You'd find that they feel free trade is a good thing, for example.
Mr Phillips: Are we facing the same issue, in your mind, on radio and television too?
Dr Winter: Yes, largely we are. In the broadcast media they're under different constraints, to a certain extent. For example, the time constraint means that coverage is much more superficial than it is even in newspapers. I think some of the things we find in the printed media are heightened, in effect, when it comes to the broadcast media.
Mr Phillips: Scary. Thank you.
1910
Mr Offer: Three questions? Thank you very much.
The Chair: No, not three questions, Mr Offer, three minutes.
Mr Offer: That'll be enough.
On the second page, you spoke about this current controversy over labour law reform being seen as a public relations war, with corporations and the opposition on one side and labour and other public groups on the other. My question is, is that your position or is that how you feel the positions are being conveyed, notwithstanding what's being heard in the committee?
Dr Winter: I think that's one way you could look at what's happening, if you like.
Mr Offer: I guess when I read that I just didn't know if those were your words or how you are saying the media is portraying this controversy.
Dr Winter: No, I don't think the media are necessarily portraying it in that way, but I think it could be seen as that, as a propaganda war, if you like.
Mr Offer: I bring that point out because obviously, for those who have been watching through their cable TV, it's becoming very obvious that it's not just business against this reform, or having concerns with it, and labour being in favour. We've heard concerns from other than business. We've heard concerns from a variety of social service agencies, from school boards, from municipalities, from hydro services, and from engineers having public safety as their primary focus, who have concerns with this legislation.
I think, in fairness, we've heard from some unions that have some concerns with this. I guess I hope and I trust that it's clear to those who have been watching that there are broad groups of individuals, groups and associations that have specific concerns with aspects of the legislation.
Dr Winter: From my observation of the media, I wouldn't say that's the case. What tends to get reported is, "The chamber of commerce said this; the union said that." I don't think the broad perspective is portrayed, any more than in tomorrow's papers and tomorrow's television newscasts we'll see a good cross-section of the people who appeared before you today. Again, because of the time constraints, effectively, but also other biases, they tend to be very selective.
It's a very subjective kind of undertaking, really. I don't know how many people, how many presentations, you would hear in a day. Would it be 16, 20, something like that? Most of the time we're just reading about one or two or three, so that's not a very good ratio in terms of the media portrayal.
Mrs Witmer: I appreciate the analysis you have provided, although I question the conclusions you've arrived at. You've indicated that you feel this government is being attacked by the corporate interests that manage the newspapers. If you were to speak to the Prime Minister of this country, I think you would probably receive from him a similar comment, that he feels he's also being attacked by the media, because I think the role of the media is to make sure they share with the public all information possible.
Any government in power has an opportunity to disseminate information on behalf of the position it's taking, so I think the media have a role to make sure that the other side of the coin is presented as well. I know, having been on a school board, the same thing happened with us. We were often under attack by the media. You see city councils under attack by the media. So I'm not sure if we can say that the analysis here is totally accurate.
Dr Winter: Well, the media certainly have developed the habit, become accustomed etc, to being very critical of governments; depending on the government, I think, to a certain extent. But governments are a fairly safe target as well. Especially when they are owned by these large corporations, it's easier to attack governments and public bodies such as school boards and so on and so forth than it is to attack businesses. Generally, again coming back to the sociological literature, I think the finding has been that governments make rather safe targets.
At the same time, coming back to Brian Mulroney, there was a letter about a week or so ago in the Globe and Mail in which they were talking about the Globe's penchant for running front-page pictures of Brian Mulroney. One reader was particularly disgruntled about that. I think about two days later there was another big spread of Mulroney on the front. I think a number of the major Canadian dailies have been quite favourable towards Mulroney when you consider where he is in the polls and what people in general seem to think about him.
Let's use the recent constitutional discussions and agreement and so forth; economic union, the idea of that sort of thing taking place. I think the newspapers and the media generally have been very kind and very favourable towards him. I think they were reasonably favourable towards the GST. I think they've been pretty good in terms of free trade. There is some disgruntlement, if you like, but by and large they've supported his policies.
On the other hand, it really has, in my own reading, been a very critical press when it comes to the NDP in Ontario and the budget deficits and "spendthrift socialism" and so on and so forth.
Mrs Witmer: However, by the same token, if you want to take a look at the constitutional debate, I think they have been very complimentary of Mr Rae and, as you say, not only has the Prime Minister's picture been on the front page, but they've also been featuring Mr Rae. So certainly there is some fairness and there is some balance.
Dr Winter: Oh, yes. I wouldn't for a minute suggest that the coverage is totally one way or totally imbalanced. I like to describe it as overwhelming, though, in terms of my own analysis.
Mr Turnbull: I've obviously been following the press since this process began. I, like you, have not kept a running total of how many stories were on the union side and how many were on the side of management or chambers of commerce. I have to say I've read quite a lot of stories with the unions' point of view reflected in total, as much as a newspaper story can do.
You seem to be coming to this with a very strong political bias in this comment. I know the kinds of discussions that go on in Queen's Park in our own caucus, how fed up we are at times that we don't get coverage of things we think we should get coverage of and credit for. For example, Mrs Witmer put forward a proposal last year to have secret ballots. The Minister of Labour pretended there was no suggestion of this during the consultation process and, in point of fact, there were many presentations. We haven't seen that in the press.
The suggestion was made after the recent British election that the press cost the Labour Party the election, but I have to tell you, it's the view of most Conservatives that the press is, by and large, rather left-leaning. Certainly, in looking at the kinds of reports we get out of Queen's Park, they're fairly left-leaning, although there seems to be a rage -- you commented on Mulroney's standing in the polls, and you seem in some way to equate that with the fact that he's had good treatment considering his standing in the polls.
If that were the criterion, I think Bob Rae would have had a lot rougher passage, because his standing in the polls is plummeting like crazy and even his core voters are disgusted. People who have voted for the NDP all their lives are disgusted, and a lot of the stories haven't got into the press as to the things he's done.
So I think you've come -- I've got to tell you, my opinion is -- as an apologist for the NDP. I absolutely discredit everything you've had to say.
1920
Dr Winter: Well, I can't comment on whether or not you're an apologist for the NDP, but I will say that if you would like to take a look at my book, Common Cents, recently published --
Mr Turnbull: Based upon what you've got to say, I don't think there will be any common sense.
