Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCALS 1059, 247, 1089

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION

TORONTO-CENTRAL ONTARIO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL

LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA

LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 837

ONTARIO ALLIED CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA

SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, LOCAL 95

PROVINCIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF ONTARIO

CONTENTS

Wednesday 1 December 1993

Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1993, Bill 80, Mr Mackenzie / Loi de 1993 modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail, projet de loi 80, M. Mackenzie

Labourers' International Union of North America, Locals 1059, 247 and 1089

James MacKinnon, business manager, Local 1059

Robert Leone, business manager, Local 1089

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union

Clifford Evans, director, international operations

Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council

John Cartwright, business manager

Labourers' International Union of North America

Joseph S. Mancinelli, manager, central Canada

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837

Manuel Bastos, assistant business manager

Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council

John Marchildon, business manager and secretary-treasurer

Ontario Provincial Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America

Quintin Begg, president

Bryon Black, secretary-treasurer

Sheet Metal Workers' International Association

Robert Belleville, director, Canadian affairs

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95

André Chartrand, vice-president, eastern Canada

Joe de Wit, business manager and financial secretary

Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario

Patrick Dillon, president

Joseph Duffy, business manager

Continued overleaf

Continued from overleaf

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)

*Acting Chairs / Président suppléants:

Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)

Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)

*Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND)

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

*Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

*Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury ND)

Offer, Steven (Mississauga North/-Nord L)

Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)

*Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands/Kingston et Les Îles ND)

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

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Mr Klopp

Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)

for Mr Huget

Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L) for Mr Offer

Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND) for Mr Waters

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:

Cooper, Mike, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour

Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC)

Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis

Staff / Personnel: Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1548 in committee room 1.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Consideration of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 80, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Acting Chair (Mr Paul Klopp): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen and the standing committee on resources development. These are further hearings on Bill 80, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. We'll start, under the Chair's understanding, with the all-party agreement that we get into the hearings. It's scheduled for 3:30 and it is now 10 to 4, so without any further ado we will ask the first group to come forward.

LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCALS 1059, 247, 1089

The Acting Chair: Mr MacKinnon, Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059, is he here? How are you, sir? Also, if you look at your committee agenda, at 4:10 Mr MacKinnon is again on the schedule. If it is in agreement with my colleagues here and with everyone else, is it all right if Mr MacKinnon goes through with his presentations and does them all at once rather than come back to the chair again? That's okay with everybody? Agreed.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): How many is that?

The Acting Chair: He is representing --

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Labourers' International locals 1059 and 247.

The Acting Chair: That's right, locals 1059 and 247, and his colleague, Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1089.

Mr Mahoney: That's three locals.

The Acting Chair: Right.

Mr James MacKinnon: What happened was that we all had 20 minutes scheduled and we were asked a week ago if some of us could double up. Locals 1089 and 1059 agreed to that. Local 247, due to medical reasons, couldn't be here today and asked me to speak on its behalf. But what I'm going to say would be the same, so it makes no sense for me to come back and repeat myself. We're asking if there would be a little more leeway for locals 1059 and 1089 to have a little more than 20 minutes if we need it, since we are squeezing them together.

The Acting Chair: Can I make a ruling for everyone's ease, that we'll allow you a little bit of leeway, a little under 30 minutes, and carry on here if that's okay.

Mr Mahoney: I'm sorry, could I just be clear? You're representing Local 247 as well, so the 4:10 time slot on our agenda is off.

The Acting Chair: It is out, right.

Mr Mahoney: Great. That gives you even more leeway, as far as I'm concerned.

The Acting Chair: We'll call it 30 minutes for you to introduce yourself and your colleague and who you represent and carry on, for the record, whatever you want to say in the next 30 minutes.

Mr James MacKinnon: Thank you for allowing us to be here and speak. On behalf of 1059, I'm the elected business manager. I've been a full-time staff representative since 1982. On two occasions we have had our membership vote on Bill 80, they've had copies of Bill 80, they've pursued it and they are in favour of the proposed legislation.

We're a local union that's predominantly based in London. It covers six counties, board area 3, known in the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I suppose one of the main reasons we support this legislation is that we've been through a trusteeship. We've had a history, starting back in the 1970s, of election fraud. In 1974 we had an election where the incumbent business manager, Paul Santagapita, ran for election, was re-elected and, due to widespread election fraud, after handwriting analysis was done, our international, after a year and a half, agreed to give us a new election in the early 1970s.

In 1982, during the election, his son, Len Santagapita, appeared on the scene. During the course of the election he acquired membership cards for members who were going to be out of town the weekend of the election and had non-members, people completely unrelated to our organization, vote on their behalf. When the election fraud was found, the international took the position that he wasn't found cheating on as many votes as he appeared to have won by. The judges of election refused to put him in office. The local trial board heard the evidence and by a vote of the membership, a majority vote, they decided he shouldn't hold office and because of his dishonesty and fraud shouldn't be implemented into his position of trust.

The international at first said the local union could deal with it, and then when they realized they were going to overturn the decision and instate him in office, threatened to put us in trusteeship.

The local union, although there was no remedy within the Ontario Labour Relations Act, went to the Supreme Court of Ontario and asked for an injunction to stop the trusteeship. I won't get into it too deeply other than to relate to you that after going through the frustration of having no legislation in Ontario, no third party to arbitrate the problem between the local union and the international, we lost our injunction. Judge Trainor said the purpose of the trusteeship was only to implement Mr Santagapita into office and that our constitution did not allow us to question our international's decision other than at a general convention, which is held every five years.

Our constitution allows our international, unfettered, to make the decisions it feels are best in the interests of the local unions in the organization, period. Their decision is final and binding on all parties.

The judge in that decision ruled that -- and this information is contained at tab 1 in the brief that I've given you -- if the constitution wasn't in place, we had a reasonable application for an injunction but that the constitution was an agreement between the parties and the courts could not get in between it and could not decide it; it was a contract between the members, although the judge did say that if the constitution wasn't in place, we should have had the injunction.

We were thrown out 48 hours after the injunction. Our international proceeded to put us in trusteeship and fired the complete elected executive board of the union. Our membership and our executive refused to leave office. Our membership physically barred the international from taking over the office and the assets of the local.

Through frustration, our international went back to the Supreme Court to Judge Trainor and asked for an injunction for us to abide by our constitution and the trusteeship. The judge, as you can see in the information provided there, was very upset and said the international had misled itself and the Supreme Court and, although he should uphold the constitution because it is the contract of employment that we all work under, would not give the injunction to them, although he should, because they hadn't come with clean hands to the court the first time.

He basically and specifically denied their injunction, which left us on the street, us without an injunction, them without an injunction. The whole issue from the beginning was, "Give us a new election for the position of business manager," so we could do that all over again and try and get the air clear. This left us in a very precarious position: We were told we were in trusteeship, the courts wouldn't uphold the trusteeship and they wouldn't turn the trusteeship down.

We proceeded then, as we had petitioned the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP in 1983 to effect legislation that would allow a third party to take a look at an issue as supreme as the complete autonomy of a local union being taken away from its members and have somebody be able to arbitrate that ultimate decision by an international.

In 1983, the Liberal Party supported us that there should be amendments to the Labour Relations Act. Also in the material that was presented by David Peterson at the time was the suggestion that the overall broad picture in a relationship between internationals and their local unions should be looked at, broader than just the trusteeship issue. That information I have also provided for you, and it's contained at tab 9.

You'll see that the information there is the Liberal research document and the position that they took in 1983 on both the trusteeship legislation and the broader issue. Also I have included some statements in the press that the Conservatives made at the time regarding the issue and a letter of support from a Conservative MP in London at the time who understood our problem and wished to help but couldn't do anything more than relay the issue.

That being said, we thought our problem would have been over and we would get on with business. In 1984 our international came in because we didn't abide by the trusteeship and it tried to take the charter away from the local union altogether. They proceeded to try to seize the bank accounts of the local union. I'll get to that very shortly.

There's a letter in here where the Bank of Montreal has advised them that it has done the banking and the institutional financial matters with the local union for a great number of years and it wasn't prepared to give that up to the international. We were fortunate the bank took that position. They said subject to a court order, they would not release it to the international. So that's the interference that happened even after that then to try and get us to heel.

1600

Justice Trainor's final decision when he wouldn't give them the injunction specifically said that the trusteeship was nothing more than an act and a decision by the international to try and make the local union heel, and he called it a very draconian decision in the manner it was dealt with.

The legislation itself: Under the trusteeship, I've provided you all the documents, the court orders, the hearings, the decisions of the Supreme Court and also some newspaper clippings that accurately reflect quotes of the different parties at the time on the appeal for the legislative change.

Section 138.1, I believe, basically spells out that if there's a conflict between the act and the constitution, the act would prevail and is definitely something that's needed because in the strictest sense of our constitution, we have no appeal other than to an international convention which is held every five years. In the interim, our international executive board even has the power to amend the constitution and the everyday running of the affairs of the international. That's something that's needed and I provided a copy of the pertinent parts in our constitution at tab 2 that spell out their powers.

Tab 3: Specifically, section 138.2 deals with the rights of local unions to have deemed bargaining rights in collective agreements that our members work under, that we set the dues under, that we have to police, that we have to pay for the lawyers to represent our members in arbitrations and so forth, but specifically we have to have the permission of the international, and in one case with the Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council to even take a grievance. We come in with our hat in our hand and say: "Please, we'll pay for the arbitrations. We'll do it all. Can we represent our members?"

At tab 3, I've provided for you two Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions, specifically one between local 1059 and Ontario Hydro where we've tried to grieve on behalf of our members working for Ontario Hydro under the allied council agreement, and where the labour board has said Local 1059 cannot grieve on behalf of its members because it's not party to the agreement. That's something that section in the proposed Bill 80 would allow us to do then, have deemed shared bargaining rights with our international in those circumstances and allow us to represent our members.

I've also provided you the list of four collective agreements that are either between the allied council or an international or a group of international unions where we'd have deemed bargaining rights where we don't now and a second labour board decision regarding the pipeline agreement where our district council, on behalf of a group of locals, tried to grieve and the board again held that we didn't hold bargaining rights and therefore we couldn't grieve on behalf of our members.

Tab 4, section 138.3 is one of the most substantial issues in the rights of Bill 80, and I think the thing that people lose track of is that 60% of my membership joined Local 1059 by virtue of signing an application for membership to certify an employer they worked for. They didn't walk in off the street and say: "I'd like to be a member of the Labourers' union. Give me a job." They had jobs. They wanted to be represented by this local. They applied for membership in it. They organized their employers. They had the people they elect negotiate their agreements for them, police them. They decided the union dues they wanted to pay and they decided on a monthly basis how those union dues are to be spent.

The whole issue around this protection in this act, in this proposal is that the local union members ultimately should be making the decisions on changes in jurisdiction, geographically or otherwise, because that's the reason they got into that particular local, because of the circumstances that exist at the status quo. I think it's important those rights are maintained.

To say to a person who put his job on the line and organized his employer to be a member of a local union where he channels his union dues and does his negotiations that down the road somebody's decided to make a change to that, to charter another local union possibly to handle half the local union's affairs, make it bigger, make it smaller, without their input, without their ultimate decision -- they built the local union, they paid for it and they elect the local representatives who look after them.

I think that's one of the fundamental things that we believe Bill 80 will continue to give them, is to leave them the status quo and allow them to make the ultimate decision on their destiny. There are a couple of newspaper articles that spell out some actions with another local union in the province -- and I won't comment on that -- in regard to trusteeships.

Tab 6, is important, section 138.5, the autonomy of the local union that I just spoke on, again requiring it to make changes with just cause. I think that's the ultimate thing that's required.

The rights of the members of a local union should come first and the rights of the international should come second, I believe, in the ultimate decisions of their destiny on a local union basis. That's why they became members of the local union, in most cases, to begin with.

They should have the right of remedy at the Ontario Labour Relations Board or another third party. What I've done under that tab is that you'll see a letter from a law firm representing the Bank of Montreal to our international union over an interference that's further than a trusteeship, further than supervision of our local. Again, trusteeship is a complete removal of all officers and the right to run your affairs for at least a year under the current legislation. This article just speaks to where the international is trying to take over the banking affairs of Local 1059 and the position of the bank on that.

I've also included with that a letter from the Ministry of Labour in 1984, from Russell Ramsay to Angelo Fosco. He references Local 1059. I guess this goes to the argument, if Bill 80's put in, what will it stop international unions from doing, where there is corruption and there are problems? If you read that letter, it's from the Conservative Minister of Labour of the day to our international, pleading with it to put a local under trusteeship because of the crime and corruption in the local and at the same time saying he's tried not to do legislation in the Local 1059 situation.

Mr Mahoney: Where is that letter?

Mr James MacKinnon: That's tab 6. There's a letter from Shepherd, McKenzie, Plaxton, and then right afterwards there's a letter of October 9, 1984.

It just shows you the other side of it, if an international wanted to get involved and clean up a particular local union other than for political issues. They seem to stay out of local unions that need it and they get involved in local unions that don't. Again, I'm speaking only of our own.

Section 138.7 is regarding pension funds, welfare funds, training funds. In most cases, the local unions set up their own welfare insurance funds. They administer them, they put trustees on them, but in some cases our members, through collective bargaining the local unions have done, contribute moneys to specifically a pension plan we have in Ontario and eastern Canada that covers all their pension requirements, hopefully, on retirement.

With that plan, the local unions in Ontario have no right at all to appoint any trustees on it. We negotiate the amounts that go into it, we represent the members in collective bargaining in that process, but we have no right to appoint trustees at all. The representation that's on that is as a gift from the right of the international which puts the trustees on it. That's the plan that is the predominant plan in Ontario for all the members of the Labourers' union.

I think that's fundamental. If your members pay money into a plan and you negotiate the amounts that go into it and you represent them, then you should have some right to put representatives elected by the people who are putting the money into that plan.

1610

I've already mentioned to you tab 10 is the position that Peterson specifically took and the Liberals took in 1983, and I won't get into that; it's fairly self-explanatory. The Liberal research document that was given out is there verbatim. Also, you'll see some positions of the parties on that issue.

There's a proposed legislative change that the Liberals tabled at that time, subsection 82(a), and it speaks to things farther than just trusteeship. It was supervision or control over a subordinate trade union whereby the autonomy of such subordinate trade union is suspended, abridged or revoked. So even in the proposal by the Liberals at that time, although they spoke of broader needs on the issue of the trusteeship, they went farther and spoke of the issue of autonomy of local unions.

Tab 10, and I won't get into it, is just specifically the position of the provincial district council of Labourers in Ontario, and the position of the executive board and the delegates is contained in the minutes that have been provided for you. So if there's some doubt as to the position of the council, it's there, and again it's verbatim as far as the minutes go.

I'd just like to very quickly wrap it up and say that I think the legislation that's in Bill 80, and I haven't spoken to the issue of successorship simply because I understand it's gone, the balance of the bill is very democratic. I think it's very fair and it speaks to the rights of the members of the local unions first, so that if there's unjust interference, we've got a third arm's-length party to go to and try and solve our problems.

I think what the act will do, being changed with these amendments, is that you'll see more dialogue and you'll see more interaction between the local unions and the internationals prior to arbitrated decisions being made by an international without consultation. It'll require more consultation now because of the ultimate decision of the local to challenge their decision. I think you'll see very little activity at the board because of passing this. I think it'll solve everything out there in the field, where we deal on a day-to-day basis.

I'd like to thank you for allowing us to speak.

The Acting Chair: Does your colleague have anything to add?

Mr Robert Leone: I'll be very brief. My comments are pretty well similar to those of Local 1059. I would like, though, to make a correction. My name is not Clemente Cicchini; it's Robert Leone and I am manager of Local 1089.

The Acting Chair: We've got that. Thank you.

Mr Leone: I'm here on behalf of the members of Local 1089 to let you know that the membership is totally in favour of Bill 80.

I can remember almost 27 years ago, when I signed the card, I signed it and gave authority to the union to speak and to bargain on my behalf. The members who do that today sign the same card. What I mean by that is that I'm trying to show you that we, as managers, have a responsibility to the members who elect us. We answer to them on a daily basis and on a monthly basis at meetings, not like the international. We have a voice with the international once every five years, because that's when our conventions are, once every five years.

We're caught in the middle as to trying to perform the wishes of our members, and contrary to the international's opinion, we oftentimes get intimidated, coerced and once in a while we get a little subtle threat, which makes it difficult to function, because ultimately we have to carry the message that our members give us.

I ran into one situation where our members desperately wanted a group retirement savings plan, and I went into conflict with our district council and with our international, and I had a very difficult time getting my point across to them that my members wanted this plan, and who best to know what is the best thing for the membership in the Sarnia area but the members themselves. We finally did get this plan going, and it's going very well, but it wasn't easy.

We also had an issue where the previous business manager had a problem with the Ontario Labour Relations Board and with the courts, and the Ministry of Labour requested that our international come in and intervene and correct the situation, but our international chose not to get involved. They chose to play the political game, and as a result the members ultimately suffered.

Our membership is also involved in various plans where we have little or no say at all as to the outcome of the plans, whether to make improvements, increase in contributions, whatever the case may be. Whenever there is a problem or a question, who gets it? I get it.

With respect to agreements, the problem that we run into is that we refer members out to work, and there is a problem. Oftentimes we have problems filing complaints, and if we file complaints, we have difficulties in carrying the complaint through. Membership has a problem understanding: "I'm working under this agreement. Why have we no say? Why can't we vote on the outcome of this collective agreement?"

The Acting Chair: Would you like to leave some time for questions, sir?

Mr Leone: Yes, I think so.

Mr Mahoney: How much time do we have?

The Acting Chair: Oh, you've got about three or four minutes.

Mr Mahoney: Each?

The Acting Chair: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: Thanks very much for your presentation. It's quite detailed. How do you feel about back-to-work legislation in general?

Mr James MacKinnon: How do I feel about it in the context of Bill 80?

Mr Mahoney: Any context. How do you feel about government legislating a union back to work?

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: If they answer my question, they'll find out. How do you feel about it?

Mr James MacKinnon: I think you'd have to look at every circumstance.

Mr Mahoney: Do you believe it's warranted in some cases but not in others?

Mr James MacKinnon: I think you'd have to look at every case.

Mr Leone: I think the same. You have to look at every case and assess the issues, because at times you come to a sticking point in negotiating and something needs to occur to get everyone talking again. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's not good.