Dr Winter: -- you'll find that I'm quite hard on the NDP, in fact, that I'm not in the camp of the NDP or anyone else, and that I come to this as an academic with more than 20 years' experience of studying and researching the media and how they operate.
Mr Turnbull: And were you pressed to report stories in a certain way when you worked in the media?
Dr Winter: Yes, absolutely.
Mr Turnbull: By what organizations? What did they press you to do?
Dr Winter: To report corporations in a favourable way as opposed to a negative way and to bury material which was unfavourable. And it happens on a daily basis.
Mr Turnbull: You think that people like Colin Vaughan in the Globe and Mail are reporting with a bias towards the corporate sector? I think he'd be rather annoyed if you said yes.
Dr Winter: I wouldn't single out any individual journalist, but I will say that the overwhelming predilection is towards being quite favourable towards business.
Mr Turnbull: Boy, you must not read the Toronto Star.
Dr Winter: I certainly do read the Toronto Star, quite regularly, and the Globe and Mail and numerous other publications.
In terms of your comment that the press is left-leaning, this is a myth which I think essentially dates back to Spiro Agnew's days as the Vice-President of the United States, some of his hysteria in terms of the plots that are out there and so forth. The sociological literature in fact indicates that it's quite the reverse, that journalists' values are quite middle-class, quite to the right or, at very best, centre, politically, socially and so forth.
This is a myth that's propagated in our society largely due to the influence of organizations such as the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, which is ultra-right-wing and which, on balance, on a monthly basis in its publication, bashes the press for being leftist, in particular the CBC and so on. But the academic research indicates that that is really hysteria.
Mr Turnbull: I think it's usually the left-leaning academics who are reporting that and suggesting that the research is contrary to that.
Dr Winter: In my experience, there are not very many left-leaning academics out there. If you could come and observe our faculty association and some of the discussions that go on --
Mr Turnbull: I think we've had two of them today, thank you.
Ms Murdock: I'm glad you came; this is very much a different perspective. I'm really glad you've referred to the presentations that were made to us in the second week here in Toronto by the newspaper associations, mostly because they made a case for themselves about news being -- and this is a quote -- "more perishable than lettuce and tomatoes." Given the technological age and the computerized system, I have some doubts about the veracity of that statement. I'm wondering, as you do so much work in that area, what your comments in that field would be.
Dr Winter: The only way in which I could see that would make any sense is in the sense that people don't want to look at yesterday's newspaper, or at least that's the popular notion of it: something is news, it's in the news for a very short time, and then people aren't interested in it.
But in reality, as you know, there are recurring themes in journalism -- the Loch Ness monster and so forth -- so old things are always coming up and being re-represented. If a journalist or an editor or publisher wants to inject something into the news, all they really need to do is to find a news tag to tie it to, some local event.
Ms Murdock: I don't know what the correct term for them is, but newspapers and media generally can hook into news services, can they not?
Dr Winter: Oh, yes.
Ms Murdock: And as a consequence can pull stories from other reporters who aren't on strike.
Dr Winter: It happened in the case of the Toronto Star, for example. When it was on strike, they were running CP stories written by reporters across the country, and indeed around the world.
Ms Murdock: So in actual fact -- what I'm saying and what I'm asking you and what you're confirming, I think -- the news can still be amassed and printed even though there is a strike on.
Dr Winter: Oh, certainly. One of the major problems we have with newspapers today is that they don't want to hire reporters. They want to just run wire copy so they don't have to pay any wages and benefits. The wire copy comes quite cheaply.
This is a problem going back in Canadian history. In 1912, when Canadian Press was founded, it had an option of putting its own reporters around the world or buying all the news from around the world that came out of Associated Press in New York, for $5,000 a year. You can guess what they chose. They chose to take the AP wire service.
As we have this corporate ownership, with the bottom line being profit, what's happened more and more is that they rely more on the wire services and less on their own staff.
Ms Murdock: Do you see this trend that you've reported in your presentation today in the American papers as well? Or do you read those?
Dr Winter: Yes, I do. I think the same trend is there, and American academics are commenting on it quite frequently. In some respects their problem isn't as bad as ours, although they're quite upset about it.
I mentioned some of the figures from Canada in terms of Southam and Thomson. The largest chains in the United States would be Knight-Ridder and Newhouse. They would have something like 10% of their daily circulation locked up; 10% and 10% for the two of them would be 20%, versus 70% of English-language daily circulation in Canada. That's a reflection of the fact that they have about 1,760 daily newspapers in the States, and we have about 114. So there's quite a difference. The concentration there is not nearly as bad as it is here.
Mr Hope: Your presentation today is interesting. I thought it was just me being one of the bad guys and that the media are just reporting fact. Your presentation today really sets into the picture Tommy Douglas put together called Mouseland, which really put the true perspective of working people trying to get their voices heard.
I remember some controversial legislation like Bill 208, health and safety, where companies in Windsor were screaming, "We're going to shut down all the automotive." They got the headlines that workers were going to shut it down. We ended up on the tail end, and one of the communication strategies we had to use as working people -- because we can never depend on our media to do it for us -- was to use Rogers Cable TV to get our message across or print our own leaflets or letters to the editor, which were successful.
With your expertise in dealing in the media, is this media coverage driving investment out of this province or discouraging more investment in this province?
Dr Winter: Some of the coverage has been so absolutely hysterical, in terms of the editorialists in particular, I would say, that it couldn't possibly but have that effect. It would have to have that effect of discouraging investment.
Mr Hope: So if they were to create a true balanced perspective of putting both views, like "Labour Hearings Continue Today" instead of the title you've referred to, do you think that would have a little calmer reaction in the investment community?
Dr Winter: I imagine it would. I don't see how it couldn't.
Mr Hope: The only thing it probably wouldn't do is allow papers to be sold, right?
Dr Winter: Yes, it's partly that, but it's also part of this propaganda war in the lobbying process to try to influence what you people are doing. That may not be intentional in terms of the journalists and so forth, but it certainly is intentional when it comes to the owners and their direct underlings.
It's not just coincidence that the Star and the Globe chose to play up the business perspective in today's paper, and virtually every other day's coverage, with few exceptions.
The Chair: We have to move on, Mr Hope. Professor Winter, I want to tell you on behalf of the committee that we appreciate very much your travelling here from Windsor to participate in this process. You've made a valuable contribution and indeed provided a perspective that this committee had not been exposed to.
Your book is Common Cents: Media Portrayal of the Gulf War and Other Events. I trust that if people want to buy it in Toronto they can go to This Ain't The Rosedale Library over on Church Street, or if they're in Welland, they can go to For the Love of Books on King Street in Welland, Marjory McPherson's bookshop.
Dr Winter: They could order it through any good bookstore.
Interjection: How much is it?
Dr Winter: It's $24.
The Chair: Common Cents: Media Portrayal of the Gulf War and Other Events. Professor Winter, thank you kindly. Have a safe trip back.
1930
BRANTFORD REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Chair: The next participant is Brantford Regional Chamber of Commerce. Would they please come forward and have a seat. Please, sir, if these people will give you the courtesy of the time to do it, tell us your name, your title, and proceed with your comments.
Mr Dan Housser: Thank you. I guess you guys will have a good essay to write when you're done: "What I Did on My Summer Vacation." I'm here tonight as the chairperson of the political awareness committee of the Brantford Regional Chamber of Commerce and also as an independent business person.
The Brantford Regional Chamber of Commerce represents over 880 businesses in the region, employing more than 8,000 people. Brantford is no stranger to plant closures, job losses and economic hard times. The decade of the 1980s was a particularly difficult period, but the area struggled through it.
It is now beginning to appear that the 1990s will be no better, as every day we continue to hear of business cutbacks, layoffs and plant closures. The Brantford Regional Chamber of Commerce has seen the cancellation of more than 80 memberships in recent months, more than half of whom are no longer in business. This invariably translates into a loss of jobs for the citizens of the area, not to mention the loss of tax revenue and decreased ability of the government to deliver services at a time when they are most needed.
The world is a shrinking place, and we must concern ourselves with our ability to compete and to be productive. Given this, Ontario's ability both to protect existing jobs and to grow the economy and create high-paying, value added jobs in an increasingly competitive world must be our first priority. We ask the government to tell us how the changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act will solve the most important issue facing the province today, which is our collapsing economy.
The situation is a desperate one, and what we need most now is a climate that will encourage both new investment and spending on the part of individuals. People concerned about losing their jobs are not likely to spend or make financial commitments. Eventually this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, resulting in the very job losses that were feared. Investment decisions are increasingly made in other parts of the world. The uncertainty created by legislation such as that which we are now considering will only act as a further deterrent to having those decisions made in Ontario's favour. What is needed to counteract this negativity is a comprehensive provincial economic strategy plan. Labour reform, if required at all, should only follow such an initiative and should be developed with the view of fostering economic growth.
We asked our membership the following questions on the proposed changes to the Ontario labour laws: "Do you feel the Ontario labour laws need changing?" Eighty-two per cent of respondents said no. The number two question was: "Do you agree with the NDP government's proposed changes to the Ontario labour laws?" Ninety-two per cent of respondents said they disapproved.
The government has stated that these reforms are needed because the existing legislation does not reflect the modern workforce and workplace, which is becoming increasingly service based. However, the very fact that we are drifting towards a service-based economy should be a clear warning of future danger and an indication that fundamental and structural changes to our economy are needed.
An economy that is solely based on services cannot long survive. If there are no valued added jobs in the economy, people will not need or be able to afford the services being offered. The legislative proposals under consideration do not seem to offer any such change, but appear to be the result of an acceptance of defeat and merely an attempt to provide more opportunity to exploit what little there is left.
The historic role of government in this province has been to act as the balancing force between competing interests and not to take sides or tip the scales in any one particular group's favour. To do this will alienate the other groups in our society and cause a lessening of cooperation and participation.
At times there seems to be a popular myth that the business community is a well-organized and cohesive group with a tight community of common interest. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth as individual businesses, large and small, struggle to survive on their own. However, these proposals have galvanized the business community in its response on this issue like nothing else in recent memory.
The following are responses to an ad campaign. Our members felt these changes would be "disastrous," "would encourage higher prices," "would jeopardize jobs," "will hurt our already fragile business community," "will encourage companies to leave Ontario," and the list goes on. We have attached some of the responses to this report. The reaction should be an indicator for everyone of the gravity of the potential impacts and consequences of this legislation.
At this time, there has been no serious economic impact analysis undertaken by the government to determine the effects that these changes are likely to have on the province, despite the pleas from business that this be done. This means that an accurate and complete evaluation of the changes is not possible. Some economists are now stating that these impacts are not knowable. Given our current economic woes, entering such sweeping changes at this time is playing Russian roulette with our future.
The business community has had a long history in this province of participating and cooperating with the provincial government in developing positive changes for the province. This has led to Ontario having, as it does, the most progressive labour legislation in North America. The business community again stands ready to cooperate with both labour and government and to participate in such a process, but it must be one that is not hurried and where the consequences of any changes are well thought out before they are implemented. Only in this way can we ensure a positive outcome for everyone.
The debate is in a very real sense a debate about freedom of choice for Ontarians. This is not just a debate about unions versus no unions in the workplace. In recent times we have made significant progress towards advancing the rights of individuals in our society. The stated, desired goal in the context of labour relations is and always has been to determine the true wishes of the employees.
Under these proposed reforms, individuals will not be allowed to make decisions about very significant aspects of their working lives in a free and democratic fashion. Our democratic tradition dictates that we determine the true wishes of the people through a secret ballot vote. This ensures to the highest degree possible that these decisions are made in an environment free of intimidation and coercion. People should also have the right to change their minds. These proposals would eliminate that right. The right of joining or not joining a union, to have a union in the workplace or not, or whether or not to strike, are all choices that should be freely made.
We must also challenge the basic, underlying assumptions upon which these proposals have been formed. We simply do not agree that only through trade union representation will employees be able to improve their participation in the workplace, which will in turn enhance Ontario's ability to complete on a global scale. Indeed, many of the organizations held up as examples of high levels of employee participation are not organized by trade unions. It is possible that making the trade union the sole bargaining agent of the employees could achieve the opposite effect and decrease the participation of the employee. In no way does it assure that any of the wishes of the employees individually, or even as a group, will be taken forward.