Mr Mahoney: I'm not trying to trick you with anything. I'm trying to get at a point here, and that is that -- I'm not; I'm not trying to trick you at all. I guess I'm getting at a point that this whole bill and the issue strikes me as a labour dispute within labour. Rather than attempting to resolve it within your own house with perhaps some assistance -- which is exactly what you did in 1982 with David Peterson. There was no legislation brought down to resolve your problem; there were threats, there were meetings, there were discussions, there were letters. In your own presentation you say that with the support of the Liberal opposition party the problem was resolved. It took more time than it should have; I quite agree with that.

But what I'm getting at is that back-to-work legislation is government intrusion in the collective bargaining process. I quite agree with your position, by the way, that you have to look at each instance. But it seems to me that Bill 80 is government resolving a dispute between two parties within the labour movement, be they the international and the locals, by legislation rather than attempting to do it by resolution, either through mediation, arbitration, or discussion.

1620

Some of the points you raise, I credit you, are quite valid. I certainly would agree with the statement in David Peterson's letter where he asks them to provide protection for the local from "arbitrary, unfair, unilateral takeover."

I agree that that should not be tolerated and allowed, but my question goes to the nub of whether or not we need legislation to do that or if it could be resolved within the labour movement itself.

The second part of the question would be: How do you feel about it if it's complaint-driven from the point of view of -- in your case, in reality, it was complaint-driven. You guys complained like hell and got a lot of people on side and resolved the problem. It should have been easier.

How would you feel if you could file a complaint about a trusteeship to the OLRB and have it heard, say, within -- I don't know, what's reasonable, 30 days or something along those lines -- rather than coming in with something that simply overrides a constitution?

Mr James MacKinnon: Unfortunately, in our constitution, any law that would limit the powers of the international would override the constitution because it's the legislative document that we deal with. The Ontario Labour Relations Act now spells out a duty on unions of fair representation, to deal internally with its own members. It also deals with certification procedures, vote procedures, a lot of things that happen out there.

The problem we have is that there is absolutely nothing in Ontario, in the courts or the act, that allows the question of just cause to be taken anywhere.

We were fortunate in 1983, not just that we had the support of the Liberals at the time and the NDP, that we had a stupid international rep. If he had done, very correctly, and a little more manipulatively, his issue on the trusteeship, our international would have had a court injunction having us abiding by that trusteeship, because they've got the right in the constitution to do it. We were very fortunate --

Mr Mahoney: My point -- sorry to interrupt, but I'm so limited in time and you have had 30 minutes and I haven't -- at least, today.

My question goes to the fact that if this is indeed an internal dispute within the labour movement, and I think it is -- and there are some points that need to be resolved, whether it's shared bargaining rights, whether it's trustees on a pension board, whether it's the right to, as David called it, "arbitrary, unilateral, unfair takeover," all of those kinds of issues.

As in most labour disputes that I've ever been familiar with, there's a real strong attempt to resolve those differences between the negotiating parties, usually labour and management.

In this case, it's between local and international. I don't see the evidence, in this round at least, that -- we might be prepared to support some changes that were agreed to by the parties if they were done on a less confrontative basis.

Let me say also, because I'm sure my time is up, that disagreeing with some of the points my former leader made wouldn't be the first time that happened. A party changing its position -- it wouldn't be the first time that happened around this place.

I think you presented a fair and balanced argument and I just wonder if there weren't, and still aren't, better ways, such as the complaint-driven. I'm going to be putting an amendment forward -- whether or not it gets voted on will depend on the time allocation -- that the issue be complaints-driven, to at least allow you guys to resolve your differences before it comes to a government agency.

Mr Leone: I think maybe your question addresses more the accountability on the parties. It's like a David-and-Goliath issue. I'm accountable; the international should be accountable as well. But at the same time, if I'm David and I am intimidated, maybe I might go forward but the next guy might not.

Mr Mahoney: But you're now Goliath.

Mr Leone: No, not yet.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. Mr Murdoch, with an "h."

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): With an "h," yes. I'm not the socialist Murdock; I'm the other one.

The Acting Chair: Carry on.

Mr Murdoch: It's nice to see that Steve's maybe coming around here.

Mr Mahoney: Not at all.

Mr Murdoch: Oh, it's not nice to see?

Mr Mahoney: I'm still very much opposed to the bill; I'm just giving him some common sense to resolve some problems.

Mr Murdoch: No, obviously these are local. I would assume they were in favour of the bill. I'm sorry, I missed your comment. I wasn't supposed to be in here, but they dug me up and got me down here. You were in favour of this bill, I assume.

Mr Leone: Yes.

Mr Murdoch: So I'm going to ask them, then, because I'm in favour of the bill too, so let's --

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): You're the same as the other 85%.

Mr Murdoch: That's right. Hey, I agree on this one, you guys. It still mystifies me why this government's putting it through and I don't think I'll ever know that answer, but anyway --

Mr Mahoney: But you're going to support it anyway.

Mr Murdoch: I'm going to support it, yes, because it's local autonomy. I can't see anything wrong with it. I can't say, though, that all the party's going to, but I'm going to. We'll let the other guys make up their own minds.

Mr Leone: I appreciate your comments.

The Acting Chair: One quick question, please.

Ms Murdock: If Mr Cooper wants to, he can.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): It's a fairly quick one. On tab 6, the letter from the bank dated April 16, 1984, what is the status of the local's finances right now?

Mr James MacKinnon: After the bank refused --

Mr Cooper: No, not in this case. I mean at present, who controls your funds?

Mr James MacKinnon: The local union's members do.

Mr Cooper: And the money doesn't belong to the international?

Mr James MacKinnon: Technically, it does. The local union's members put it in and direct it, but under the constitution, it's the same issue that was in the original bill on the issue of leaving your international. Under the constitution under the act, if you left your international, that would all stay with the international's local union. You wouldn't control at that point, but --

Mr Cooper: So at present, if you remain within the international, it's your money.

Mr James MacKinnon: In law, it's not. In law, it's the international's, although the local union --

Mr Cooper: Would Bill 80 protect the international from coming in and seizing those assets?

Mr James MacKinnon: They would have to have just cause for those types of actions.

Mr Cooper: Under Bill 80.

Mr James MacKinnon: Yes.

Mr Cooper: But at present?

Mr James MacKinnon: No.

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION

The Acting Chair: The next group is the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. I believe Clifford Evans is here. Could he please come forth --

Mr Mahoney: Get that Miracle Food Mart thing solved, eh?

The Acting Chair: -- and get your name and your position on Hansard. If there are any other colleagues who are here with you, they're welcome to come up. You see the procedure. You have approximately 20 minutes. You can leave time for questions, as long as it's all within the 20 minutes. It's your dime, sir. Take it away.

Mr Clifford Evans: My name is Cliff Evans. I'm the director of international operations for the United Food and Commercial Workers. I was for 22 years the Canadian director of the retail clerks' international union and then the UFCW.

The UFCW is Canada's largest private sector union. There are 170,000 of us in Canada, 75,000 in Ontario, and in North America we have 1.3 million members. We're not only the largest, we are the most diverse union in terms of our membership than any other union and the most reflective of the population as a whole.

We represent people who work in the service and industrial sectors and we do a good job for our members. We're large and we're strong and we're effective and we're progressive and we're out on strike with Miracle Food Mart and they're beating the hell out of us.

Mr Mahoney: Thanks to Bill 40.

Mr Evans: No, not thanks to Bill 40.

Mr Mahoney: There wouldn't be a strike if it wasn't for Bill 40.

Mr Evans: Oh, yes, there would be a strike. Let me guarantee you there would be a strike.

Mr Mahoney: We're on the same side on this one, Cliff.

Mr Evans: Not on Bill 40 causing the strike, we're not. We didn't get that way by the government telling us how to do it. In fact, governments have seldom been our friends and this piece of legislation is a perfect example of how to make it difficult for trade unions to do what they're supposed to do, and that's advance the legitimate economic interests of their members.

Bill 80 says to the trade unions, in the construction sector only: "We don't think you know how best to conduct the affairs of the organization. We think we in the government know better than you how to handle differences of opinion, philosophy or perspective within your organizations."

1630

The implications of this unprecedented piece of legislation have not been fully considered. You've been so distracted by the internal politics of construction unions that you have failed to analyse or even admit the possible consequences to the members of a sudden and severe destabilization of the governance structures and political cultures of the unions. No government in Canada, North America or the industrial world where free collective bargaining takes place has ever introduced a piece of legislation like this, a law that effectively amends the constitutions of trade unions in fundamental ways. Only in dictatorships do governments run unions. A plain reading of the bill can only mean that this government wants to dictate how the internal affairs of a union should operate, but notice that it doesn't take any responsibility for the outcome of that interference.

In my almost 40 years' experience in the trade union movement in Canada, most of it here in Ontario, I have participated in the drafting of several union constitutions and bylaws. I have not always had my way. In the international constitution of my own union, there are many things that I voted against and spoke out against when it was being drafted and amended.

Many years later, I would still vote against some of those things, but on others I've seen the wisdom of some of the aspects of the constitution that I originally opposed. But whatever my personal thoughts and beliefs, our constitution was democratically shaped by us and for us.

Others may look at our constitution and find things to criticize. We would tell such critics: "Join our union. Learn about our history, our culture, our experience and our aspirations. Learn about the realities of the industries we work in. Talk directly to our members and work alongside them for a few years. Find out about their expectations and needs. Get involved in our governance structures. Organize some members and then stick around and negotiate their contracts and handle their grievances and their many problems with government agencies such as workers' compensation and unemployment insurance. Then you might have an intelligent opinion on how we should govern ourselves."

That is what we're saying about Bill 80. It's not the UFCW constitution that you're changing, but it might as well be. The precedent is right here. Now that the door is open, any government can easily walk through for any political or economic reason, and it will. I might just tell you I'm opposed to government intervention in other than essential industries.

Why is this hazardous precedent being set? Exactly who is going to benefit from the legislation? What is the problem that is being addressed and how large is the problem? I know you've heard some stories, or at least one side of some stories, about allegations of heavy-handedness on the part of some unions towards the local unions. Some of these stories may be true or have some grain of truth in them. I'm not saying that unions in the construction industry always and in every circumstance handle problems in a way that all of us would like, any more than I always approve of the way that provincial or federal governments handle their problems.

I don't approve, for example, of the way the government sometimes unilaterally opens up collective agreements and amends them without the consent of the other party to the agreement, which means they are no longer agreements. But our Canadian Constitution, both written and common law, gives the government the right to do this, as heavy-handed as it may be. I sometimes wish I could write a law preventing governments from doing things like that in the future, and if enough other citizens agreed with me, perhaps we'd eventually put some restrictions in the Canadian Constitution.

The point is that each union's constitution, with all its flaws, real or imagined, is unique and fundamental to its organizational integrity. The trade union movement is very deep-rooted and each trade union has its own history. Ours goes back to the 19th century when retail clerks first organized to get Sundays off, and for a while there we were successful in doing just that, until a really friendly government came along and made it difficult for us to maintain these legitimate social interests of our members.

Our cultures and our government structures have evolved steadily and our constitutions are the essence of those cultures. You cannot just blunder into these constitutions and reshape them to suit your own notion of how organizations should be governed and then walk away.

This is not a rhetorical warning. There are serious consequences that could flow from Bill 80 that you probably haven't even thought of, because you couldn't be expected to understand the realities of the economic and political environment within which each union operates. Here's an example: What does a parent organization do if a local union that has jurisdiction in an area doesn't organize the unorganized or if the members and officers refuse to let new members in? Those are real questions that somebody, some day, may want to address. They aren't being addressed in this piece of legislation.

For every allegation of a union being arbitrary and heavy-handed, infringing on a local union's autonomy for allegedly nefarious reasons, there are 10 examples of where the collective interests of the members and potential members of a local union, and indeed those of the union as a whole, require quick and decisive action on the part of the officers who were elected to safeguard those interests.

I myself have been involved in cases in which local union officers, sometimes in good faith but sometimes not, were jeopardizing not only the interests of their own members but those of other members of our union who were outside that local union's jurisdiction. For instance, I've had to try to stop strikes that would have been disastrous or settlements that would have been equally so. At such times, the local union officers may react negatively and cry interference and lack of autonomy, but we simply cannot allow inexperienced local leaders to push the members into a river when we know that the rapids and the waterfalls are just ahead, just out of sight.

Of course there must be checks on power and authority. We agree completely with this principle. What are unions after all but institutional checks on powers of employers? But these checks must not be so constructed as to prevent those who have the responsibilities from discharging them, and these checks should not be applied in a discriminatory way.

For example, if there's a problem in the trusteeship language in the Labour Relations Act, it should be corrected for all unions, not just the construction unions. If there are problems with the language relating to welfare and pension plans, they should be corrected for all unions, not just construction unions.

I happen to be a trustee on a number of jointly trusteed programs, and we have a large number of local unions that are involved in them. It would be absolutely asinine to have 28 local unions sitting on a board of trustees to operate a plan. Quite frankly, you would never get anything done. We have a plan that runs 250,000 people and protects the benefits of 250,000 either past or present members, and we have never had a complaint in our organization that a local union felt that its members weren't being properly represented, because the trustees have a responsibility to represent the participants.

If you ask me whether there are people in Canada, in the UFCW, who are in leadership roles in local unions and who would like to be trustees on the plan, absolutely. The question is whether they represent a large enough segment in the various economic regions of the country to be there so that the plan will run in the best interests and as economically as possible for the membership.

I think in every instance you have to look at the plan and you have to look at who and how many trustees there should be on the plan, whether the geographical representation is there and whether the locals have the ability to have input to the trustees who run the plan.

Similarly, if there were problems, real or perceived, with jurisdiction, either trade or geographical, then why wasn't there a review in Bill 40 on the question of jurisdictional issues for all unions? Our organization, in many instances, operates similarly to a great number of the building trades in that we have geographical local unions which have both trade and geographical jurisdiction. We also have a great number of local unions that are organized on a plant-by-plant or enterprise-by-enterprise system. Our constitution is developed so that it fits all of those requirements.

If we are to protect union members from the real or perceived arbitrary or discriminatory action of their leaders -- local, national, international or provincial organizations -- the wording in the labour relations act of British Columbia is perhaps a good model. It's very short and very precise:

1640

"Every person has a right to the application of the principles of natural justice in respect of all disputes relating to:

"(a) matters in the constitution of the trade union;

"(b) the person's membership in a trade union; or

"(c) discipline by a trade union."

This is a broad-brushed approach that is appealing for its inclusiveness while at the same time not dictating the affairs of individual unions. It doesn't change any constitution, but it allows an aggrieved member a legal right to challenge his or her union's action, and this is what we should be trying to achieve here in Ontario.

Certainly there has been and always will be political conflicts and differences of opinion within unions. You have to understand that union leaders operate in an adversarial system and so are conditioned to dealing with conflict. The line of work doesn't attract people who have weak convictions or who are afraid to speak their minds. When a union has crafted an organizational and governance structure over many, many years, you should tread very carefully so you don't inoculate them against a relatively small problem and in the process infect them with a much more serious disease.

On behalf of the UFCW -- and we've discussed this bill within our union extensively, so I know I speak for the union in this regard -- please think through the possible outcomes of this legislation. Will it really make unions stronger, more capable of representing their members? Whose interests will it really serve? The so-called problem Bill 80 addresses does not require drastic legislative action, especially since it opens the door for future governments everywhere in Canada to impose their own notions of what constitutes appropriate governance of unions that they neither understand nor care about.

Thank you very much for your time. If you've got any questions, I'll try to answer them.

Mr Murdoch: How much time do we have?

The Acting Chair: We have approximately three and a half minutes each.

Mr Murdoch: I guess the one question I have is that it looks to me in your presentation that the international sort of knows everything and the local guys really don't know anything. That's what I'm sort of hearing from this.

Mr Evans: I come out of a local union that had 42 members. I was a steward. I've been all the way through this organization, and that surely is not the case, because in our organization, and in most other organizations, there are provisions for trusteeships if you violate the constitution or if you do something illegal or improper.

I don't have a problem, just so you understand, with there being a show-cause hearing or just-cause hearing before the labour relations board within a 10-day period or a 30-day period or whatever is appropriate to deal with trusteeships; I have no problems with that at all. The problem that I do have is that in order to secure the evidence, you're denying the parent body of the local union the ability to get into the local union to see whether their fears or complaints are justified.

I don't have any problem whatsoever on the question of trusteeship and the question that it should not be for political reasons and it should not be used as a club, but there has got to be the application of whatever kind of justice this is purported to be applied to all. I'm sure that even Brother MacKinnon, who spoke before me, would agree that there are different levels, in his mind, of heavy-handedness by organizations. Some he would give you that there are none and some he would say that there are more than there should be.

I think you could have legislation that provides, as it does in British Columbia, where you've got an agreement of the government, the labour movement -- all the labour movement, including the public, private and construction sectors -- and the employers to put in that kind of legislation to deal with a real or perceived problem. What you've got here is a sledgehammer to kill an ant.

Mr Murdoch: One other thing: You mentioned that this would open up government interference. I think we were told -- I don't know what day it was last week, and I think it was by a Mr Ward, but I'm not sure that was his name -- the government in the past has already interfered before. He said the Conservatives did it and also the Liberals. He talked about Bette Stephenson doing something. I think that door's already been opened, so I don't think you need to fear that.

Mr Evans: I'm not doubting that the door's already been opened. I've been the recipient of many of the bad decisions various governments before this one have come up with. I don't think that is the role of government. I would say that the government should not be involved in the governance of organizations. I don't think they are when it comes to the legal society, I don't think they are when it comes to the medical society, I don't think they are when it comes to the chamber of commerce, I don't think they are when it comes to the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and I don't think they should be when it comes to the labour movement.

Mr Murdoch: Well, I think that just in the last three years they have become involved in quite a few medical decisions and things like that as our health care -- you can probably tell.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Murdoch.

Mr Murdoch: Oh, you're going to cut me off. I was just going to take a rant about you guys, but all right. I can do that another day.

The Acting Chair: I'm under a time constraint here, my friend, sorry.

Mr Cooper: Thanks very much for your presentation. First of all, on page 4 of your presentation you've got: "Here's an example: What does a parent organization do if a local union that has jurisdiction in an area doesn't organize the unorganized? Or if the members and officers refuse to let new members in?" Obviously that would be just cause because of the viable operation of the local.

Mr Evans: Mr Cooper, I would really beg to differ with you, because if you had a local union that had jurisdiction in an area and -- I mean, it comes to effort, whether they're successful in their organizing attempts.I think if you were to come down to the Labour Relations Board and say, "The local union hasn't organized as many members as we think they should have and therefore we're going to place the local under trusteeship or put a new local in over top of that local union," I would really, with all due respect, even if I was the chairman, have great difficulty with that argument, because in these times it is very difficult to organize.

Mr Cooper: If you're talking about not meeting a quota, you mean.

Mr Evans: I'm sorry?

Mr Cooper: You're talking about not meeting a quota set by the international.

Mr Evans: Yes, real or imagined.

Mr Cooper: But if they're absolutely not doing any organizing, that would be just cause. If they're losing membership, they aren't viable. Then that would be just cause for the international to step in, right?

Mr Evans: I wouldn't think so. I really don't want to get into specifics, but I know a construction union that has a very large local union in Toronto and a very small local union in Barrie, and I think it's got a really small local union over in Oshawa. If you were the person making the decision, it may make all the sense in the world that for the service to the membership those should be amalgamated. The members in Barrie and Oshawa may say, "To hell with you, we don't want to do that, because we then wouldn't get the right to go to the Ontario Federation of Labour convention, the CLC convention or the international convention," or somebody else's convention. They may not merge voluntarily for all the wrong reasons. My constitution says we can't merge them other than voluntarily, but there are decisions that some time have to be made that may be made where they are very unpopular at the moment but they're made for the right reasons.

Mr Cooper: Anyway, to follow up, you're the only one coming who wasn't from the construction trades, and you're talking about opening up the door for government interference in other internationals.

Mr Evans: No, I didn't say other internationals; I said other unions. I don't think this bill is aimed just at internationals; I think it's aimed at the labour movement.

Mr Cooper: To make it perfectly clear, the reason this is brought forward is it's already agreed that the construction trades have a separate section under the Labour Relations Act. The uniqueness of the way they operate -- where their jobs are either short-term, long-term, they have different employers -- is why this was brought in. They don't have a permanent workplace or a permanent employer. That's why they're separate in the Labour Relations Act and that's why this legislation was brought in specific to the construction trades.

Mr Mahoney: Actually, many of them don't have employers at all these days. It'd be interesting if we did something to create jobs.

The Acting Chair: Three minutes, Mr Mahoney.

Mr Cooper: That'll be done soon.

Mr Mahoney: Can you tell me what you see from the people who are particularly in support of it -- not the people, not the individuals, but what would be the different interests of an international and a local, and particularly in reference to your example where an area's not being organized, there are unorganized workers? Would they have the same interests? Would they be competing with one another? Are there benefits for a local to belong to an international that perhaps are not coming out?

1650

Mr Evans: It all depends on which one you belong to. Our organization over the last 10 years -- if you had a chart on per capita tax paid to the international which happens to go into a Canadian bank and what the international union has had to put into the Canadian operation, you'd find out that it's in excess of $25 million, where the benefit surely doesn't go to the international; it goes in favour of the Canadian membership. Now, if somebody looks at it 10 years from now, it may be $10 million in favour of the international union and they will of course have all forgotten about the fact that $25 million went in during this 10-year period.

I think, from my standpoint, and I happen to have belonged to an international union for an awfully long time, we are probably as nationalistic or more nationalistic in respect to our organization than any national union because we have Canadianized our international constitution, we have the right to separate from our international union embedded in the constitution and we didn't do that with the assistance of any government legislation.

We went to an organization and demanded that we do inside our organization the things that we wanted to do. They quite frankly resisted for a great long time, too long, as far as I was concerned, and then saw the wisdom of their ways. We probably, as an international union -- I think there are a few others -- have as much autonomy as any national union in the country. We decide who we're going to support politically. We decide how we're going to draft documents and submit briefs.

Mr Mahoney: But if you were advising the people who are complaining about heavy-handedness -- and you've said in your brief somewhere that you certainly don't support that kind of tactic going on, nor do I -- of how they could perhaps attain the status that you people have attained in your union, how would you do that?

Mr Evans: By talking to the people across the country in the organizations.

Mr Mahoney: But they say they get to go to a convention every five years and no one will listen to them, so how do you do it?

Mr Evans: Conventions are not where it's done. Anybody who comes to this committee and says that's where it is done is very naive. It's a question of getting the Canadian membership together, supporting the idea and picking the right individuals to make the pitch, and it's not at a convention.

Mr Mahoney: Sort of like policy conventions.

Mr Evans: It's like getting them out in the hall and telling them, "This is the way it's going to be or else."

Mr Mahoney: How would you feel about its being complaint-driven, an amendment in this bill? Does that improve it, do you think?

Mr Evans: I think that's what British Columbia is. I think British Columbia is complaint-driven and I think it covers the widest range it can possibly cover. It covers matters dealing with the constitution, it covers the membership in the trade union. There is not in Bill 80, just so that you totally understand, anything that protects the members from the heavy-handed approach of a local union. I think their bylaws should provide that.

Mr Mahoney: That may be next.

Mr Evans: I think their bylaws should provide that. I think the constitution should provide that; our constitution surely does. If a local union doesn't handle a member's grievance properly, they have the right to complain to the international union and the international union has the right to come in and investigate the problem.

TORONTO-CENTRAL ONTARIO BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL

The Acting Chair: The next presentation is Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, John Cartwright, business manager. Would you please come forward and both introduce yourselves and your positions. You have 20 minutes of our time.

Mr John Cartwright: Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is John Cartwright. I'm the business manager of the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council. With me is Chris Thurrott, business representative of the council. I'm a carpenter by trade; Chris is a steamfitter by trade. The council represents 55,000 construction tradesmen and tradeswomen in the greater Toronto area, Simcoe, Durham and Peterborough regions, the entire central Ontario region. That numerically means about half of the unionized construction workers in the province.

I'm not going to read through the brief but I will touch on a number of points here. The first thing is to make it very clear how our council, the largest one in the province, came to its decision around Bill 80. We held a specially called meeting which every delegate was mailed a notice of. We had very high attendance to that meeting and we debated for over three hours every aspect of Bill 80. Then we held a secret ballot vote on each point, one by one. Our position, as a result of that secret ballot vote, is that we support Bill 80 for four of the five points and section 138.6 on successorship is not supported by our council.

But I want to make it very clear that it was done on a point-by-point basis and through a secret ballot because much of what's happened over the last year and a half since the introduction of Bill 80 -- the membership has not been allowed to vote with their conscience. There have been numerous cases of conventions or other meetings where international reps were present, and an intimidation factor does play into it.

I sat in on some of the hearings and the issue of Bill 80. It has been asked a number of times, why is this necessary? I think it's very important for this committee to understand the reality of the construction industry. Some people have talked about the fact that our members do not work at one place. They rely on the local union hiring hall for their employment, they rely on the local union to be able to dispatch them to work, to be able to defend them. Not only do the employees rely on a hiring hall but also the employers.

We operate in perhaps the most heavily unionized sector of the economy in Ontario, and I think that's a credit to the efforts and determination of construction workers to make themselves a better life. We belong to, in the building trades, 14 different international unions. They're all affiliated to the AFL-CIO building trades department in Washington. All of the councils are chartered from there. The officers of the Canadian executive board are all selected by the international union, as are the delegates to the Canadian convention all selected by the international unions except some of those from the affiliated councils. The last convention that you may have heard mention of was chaired by Brother Robert Georgine from Washington, the head of the department.

Within each international union the Canadian membership makes up a very small percentage, anywhere from 5% to 11%, of the membership and there is no international that I'm aware of where the selection of the top Canadian officer is constitutionally determined by a Canadian body.

I want to speak mostly around the issue of checks and balances because the question of why Bill 80 is necessary is around something that construction workers in this province do not have, and that is an adequate system of checks and balances within their international constitution.

Cliff Evans just made a presentation saying that this thing will apply to everybody. I beg to differ. In an industrial or service union, if an international or a national union comes into a local union, removes its freely elected leadership or interferes in their ability to operate as officers or takes the local union over, the members who belong to that union and work in a workplace have an option if they feel that they've been totally unjustly dealt with, and that option is very simple. At come-open period of that collective agreement, those members can say: "We don't like this. We don't like paying dues to an organization that's going to abuse us. We think we'll leave." They can then go and take a vote and choose to decertify and leave and join another union.

At the end of that vote, the next morning, if they choose to join ABC Union of North America, or ABC Union of Canada, guess what? They all still have their jobs when they go and punch into the clock or they walk into the mine or they walk into the office. They all still have their health and welfare benefits under that agreement that was there, or with that company, and they all still have some pension rights. That is totally different from what would happen in construction.

1700

If a similar group of workers in construction felt as aggrieved as that philosophical group that I just talked about and decided they wanted to go somewhere else, they felt that their international was not dealing with them properly and they didn't want to wait five years for a convention or five years for backroom deals -- as I think was made quite obvious by the last speaker, that's how politics are changed, not by convention delegate decision -- and they decided to take a vote in construction, they could vote to leave, that's true. But the bargaining rights for the local union that they belong to are shared in the ICI sector with the international, and the bargaining rights that we get in construction are by organizing companies when they have employees. But most of the companies that we currently have bargaining rights with no longer have employees, because they are developers or major contractors and they change the way of business. They go under construction management, they go into general contracting, and they use subcontractors in the majority of the work.

So the fact is that if all, let's say, 6,000 members of a particular union voted to go differently, they would leave behind the vast majority of their bargaining rights because of the accreditation orders that are part of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, because of the designation order that's part of the act and because of the certification process that we have. Not only would they leave that behind, but their pension and welfare plans would be up for question and they would lose any mobility to be able to work around the rest of the province.

For a construction trades person, that's a pretty onerous price to pay. The question of whether or not the next building that's even in your community, around the block -- you may not be able to build on it because the bargaining rights of that developer or that contractor -- they no longer had employees and you could not acquire those bargaining rights, no matter if it was a totally unanimous vote. You could not work on there, and that job would then be given to somebody else.

So there's an immense difference in balance of power. That is totally different than in the industrial or service sector. That balance of power and that difference has meant that the sobering influence of a union leader at an international or national level thinking: "Jeez, I'd better play fairly with these people because if I really treat them badly and they come to me in the back rooms and they don't get what they want, I might lose 5,000 dues-paying members, or I might lose 20,000 dues-paying members. I'd better look at this, and I'd better adjust my constitution accordingly and give them the right in Canada to secede" -- Brother Evans talked about that being in the UFCW constitution. It is now, but you think back to the process over the last 10 years that took place and the membership loss that the organization took before somebody was persuaded in the back rooms that it had to happen. Well, that's one hell of a process.

That process is not something the construction workers could ever avail themselves of if they wanted. We don't want to, but the fact is that having that balance, a system of checks and balances, means that the approach and attitude of international and national unions in the industrial-service sector has to be much more fair than it is in the construction industry.

That imbalance is also reflected in another area. Brother Evans talked about the fact that there's now a much more Canadianized constitution. Every union in Canada in the last 20 years has been dealing with the issue of Canadian autonomy and the demand for Canadian workers to have more say over their top elected officers and their policies that they set in Canada and that their union abides by in Canada. Our unions in the construction trades have not, by and large, moved to a system constitutionally where the top officers are elected by Canadians or where policy is decided in Canada. It's almost exclusively that top officers are appointed by the international, or they're maybe selected by a Canadian caucus but ultimately constitutionally elected by a convention at large, at which Canadians are between 5% and 11% of the delegates.

Those industrial and service unions moved to a different structure around the issue of Canadian self-government because they knew they had to. They could not afford to have their members feeling disenfranchised by not having control over election or control over policy.

So we go to the setting, and I think that's most important. I wanted to share that with you because I think a lot of people have come here with horror stories and I think most people within this committee, if they're honest, would say those things should not just happen.

The argument back about why there should be no Bill 80 is: You shouldn't interfere. This is all covered. Why can't we all be friends? The fact is that in the construction industry there does exist a system of checks and balances which is so vital to a democratic process.

So I want to go through, very briefly, the sections.

The issue of sharing bargaining rights: We've had membership affiliates of our council that have found themselves with no input at all, no voting rights on agreements that they work under such as Hydro, such as the general president's maintenance agreements. In some cases, people's conditions have been changed without even their knowledge. They could show up to work on a day and all of a sudden they're working an extra half-hour but nobody's bothered to tell them. That's happened in the past to affiliates of this council.

We think it only makes sense that bargaining rights should be shared. In other jurisdictions it says that every member must have the right to vote on agreements before they're valid. The wording here talks about the input of the local unions through that process. That allows some flexibility in situations where it may not be as clear as to how many people are in the bargaining unit at a particular time, where you may be in a buildup situation. So the wording there is fine but it should be taking place.

The jurisdiction of a local union: I think we have to understand that some of the opponents of the bill are trying to muddy the water that this is jurisdiction between crafts. It's quite clear within the bill that it's jurisdiction within an international. Almost all of the international constitutions allow the general president or the executive board full authority to change jurisdictions in sectors, and it's really clear that the intent of this part of the bill is to deny the ability of an organization to achieve through circumventing routes what it can't achieve by direct trusteeship.

A classic example, if you want to look at it: A few years ago Diane Kilmury, who is now a vice-president of the Teamsters union only by court intervention in the United States which brought about democratic elections there, beat Ed Lawson, the flying senator, in an election in the giant Vancouver local. Shortly after that, a small section of that union was hived off with about 200 or 300 members, and amazingly Diane Kilmury was in that section and therefore was not part of the big local any more and was not able to continue on with the challenge until court action took place in the United States.

So what you're talking about with jurisdictional issues is not, "Is a sheet metal worker or a pipefitter going to steal some jurisdiction?" but are we going to ensure that mischief can't be carried out because the act says that trusteeship can't be carried out?

Interference in a local union: The fact is that for most of our members, and it's been said here before, the local union is the union. That's who sends members out to work, that's who accepts them into membership, that's who trains them as apprentices, that's who appoints or selects the steward or causes election for stewards and that's who polices the collective agreement. That's who the members look to as being the union.

Constitutionally, our internationals give our GP or our executive board wide-ranging power over the local unions. Either through charter or directive, they can do all kinds of things to the locals.

What we have is in fact a union movement. We are all very political animals. People have different approaches on bargaining, on how elections should take place, on who should win elections, and often policy differences can lead to major disputes. This is where we see the lack of balance, that some heavy-handedness has taken place, and it's taken place among affiliates of this council: 353 you've heard about; Labourers' Local 506, the second-largest local in the country under trusteeship, because the international did not want the incumbent to lose because he was a supporter. Of course, as soon as a free election was held, he did lose and the new administration was elected and has been re-elected because it has the faith of the membership.

I found it interesting to be in this committee hearing the other day when Jim Phair from the Iron Workers was asked a direct question about trusteeships and neglected to mention that back in 1981 he put the entire Ontario Iron Workers district council under trusteeship. He forgot to mention that when he was asked a direct question from one of the committee. There's a 40-page labour board decision on that which talks about how that district council wanted to have some say over its bargaining rights around the electrical power site.

1710

Protection from unjust trusteeship is absolutely vital. It can't be left to people who have been removed from office to try to somehow go into their personal bank accounts and explain to their wife or partner why it is they can no longer afford to pay the mortgage in order to fight a battery of lawyers hired by the international to keep them out of office. It cannot happen that way. It has happened that way in the past, as has been testified to here before.

As I've said before, we do not support section 138.6 of the bill.

The benefit and pension plans: There are numerous pieces of legislation that cover them, both federally and provincially. What's in this act, or a proposal only, ensures that there's democratic representation.

I want to summarize on a couple of things. During this whole debate there have been two very strong sides, quite polarized in their vociferousness, and a lot of people in the middle who sometimes don't want to express their opinion. A lot of scaremongering has taken place. There have been warnings that pensions will be devalued. There have been images that Quebec-style fragmentation will happen here. There are predictions that building trades will be gobbled up by industrial unions. There have been leaflets passed around, printed by the internationals, saying that all of those things were going to happen.

I guess that's why I think it's been important that we went through a process of item-by-item examination of the bill before we took a vote, because often the questions have been: "Bill 80 would mean you're going to lose your pension and Quebec is going to take over and do this and that. Are you in favour or against? All in favour? Bang." An example is the provincial building trades convention. I'm sad to say that even though there was a request for a secret ballot at that level, it was not agreed to. Even though there was a request to deal with Bill 80 issue by issue, it was not agreed to by the chair. In fact, the chair of the resolutions committee was appointed by the president of the provincial building trades and was the brother who had been assigned on the international payroll for the previous year to oppose Bill 80: totally imbalanced in terms of how you address the issue.

I don't think what will happen is that if people get a right to have a defence of their own democratic process, that will bring about chaos. I know what will happen is that if the protection is in place, the democratic nature of trade unions will show itself and there will be discussion and debate internally, that respect will take place between the international or national union office and the locals so that problems will be worked out, as they are in many internationals in the building trades.

I don't want to leave the impression that some of the abuses you've heard are shared across all organizations. Many of the organizations have extremely good working relationships and they have a different kind of approach and a different kind of relationship with the international, but not all. Sometimes those relationships change depending on who is put into the position of Canadian director or eastern Canadian director or whatever.

With the revisions proposed to Bill 80, as in taking out the successorship, Bill 80 will perform one essential function: It will provide a balance with the international building trades structure that ensures that workers in the province will be free to develop the best possible trade union representation in the 1990s and beyond.

Many things are changing in construction, and the unions, as well as our industry partners, are striving to respond in a positive fashion. But sometimes change involves asking tough questions that not everybody is comfortable with, and I want to emphasize that point. We live in political structures in our union movement. Sometimes tough questions have to be asked and sometimes not everybody's comfortable with those tough questions. But the surest way of getting the right answers to those questions is to encourage a process that involves the membership of each union in a truly democratic manner. That's why the Toronto-central Ontario council is in support of the four points in Bill 80 that deal with democratic rights of local unions.

I do have one other piece that was passed around, which is something that had been given to affiliates of our council recently from their international, demanding that they sign over their bank account. I think that again is an example, unfortunately, of some of the kind of friction that is still in place and that would not be resolved by a gentlemen's agreement and handshake, as has been suggested by the opponents of this bill -- that we leave up to our relations.

The Acting Chair: Thank you. One quick question, if there is one, otherwise we'll move on.

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Just very briefly, if Bill 80 goes in, do you feel there's any detriment to you operating out of province or out of country?

Mr Cartwright: No, not at all. With Bill 80 as it's amended or as it's proposed to be amended, with the successorship out, there'll be no impact at all on members working out of province or anywhere else. It has no effect on that at all.