We believe it is premature to assume that organized labour speaks for working people in the province, since according to the government's own statistics, less than 40% of working people in Ontario are represented. At the same time, it does not necessarily follow that this is because they have been deprived of the opportunity to organize. Recent polls have shown that more than 65% of Ontario residents have expressed their desire not to be represented by a trade union.
We do not accept that without effective trade union representation the health of the Ontario economy will be threatened by an increasing reliance on low-wage competition which will lower our standard of living. Although the government has said that Ontario cannot compete with low-wage areas of the world, we do compete with these areas every day. We must therefore find ways to compete effectively or face the loss of jobs, particularly those critical value added jobs, to such places.
It does not necessarily follow that only through a policy of low wages will we compete. We must develop ways to compete that will allow us to be so much more productive that we actually earn the difference in those wages, and this is not an impossible task. This can be achieved through improved methods and innovations that will keep us one step ahead of our competition.
Further, as those other low-wage areas of the world develop, as they surely will, their wages will not remain low. This transition was seen in Japan in just the last 20 years, and is now under way in Korea and other parts of the Far East.
1940
These changes do nothing to alter the character of labour relations in this province but only seek to expand the current system. If acted upon in their current form, they will most probably lead to confrontation on a scale not seen before in this province. If, as suggested by the government, the labour legislation in Quebec has been related to the state of labour relations in that province, then the example of Quebec advanced by the government is not a particularly good one to illustrate the benefits of those proposals.
Since the introduction of their legislation in 1978, Quebec has had more labour disputes than Ontario in 12 of the 14 years, resulting in 20% more lost time due to strikes. During that period, when the number of labour disputes in Quebec have tended to fall, the numbers of disputes in Ontario have also fallen, and to lower levels than those in Quebec. At the same time, investment in Quebec has been lower and has grown at a rate less than that of Ontario in all but three of the 14 years.
There also seems to be a view by the government that expanded unionization would lessen the adversarial nature of the process. Sweden and Germany are pointed to as an example of places where there is a high degree of unionism and a high degree of cooperation. However, these examples have little relevance to Ontario as, to a very large degree, they have been taken out of their social and legislative context.
The collective bargaining process in these countries is highly centralized as opposed to our system of many thousands of individual companies and unions bargaining on their own in Ontario. In Sweden, for example, there is only one union representing all blue collar workers and one employer federation. As we understand it, one of the key elements that exists in this relationship is the balance of power between the two groups, and with the power comes the recognition that their agreements must be in the national interest. In contrast, unions in Ontario are essentially self-constituted and self-administered without regulation. These proposals fail to take into account these essential and counterbalancing differences.
In summary, the business environment is much more demanding than it was just a few years ago. There is increased competition, causing a change in the way business must react to customers. There has been much criticism of the Canada-US free trade agreement and free trade is often seen as being a bad thing. But the idea of free trade is an idea that has taken hold all over the world and is gaining momentum. It is a reality that must be dealt with. Employers know this and are trying to cope. Those that are successful will be those that succeed in developing a cooperative relationship with their employees and who unlock the potential these employees provide.
We would urge the government to consider carefully the consequences of any changes it intends to make to the Labour Relations Act, since this type of legislation directly impacts on employer-employee relations. The significance of any changes to this critical piece of legislation can hardly be overestimated. Any modifications should not be based or acted upon merely on the basis of a belief system that says these will be good changes because a small sector of society believes that the changes will be good. If required at all, changes should be based on a demonstrated need and the consequences should not be left to chance.
We in Ontario are all partners and are all in the same boat. It does no one group any good to point out that another group's part of the boat is sinking. We need a system of labour relations that will be less confrontational and that will encourage cooperation and participation and foster growth. There will be techniques employed in other countries that can have relevance to this province, and those should certainly be looked at if the outcome is to enrich our society as a whole and encourage growth. The business community is prepared to participate in any appropriate fashion with labour and government in constructive dialogue on this issue. All our futures are at stake.
The Chair: Thank you, sir. Ms Witmer, five minutes per caucus, please.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much. I appreciate your presentation. You've certainly introduced a few thoughts here that are unlike some of the other presentations we've heard, and I appreciate that.
I'm really pleased you're here because, I have to tell you, during the past four and a half weeks we've repeatedly been told by one of the government representatives that Brantford is in a very good position economically and that there's great investment going into the region of Brantford. I guess I'd like to hear from you personally because certainly the tenor of your presentation this evening indicates to me that, as in other areas throughout the province, you are experiencing in the Brantford region the same business cutbacks, layoffs and plant closures as elsewhere.
I'd appreciate you sharing with us the situation as you see it in the region of Brantford, because you've also said that this issue has galvanized your membership as no other issue. So could you also tell us why this particular issue is of such grave concern to your membership?
Mr Housser: Other than the enormous amounts of money our member of provincial Parliament brings to us, we certainly are hurting like all other communities across this province. We have the same problems as everybody else.
To answer your question about galvanizing the business community against this proposal, we've had enormous phone calls not just from our membership. The phone never stops ringing.
Mrs Witmer: What are the people who are calling you concerned about? Unfortunately, the process used in bringing forward Bill 40 has created a tremendous amount of uncertainty and polarization, and I guess I'd like to know what their fears are. What are they suggesting the government should do differently?
Mr Housser: I guess, because Bill 40 does cover such a wide range, it's the whole gamut, from: "Does that mean I have to become a union member? What if there's a strike in my plant? Can I still go to work? How does that affect me?" to: "Am I a supervisor? Do I have to join the union now?" Just everything.
Mrs Witmer: I hear you saying then that you're not only receiving phone calls from the employer community; you're also receiving phone calls of concern from the employee community.
Mr Housser: Yes, citizens at large.
Mrs Witmer: And you see a tremendous amount of uncertainty and lack of information. What would you suggest then that the government do in regard to Bill 40?
Mr Housser: I don't think there's anything wrong with the present labour legislation that's in place now. I certainly wouldn't have any problem working with it, and people haven't up to this point in time. It's not a time in our history that we should be bringing about this change. We should be tackling the economy now, creating more jobs and bringing businesses in. When the money is there, then we can take a look at a wish list.