Mr Murdoch: Thank you for your presentation. I think you answered a lot of questions I may have had. I believe you did a good job, so I'm happy with that.

Mr Cooper: Once again, thank you for your presentation and for talking about the fairness and balance that'll be brought about by Bill 80.

The Acting Chair: The committee as a whole thanks you for taking the time to come here today. I'm sure you're going to follow this with interest.

LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA

The Acting Chair: The next group presenting is the Labourers' International Union of North America. Would you please come forward, put your name on and your position for Hansard. You've got approximately 20 minutes.

Mr Joseph S. Mancinelli: My name is Joe Mancinelli. I am the manager of the Labourers' International Union of North America for central Canada. I represent the international or the parent, as referred to in Bill 80. That's not an uncommon terminology for me, being the father of four children, but it's kind of unusual in the type of business we're in.

LIUNA central Canada represents about 30,000 members in the province of Ontario and a few thousand members in the province of Manitoba. In the province of Ontario, we're comprised of 15 local unions which I have listed in the beginning of the brief.

LIUNA is the largest building trades union in the province, and as such, the effect of Bill 80 would be felt the most by our organization. Over the past several months, since the bill's first reading, the building trades have been divided on Bill 80. The ambiguous nature of the bill's text and its apparent misguided and self-serving consultations have created division and unprecedented turmoil for many of our local unions.

The original document circulated on Bill 80 headlined a bill to restore democracy in the construction industry. This is an unwarranted and I feel offensive insinuation. If we are to focus on democracy, then let us carefully re-examine the history of disputes between parent international unions and their local unions. This investigation will conclude that there have been few cases and examples of heavy-handedness and undemocratic behaviour.

Deeper investigations reveal that the construction sector building trades unions are far more democratic than the industrial sector. The industrial sector and public sector unions' constitutions, which are in fact heavy-handed -- these sectors have been plagued by unprecedented trusteeships from their parent bodies -- have left a legacy of strong-arming and partisan manipulation of executive boards to serve their own interests.

As an example, the United Steelworkers union in my home city of Hamilton has a turbulent history of numerous trusteeships and supervisions in only one local union, Local 1005. The question that continues to plague many building trades people is, why was this sector -- the industrial unions and the government unions, the public sector unions -- omitted from Bill 80? Why have only the building trades unions been singled out in this obvious display of heavy-handedness by the provincial government?

I believe there are parts of Bill 80 that embody the spirit of cooperation and fairness that essentially is found in our union and international constitutions. Our constitution has been evolving since 1903. At every general convention, our members can submit resolutions to amend and change our constitution. This is clearly an act of the highest order of democracy, letting the members' resolutions change and alter the future of our governing orders, the constitution. Bill 80 insults this democratic procedure by reducing and divesting our constitution of its significance.

On a point of information, I have included a copy of our constitution in the Chairman's package for you to dissect and look at the fairness as well.

1720

Is the spirit of Bill 80 to truly give local unions more choices, freedom and protection from reprisal, or has Bill 80 been misused and promoted by only a few individuals whose motivation is greed and the desire to empire-build at everyone else's expense? If it is the latter, then not only will Bill 80 fail but it will lead to the disintegration of our organization as well as the rest of the building trades.

On the following pages, democracy is clearly demonstrated by the votes taken at the Labourer's Ontario provincial district council and the provincial building trades convention for the past two years.

On page 3, there's a resolution that was passed by the delegates on the floor of our district council, representing 15 Labourers' union locals across the province of Ontario. In the left-hand column, it shows 32 in favour of the resolution to oppose Bill 80 and 24 against, clearly a democratic sign that the majority were opposed to the present form of Bill 80.

On the next page is a resolution that was submitted by my home local in Hamilton to the provincial building trades which passed by a majority. Whether it was a standing vote, a show of hands or a secret ballot, for two years in a row at the building trades convention, the democratic majority voted against the bill.

We have outlined on page 5 a number of the organizations that have openly opposed the bill. These are provincial organizations, councils of local unions clearly representing the majority. On the next page, it shows the number of building trades councils that are on record opposing Bill 80, and they're listed there. Clearly you can see that it is a majority that oppose the bill.

I have attempted to illustrate how the present structure will impact on construction labour. Section 138.2, which refers to bargaining rights, as far as the labourers are concerned, is redundant, because we have provisions in our constitution that deal with bargaining rights. In fact, LIUNA's constitution covers most of section 138.2. It may not be used in a practical sense, but the language is there for that to happen, and we do not oppose the language that has been presented in the revised portion of Bill 80 with regard to 138.2.

Section 138.3, jurisdiction: Jurisdictional matters should remain the purview of the parent. The Ontario Labour Relations Board and the Ministry of Labour have made it clear on a number of occasions that jurisdictional review boards should be set up to alleviate the overwhelming burden of jurisdictional matters backlogging the Ontario Labour Relations Board. Why would the minister or the board increase once again, after saying that, the backlog of jurisdictional matters at the board?

Small local unions have a limited amount of resources to run their unions effectively. From time to time, a business manager cannot afford to pay for a business representative or even pay himself. The best interests of the membership are usually ignored and the local union deteriorates. Under these circumstances, a parent or international union can alter the jurisdiction through the constitution of that particular local in order to give the membership the best and most effective representation. The business manager would not welcome losing his empire, however small and ineffective, and will never consent to changes as outlined in 138.3 of the present language.

Large local unions on the other hand may have the same problems but for different reasons. Large local unions may become so large that the best interests of a member are not looked after. Acquired jurisdiction will usually be defended at all costs even if another local union can represent those members more effectively. Under Bill 80, an international is not permitted to alter geographic, sectoral or work jurisdiction of a local even if it is considerably better for the members to change and alter that jurisdiction.

Empire builders and overly aggressive business managers will be protected by Bill 80. Large local unions will use their resources to expand into new jurisdictions or possibly into jurisdictions previously established by other local unions within the same organization. The Ontario Labour Relations Board, with all due respect, has been ineffective at solving or curbing jurisdictional matters. Their knowledge of the construction sector is somewhat limited and should not have sole arbitrary decision-making over jurisdiction.

The right of the parent to charter new local unions does not seem to be addressed in Bill 80. Therefore, if a parent international charters a new local union within the same geographic jurisdiction, the parent does not have the right to alter the existing local union. In construction, the industry changes constantly. New technology, new material and methods of building change the industry at a dramatic pace. Parent internationals must maintain the right to oversee and change, if need be, the existing jurisdictions in order to be more effective.

When there is an absence of the parent international in jurisdictional matters, there is room for abuse by a local union. In Toronto, for example there is rivalry among local unions of the same trade because of overlapping or ambiguous jurisdiction acquired. If 138.3 is implemented as is, the parent will not be able to either correct, alter or change existing jurisdiction.

I'll give you an example. Non-union bricklayers in Toronto recently made a deal with one of our locals, Local 183. One of our other sister locals, Local 506 in Toronto, has been excluded completely from tending these bricklayers. Furthermore, Local 183 has signed a recent agreement for residential construction locking in a new subcontracting clause that will not permit ICI masonry companies bidding on residential work.

Therefore, Local 506, which is a sister local within the same international, cannot go into the residential sector and has been locked out. If the parent international wishes to investigate this jurisdictional matter, it cannot do so under Bill 80. For Local 506, to move into that sector, it would require the international to intervene and exercise its authority and realign the jurisdiction in the Toronto area to be fair and equitable to the members in the Toronto area.

There are fast-growing jurisdictions within a local union structure. For example, if a local union has a small group within its organization, like emergency response workers or hazardous material cleanup experts, the parent should be able to charter a new local to handle the specialized area. With the proposed bill, the parent would not have the authority to do so because if certain local unions can prove that prior to May 1, 1992, they had that jurisdiction, we cannot create a new local union with that new jurisdiction that's being acquired.

On geographic jurisdiction in the province of Ontario, there are trade unions whose geographic area is the entire province of Ontario. For one, for example, the Operating Engineers have only one local union. There are some trade unions with a few large locals. Some of these locals are specialized in certain areas and have become provincial in scope. Some other locals have very large geographic areas. All of these complex and very unique circumstances have been set up by the parent or international.

In the majority of local unions polled in Ontario, very few follow Ontario Labour Relations Board areas for jurisdiction. They still go by the international's or the parent's geographic areas that were established. Because of the unique makeup of each local union, the parent has set up geographic jurisdiction depending on the local union's ability to represent the sector or area, the specialization of workers in the particular area and the obvious supply of workers in populations to that industry and other criteria used to determine the geographic area. This isn't done just on a whim. All those criteria are used when establishing geographic jurisdiction.

1730

If the intent of 138.3 is to restrict parent bodies from altering geographic jurisdiction when needed and required, this will impede the effectiveness of a local union to represent workers in the best way possible. The Ontario Labour Relations Board has no mechanism to monitor the needs of local unions or their members with regard to long-range planning on jurisdictional growth and development.

If the ministry is reviewing decisions made prior to May 1 as fair and equitable by the parent, why are future decisions being questioned and destroyed in 138.3? There is no evidence of abuse with regard to jurisdiction in the province of Ontario within our international union. Presently, there are numerous grey areas of geographic jurisdiction. Section 138.3 will create absolute chaos where there are long-lasting agreements on geographic areas.

What 138.3 of Bill 80 does is take practically all the jurisdictional power away from the parent. What it does not do is what its original intent should have been, that being to protect the local union from being punished through jurisdictional means. In the province of Ontario there have been no significant abuses of this power to justify the current proposed language.

The LIUNA central Canada office respectfully submits that section 138.3 should read as follows:

"138.3(1) Jurisdiction shall remain the responsibility of the international as established in their constitution.

"138.3(2) When changing or altering jurisdiction, the parent or international shall notify the affected local union in writing, 30 days prior to the change.

"138.3(3) If a local union feels that changes to jurisdiction under 138.3(2) are considered unjust, then the affected local union shall have recourse for just cause to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, within 30 days of the jurisdictional change."

We feel this gives fair recourse to any local union which feels that it has been treated unfairly. I believe this should have been the intent of 138.3.

Section 138.4: We find this section confusing, especially in the absence of any notes accompanying the bill. As we understand 138.4, there is a danger that this section also deals with jurisdiction. If 138.4 gives a local union complete authority to expand jurisdiction and bargaining rights, then we are vehemently opposed.

Section 138.5: Our opinion is that supervisions or trusteeships and any other action should be for just cause. We cannot argue with the fundamental principle of 138.5. However, keep in mind that our constitution should also be taken into consideration and given a level of importance in running our own affairs.

Section 138.6: We are pleased to see that this section has been dropped from the bill in its amended form.

Section 138.7: This section deals with the appointment of trustees on benefit plans and it seems to be confusing and unfair. Proportionate representation on trust funds will lead only to large local unions dominating our plans. Since some of our plans are interprovincial, section 138.7 will cause confusion and politicking within the plans between provinces. Ontario is already perceived as hogging power. Ask any of our affiliates on the east coast, which are a minority; they feel that Ontario hogs everything, including the trust funds, especially Toronto.

If fairness is the ultimate goal of Bill 80, then we have given this committee a few suggestions on maintaining those areas of concern. However, I encourage you to carefully review the proposed language we have submitted and carefully review the proposed language for the second reading.

In every civilized country that follows a regular system of jurisprudence the actions of a parent could be scrutinized and acted upon by the affected group, if the affected group was unhappy. That does exist in Ontario, and you heard some business managers of our own organization earlier tell you that they'd had recourse within the courts of Ontario. There is a course of action that can be taken, if need be. The courts have been involved in order to resolve these differences. Whether the courts or the labour board are better at addressing these disputes is questionable. However, the onus of proving just cause must be on the local affected, which ultimately has recourse, not the other way around. Serious consideration must be given to extend the bill to industrial and public sector unions.

In closing, let me remind the committee of the wishes of the majority. If democracy is truly to be served, then please look at the wishes of the majority and the information that I have enclosed. I bet many of our members across the province feel the same way about their own local union executives as some of the local unions which have come here in favour of Bill 80. Keep that in mind as well.

The Acting Chair: We've run over our time. You were a good 20 minutes, so I guess we'll have no questions. There is another group we want to run through here before we have to go to the House, if we can. I appreciate your time, sir. I'm sure you'll look forward to the rest of the hearings and what goes forward.

LABOURERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 837

The Acting Chair: The next group is the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837. Are they here? Yes, very good. Put your name on the Hansard, sir, and who you are and we'll carry on.

Mr Manuel Bastos: My name is Manuel Bastos and I'm the assistant business manager of Local 837 in Hamilton. As well, I'm a director of the Hamilton-Brantford Building and Construction Trades Council.

Labourers' Local 837 in Hamilton, Ontario, is the second-largest local outside of the Toronto area. We represent 2,500 members and workers in the construction industry. I thank the committee for this opportunity to submit our position with respect to the proposed amendments to the Labour Relations Act.

Our local union has communicated to Labour Minister Mackenzie on a number of occasions our position that Bill 80 is an intrusive and unfair bill that has caused nothing but problems for the construction trades. We oppose Bill 80, as do the majority of other building trade unions. If we do not want it, why are we forced to accept this language that is supposed to be good for us? We are all very suspicious of why the government public sector unions and the industrial unions are not affected by the bill. What is good for us should be good for them. As the saying goes, "What's good for the goose should be good for the gander." There should not be a double standard created. This is another clear example that the government is interfering in an area that it knows little about. The Ministry of Labour should have gone to the building trades and asked our advice before proceeding.

I will present our opposition to Bill 80 section by section.

Section 138.1(3): We believe that our constitution is sacred. We do not agree that the government will override our rules of order. We find this intrusion uncalled for and unfair. Our constitution is fair and created by our members; this is democracy. This is a clear attack on the democratic principles of our union. All decisions must be based on our constitution. Government should use our constitution as a guide as to how the business of a union should be run.

1740

On jurisdiction, sections 138.3 and 138.4: Local 837 believes that this is the most detrimental and harmful part of Bill 80. Our autonomy has been preserved because of our ability to control our jurisdiction and to run our own affairs without government interference. Jurisdiction must be controlled by the international. If it is in the hands of the individual local unions, then we will see abuse and some locals taking advantage of others. We've seen some examples right here in the city of Toronto. Our local, for example, has been threatened by Toronto several times. If it was not for the intervention of our international, Toronto would have taken over some of our jurisdiction.

When a local union is not satisfied with a decision made by the international office with regard to jurisdiction or anything else, then the local union can appeal to our constitution for investigation by a vice-president, the general executive board and, eventually, a trial board. If Bill 80 provides for recourse for just cause, we would not find that offensive; however, the circumvention of our constitution is offensive.

The ministry should repeal the bill. The bill should not become law for the simple reason that the majority does not want it. The building trades, as we've heard before, voted against the bill two years in a row, in 1992 in Kingston and in 1993 in St Catharines. I do not think that it is fair that the majority are being ignored.

If the bill will become law in one form or another, then there must be changes such as: (1) that our constitution be the most important factor in determining just cause or actions of the international or local unions; (2) that jurisdiction be removed from the bill and left in the hands of our respective organizations; (3) that if recourse is given to a local to dispute jurisdictional change, then the constitution shall apply; (4) extend Bill 80 not only for construction but also to public sector unions as well as to industrial unions.

In the last 30 years I can only think of a few instances when local unions have been in a conflict with our international headquarters. We have heard previous speakers tell you that it was for the reason that the international rep was -- I believe the word used was "stupid." If you look at the circumstances and the people who were involved, that will tell you the story. Perhaps that's why the business rep was called, I believe, "stupid."

Bill 80 will not change personalities from clashing. In its present form I think it will make things worse. I encourage this committee to please reconsider the bill. Listen to the majority of the building trades. If it must pass, please consider our concerns and also extend the bill to government and industrial unions.

As well, I have given this committee a copy of the submission of our sister local, Local 527. Local 527 was not allotted a time to present its brief. I have presented their written submission to the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to make this submission.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, sir. We'll open the questions. I believe it's your turn, Ms Murdock. You have three minutes for each caucus.

Ms Murdock: We've heard all kinds of presentations here in the last few weeks. Some of them have been real horror stories. Obviously, you haven't had that experience. Not all constitutions from all unions are the same, true?

Mr Bastos: Probably true.

Ms Murdock: You make a comment on page 2 that you have an appeal mechanism through your constitution to eventually get to a trial board.

Mr Bastos: That's right.

Ms Murdock: How long a time frame are we talking here?

Mr Bastos: I guess it depends on the urgency of the matter. It can take from three to six months. We haven't seen it used that often. Usually, problems get resolved at the local level fairly quickly.

Ms Murdock: The other point that you've made, and actually has been made by a number of presenters both pro and con the bill, is that there haven't been many instances when there have been really bad disputes with the international, the point being that when you do have one there is no mechanism, other than their conventions every either four or five years, to get it resolved -- if it can be resolved, even.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you're not having a problem with your international and you can work these things out, then you would probably never apply -- presuming Bill 80's in place -- under Bill 80. Would that be fair?

Mr Bastos: That's fair. I'd like to add to it that I guess we've all heard of Local 1059 back in 1982 and Local 506, and recently we've had a sister local union, Local 1081, ask for supervision; asked the international to go in and supervise them. I believe the international was in there for six months and did resolve the problem. An election was called and the members decided. The constitution was followed and the problem was resolved.

Ms Murdock: If you have that kind of constitution.

Mr Bastos: The Labourers do.

Ms Murdock: Yes, and I think that point has been really made, that you obviously have had a really good working relationship for the most part.

Mr Bastos: If I may add, in every group of people there is good and there is bad.

Ms Murdock: Oh, yes.

Mr Bastos: There are faults in everyone.

Ms Murdock: Yes.

Mr Bastos: There are faults from the top down and from the down up. So are we going to penalize, are we going to criticize, are we going to damage the good ones because of a few bad ones? Are we going to penalize the good ones because of a few bad ones?

Ms Murdock: But all law is enacted -- I mean, when you think of any kind of law, regardless of whether it's this bill or any other, generally speaking, even your Highway Traffic Act, your Criminal Code -- for the exceptions, not the rule. That's the reality of this world. If everything was going along well, you would never have to enact the law, but you always hit these snags and then someplace you need to put that.

I make that point. I know that we have heard time and again from our friends opposite, and from a number of others, that this should not be happening. I must admit, in the original form I had some difficulty, but I think this, as it stands, is workable. Those unions that don't have any difficulty with their international parent will probably never have to apply.