Mrs Witmer: I guess that's one thing that's become very obvious: This legislation is not going to create one new job in this province. In fact, independent studies indicate that there will be job loss and lost investment opportunity.
Mr Turnbull: I have to tell you that when you scan the papers tomorrow, if you find your report you'll understand it's because of this capitalist plot to present one side of the picture. I trust the capitalist plot works for you.
I think you've put your finger on the most important issue: People in Ontario, workers, want jobs today. Our party is most concerned that we're jeopardizing the health of the economy of this province and we're driving investment away.
I've personally had long discussions with German industrialists. It's interesting; they have lived with their labour laws for many years and, notwithstanding that, they view the proposed changes to the Ontario labour laws as very dangerous. Are you seeing in your area a drying up of interest in investment by the business sector?
Mr Housser: I would hope not, but I think there's a wait and see attitude.
Mr Ward: Dan, I'd like to thank you for your presentation. It's well prepared. As usual, when you do something you do it right. A question I have is concerning investment. Dan and I go back a long way. We've fought many political battles together, and now it appears that our political philosophies are a little bit different than they have been in the past.
Brantford has had tough times. I don't think we've actually really recovered from the last recession of 1981-82. If you look at Brantford, we lost our agriculture implement manufacturers, the base of our workforce, in the mid-1980s and have really done a good job, I think, of attempting to diversify. I think that reflects what is going on in the economy, that the workforce and workplace are changing since the 1970s.
Investment-wise, we've had plant closures, and it's been for corporate rationalization, it's been because of the economy and companies simply going into receivership and not being able to afford to pay the bills any more. At the same time, we've also had some good news: Gates Rubber; BASF, that German company that invested $6 million just recently in a warehouse and the upgrading of its plant on Morton Avenue, and a couple of others. So we've had some good news, but again, a lot of bad, as other communities have.
1950
When you look into your background, Dan, and you're an independent business person now, wouldn't you agree that if a group of employees made the conscious decision, for whatever reason, and the majority of the employees supported it, that they felt compelled to have a trade union represent them, the obstacles that we are hearing currently that are in place under the existing act are preventing these employees from having a trade union represent them?
Do you think that because the workplace and workforce have changed so much -- and really, the act hasn't been updated all that much since the 1970s -- at least these obstacles, in recognizing the business community has concerns about replacement workers and other things, should be looked at and possibly removed or reduced so that the will of the majority of the employees can be taken into account?
Mr Housser: Well, it's not as easy as coming in here and getting coffee.
Mr Ward: As the other committee's doing.
Mr Housser: But I think if the plant or office wants to be organized, I've never had a problem with seeing that completed. It happens within the present legislation.
Mr Ward: Well, we're hearing some evidence by presenters, and it's mainly the proponents of the bill, specifically mentioning petitions and how the vast majority of petitions, which delay certification, are really employer-driven and are thrown out by the labour board when the issue is finally discussed and resolved. But it does lead to undue delay in the certification process.
Everywhere else in Canada, in every jurisdiction, petitions are restricted. Speaking perhaps for yourself rather than the chamber, do you think that at least that one item, which is in place everywhere else in Canada, should really be looked at, based on the tremendous evidence that we've heard, the delaying that it causes in certification?
Mr Housser: In my past experience with the present act, I've never had a problem with it that way, so I'd say no.
Mr Hope: One of the questions that I would like to pose to you is dealing around plant closures. Oh, by the way, I was told to say hi to you from Bob.
Mr Housser: Say hi to Bob.
Mr Hope: Plant workers are out of a job and the company comes in and closes the door. Do you think there ought to be accountability to those employees who have lost their jobs with no financial recourse whatsoever for getting their money back?
Mr Housser: I think there should be accountability to the employees. I think there should be accountability to the community, sure.
Mr Hope: Do you think that should be entrenched in legislation?
Mr Housser: It would depend on how it's worded.
The Chair: Mr Hope, Bob who?
Mr Hope: Oh, Bob File.
The Chair: Mr Hayes, quickly.
Mr Hayes: Good seeing you again, Dan. I'm looking at your responses from your ad campaign and there's quite a number of these that really don't address the changes to the act. What they really say is that "business competition is organized labour and the NDP," "NDP government is too pro-union," and it goes on and on about the "leftists." "The NDP wants to be able to control industry" and labour and the unions have gone way past their usefulness. Is all of this here from that one little ad that was sent in here -- mailed, I believe -- "The proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act are bad for small business and will severely hurt the province"?
The chamber of commerce says they want to work together and consult with the government and the government is not doing that, yet what we're getting back from your organization is more about this very bad government and pro-union; more talk about that than we're actually talking about the changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I find that kind of strange.
Mr Housser: I don't understand why you would feel that way.
Mr Hayes: Well, we're supposed to be discussing the bill and this appears to say those are the enemy, you see, and we're trying to --
Mr Housser: Well, no, my presentation doesn't say the enemy.
Mr Hayes: It's an attachment to yours.
Mr Housser: We want to work together and make this province better and I don't think this legislation at this particular time is doing that. It certainly is galvanizing the business community to put its back up and I don't see where that's going to benefit us as Ontarians in a world market. As you can see, it wasn't 100%, Pat, in our questionnaire --
Mr Hayes: No.
Mr Housser: -- so obviously we have some card-carrying NDP members who are members of our chamber.
Mr Hayes: You do have. We have members in our caucus who have been members of the chamber.
Mr Housser: Yes, I believe you.
Mr Offer: Thank you for your presentation. I think you've talked to me about the perception of this bill, what you feel is the impact of this bill and the way this process has been carried on in your community.
Mr Housser: I think it scares people. That's the simplest way I can say it. It just scares people in general. They're scared that investment's going to dry up, that they're going to lose their jobs and that things aren't going to progress in an upward scale as Ontario has and should continue on.
Mr Offer: I thank you for the response. I ask the question because there's no -- we've been hearing this polarization of interests and I know it's not just the business groups on one side. There is not only concern with what the actual provisions are, but I get the feeling there's a whole group of people out there who aren't going to be coming to this committee who are watching through the television or reading reports. There's going to be a perception that this province is going to be a little different climate for investment after this is passed than before it was introduced. I'd certainly like to get your thoughts on that from the job creators, because that's what you are: You're the job creators of this province.