Mr Bastos: The only problem that I find with that line of reasoning is that when you give the power that you're trying to take away from the internationals to bureaucrats, I have a great degree of difficulty believing that. We've seen decisions recently at the labour board that are scary. Without hearing any evidence to the contrary, they sided with the contrary, without hearing evidence that the jurisdiction in a certain -- in demolition, by example, the evidence presented was all Labourers and a dissenting decision comes down and it's only for the reason that the Labourers don't have a claim solely. It's not only the Labourers that have a claim on demolition; the other building trades have it too, and that was not the case.

It's scary to see the labour board with the power to alter jurisdictions when it, based on the evidence presented, goes against what it's heard. That's the scary part about this.

1750

The Acting Chair: Okay?

Ms Murdock: I could ask more but I know I don't have time.

The Acting Chair: Sure. Mr Murdoch.

Mr Murdoch: I sort of challenge your remarks where the majority is against this bill. I would have to think, and by sitting in this committee, that the majority is in favour of this bill, but I think we could probably go back and forth on that all day.

I'd like to agree with Ms Murdock over there that if your union and your international are getting along, then this bill won't affect you that much. If you already have a good relationship, this bill doesn't say that you have to have a bad one. How then do we address all the other concerns of all the other locals that have come in here that have had problems with their international? Do we just, as a government, overlook that and all those problems will go away? Because obviously they don't seem to go away.

Mr Bastos: No, we should not overlook them. However, should not the parents and the families of the locals and the internationals involved have a chance to resolve it first before it's referred to the OLRB?

Mr Murdoch: By sitting here and listening to all the local unions, they've obviously tried that, and all the tactics that have been used against them -- we've had some locals sit here and say that if this bill doesn't go through, their jobs are gone. They're going to be kicked out. They're going to be forced to leave because they've just challenged the parent union by coming here. So if that's the case out there, I don't think as a government here we could let that happen.

Mr Bastos: Those are the scare tactics; that is the scaremongering by the other side, and yet they'll come here and they'll tell you that the people opposed to this bill are the ones who use the scaremongering. We're not telling you that we're going to lose our jobs or that I'm going to get a promotion or whatever. They are telling you that if you don't pass this law through, they'll lose their jobs. They'll tell you that's the boomerang that will come back and get them. If those are not scare tactics, then I'm sorry, but I --

Mr Murdoch: What would you call scare tactics when the international comes here and tells us that there'll be chaos out there if we pass the bill? So it works in reverse, and we've heard from a lot of locals and they have said, "Hey, we've got problems there and we need your help." That's unfortunate. I don't agree that we should have to come to the government for help. It's too bad that they couldn't work them out, but obviously they've tried. It's so overwhelming, the amount of locals that have contacted me and that have come here and said, "Hey, we really need this."

Again I can say, maybe you don't have that problem, so it won't hurt you. I don't see how it's going to hurt you any. You have a good relationship. You'll be able to keep that going. You've worked it out.

Mr Bastos: That is our case.

Mr Murdoch: So that's good, but we have some problems in the other ones. I talked to the Labour minister and asked him why he was putting this through, and he said he had sat in opposition for a long, long time and that he's heard the complaints year after year and finally, now that he's the minister, he has a chance to do something about it.

I strongly believe in local autonomy. There was one thing you were saying, how the international could come in and change a jurisdiction. Well, I think the local people know more about their jurisdiction than the international does. I've always felt that in anything and I could relate it to other things.

Sometimes maybe the local people do know what they're doing and it almost tells me that the international is saying: "We're the parent. We know everything and the little local guy doesn't." I'm offended by that.

Mr Bastos: You've said a mouthful.

Ms Murdock: It's hard to answer that one.

Interjections.

Mr Bastos: We are fortunate with the labour union, that on our part we don't have a lot of those problems.

Mr Murdoch: Hopefully that stays that way.

Mr Bastos: If you look deep down at the reason for the bill, everyone knows who proposed the bill. Everyone knows who's behind the bill. There are no secrets. All those people wanted to create their own empire, the emperors, and Bill 80 would be their way, would be their secret weapon to conquer it, to accomplish it, to get to the end of it.

Mr Murdoch: Say who you think. I'm here to listen.

Mr Bastos: I think that we've all heard it. There's no reason for me at this time --

The Acting Chair: Okay. Thank you. On a point of clarification, Ms Murdock.

Ms Murdock: Just a clarification: With the notice provision under section 138.3, proposed amendments -- I understand some people have copies. That would mean then that any change to jurisdiction work or sector would have to be given notice by the international to the local, and that nothing would change pending that notice, so it would give some opportunity. For instance, in your case where you get along with your international, if you didn't like it I'm sure you'd work something out, but for those locals that didn't like it, they would have an opportunity to appeal to the OLRB.

Mr Bastos: I think the process is in reverse. It should be first through the international, first through the parent, and then through the OLRB.

Ms Murdock: Yes, you can still do that. There's nothing prohibiting that from being done in terms of discussions that occur beforehand, but once that notice is given, then you have an opportunity to go to the board. If you've got a good working relationship, you can do that already.

Mr Bastos: I don't really have a problem.

The Acting Chair: As this committee should be, good discussion on all sides, and it's enjoyable to be here in the chair. We now are at the point, though, we may have a vote and I'm looking for some direction from the committee. We have the Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council, and they have to be away at a meeting, I understand, at 7:30, so we can either move on and then we'll just to wait and see if the bells start and we may have to leave, if that's okay, or the other option is we'll just wait. Do you want to start and see what happens?

Mr Murdoch: Why don't we just ignore the vote? We're not going to win it anyway. We can carry on here.

The Acting Chair: So much for local autonomy.

ONTARIO ALLIED CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL

The Acting Chair: All right. We're going to make a decision here then that if it's all right with my colleagues I take it that we'll start, and hopefully we'll get through before we have to get on, so would the Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council please come forward. Put your name on the record and your position and we'll try to get 20 minutes of your time through here.

Mr John Marchildon: I'm John Marchildon, business manager, secretary-treasurer of the allied council. For Mr Cooper's benefit, I'm not on the payroll of any international union.

The Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council, hereinafter referred to as the council, is made up of the following affiliates: United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Labourers International Union of North America, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association of the United States and Canada, International Union of Operating Engineers, International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades and Teamsters Canada.

The council was formed in 1974 to enter into collective bargaining with the Electrical Power Systems Contractors Association. The bargaining rights are held by the respective international unions. The running of the council on a day-to-day basis is largely in the hands of the local unions. Decisions are made by democratic vote by the delegates to the council. The international unions appoint their delegates and alternate delegates. The local delegates and their alternates are chosen by the local unions, usually through their respective district or provincial bodies. All delegates, local and international, have a vote on all issues before the council, including all collective bargaining issues, whether or not to proceed to arbitration, elections of officers, the selection of the business manager, policy issues and the finances of the council.

At its regular monthly meeting of October 9, 1992, the council regularly moved, seconded and carried the following motion: "that the council go on record as opposing Bill 80 in its entirety."

The meeting was attended by three international union representatives and eight local union representatives. The motion was passed with only one local representative dissenting.

The council is opposed to Bill 80 on the basis that we do not believe that any government has the right to interfere with our constitutions. We have studied the constitutions of other non-construction unions, political parties, including the New Democratic Party, and non-international construction unions and we can find no appreciable differences in them in dealing with the situations that this legislation is supposedly attempting to rectify.

A fundamental problem the council has with Bill 80 is the process by which it was introduced. In our lobbying efforts we were surprised to hear, in response to our complaint over lack of consultation, that the NDP government did not even allow its labour caucus consultation prior to introduction of Bill 80 for first reading.

1800

Although we are not aware of the number or structure of meetings the Ministry of Labour has held with the pro-Bill 80 minority, we do acknowledge that it has had several meetings with the anti-Bill 80 majority. To characterize these latter meetings as consultation is just plain nonsense. We would characterize these meetings as the government telling us, "You are the villains and here's what we're going to do about it."

As far as we're aware, the proposed amendments to the bill originated from the pro forces. When we asked the government for specific examples that precipitated the introduction of Bill 80, they were not supplied or we were advised that the pro-Bill 80 complainants feared for their political and indeed physical safety. No examples were provided.

No national or provincial labour body has voted in favour of this legislation. We find the remarks by a member of the committee that delegates to the last provincial building trades convention somehow did not know what they were voting on an insult to the duly elected delegates to that convention. We wonder what Mr Cooper's appraisal of the intelligence of the delegates would have been had the delegates voted to support Bill 80.

We find it particularly distressing that any government in Canada, especially one that used to be considered pro-labour, is the subject of a complaint to the International Labour Organization in Geneva.

A question we repeatedly asked NDP members of the Legislature is, why only the international construction unions and not non-international construction unions, international industrial unions or simply all unions? No reasonable or consistent answer was given to this question. Perhaps this government is using the construction trades as a prototype. If this form of so-called union democracy is good for the international construction unions, it should be extended to all unions. Ms Murdock would agree with me, I assume, because if they don't have complaints, what's the problem?

On behalf of the members of the council affiliates, we would like to extend our gratitude for allowing me to make this submission to you.

The Acting Chair: We'll open up the statements. I believe it is the Liberal caucus's turn first. No comments? Mr Murdoch, do you have any? For the record, we're going to have to leave in about eight or nine minutes, so please keep them short and sweet.

Mr Murdoch: Again, I wonder where you get your statistics about who agrees and who doesn't agree, but we could probably argue about that all night.

Mr Marchildon: We've presented it to you in writing many times, Mr Murdoch.

Mr Murdoch: Yes, but I'm going by what I hear too, though. I get your submissions, which are fine, and then I hear from a lot of other people who are in favour of the bill.

Mr Marchildon: Which statistics do you want to know about? I can tell you their source.

Mr Murdoch: I guess we'll go back to the one before you. He was saying that everybody at the convention voted against the bill.

Mr Marchildon: Yes.

Mr Murdoch: I'm just saying that you represent a bunch of people who are against the bill. On the other hand, I hear from a lot of people who are for the bill. In your mind, and that's fine, you think the majority of the people are against this bill.

Mr Marchildon: At all those conventions there were people for and against. They were given adequate time under parliamentary procedures to express their opinions and they were soundly thrashed in every vote.

Mr Murdoch: Okay, I would have to agree with you; I wasn't there.

Mr Marchildon: I was.

Mr Murdoch: Okay, fine. I'll take your word for that.

Mr Marchildon: Thank you.

Mr Murdoch: I'm saying, though, that as a politician I'm hearing from the other side also at these committee hearings. We've had a lot of people come in and a lot of locals saying they are in favour of this bill. To me, then, there seems to be a lot of dissatisfaction out there.

Mr Marchildon: There's a recession on.

Mr Murdoch: I understand that.

Mr Marchildon: Working people are dissatisfied during a recession.

Mr Murdoch: You think that's why they're blaming the internationals? Is that what you're telling me, because there's a recession?

Mr Marchildon: I think a lot of the complaints are recession-driven. In my opinion, if this government wanted to do something for us, it would put a meaningful fair wage policy in.

Mr Murdoch: I'm not going to defend this government. It's not my job here to defend them. I'm here to listen to people like yourself.

Mrs Fawcett: I wondered about that.

Mr Murdoch: Well, there are some people who are concerned that, because I may support one bill this government brings in, I'm defending it, and that's not the case. I wonder why this government is bringing in the bill. I've never been answered that and probably will never get an answer to that.

Mr Marchildon: We have something in common.

Mr Murdoch: Yes. At this point, though, I do support the bill because I think it gives some of the local people a chance to express their concerns. We've heard a lot of stories here.

Mr Marchildon: Stories, yes.

Mr Murdoch: Do you just think they're stories then? Do you want to put that on the record?

Mr Marchildon: Yes, I think some of them have been embellished.

Mr Murdoch: You do? Okay, you have a right to say that.

The other point is, I too think this government does not consult a lot of the times before it brings in a bill, but this is the process here now. They are consulting and they're giving, as you can see, the list here. We've been going through this for about three weeks now. A lot of people have had a chance to come in and explain their positions on it now. The bill can change. We will go through clause-by-clause, I assume, next week.

Mrs Fawcett: They're bringing in closure, you'll remember.

Mr Murdoch: I don't agree with that either, the closure. That's unfortunate.

The Acting Chair: You have 10 seconds.

Mr Murdoch: Okay. Why have we got no time?

The Acting Chair: We need five minutes to get to the House, in all seriousness.

Mr Murdoch: Okay. Then I'll just let it go and you can go on because Mike's got some questions, I think, to answer.

The Acting Chair: I think Len's got a question.

Interjections.

The Acting Chair: Everybody wants to be the Chair. Mr Wood and then Ms Murdock.

Mr Wood: On page 2 of your brief, you're saying that there was no discussion with the labour caucus or consultation prior to Bill 80. That is wrong. There was a discussion with the labour caucus and there was a discussion with the government caucus in total before the legislation was introduced into the House.

Mr Marchildon: On behalf of Ron Hansen, I apologize.

Mr Wood: These consultations have been going on for quite some time. So I just wanted to correct that.

Mr Marchildon: I just can go by what MPP Ron Hansen advised us in his office.

Mr Wood: Ron Hansen was probably not at that particular caucus meeting or labour caucus meeting. I was there.

The Acting Chair: We've got that on the record. Thank you very much. Next question.

Ms Murdock: Just very quickly, the whole construction industry is under the Ontario Labour Relations Act in a separate section, correct?

Mr Marchildon: Provincial construction, yes.

Ms Murdock: Why is that?

Mr Marchildon: Because it's specific in its nature. Why are we set aside as a particular sector?

Ms Murdock: Yes.

Mr Marchildon: It's because primarily we have a much different structure of referring people to work than industrial unions. We have hiring halls as opposed to unionizing jobs. We have much more mobility, a totally different structure in terms of getting people to work and how we unionize companies.

Ms Murdock: This leads into his last page.

The Acting Chair: Okay, hurry up. Keep it quick. Carry on.

Ms Murdock: If you think I'm going to let this pass, you're crazy. The whole construction industry is so different. I understand that other, non-construction unions are unionized, in terms of their constitutions, on an international basis as well. They're all very different, but would you not agree that because the construction industry is separated in the OLRA it would make sense that this would also be applied to the construction industry alone?

Mr Marchildon: I'm not sure I understand. Because we're different, we should get different treatment; is that what you're saying?

Ms Murdock: You are getting different treatment.

Mr Marchildon: Absolutely, we are.

Ms Murdock: No, but you are already under the existing OLRA.

Mr Marchildon: But not in terms of our constitutions. The different treatment under the OLRA does not arise from the differences in our constitutions. Our constitutions are ultimately the same. I've been a member of two international industrial unions and two international construction unions, and there is no appreciable difference, if any, in their constitutions on the ability of the elected executives to take action against the local.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much. You asked your question and he did answer it. Mr Cooper, you have two minutes.

Mr Cooper: In the middle of page 2 it says, "We wonder what Mr Cooper's appraisal of the intelligence of the delegates...." If in any way at any time I've slighted anybody because of the way they've voted on an issue, I'm not aware that I've made any comment.

Mr Marchildon: I watched you on television arguing on time allocation. You made the statement, as far as I recall it, that the people who voted against Bill 80 at the last provincial building trades didn't even know what they were voting on. I was there; you weren't.

Mr Cooper: I will check Hansard.

The Acting Chair: Thank you for your time. We now have to go to vote. Would all the members please come back as soon as possible after the vote to continue. Just get back here as soon as you can after the vote, please.

The committee recessed from 1808 to 1843.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL COUNCIL OF THE UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA

The Acting Chair: Continuing our debate around Bill 80, we will now hear from the Ontario provincial council of carpenters, Quintin Begg, president. Please come forward, make yourself comfortable, and when you're ready you may proceed. If you would please indicate who you are for the purposes of Hansard and committee members, it would be appreciated.

Mr Quintin Begg: My name is Quintin Begg. I'm the president of the Ontario provincial council of carpenters. On my right I have the secretary of the Ontario provincial council of carpenters, Bryon Black.

Mr Bryon Black: Brother Begg and myself appear before you this evening representing the Ontario Provincial Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Quintin has stated he's the president and I'm the secretary-treasurer. We are both journeymen carpenters employed as business managers in construction local unions as well. Quintin's from the Lake Ontario district council area and I'm from the Goderich region.

We'd like to express to you the concerns the Ontario provincial council of carpenters has regarding Bill 80 and as members of local unions affiliated to the Carpenters international union.

The Ontario provincial council, chartered September 1, 1915, is the provincial coordinating body of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, representing 23 Carpenters locals and eight Millwrights locals in the province of Ontario. The membership of our union consists of 23,000 carpenters and millwrights, making the united brotherhood one of the largest building trades unions in the province.

The Ontario Provincial Council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America is opposed to Bill 80 in its entirety, a position adopted at a "special called" meeting of all construction affiliates conducted August 1992, and emphasized to the honourable Minister of Labour in a letter dated September 30, 1992, which is attached in appendix A.

The Ontario provincial council would also like to go on record as supporting the submission presented to the committee by the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, as submitted by the executive secretary, Mr Guy Dumoulin.

The Ontario provincial council is disturbed with the fact that no previous consultation was held with respective construction trade unions prior to the introduction of Bill 80, and to this day we are not aware of the real necessity of Bill 80. We would like to emphasize the fact that through Bill 80, the government is intruding into union constitutions.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America has just concluded a constitutional convention in Las Vegas, Nevada, whereby delegates throughout North America voted democratically on resolutions to formulate a new constitution and laws for the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. Prior to the constitutional convention, constitutional hearings were held throughout the United States and Canada in order to permit every local union and district council, large or small, to have their democratic right to voice concerns or submit their proposed amendments to a constitutional review committee. Constitutions are the private rules of an organization presented and adopted by their membership, and government must not be permitted to interfere.

Basically, what we're saying is that we're happy with our constitution and the way it was formulated.

We would like to take a few minutes to address our concerns with the proposed revision of Bill 80.

Subsection 138.1(1), which is jurisdiction, includes geographic, sectoral and work jurisdiction. We question why the word "work" is required in jurisdiction. Currently, construction trade unions have recognized decisions of record, international agreements and established work practices to establish proper work assignments. The Ontario Labour Relations Act, section 93, currently provides for a board review of alteration of work assignment and arbitration of jurisdictional disputes between craft unions. Our recommendation is that the word "work" be deleted from the definition of jurisdiction.

Subsection 138.1(3): We feel this proposed section is totally unnecessary due to the fact that a trade union constitution cannot contain provisions which are contrary to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, or any other act for that matter; ie, Employment Standards Act, freedom of information act, human rights.

Subsections 138.2(1), (2) and (3), right through: If we understand the provision of section 138.2, Bill 80 is going to remove all bargaining from international unions, properly termed as parent trade unions. Currently, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America has collective agreements in the name of the international union re the heavy construction sector and electrical power systems sector. We are quite content with this arrangement due to the fact that local unions and district councils affected by the agreements are on the bargaining committees and conduct the negotiations.

The last thing trade unions need today is more trade union councils. As you are well aware, more trade councils require more administrative costs, which require more per capita tax on the working member. Due to the current economic recession and high unemployment, the last thing we need is more taxes for the working member.

Currently, the Ontario provincial council is the designated bargaining agent for all journeyman and apprentice carpenters for all local unions and district councils in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry in the province of Ontario. Under section 138.2, local unions and district councils stand the risk of losing their current local bargaining autonomy.

For example, at the present time, local unions and district councils are allowed to negotiate their own respective residential agreements to suit the needs of the industry in their particular board area. What is being proposed under section 138.2 is that the bargaining councils be established to negotiate collective agreements, in all likelihood on a provincial scale. I am sure the committee is well aware of the particular problems being experienced in ICI provincial bargaining.

The Ontario provincial council strongly urges the deletion of section 138.2 due to the above comments.

1850

Section 138.3: We are confused with the intent of section. Does this section mean geographic jurisdiction? If this is the intent, then we have a difficulty with section 138.3.

As you can appreciate, under the current difficult economic times due to declining work opportunities, membership numbers have fallen. As a direct result, a number of smaller local unions have had difficulty in maintaining existing staff due to financial difficulties, and in the best interests of the membership and brotherhood have merged into larger local unions or councils. The Ontario provincial council is confident with the powers of mergers outlined in the Carpenters' constitution which has been established by the democratic rights of every member and is subject to appeal to our general executive board and courts of the respective jurisdictions.

Section 138.5: Currently, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America's constitution contains supervision and trusteeship provisions which are subject to proper investigation by a specially appointed committee which reports its findings and recommendations to the general executive board of our parent union. The general executive board is empowered to take such action as necessary and proper for the welfare of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. However, such action is subject to the right of appeal and subject to review by the board under section 84, Ontario Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario provincial council, UBCJA, cannot relate to a situation where this provision has been utilized or exercised against the best interests of our membership. This provision is only exercised to prevent local unions and councils operating in a manner which is contrary to our constitution and laws or not in the best interests of the membership.

We are of the opinion that due to the fact that the board reviews the parent union's supervision under section 84 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act, the board's power should not be expanded as suggested by section 138.5.

In conclusion, the Ontario provincial council of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America once again is opposed to Bill 80 in its entirety and respectfully urges this committee to recommend to the government that Bill 80 be rescinded.

Respectfully submitted, Bryon Black, secretary treasurer.

I've attached, as outlined in our table of contents, various letters that were sent to the Honourable Bob Mackenzie not only by our council but by our affiliated local unions opposing Bill 80. Also, the last page of the document is a letter which is from our Canada conference of carpenters, which represents all the carpenter local unions across Canada.

So that's our presentation.

The Acting Chair (Mr Paul Johnson): Thank you, Mr Black. We have about four minutes per caucus. We'll start with --

Mr Mahoney: For the two or all three?

The Acting Chair: Mr Murdoch is here. We have four minutes per caucus, and we'll start with the Liberal caucus.

Mr Mahoney: Thank you for the presentation. Every time I think I understand this whole thing, somebody comes up with something new or a new way of putting it and I learn something.

Your statement on page 5 here, your example, reads, "At the present time, local unions and district councils are allowed to negotiate their own respective residential agreements to suit their needs." What's being proposed, as you're saying, is that bargaining councils, which would be separate over and above the local and the district council -- I presume that's the interpretation -- be established to handle the collective agreements and on a provincial scale. Mr Murdoch will make a point, and does often, that he supports local autonomy. Am I reading this wrong? Is this actually taking away from the local autonomy and vesting the bargaining rights in some new provincial council that's not going to be concerned about the workers particularly in Grey-Bruce, on their own, at a local basis, but is going to look rather at the carpenters, in your case, for all of the province of Ontario and not really take into account local problems?

Mr Black: That's the way we interpret it, yes.

Mr Mahoney: So in reality, under that interpretation -- and it seems to almost be open to interpretation on a local-by-local basis -- this would do the opposite of supporting local autonomy.

Mr Black: That's right, and not only that. Like we stated earlier in our submission, these councils can't operate without any funding, and right now I think everybody's taxed to death.

Mr Mahoney: So they're going to be funded by your members?

Mr Black: Right.

Mr Mahoney: So a percentage of their union dues are going to have to go to fund these councils, unless the government's sending a cheque with Bill 80.

Mr Black: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: Which I highly doubt.

You also use the example about the appeal procedure that's already there. On page 6 you say, "The Ontario provincial council is confident with the powers of mergers outlined in the carpenters' constitution which has been established by the democratic rights of every member and is subject to appeal to the general executive board and the courts of the respective jurisdictions." You go on to say that there can be in any instance proper investigations, specially appointed committees that report the findings to the general executive of the parent union, which is the international, and then they can take action.

We've been hearing from members of unions in support of Bill 80 that they don't see any way that the international would give up any of these rights, that they can't make deals with these people, that they're grabbing the power and keeping it, either in Washington or Pittsburgh or wherever they happen to be, and yet you seem to have resolved that problem.

Mr Black: All I can relate to you is our particular constitution. That's the way it is worded and that's the practice that's followed. If there's a complaint, there has to be a committee established to go in and review the circumstances and report back to the general executive committee. If there is a particular decision rendered that is, in the opinion of the local union, being put under question, they have the right to even go further with that appeal on their own.

Mr Mahoney: Are you familiar with the ILO convention? I don't have it in front of me, but to paraphrase, it says that public authorities shall not interfere in unions' constitutions. It may not use that exact wording, so I apologize, but --

Mr Cooper: Formulation of --

Mr Mahoney: Formulation of policies and that type of thing. There is, I understand, a challenge that will be filed after Bill 80 is passed under the ILO convention, but the purpose of it is to say that governing bodies -- the government -- shall not interfere in the democratic process in the labour movement. (a) Are you familiar with it? (b) Do you support it and do you have any comments about it?

Mr Begg: Yes, we are supportive of it. We've heard of it, we know of it and we are supportive of it. But we believe that unions, within their own bodies, should have their own rules and constitution and no external body should be able to interfere in the rules and regulations voted democratically by the membership.

Mr Mahoney: Once this is passed and they've interfered in the relationship between the locals and the internationals, or the parent unions, could the next step be to empower locals over a national parent? Could it be to empower members over a local? Do you think this could be the thin edge of the wedge? We're talking the construction trades. I think it was the president of the OFL who said that if the bill is good for construction unions, it's probably good for all unions, so they may expand it, although I suspect Leo would come back from Pittsburgh in a hurry to put an end to that.

But do you think there's a possibility, now that you've clearly pointed out to me that this in fact endangers local autonomy, that this thing could be carried further either by this government or future governments, and do you fear that?

Mr Begg: Very much a fear. As I said at the very beginning, we did not get any consultation with Bill 80. We just started reading about it after it was a fact, and we were very much concerned about these concerns you raise. We think it could go further with consecutive governments coming on line. We feel as though if one person can alter one part of the constitution, then the next guy's going to alter it again and again. So we have a real concern about it.

Mr Murdoch: I'm sorry I missed your presentation, and that's my fault, so I can't ask a lot of questions. But I heard Mr Mahoney mention that he thinks this will take away from the local autonomy. I disagree with you, and that's fine. The one thing I noticed is you mentioned it may cost them more money. Maybe there will just be less money going to the States. Maybe that will be a solution too. They don't have to pay any more, but they'll just send less to the States. Do you think that might be an alternative?

Mr Begg: Well, I can answer that for you right now. We're in such a bad state in construction right now, we're sending letters to the States to try and get some money from the States. That's the current situation. We're trying to borrow money from the States right now, as Bryon pointed out.

Mr Murdoch: Are they going to lend you some?

Mr Begg: Yes.

Mr Murdoch: That's good.

Mr Begg: We're looking for loans from anybody.

Mr Murdoch: Maybe you don't have any problems, then. We were told earlier today that some of the internationals don't feel they have a problem with their locals, and that may be so, so I don't think this bill will hurt you much.

You're pointing out that you're concerned with government getting involved. I too have that concern, but how do you address all the concerns that other locals have had? How would you guys address that? We've had many people come in here from different locals saying that they have problems with the internationals and they feel they're not being treated fairly there. So how would you address that? This is what the government's for, to help people out.

1900

Mr Begg: We have always felt that each building trades union within itself has the right to look after its own business. We as the Carpenters' union certainly don't go along the road to other unions and tell them how to run their affairs. We are quite happy. As Bryon said, we've just come through a constitution review in our union. We've got a brand-new constitution, effective January 1, 1994, and we have made changes in there democratically.

Mr Murdoch: Which doesn't include, though, anything that's in Bill 80.

Mr Begg: No. We have always had the mechanisms in Bill 80. Our union, since I can remember, and I'm talking 25 years now, there is a mechanism in there where if a local union doesn't want to be merged with another local union, it has an appeal process. If it can't be resolved within the constitution of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, then it's free to go to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for an outside decision on the matter. As I say, that could happen tomorrow morning.

Mr Murdoch: We're hearing from a lot of people who disagree with you on that. I'm not saying with you in particular, but --

Mr Black: You come from the Grey county region, right?

Mr Murdoch: Yes. Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Black: What unions are in your jurisdiction that are concerned?

Mr Murdoch: The electrical ones are the main ones.

Mr Black: I'm not aware of any electrical union in Grey county.

Mr Murdoch: No. The ones in our county belong to a different local. They don't belong to the local of Grey, no.

Mr Black: They're from Toronto, right?

Mr Murdoch: But they do live in Grey and they are constituents of mine. When they're concerned, it's my job to bring their concerns to this Parliament. That's what I believe about local autonomy, you see.

Mr Black: Right, but that member is also party to a local which does not support Bill 80, IBEW, Local 773.

Mr Murdoch: They're also my constituents. There's more than one. One wrote a letter, but there are more than one. Again, if you're not having a problem, then I don't see why you fear this bill. There shouldn't be any fear to it.

Mr Black: We can't understand why there's a problem with the constitutions that exist today with the trade unions. We have no problem with ours. Like Quintin related earlier, we had a constitutional convention to correct any concerns we had, and I think other trade unions have the same opportunity.

We have not been told by anybody why this bill was introduced. You can call this a consultation hearing, but why wasn't there any consultation prior to the bill being introduced? That's a big bone of contention we have.

Mr Murdoch: It's the man at the front you'll have to ask that question to. I'm only here as a --

Mr Begg: It would have been kind of nice for each local with the international union to produce its constitution and for you to look at all these constitutions and see what the problem was. So if it was 2% of the constitutions that had a problem, which I suggest it might be, then this thing shouldn't be here.

Mr Murdoch: If you look at some of the other figures and the number of locals that have come and said there is a problem, I think it's more than 2%. There are figures that it's 85%.

Mr Wood: I've looked at your correspondence there and it seems like it's correspondence that has been going back and forth between yourselves and the Ministry of Labour over the last 17 months, discussing Bill 80. We've heard some comments that there wasn't enough consultation, enough dialogue that's gone on, but 17 months is a fairly lengthy period of time. I believe it took about 18 months for Bill 40, from the time it was introduced in the Legislature until it became law. So we're talking about a time span that is quite lengthy.

I was just wondering if you had any reaction to that. It's not something that was sprung on. At that time, I understand there was an indication that during discussions back and forth, which have taken place for about 17 months, there probably would be amendments that have been brought forward from what the original bill looked like. I'll just leave that there for comment, if you have any.

Mr Black: If I understand your question correctly, you're saying that we have had proper consultations. Is that what you're saying?

Mr Wood: I look at the first letter back in June 1992 concerning Bill 80.

Mr Black: Just in response to that, we got a formal letter back from Mr Mackenzie a month later, but we have not had a face-to-face discussion on this issue with the Minister of Labour. We've had other discussions with other representatives, but not with the minister.

Mr Wood: Not with the minister himself?

Mr Black: Not with the minister himself.

Mr Wood: But with his parliamentary assistants and with the bureaucracy, the staff?

Mr Black: Indirectly, yes.

The Acting Chair: I want to thank Mr Begg and Mr Black for making a presentation before the committee this evening.

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Chair: We would like unanimous consent for Mr Cooper to respond to a question.

Mr Cooper: You mean you just want to ask for a clarification?

Mr Mahoney: Yes.

Mr Cooper: On section 138.2?

Mr Mahoney: Page 5 of this presentation where it says that bargaining rights under the bill will be given over to a provincial bargaining council and it thereby could be negotiating in lieu of the local or district council on a province-wide basis. The clarification is, does this then turn this into province-wide bargaining instead of bargaining from the international or shared by the international and the local? At least now they share it in most instances.

Mr Cooper: Section 138.2 is to address the problem where there are certain locals that just have contracts imposed on them. It won't take anything away from what's already set up. If it's working well now, it's not going to detract from that.

Mr Mahoney: They don't have to set up a bargaining council?

Mr Cooper: If they can't work out an agreement with themselves on how to do it so the locals have input in the bargaining, then there is the condition in there that something would have to be done, and it's in reference to like councils that are already in place.

Mr Mahoney: Not very clear, is it?

Mr Cooper: There is a provision to set up councils if they can't sort out how there would be input from each local.

SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION

The Acting Chair: The next presenter this evening is the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Mr Robert Belleville, director of Canadian affairs. Please come forward, make yourself comfortable, and if you would identify yourself for the committee and for the purposes of Hansard, I would appreciate it.

Mr Robert Belleville: Mr Chairman, members of the committee, on behalf of the 8,266 members of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association in Ontario working in the construction industry, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and express our concern regarding Bill 80. On behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, hereafter known as "the parent," I must state for the record our total opposition to this unwarranted legislation.

On January 25, 1888, the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association had its founding convention in Toledo, Ohio. Just eight years later the oldest local union in Canada was chartered, Local 30, Toronto, followed by Local 47, Ottawa, in 1907. For the past 105 years the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association has been organizing and representing all the members of the sheet metal industry.

For 19 years, I served as an elected official of Local 47, Ottawa, Ontario. For 10 of these years, I served as the business manager/financial secretary-treasurer. In October 1987, I was appointed and chose to be an international representative for the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, and on October 1, 1991, I was appointed director of Canadian affairs.

As the business manager of Local 47, I served on every committee of the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers Conference, including serving as the secretary-treasurer and as president. It is with this experience and having worked both sides of the proverbial street that I know this legislation is not needed by our members. However, I feel it is supported by some officials who could use it for their own advantage. How is this legislation going to help the ordinary member?

Bill 80 was introduced on June 25, 1992. The Minister of Labour said that the bill provides Ontario-based locals of international construction unions with greater democracy, freedom and local control. I do not feel this statement is true. This statement is untrue for the following reasons, at least from the sheet metal perspective.

For 97 years in Ontario, the SMWIA has worked with its affiliates, allowing them the utmost autonomy, whereby no local has been put under trusteeship, no local has been merged, locals carry out negotiations and arbitrations with maximum autonomy, no local union official has been disciplined or removed from office by this international in the province of Ontario.

1910

On May 26, 1992, the business manager of the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers Conference sent the Minister of Labour a letter supporting the proposed legislative amendments, the disaffiliation provisions known as Bill 80.

The Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers Conference is made up of 11 ICI locals in Ontario -- I won't name them because I realize I have limited time -- and one residential local, Local 285 in Toronto, and Local 540, a production local. Of the above-mentioned ICI locals, Local 47, Ottawa, Local 473, London, Local 539, Sarnia, and Local 562, Kitchener, have discussed this legislation at an executive board meeting and at a regular union meeting. They have gone on record as being opposed to Bill 80. Letters are found in tab 1. Local 285, the Toronto residential local, and the production local, Local 540, also oppose Bill 80, and their letters are found in tab 2.

To the best of my knowledge, and I have just been informed, no sheet metal local in Ontario has had a mandate from its membership to support this legislation. I will amend that, because I have been told differently. I have been told that Local 30, Toronto, in fact did go to its membership. I stand corrected and I have so amended my document. One of the things I will not do is present falsehoods to this committee. Yet the sheet metal workers in Ontario are supposedly in favour of this legislation. Is this democracy? I don't think so.

At best, the conference is divided, and let the record show that there is no unanimity in Ontario, despite what their solicitor said. He said this: "Ten out of 11 ICI locals now support the remaining provisions." Because I was away in Calgary on business, I was shocked to hear this, so I got on the phone and I have spoken to these people who are opposed to Bill 80. They have told me that they have not voted to change their opinion. I say, and let the record show, that there are still those locals in opposition to Bill 80.

Last year in Kingston, at the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council convention, the delegates overwhelmingly opposed Bill 80, and again this year at their convention in St Catharines. The official body of all construction workers in this province is opposed to this legislation. Why is the government not listening? Is this democracy? I don't think so.

At the provincial building trades convention held in Kingston in October 1992, the Minister of Labour admitted to the delegates that there was not enough consultation regarding Bill 80. He also stated, "We will continue to consult with the construction and building trades community on Bill 80."

The resolution from the building trades convention in 1992 stated that they would go on record as opposing Bill 80. The president of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council would form a committee to convene this opposition to the government and mandated this committee to further consult with the government in regard to the Labour minister's comments. The Minister of Labour's only meeting with the committee was when he gave them the copy of the proposed revisions.

What happened to my letter representing my association dated June 12, 1992, requesting a meeting with the Minister of Labour on behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association that pre-dates his party in this province? I got a letter back saying, "We will have further consultation." To this date, I have not had a meeting with the Minister of Labour one on one to represent my association.

I had one meeting as a member of the executive board of the building trades, but it was a general meeting and I did not have an opportunity to have any input. All the while, the deputy deputy minister of Labour, Mr George Ward, knew everything about what was going on in this Legislative Assembly.

I asked the deputy minister then, in December 1991, was there legislation being drawn up -- thank you for my time; unfortunately I'm not even halfway through this -- I was told then that in fact there was nothing. I called then in January and there was nothing, until boom, as Mr Ward said, it came out of the ground like a monster. Unfortunately, I don't have the time that Mr Ward was allotted, with all the names he had backing him, and they didn't get up to speak. Nevertheless, let me talk about the serious thing here, the revisions.