Mr Housser: After we pay our taxes, we don't have too much left to invest in jobs. Maybe we should restructure our taxes in this province. That would certainly help. It's not just investors who are talking about this; it's people on the street, people who come in. I deal on a retail aspect and all our customers -- if it's on their minds, they talk about it.
Mr Offer: Thank you.
Mr Phillips: Just following up on that, the thing people come to me about most are jobs. For most of us, that's what we hear every day. I look at where the quality jobs are going to come from in the future, because we all want the high-value, high-wage jobs in the province. I look at the plant closure statistics all the time because those tend to be the high-paying jobs. Seventy per cent of the people affected by plant closures are unionized. They're the quality jobs. There are many people who have come to us, the employer side of that, saying: "Listen, we're warning you. This is going to hurt investment in the province." The government has said and the member for Brantford often says: "Well, we've got KeepRite," I think it is, "coming into Brantford" --
Mr Ward: Gates Rubber.
Mr Phillips: -- "Gates Rubber coming in, and the opposition is just blowing smoke," that there is no problem or that the problem is greatly exaggerated. I wonder if on those quality, high-paying jobs, you might provide any insight to the committee on what you think might be the longer-term implications of the bill.
Mr Housser: I guess, to answer that, that I think it would hurt. It will hurt investment. That's what we're hearing from people.
The Chair: Mr Housser, I'm afraid we've got to move on, sir. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for appearing here on behalf of the Brantford Regional Chamber of Commerce. You've played an important part in this process. The committee is grateful to you and we wish you a safe trip back home.
Mr Housser: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you as well for permitting yourself to be rescheduled and accommodating the committee in that regard. We're grateful to you, sir.
2000
AMDAHL CANADA LTD
The Chair: The next participant is Amdahl Canada Ltd. Go right ahead.
Ms Sussannah Kelly: My name is Sussannah Kelly, and I am director of human resources and government relations for Amdahl Canada Ltd. I am also a steering committee member of the More Jobs Coalition, a coalition, as you know, of approximately 110 businesses that was formed to express our views on what is known as Bill 40.
I have been a vice-president of LLoyds Bank and TransAmerica and an executive of a number of different companies, and senior manager at the Bank of Montreal, Suncor and other major Canadian employers. I was also a senior consultant with Price Waterhouse.
Basically, my 23 years of experience have been around the managing of change involving people, so I have worked in the areas of employee relations and managing change, employee empowerment, and am presently very involved in a lot of work with employment equity. I feel a great part of my life has been dedicated to believing that people are the company.
I am here today on behalf of my company, because Amdahl Canada is committed to the province of Ontario. We're a wholly owned subsidiary of a $4-billion corporation that markets and services large mainframe computers, data storage systems and application. We're investing in this province for the long term. We just completed a $1-million expansion last month of our software development centre in Mississauga. In addition, right now -- you've probably seen some of our ads -- we're hiring 35 very highly skilled, very highly paid individuals, who are Ontario graduates. They are newly created jobs in high-tech industry, and that will bring the total to 135 newly formed jobs over the last two years.
We have spent more than $70 million in research and development in the province since 1981. This year we plan to spend for the entire year more than $15 million in research and development in this province. The Financial Post ranked us 31st in all of Canada in terms of research and development spending. Business Week ranked Amdahl corporation in terms of the industry top three in terms of research and development spending per employee. In fact, our spending averaged over $34,000 per employee.
As a high-tech company, we're very used to change, lots of it, and we're sensitive to the ways we manage it.
We've been in business for about 16 years in this province and we've competed against the biggest and most successful company in the world, and have done it successfully. So we consider ourselves very aware of change, cognizant of it and good managers of change, and we're very concerned about the form and content of Bill 40.
I think the future of Ontario over any competitors will be based on our highly skilled and knowledgeable workforce versus theirs, our taxation system or incentives versus theirs, to attract and keep vital industries; our educational institutions against theirs, and very importantly -- for the subject of this session is how harmonious we are and positive we are working together -- business, labour and government versus them. If we're filled with strife and divisiveness, we will lose. If we are not, if we work harmoniously, we'll win.
It's very, very simple. I've thought about this. I really get angry with us separating what an employee is. We're all employees. Business leaders are employees and they're not stupid. They're people. If the environment is perceived to be hostile, they have choices today and they can leave to a more receptive environment. If they leave a hostile environment to survive and thrive, unfortunately, they take away our jobs, our investment and opportunities for the future.
I resent any women's group speaking on my behalf about the fact that this legislation perhaps helps in some ways, because I think for women or any target group today, the secret is choices. It's having opportunities out there, not very restrictive legislation and no opportunities for the future.
I ask this committee a question that I feel very passionately about, and by the way, I'm not really affected directly by this legislation. I'm here because of our customers. We have a policy that a customer problem is our problem, and so many of our customers are part of this coalition. They're very concerned and, indirectly, that affects us in the future. But I ask you, how does this legislation address the need for more jobs in this province right now? It's going to inhibit the kind of investment we've made in the future. We made our decisions based on a cooperative, harmonious environment. My concern is, how does this legislation address the need of Ontario companies like Amdahl to remain competitive, vital and profitable?
We're all benefactors. We're all stakeholders -- this is government, employees, employers and indeed labour -- in this profitability and vitality and survival, the vitality of business success.
When we manage change, we manage a lot of change involved with technology. We involve a lot of change with relationships, people working in a very fast-moving and exciting environment. What we find is that change can be managed most effectively if it's done in a cooperative way. I read the minister's speech and he concurs. If you have all the users involved in the design of legislation or any change, then all benefit.
There is a perception that there hasn't been true involvement, and, Mr Chair, I thank you very much for this opportunity to allow us to try to encourage it, because we encourage cooperation in managing change and we feel it's required now. We have, through the More Jobs Coalition, recommended forums to deal with the actual clauses of this bill.
We also have to get rid of this perception of the government being hostile to business. We have consistently stated that we do not need a rigid labour system out of the 1940s. This is 1940s legislation in the 1990s. To compete, we're all going to need to be innovative and caring and we're going to have to enlist the support of every single employee to improve products and services. We feel this is restrictive and does not encourage that kind of 1990s atmosphere or attitude. It assumes a working environment that just is not going to exist in the future. If you've been involved in any kind of work in Personnel 101, the change has been dramatic.
We've asked to be at the table with More Jobs Coalition. We continue to be at the table. I am endorsing a major report that was prepared by More Jobs Coalition; you should have it now. This was prepared by our coalition and, I understand, two other business coalitions that I'm not involved in, but it's a product of the work of industrial relations practitioners. It's entitled Bill 40 and its Impact on Industrial Relations in Ontario. It's a definitive analysis of why this bill is troublesome to us. I don't have time to go into the specifics here, but it looks at the bill from a practitioner's perspective.
2010
It concludes, basically, that Ontario is presently seen as a model jurisdiction in terms of sophistication and protection of all employees. It also assumes, "If it isn't broken, in a lot of cases, don't fix it."
There appears to be some concern. We're well respected, and a lot of the business decisions in the past have been made on the existing act. Also, it works well. If you compare it to Quebec, as the previous gentleman mentioned, in terms of strikes, days lost or lower productivity, this certainly has been a successful province. If companies are to be held ransom by strikes, especially those just-in-time manufacturers, they could be paralysed.
Another concern is the redesign of bargaining units. The board has articulated a clear idea of what makes sense. I hope that you are mindful of those tests, and to put bargaining units together inhibits innovation and change at a local level.
We're getting rid of management. We don't have manager levels. With employee empowerment and the whole notion of things, people are working together in teams. This whole notion of hierarchies and conflict is passé. Today people are working with a common goal in mind, creating a very positive and exciting environment, and we see the change. Our success is based on that.
The most repugnant part of this bill, to me, deals with areas regarding the elimination of petitions and first-contract arbitration. It just is so strange to be secretive and surreptitious and set up things where there isn't trust. "If you can't get union membership in an honest or open way, let's attempt to do it surreptitiously," is how I read that bill. It attempts to minimize the opportunities for employees to change their minds and encourages secrecy by not requiring complete disclosure. I mean, we're legal entities. We're respectful, mature people. Do they assume Ontarians can't handle discussion or dialogue or openness or honesty? Isn't it better, we feel, at all times that employees know more rather than less?
It's awfully difficult to come and speak to you about our environment, but I speak with sincerity and with truth in saying that it's a company where most of our success has been based on cooperation, and I believe the same about my province. My Ontario is cooperative. It treats people well, it respects people, it believes in openness and it provides people with an economy that is vital, and choices, which are opportunities. I know all of you share that dream.
I just ask that we respect all people, not just certain constituents here and who are involved in this legislation, and that includes the entrepreneurs, the business leaders; they're employees as well. I say employees, to me, includes all people. It doesn't matter whether you're in a union or non-union environment or you're a manager or not; it's all of us. We're all employees.
I'd like you to make substantial changes to this bill. If you could work with the recommendation that was made by More Jobs Coalition, it would be greatly appreciated, and the interest in speaking here is to create harmony and cooperation that's required for the future. I thank you for the opportunity to express my views.
The Chair: Thank you. I want to tell you our thanks for appearing here on very short notice. I hope that wasn't a great inconvenience, and I tell you, it was because of Ms Witmer's urging.
Ms Kelly: I appreciate that.
The Chair: You can express your gratitude to her at the appropriate time.
Ms Kelly: I think all of you probably should be home with your children, so I appreciate that you're here as well.
The Chair: It's not always that a politician's work doubles, but once in a while. As a matter of fact, it's really rare, but once in a while. It's five minutes per caucus.
Mr Hayes: Ms Kelly, I compliment you on your presentation and also compliment your company, Amdahl Canada Ltd. It appears from your presentation that you really do believe that everybody, our employees and workers -- and I think what I'm getting out of your presentation here is that the employees have a fair amount or almost equal input in the decisions that are made for that particular corporation. I think these are some of the things we are saying in this bill that really, truly should happen. I'm pleased to see that.
Of course, you talk about your very high skilled and highly technical workers there and I'm really wondering -- because there seems to be a myth that once this bill is passed just about every employee is going to belong to a union and people are going to be forced to belong to a union or a corporation. I think some of the studies you're talking about indicated a very large percentage of workers would not join unions even if they had the choice.
I'd really like to ask you, as you already have a good relationship that other employees and employers don't have, how do you feel this would really affect your corporation? What I'm looking at here and hearing from your presentation is that you're saying employees have lots of input. I don't see why they would even want to join a union and I'm really wondering how this would affect you, if there's not a need for them to join a union.
Ms Kelly: Thank you for the questions, Mr Hayes. Do I say "Your Honour"?
Mr Hayes: No. Right here, the first name.
The Chair: Some might consider "honourable politicians" as being a somewhat oxymoronic concept.
Mr Hayes: There's no "mister" or "honourable" here.
Ms Kelly: Just to go back to your first point, our employees are involved, that's correct. I am very pleased to give speeches on employee empowerment because we have a system that we feel works, but we also don't feel, nor do they, that they would need a third-party intervention. They feel they can deal directly with all of the decision-makers or the leaders who are involved. A lot of it has to do with the quality process, where anybody has power to make decisions and they feel self-accountable so they start to manage very effectively. It's quite exciting to see. Your second question, that a lot of companies won't join unions or are not involved -- we don't believe it will affect ours directly, but we're already seeing economic problems with our customers. Our number one corporate value -- and it was one of the reasons we competed against the most formidable competitor; I don't want to say its name -- is that we said a customer problem is an Amdahl problem. We strongly believe it.
I got involved with this committee -- and this is on my time; I'm usually at the office at about 4 o'clock in the morning -- simply because I was angry that somebody, our Premier of Ontario, had said that business was not working with this and there was this hostility. I thought: "Come on, this is the 1990s. We've got to work together. This is crazy." So I joined a coalition group that says, "Let's get it to the table and let's try to work this out." What I ask you to do is to please let us get to the table, because there is a perception that we are being ignored. I think that's fair for any group.
Mr Hayes: I do believe you are truly sincere. At the same time, I really have to say there are other factors, like some of these billboards that have been up for a long time now, that certainly haven't helped your concern about the dialogue. They've done more to scare off business than this legislation surely would.