I believe that in section 138.1 the word "work" must be removed from the definition of jurisdiction, otherwise we will have total chaos in the construction industry. I strongly urge you to delete subsection 138.1(3), as it gives the Ontario Labour Relations Board the power to run roughshod over a bona fide union constitution. This type of legislation is a direct attack on and interference in democratic unions. Accordingly, this legislation is in violation of resolution 87 of the ILO convention, for those of you who aren't familiar with it, to which Canada and this province are signatories.

This legislation begs the following questions: Why was this legislation only for the construction sector if it is so good and democratic? Has the Ontario Labour Relations Board the manpower and the expertise to take on this new responsibility? For those of you who have not appeared before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, I can assure you there are many times you wonder if they can even deal with trade jurisdictions. Nevertheless, those are my own personal remarks.

Section 138.2: This section, if enacted, allows the Minister of Labour to force a residential local, Local 285, which is opposed to it, and a production local in a council or conference into provincial-wide bargaining. Is this democracy? I say it is not. I say it is diametrically opposed to democracy and it should be removed.

Four minutes left: Okay, I'm going to leave the rest of what I have here, because there is something I cannot pass by, and that is the presentation made by the Ontario sheet metal conference. Unfortunately, I don't have their time and I know I won't have the pleasure of the committee here, but I'll quickly say I would like now to review with you certain remarks made by George Ward which in many cases are erroneous and half-truths.

Mr Ward's performance was in my opinion disgraceful and not worthy of a member of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association to which I belong as a member. I want to correct for the record certain allegations he made. First of all, I would first admit that we've had traumatic times in the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association with the problem with our general president, but let me say for the record that there is nothing hidden in the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association. Mr Ward attended our conference in Orlando, Florida. Mr Ward is never shy to get up and speak on any issue. He did, and asked questions and made remarks and so on and so forth.

The international came clean and the general executive council has addressed the issues. It also addressed this to every member of our organization: 150,000 members received this journal with full disclosures and what the general executive board has done to correct the problem. So there is no need for the type of blacking that was done by Mr Ward. Let Mr Ward take a page out of Mr Raso's book and talk about the legislation. That's where he should have been.

For the record, I have to make sure I speak on certain things. For example, he said he is hiring a lawyer to look into the business agents' pension plan. Let me tell you for the record that I can save him a lot of money. Koskie and Minsky may not like this, but all he has to do is file an application and get on the phone and phone our administrator and they will provide him with the latest actuarial evaluation and the financial statement of our plan.

Let me tell you that the BA pension plan that was brought in for our membership, our business agents across Canada, was brought in seven years later than for our American brothers, yet they offered our Canadian brothers, business agents in Canada, a total service. I know. I speak from experience. The business manager I succeeded, Ray Guertin, was in this bad plan for seven months. He got 17 years of pension and was able to live in dignity for the rest of his life.

Let me tell you for the record that our plan is in very good shape, because I've taken the time to call. There's $8.737 million invested in the Royal Bank of Canada, which mirrors what our international does in Ontario, because all of our per capita is put in the Royal Bank of Canada, invested in this province. We have taken the steps and have always taken the steps. We were one of the first unions to do that.

1920

Many of the things that have been said were half-truths and talking about an issue in Thunder Bay. I don't know where they were coming from, because here was a situation where in fact a local in Sudbury was making claim for a territory on a Detour Lake project, a mine, if I believe correctly, which is 850 miles away from Thunder Bay. After reviewing all the facts and an investigation, it was decided that, in the interests of what was reasonable, in fact it was closer to Sudbury. Sudbury was 150 miles from the site, and therefore that site was allotted and given to the Sudbury local.

What happened there is that the business manager from Thunder Bay appealed to the general executive board, which referred it to the general president. The general president further investigated and referred his decision back.

No matter what body gets into making decisions, whether it's the Ontario Labour Relations Board or the international, we're not in a papacy here; we're not infallible. Mistakes are made. But if this is the most he can come up with, I can't understand where he's coming from. Our international has always been fairminded and treated our people in an autonomous way.

They talk about this great affiliation to the Ontario Federation of Labour. I knew what was going on. I made a recommendation to our general executive board council. I could understand some of the reasons they wanted to get back into the OFL, even if it was through the back door. I understand the problems they have with the plants and the pressures that were being put on, the no-raid pact with the CLC. I can understand that. I wasn't born on a Christmas tree and I didn't fall off the turnip truck.

Let me tell you that our international was fairminded, as we've always tried to be. We've always given our membership nothing but service. We have in this province four international reps and we have three in the rest of Canada. We have a full-time office, which I am the director of. For the past two years we have done nothing but service our locals, whether it be jurisdiction -- and my colleague talked about jurisdiction, because I don't have enough time. I have to talk faster than I normally speak. He keeps saying stop in one minute.

In conclusion, it's sad that such a serious bill has to have such time restraints. These are important issues. These are affecting the parent union and the local union. It's not black and white. We should have had this resolved not before the Legislature; we should have had the parties -- we asked the minister to meet with them. We asked, through the building trades department, sit down and talk to us. We got nowhere. Someone said about this consultation for 17 months that that's a long time, and I agree, especially if you're talking to yourself.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Belleville, for your presentation. We have about three minutes left. That gives each caucus a minute to probably make a comment. I wouldn't want to suggest that it allows enough time for a question and answer.

Mr Murdoch: Just a quick comment: If Bill 80 doesn't pass, will insubordination charges be brought up against Mr Ward for coming here and speaking?

Mr Belleville: Let me tell you this: To show you what democracy is -- and all of you know Mr Ward and you've heard how colourful he is, and someone called him a communist bastard. That's neither here nor there. He's a very colourful person. We've had him for 10 years and he's never been accountable before our international. He almost got there once, and I was one of the guys who went on his behalf to convince the international that charges be dropped. In fairness, it was.

Mr Murdoch: So he won't be now because he spoke out in favour of Bill 80. There was concern.

Mr Belleville: I certainly am not going to prefer charges. I'm used to Mr Ward's colour. I keep offering the olive branch but he keeps biting me.

The Acting Chair: Sharon, do you want to make a comment?

Ms Murdock: Yes. I feel somewhat hard done by here, because Mike Cooper was appointed parliamentary assistant to Labour in February of this year and prior to that I was responsible for everything, including this bill. I have had numerous conversations with any number of people on it.

I get the impression that you feel the only person you could speak to who would have given you any kind of assistance in getting any changes on this would have been the minister himself, when the reality is that, in many instances, people like Jerry Kovacs and myself and Mike Cooper also have a fair amount of influence. I just wanted on the record that there have been numerous conversations, and I somewhat take exception to what you've said.

Mr Belleville: With all due respect, I am the director of Canadian affairs, I have a position, and so has the Minister of Labour. I would have thought he would have the courtesy to give me a phone call or a fax -- with this new mode we have of the fax -- and I could have met him for lunch, breakfast or dinner. The only person who ever got his ear was the deputy deputy minister, and that was unfortunate.

Mr Mahoney: I spent some time in the last government as a parliamentary assistant and I never deluded myself as to who is calling the shots. It sure as hell is not the PAs and it's not the back bench. It is the corner office, and it sure as hell is the corner office now under this particular Premier.

Thank you for your presentation. It was not only colourful, but enlightening. By way of comment, one of the things I've arrived at is the frustration that this is a government interfering in a labour dispute.

Clearly, there are disputes. We've heard from people. Maybe you can dispute what Ward and others have said. He may not be charged by the union, by the way; he may be sued in a civil court for some of the stuff he said. I don't know, but that's really not my problem.

But clearly this is interference in an internal matter that you should be encouraged to resolve. As to the people who are upset and unhappy, who feel that their rights are being taken away, I would encourage all the international unions to sit down with those people, as apparently you have done, to try to find a way to accommodate them and to make changes within the constitution so that Canadian locals are recognized for the talents they bring to the table. I've heard in a number of the presentations opposed to Bill 80 that they have done that. It appears there are some areas where that has not happened.

Bill 80 is going to pass, I can tell you that. We hope to get a couple of amendments. I don't know how that's going to work out, but at the end of the day, I and my leader and caucus would like to encourage you guys to solve your problems within your own family.

Mr Belleville: I agree with you, Steve. If we all used the same strength and effort that's been on both sides of Bill 80 to fight for a fair wage in this province --

Mr Mahoney: Right on.

Mr Belleville: -- and other progressive legislation for labour, it'd benefit our people. We're going through a facet and it's a learning process. And yes, we do have to heal our wounds and find out who the real enemy is.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS AND ASBESTOS WORKERS, LOCAL 95

The Acting Chair: Our next presenter this evening is Mr Joe de Wit, business manager for the asbestos workers, Local 95. Make yourselves comfortable and identify yourselves, and you may proceed whenever you're comfortable.

Mr André Chartrand: I'm André Chartrand, vice-president for the international for eastern Canada.

Mr Joe de Wit: My name is Joe de Wit. I'm the business manager and financial secretary of my organization, the International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95. We are a province-wide local, and I represent approximately 1,500 insulators from all across Ontario.

First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to express my views on Bill 80. It is my opinion that this proposed legislation is an ill-conceived and totally unnecessary intrusion in the affairs of unions and I'm therefore unequivocally opposed to all aspects of it.

I can see no reason why government would want to interfere in the internal running of independent unions like mine which, in some cases, have been around for over 100 years and have managed to grow and prosper without government intervention; unions which have weathered recession, depressions and unfriendly political climates and still continue to grow.

1930

Our independent unions have provided our members with a good standard of living. We have, through the prudent management of our resources, attained for our members the finest health and welfare benefits available, as well as a fully funded pension, at no cost to the taxpayers of this province.

We have been instrumental in making Ontario one of the safest places to work in the entire North American construction industry. We have consistently provided a large pool of well-qualified, union-trained tradespeople who have a standard of workmanship and productivity that is second to none. We have done this for a great many years without government intervention.

We have managed our locals well over the years. We have shown solid fiscal responsibility. We have kept well within our budgets. We do not ask the taxpayers of this province for subsidies. We do not run our finances at a deficit. We provide apprenticeships for the upcoming generations and we provide well-paying jobs for our members. We instil into our members a sense of pride in their unions and in their work.

We run our locals in a democratic fashion. All our local union officials, from the general president down to the local sergeant at arms, are duly elected. Finally, we have in place a viable mechanism for handling any problems that may arise. We do not need Bill 80.

If this bill was being supported by a majority of the union members, I would accept your decision. After all, in a democracy there are many pieces of legislation that one has to live with, the infamous GST being a prime example. However, this bill is patently unfair. It is being rammed down against the wishes and the best interests of the rank-and-file membership. We are being bullied into accepting the wishes of a self-serving few.

Our main bone of contention over this bill has been the complete disregard of our concerns. Contrary to what has been claimed, the vast majority of local unions affiliated with the building trades were not consulted or asked for their input when the concept of Bill 80 was first floated. I myself am a vice-president of the provincial building trades council, and certainly no one ever approached me. From what I can gather, it was just a select few, who by coincidence all happened to be strong proponents of the bill, who were actually asked for their opinions.

One thing that has me baffled regarding this bill is that, if it is such a good thing for unions, why are only construction unions being singled out for this honour? Surely this displays an element of discrimination against other unions here. Surely all unions deserve the protection this bill offers, or is there, as some people have suggested, a hidden agenda being adhered to with respect to this bill?

One argument put forward by the proponents of Bill 80 is that it will protect local unions from the unfair imposition of trusteeships by their respective internationals. This is a red herring, in my opinion. The same proponents have been unable to prove their assertion that international associations impose trusteeships more often than other unions.

Most of us who belong to international organizations have developed a good working relationship with our affiliates across the border. We take pride in our affiliation with our brothers and sisters across North America. We appreciate the advantages associated with being part of the large international union. In fact, one of the advantages of this affiliation has been that some of our members have only managed to ride out the depression our province has been in for the past three years by obtaining employment with our sister locals across Canada and the US.

I know that some people have given impassioned pleas on behalf of Bill 80. I know that some people feel that they have been unfairly treated by their international over the years. However, these same people have been unable to get re-elected by their peers to the offices they were removed from, despite their best efforts.

This proves to me that there has been some justification for the international acting in the way it did in the first place. From my own experience, an international body does not just arbitrarily decide to impose a trusteeship. There's always a good reason, which is why the Ontario labour board refuses to intercede until all internal appeals have been exhausted.

A trusteeship was imposed on my own local in 1983. The then business manager took our membership out on strike in direct defiance of our constitution. This strike was unnecessary and costly to everyone. Our international stepped in and within 48 hours the strike was settled, the business manager removed from office, pending appeal, and normalcy was restored. Within nine months elections were held and our local returned to us, stronger than ever, my point being that had we not had an international to turn to, our local could very well have faced bankruptcy because of the pigheadedness of one person.

Unions are in place for the sole benefit of the membership, and in my opinion Bill 80 is a gross intrusion into the running of a private organization. I stress the word "private" because we are run in much the same way that any large corporation is run. I can just imagine the hue and cry that would ensue if the government tried to impose similar legislation on any other organization whose headquarters happened to be in another country, and quite rightly so. So why are unions, which are completely self-sufficient, obey all the laws of the land and contribute to society as a whole, being singled out for this discriminatory legislation?

Construction unions have historically held a unique position in this country. Because of the transient nature of a lot of the work they perform, they have always had to look after themselves more than workers in traditional and permanent jobs. The value of the work they perform cannot be disputed; they built this province.

In 1978, workers accepted the idea of provincial bargaining and agreed to negotiate their contracts simultaneously in order to avoid the leap-frog syndrome of work stoppages, that is, different areas striking at different times and creating havoc within the entire industry. This has worked relatively well since then, and various trade councils have been formed to oversee the voting procedures that were put in place.

Bill 80 will effectively put a stop to this harmony and will cause dissension and confusion within the locals. It will also cause further problems in dealing with the different agreements that most locals are signatory to. In short, the leap-frog effect will be back with a vengeance. Do we really need all these problems merely to placate a few power-hungry, disgruntled union representatives who feel they have been denied their version of justice from their internationals?

It is my honestly held belief that a hidden agenda or political payback scheme can be the only logical explanation for the pushing of this bill. It is the only explanation that fits all the pieces of the puzzle. Why else would a government risk alienating so many, when it is crystal clear that the great majority of union workers do not want it? When the very few people it purports to benefit are against it, what is the motive?

Why are successful unions that have proven themselves to be models of fiscal responsibility and democracy in action being penalized in this manner? Why are unions that have shown the highest integrity towards their membership being treated like second-class citizens by their government?

Might I respectfully suggest that the government take a leaf out of the book of construction union management and listen to the people they were elected to represent, instead of pandering to a vocal minority.

In closing, I would like to request that you reconsider the implications of this bill and block its passage forthwith. Thank you for your time.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr de Wit. We have approximately four minutes per caucus.

Mr Chartrand: Can I make just a comment?

The Acting Chair: You certainly may, Mr Chartrand.

Mr Chartrand: Joe de Wit talked about the trusteeship imposed on Local 95 in 1983. I was the supervisor of that trusteeship. This is the thing that I'm most proud of, because I feel that when you put a trusteeship over a local it's because there's something wrong there.

The international union goes into those locals to protect the membership, and that's what we did. It's been proven. Joe de Wit's been there; he worked for me under supervision. He's been elected, re-elected. He's there. He's got a strong local now. He's our biggest local of the international in North America, and Joe's doing a hell of a job. He worked for the trusteeship there, so I think we did our job.

We had another local under supervision in Canada, in Montreal, for two years and I was a supervisor there too. The people working with me under supervision are still there today, elected and re-elected. So I think the international union, which uses leadership to protect the membership against some business manager or agent who is using his office to play around with whatever he can play around with, is there to protect the membership, and that's what we did in our case of the insulators.

I think this bill should be withdrawn because I'm sure it's going to be misused by some people. What we will see in the future is that those kinds of people will spend most of their time challenging their international union. I don't think we deserve that.

1940

Mr Wood: Just a brief comment: Thank you for your presentation, first of all. Having been a member of the international union over the years, I guess this discussion has been going on for probably 30 years with the industrial unions.

I worked in a paper mill and I can remember back in 1965 where five of my buddies were thrown in jail at the border and only released after the convention was pretty well over because they were challenging some aspects of that. I've got a history of it and personal knowledge of what went on over those times.

I never was a member of the construction trade unions, but I know the industrial ones, after they lost a quarter of a million or 300,000 Canadian members, basically changed some of their rules and regulations under the industrial unions and it doesn't happen as much, the abuse that we used to hear about in the 1960s and early 1970s.

But there were a lot of people who brought forward requests and a lot of people have come forward in this committee saying, "We're fearful of what will happen if Bill 80 is passed, not in its original form, with some of the amendments that have been brought. We're fearful that we might never work again because we're coming forward in front of the committee," and things of this kind. I'm just wondering what reaction you would have to those comments. There were a lot of presentations that were brought forward concerned about those things.

Mr de Wit: You're asking me what would happen to those people? If anything was done against those individuals, they can go to the labour board. First of all, I've heard some of the comments that people will never work again in the industry. Under the Labour Relations Act, you can take your business manager or the local union to the labour board if that's the case, if you can prove that he's keeping you out of work.

We have a list system, a hiring hall system. It's a 50-50 name hire and it's adhered to at all times. I don't even interfere in the running of the hiring hall. I've got a dispatcher and he looks after that and that's his job.

Mr Wood: I don't want to go through all the comments that different presenters have made, but they have made presentations saying that a convention is held every four or five years and that it could take that long before they get to the appeal and get to the convention floor before a decision is made as to what their future is. In the meantime, during that period of time, what happens to them?

All three parties here have listened to those presentations, and quite a large number of them have come forward saying, "Look, you have to proceed with Bill 80 in some amended form," because of the fear of what's going to happen to a large number of international construction workers out there in different trades.

Mr de Wit: I think it's fearmongering. That's what they're trying to tell you.

Mr Wood: Thank you. Those are the only comments I have.

Mr Mahoney: I want to go on record and tell you that if Bill 80 was withdrawn and those kinds of intimidation tactics came forward, I would be the first one to stand up and fight them publicly, right alongside of you and your colleagues. I said before that I think it's important that once all the rhetoric has died down, the partisanship has died down and the battles have died down, I sincerely hope that everybody in the construction unions will work together and try to improve the economy and the life for their members, and I'm convinced they will.

I also want to tell you that I'm well aware of the length this has been a history of the international versus the national and the local controls. Majesky accused me of bringing my old man up too much, but I'm going to do it one more time, because I remember his paycheque came from Pittsburgh in US funds. I'll tell you, the argument in those days was hot and heavy at the Steel conventions about whether or not they should have autonomy and, in reality, they did.

I would defy anybody in Pittsburgh or anywhere else to tell me that some of the men like Larry Sefton and Bill Mahoney and others didn't run the bloody show in this country. Let me tell you, they did, and they didn't need some international telling them what to do and there was no, pardon me, BS about that.

Their main concern, though, was for the success of the steel plants and the workers and the members in those plants. That's what they were concerned about, more than what bloody flag you pin on your lapel. This wrapping yourself in the Canadian flag is just a smokescreen for somebody who's trying to seek power and some kind of influence in the union they think they need.

I don't know if you know the answer to this. You probably don't, but I'm going to ask it so it's on the record. Trusteeship, supervisions, geographical adjustment, sectoral disputes, work disputes, removal from office: I wonder how many of those have occurred in international industrial unions. Does anybody have any idea? Does it happen?

Mr de Wit: Yes.

Mr Mahoney: If it happens, why in hell wouldn't they bring this in to protect those locals, which I can tell you are pretty autonomous in Timmins and in Sault Ste Marie when they get together for beer and spaghetti on Saturday morning. They're pretty strong in favour of their local and the rights of their workers. Why is it that you wouldn't want to protect those people from the big, bad internationals, which are doing exactly what you're accusing these men and women of doing in the labour movement?

Two other things: First, you raise the point that you haven't asked the government for money, that you're operating as a private organization. I'd like to know the cost of Bill 80, not only in things like paperwork but the person-hours that have gone into bringing this bill forward, the meetings, the staff time it has taken, the committee time, the legislative time. The construction unions who want to somehow fly the coop and become independent in Canada have just cost the taxpayers one ton of money. I don't blame them; I blame the government. They're absolutely wasting money in coming forward with this nonsense.

Mr Cooper: So let's cancel all committees?

Mr de Wit: I've been the business representative for the past 10 years of my local, and I can tell you that I never hear from our international. The only time I hear from them is when I call them and ask them for some input. Otherwise, he gives me a phone call once in a while: "How's it going?" That's it. We run our own show here all the way. We don't have any intervention whatsoever from the international. We help them out whenever we can, they help us out whenever they can, and we have a good working relationship. I can tell you that I'm a province-wide local. We look after the whole province here, and the only time André comes in is if he has meetings here; I meet him at the airport. Other than that, there's no interference whatsoever.

The Acting Chair: Mr Murdoch.

Mr Murdoch: You go ahead. You can use my time.

Mr Chartrand: Most of the people are saying that the show is run by Washington and we don't have a word to say. I'd like to raise an important point here. Myself and brother Tony Ceraldi sitting there -- he's VP for western Canada -- were elected at a convention although we were not on the slate. We were supported by Canadians. Canadians worked so hard to have us elected, and we beat the machine there. Tony and I are running the show here under certain directives of our general president. So it's not true that the international union in Washington is doing everything. We've been elected by Canadians here because we beat the machine there. I'm proud of that and I think Tony's proud of that and all Canadians who are part of our organization are proud of that.

The Acting Chair: Mr de Wit and Mr Chartrand, thank you very much.

Mr Murdoch: One question?

The Acting Chair: There's one minute, Mr Murdoch.

Mr Murdoch: Did your local vote on Bill 80?

Mr de Wit: Yes, they did, twice.

Mr Murdoch: You didn't mention that. And they turned it down with a margin, or was it close?

Mr de Wit: By a great majority.

Mr Murdoch: I just wanted to know that.

Mr de Wit: A lot of my members live in your area, by the way.

Mr Murdoch: Then maybe they should get hold of me.

Mr Mahoney: Billy, don't worry. The other side threatened me, so you're all right. Those guys are going to be so busy in politics.

1950

PROVINCIAL BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF ONTARIO

The Acting Chair: The next presentation is from Mr Joseph Duffy, business manager and secretary-treasurer, the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. Please come forward and make yourself comfortable, sir, and whenever you are prepared, begin your presentation.

Mr Patrick Dillon: I'm Pat Dillon, president of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario. This is Joe Duffy, the business manager.

The first comment I would make in starting is that we haven't listed in the brief, clause by clause, what the clause says, what we think it should say and so on. We're in pretty close agreement with the presentation that was made by the national building trades, I believe the first day of hearings. So I'll get to the brief.

The Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario is the umbrella group which represents over 100,000 unionized construction workers in this province. This number is broken down into 12 local building trades councils, 11 craft councils and over 125 affiliated local unions. We are expressing their views as we are obligated to under our charter, our constitution and by resolution at convention, and I would like you to pay particular attention to "constitution" and "resolution at convention."

In light of the fact that these hearings are being held in Toronto and many of our locals cannot be here to represent themselves, we are speaking on their behalf as their elected representatives. I think without much explanation there, the economy of this province would dictate why a lot of the local unions aren't here themselves.

We must begin by clearly stating that the official position of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, as stated at the 35th and 36th annual conventions of our organization, is that we are opposed to Bill 80 in any form. We would like to take the opportunity to briefly explain our reasons for this position and to discuss some issues related to the processes which were associated with the bill.

The primary concern revolves around the issue of the sanctity of the constitution, not only for the construction industry but for any organization. A constitution is the raison d'être; it defines the purpose of your organization and how it should go about pursuing its stated goals. It is like a flag which symbolizes respect and pride for a craft or trade. A constitution provides structure, stability and a frame of reference.

I would like to ask each committee member to reflect upon their own political organization and the importance of their constitution, both provincially and at the constituency level. None of you would like to see government intervention in your affairs; those of us in the construction industry would like to be afforded the same courtesy and respect. We find it particularly offensive that we are singled out in this bill and that other sectors were not considered.

Issues like stability and structure are crucial in an industry such as construction. It is even more crucial in difficult times such as we face now. Ontario is in the midst of its most serious downturn in a great many years. Competition for private sector capital spending is ruthlessly fierce. We feel that Bill 80, as written, will lead to increased instability of the industry and ultimately make Ontario a less attractive place to do business.

I'd just like to comment there that these comments are certainly no effort on behalf of the provincial building trades to suggest to the government that it should interfere in the other constitutions.

We would like to focus attention on the role of the Ontario Labour Relations Board as defined by the bill. The traditional role of the OLRB is a complaints-driven mechanism. Bill 80, as written, changes that role to something different.

Presently, the OLRB has a difficult time keeping pace with the demands placed upon it. Our concern is that in the event of a situation where a trusteeship, for example, is to be invoked, any delay in invoking trusteeship may result in a serious risk to the local union. Should the board not be able to address the international's request for trusteeship in a timely manner, one could see the potential for continued risk. Thus, the international must be able to make the necessary decision in an immediate manner or however it must act as provided under the provisions of its constitution.

In terms of process, we were completely unaware that this legislation was contemplated by government. It should have been raised in conjunction with the Bill 40 debate if it was the government's intention to introduce legislation of this nature. This would have provided an opportunity for all affected parties to make comments as the Bill 40 hearings travelled across the province.

At the very least, this council should have been consulted as to the need for Bill 80 before it was released to the public. This could have resulted in addressing the intent of the legislation in some other manner and could have avoided the unnecessary divisiveness that has resulted in the discussions surrounding the bill. That was evidenced at these hearings this evening and I believe at other times. I haven't spent a lot of time here listening to it.

In conclusion, we would like to reiterate our opposition to Bill 80. We are, however, realists in that we can see that proclamation of the bill is imminent. We think it is in the best interests of all involved that the following should be considered as this committee prepares for clause-by-clause consideration:

(1) That the involvement of the Ontario Labour Relations Board should be on a complaints-driven basis. For example, if an international decides that a trusteeship is to be invoked, then it should be allowed to do so. The person or people affected by the trusteeship would then be allowed to appeal to the board in a timely manner.

(2) That the Ontario Labour Relations Board must consider the prevailing constitution and the effects on collective bargaining and labour relations when deciding on alterations to jurisdiction. The international should be allowed to change jurisdiction as provided in the prevailing constitution, pending some type of specified notification. Again, any action by the board should be on a complaints-driven basis.

(3) We agree that the successorship clause should be dropped, as the minister and the deputy minister stated in their remarks to the committee.

We would like to thank the committee for listening to our concerns. That's the formal presentation. I'll turn to Brother Duffy for a couple of comments, and I have a couple I'd like to make myself.

Mr Joseph Duffy: As to consultation, I've had the privilege of working with many ministers of Labour over the past 13 years that I've been employed by the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council, and I've had a personal working relationship with Bob Mackenzie for many years.

During the rumour time, before Bill 80 became public, I had the opportunity to question him in private meetings: Was there legislation coming down to affect the construction industry? I was made aware by Brother Mackenzie that there was not. I was also made aware by his deputy at the time, George Thomson, whom I had meetings with, and was told no, there wasn't.

I also had meetings with Vic Pathé, who was the chair of the construction industry advisory board, of which I am a member, and so is one of the people who supports Bill 80, George Ward. We asked questions at those meetings. That committee was established to be an advisory board to the Minister of Labour on construction matters, and we were never informed of any proposed legislation.

In terms of my own opinions with regard to the Labour Relations Act, the provincial building trades fully supported Bill 40 as a good thing to change the Labour Relations Act for the benefit of workers in the province of Ontario. Then I wondered why Bill 80 came along shortly afterwards. Why was it not a part of Bill 40?

I can tell you why. Because the industrial trades, if it was going to affect them, would never have supported the bill. It would never have got any farther than the first item on the agenda and would've been dropped.

The provincial building trades are told that we had plenty of opportunity for consultation. I'd just like to state here that we had very little consultation. We even met with the minister, the provincial building trades executive at the time, including some of the people who support it who sit on our committee, and were told by the Minister of Labour, walking out of the meeting, "From now on, any changes in this legislation" -- and we were also told why we didn't get input into it, why it was kept a secret. It was because they thought action would be taken against those people.

I can only tell you I don't think action would be taken. I'm not in a position to take any action. I don't think I'd want that opportunity to take any action. I think in a free and democratic system, those people have the opportunity and should have the right to complain about actions taken by their international.

But when you want to have a democratic system, it should affect everybody, not just some individuals. We all should have had the opportunity for input. I believe Bill 80 still might have come along with the support of the provincial building trades, but it wouldn't have come along in the same views. There would have been different recommendations, because as the Canadian building trades have stated, there are some the points we can support. Thank you very much.

2000

Mr Dillon: To make a couple of personal comments myself, as president of the building trades, as Joe's just pointing out here, the fact that we didn't have the opportunity for input exposed our unions -- the local unions, the bargaining councils, the internationals, the individual members -- to a very poor position. The only way anybody can justify their position, no matter what side of this issue you're on, is to come in here and do a bunch of dirty laundry, and that's just what we need.

I employ six organizers in one of my other lives, away from being president of the building trades, and we're out there trying to organize unorganized workers and some who are organized but not in the international building trades. This kind of tripe that's been passed back and forth here doesn't enhance the trade union movement one inch; it takes it backwards. I ask you as members to consider that.

Secondly, the issue of -- I'm losing my train of thought here for a second. The issue of the constitution: I ask any member on this panel who is sitting here and those who aren't sitting here who I hope read the remarks, because I notice people in and out of the room quite often, where do we get off asking anyone to bring their constitution to the labour board to have the labour board interpret the constitution for them before they can handle an issue, whether it's jurisdiction, trusteeship or whatever, when that labour board has three people on it, if we're lucky, and I'll address the second part of that.

Right now, for these purposes, there are three people on it: There would be one labour representative who we hope would be from construction, the second would be an independent chair who probably has no construction experience, and we're going to ask some management guy to interpret our constitution, what the union should or shouldn't do. I find that appalling, that anybody in this room can stand up and vote in favour of that type of mechanism. I ask you to think about that.

The second thing I meant to say about the chairman: Right now, because of the economy in Ontario, and we understand it and we don't blame this government for it, the labour board is hiring chairs but it's not hiring sides people. The message is coming clear to me, and I don't know, maybe it isn't to you, that we're going to have a lot of hearings where it's just the independent chair. So now somebody's going to be in there with their constitution, asking some independent person who is not union or management, supposedly, "Would you tell me what my constitution means so I can decide what I should do for my membership?" I say to you, think about that before you make that decision. I'll cut off my remarks there; I could carry on.

The Acting Chair: We have two minutes per caucus for a statement or a short question.

Mr Mahoney: I want to say first of all that Joe Duffy chaired the meeting in St Catharines of the AGM of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council. Bob Mackenzie was introduced by him, and in spite of the fact that you have such strong differences, I think you're to be congratulated, Joe, on the professionalism that you showed in introducing it and putting the issue on the table. I think that's the kind of professionalism we're going to need more of in the construction trades when we try to resolve these problems.

Let me ask you directly, Joe, do you feel that you were deceived when you asked all of these people you've outlined about anything coming forward? Do you think you were lied to?

Mr Duffy: Yes, I was. I don't think, I know I was, because Bill 80 shows me I was lied to, because the rumour mill was in the building my office is in, which is the Ontario Federation of Labour.

Mr Mahoney: I don't think there's much question -- and I'm not saying this even for a response because I respect your views -- of your political affiliation over the years, and that's really most unfortunate.

Mr Duffy: What, my affiliation?

Mr Mahoney: Your affiliations are unfortunate; we'd like to make you a Liberal. It's unfortunate you were lied to.

The issue of the people: It's been interesting how many more people have come forward in this committee, since it got into committee, in support of the bill. There were some prior, mostly legal counsel here or there, who came out reasonably quietly in support of the bill. Since it's got into committee, though, we've had a number of presenters who have come in here in support and stated so, some as demonstratively as George Ward and others in a little quieter way, but they still stated it.

I wonder if I might be right, and if you agree, that there was a guarantee given by the government that this bill was going to pass and: "Don't worry about it. Come on out and lay all your stuff on the table and we'll protect you." Do you think they made that kind of deal with these people?

Mr Dillon: I'd like to respond to that. I can't really say that commitment was made, but let me say this --

Mr Mahoney: What do you think?

Mr Dillon: I'm thinking out loud. For anyone to come in front of this committee and give the impression to you that we have some kind of protection because of Bill 80 -- because who knows what it's going to look like in the end -- is misleading you. There is no one who is intimidated. I've listened to people make statements here that they're worried, that people are afraid to speak up because the business manager runs the hiring hall and they're afraid to say what they've got to say because he won't give them a job. The people who were making those statements were people who had been business managers and had been defeated by those members who were afraid of them. Those things do not make sense.

The construction industry has 100 years of history in this province. Let me say this: In this jurisdiction of Ontario, we are number one to any jurisdiction in North America, whether you look at wage packages, benefit packages or labour law. Bill 80's going to help us become number what? I have a real problem with that.

Mr Murdoch: I want to thank you for your presentation. You made a good job of it. If I had been called a liar I'd want some time to reply to that, and since that's what you've basically said about the government, I'll give my time up to let them tell us why they're not liars.

Mr Duffy: I'd like to answer that. I never said that they're liars. I said I was lied to. I don't say that the government --

Mr Murdoch: Well, by the minister.

Mr Duffy: I spoke to people and they lied to me.

Mr Murdoch: They represent the government.

Mr Duffy: It is my government. I am in no rush to leave the party and tear up my card. I supported the party for years, I still do, and I will work to make changes that I think rightfully belong inside our party.

Mr Murdoch: But I would still like to hear what they have to say about that, so I'll let them have my time.

The Acting Chair: I think Mr Cooper did want to make a statement, or maybe ask a question.

Mr Cooper: Obviously, I don't have the answer to that. I don't know what happened between the personalities in this whole thing.

First of all, I want to start off by thanking you for bringing us your fair approach to this whole subject. There wasn't any screaming about chaos in the industry and all that.

One of the things I would like to raise, though, is that the Toronto building trades council has come out in support of Bill 80. When they did their votes, they did it section by section and they deleted the section on disaffiliation. When you had your votes in 1992 and 1993, you voted on the original Bill 80. The question is, why wouldn't you go through section by section when the minister had given his assurance that disaffiliation --

Mr Duffy: Because there were resolutions at our convention. The resolutions were demanding us to oppose Bill 80. There was a vote taken on the floor. Nobody requested, to the best of my recollection, going through. There was a discussion in regard to the items. The four items that the Toronto building trades agreed to were done three months after the provincial building trades convention. I was at that meeting. I was invited as a guest to that meeting.

Mr Dillon: I'd like to respond to your question, Mike. I chaired the meeting of both conventions of the provincial building trades, and proudly so. The first thing we vote on at the convention, as I'm sure you do at your convention and everybody does at their conventions, is the rules of order of how we're going to operate the convention. Rule 12, and I can remember it quite clearly, states how the votes will be taken at the convention. I'm not out on the floor. As a matter of fact, it was Brother de Wit, I think, who was the chairman of that committee. He brought the recommendations forward, which we've done for 36 years of the provincial building trades, and we've used the same rules to vote on. If that's not democracy, I don't know what is.

If people have a problem, if they can come in here and call people names and do all kinds of funny things, do you think they would be intimidated to get up in front of a guy like me and say, "Look, I think we should change rule 12 so that we have secret ballot votes on particular issues"? I have no problem with that. The convention voted on the rules that I was to be guided by in running the convention.

Mr Mahoney: The government will change those for you.

Mr Dillon: I'll tell you truthfully, I think that if there had been a secret ballot vote, some of those proponents of Bill 80 would have voted against it. That's the kind of sales job I've done with them.

Mr Cooper: What I'd like to do is thank you for giving us some alternatives at the end of your presentation that we could look at. Hopefully your council could support it with these alternatives in it. Not just to you, but to all the presenters, everything that has been presented will be taken into consideration in our deliberations in clause-by-clause.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Chairman, on a point of order or information, whatever you want to call it: The Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario has been opposed, and publicly so, to the original Bill 80 and to any amendments, with or without disaffiliation. That's been very clear.

Mr Cooper: But they did offer alternatives.

Mr Mahoney: They have no choice.

The Acting Chair: Mr Duffy and Mr Dillon, I want to thank you very much for making your presentation before the committee this evening. This committee stands adjourned until 3:30 pm Monday next.

The committee adjourned at 2012.