2020
Ms Kelly: I have read I believe it was your statements regarding that, and I think we must come back to the table now, though. I really believe that if we make some changes to this, as you have made changes, as this party has made some changes to other proposed legislation, it will be perceived to be trying to work with all Ontarians and get rid of this perception that it is just representing one constituency.
I think right now it's very exciting, because we are poised to be either very successful or we will be in great trouble.
Mr McGuinty: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was remarkable how it was so eminently from the heart, spoken with passion, and I think what I heard in particular was that you sounded a note for cooperation and harmony. Sometimes you get caught up in these things and fail to recognize that it's not in the public interest to give either side the advantage.
I want to ask you about this issue of harmony and cooperation and how you think the government is doing to date in terms of the process that we are engaged in. From your perspective, has it resulted in enhanced cooperation in the province between business and labour? Is it neutral or has it had a negative impact? Also, if Bill 40 becomes law, viewed in the light of harmony and cooperation, how do you see that having an impact?
Ms Kelly: Thank you for your question, Mr McGuinty. As far as this process is concerned, I greatly appreciate being here now. I believe, from my understanding of this process, that you will indeed look at the document that's been presented or submitted by More Jobs Coalition and you will work with this clause by clause.
As far as the process to date, I have been very discouraged. I have never worked with the government before, and all this has been done on my time; I still have a job to do. But I have visited many of the ministries on my own, with Dale Kerry and with the team, and I have met with a number of different ministries. I have sent letters to the Premier and tried to work with my local MPs and other parties as well. We have met with other business leaders. Our group is perceived to be less strident than others and I choose that route. I always believe you take the high ground, and we want to try to stay at the table and talk, but we haven't really been included at the table. This is the closest I've got.
I really appreciate it, because I have felt we have been given some lipservice but have not really been involved, so I think some of the hostility everyone feels is frustration. If this indeed becomes law, I really do mourn. I believe that people have choices today. On my block, I have two individuals who were entrepreneurs who created jobs, and they are going bankrupt, selling their homes. They're very frustrated because they feel, like all of us Canadians, that we're overgoverned.
We're all frustrated with all levels today. We're trying very hard to do a job and to stay afloat. I think what we have to do right now is be very careful about more legislation. In fact, we probably should be very careful about having more government. There is good legislation, by the way. I'm a strong supporter of the employment equity legislation and one of the business people that is speaking for it. I think there's good legislation and there's bad legislation, and I think this is bad legislation.
I cannot speak on behalf of my company, but I know they're watching right now very carefully, as all of our employers are. They have choices to stay or to leave this province.
The Chair: Thank you. I hope they're watching; they might buy Professor Winter's book, Common Cents: Media Portrayal of the Gulf War and Other Events. Ms Witmer, five minutes.
Mrs Witmer: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms Kelly. I think on page 5 you may have identified the key to the problem when you say, "...this is not 1990s legislation. It assumes a working environment which no longer exists."
As we know, for a long time the NDP government has sought to improve the Labour Relations Act, and I think we would all agree that certainly it needs to be reviewed constantly and all the partners need to be brought to the table, problems identified, and then, through consensus, those problems dealt with.
If this is not 1990s legislation, what type of legislation, or what type of mechanism, should this government be using to deal with changes when it sees problems in the area of labour law and labour relations?
Ms Kelly: I believe, as I mentioned, that if you get experts and stakeholders involved in the design of the product, you'll always win. I would feel very strongly about getting union representatives or union leaders and industrial relations practitioners involved to try to get rid of a purpose clause that really sets you up for disaster, first of all, and put in something that assumes you're going to work in harmony.
I do believe in company presidents overseeing things and working with the Premier. I think that's very good and we've been supportive of that. But in terms of the drafting of this legislation, I think you have to work with experts and specialists. The group that we have recommended as industrial relations specialists are very highly regarded in the industry -- in industry, period. They're a group of people I think could help draft this so that there's more of a positive sense to it.
We're just saying that if it isn't broken, don't fix it. That's our frustration. We have a very good history of labour here, but if we want to look at this, as we should look at everything, in a proper way, I think you need to get practitioners involved. I'm sorry. I'm sounding very verbose.
Mr Turnbull: Ms Kelly, thank you very much for an excellent presentation. It's kind of nice to end off the day on a high note.
I'll tell you about the preparatory work I did before I came to these committee meetings. I held an open meeting in my riding of York Mills where everybody was invited. I had representatives of the NDP speaking on behalf of this bill; I had two people there. The public meeting which was attended by over 150 people was a very open forum. At the end of that I very clearly had a direction what the people of York Mills were telling me to do, and that was to oppose this legislation.
But I have to cast my mind back to when I came to live in Ontario in 1969. Ontario was very much a place of opportunity and it was always viewed throughout the world -- and I've lived in many countries of the world -- as a place which was quite enlightened in terms of its rights and protection of workers, and indeed over the years that has been further refined.
I'm not denying that maybe this isn't the time that we should look at some of the things, but I'm most offended at the fact that the NDP is ignoring such people as yourself who are bringing good common sense and all of the work that you have done of your own volition to this kind of equation.
Our party has consistently recommended a tripartite commission which would exist out of workers, management -- and, as you so correctly say, all managers are also workers. We're all workers. MPPs work for the people who elect them. We have to get to be a more cooperative society. We don't set up "them and us."
I would just ask for your comment on the right of people not to join a union. Do you not think that's fundamental to freedom?
Ms Kelly: Yes, I do. I have this notion that I finally learned in my mid-40s that if you make people victims, you tell them basically that they are not accountable and that they cannot be responsible for themselves, and we have a lot of victims in our society today. But if you instil self-accountability -- and that goes to an employee, to a child, to anybody, to any relationship -- and you create self-accountability, then you have empowerment, and that's when change starts to take place. If you put people in positions where they don't have choices, then that is as dangerous to me as anything that can happened.
The Chair: I want to say thank you on behalf of the committee, Ms Kelly. We're grateful to you for appearing here this evening on behalf of Amdahl Canada Ltd. Once again, thank you for coming on short notice. We regret any inconvenience to you, but we appreciate that you were able to accommodate the committee. Thank you kindly. Take care.
Ms Kelly: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, committee members, for your cooperation during the course of the day, and thank you to the staff again for their competence and assistance throughout the course of the day. We are adjourned until tomorrow morning at 10 am.
The committee adjourned at 2033.