LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL
CONTENTS
Monday 6 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
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair / Président: Huget, Bob (Sarnia ND)
*Acting Chair / Président suppléant: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay 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)
*Klopp, Paul (Huron ND)
*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:
Hope, Randy R. (Chatham-Kent ND) for Mr Wood
Jamison, Norm (Norfolk ND) for Mr Gary Wilson
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L) for Mr Conway
Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L) for Mr Offer
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Huget
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC) for Mr Turnbull
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold ND)
Ministry of Labour:
Cooper, Mike, parliamentary assistant to the minister
Kovacs, Jerry, legal counsel
Murdoch, Bill (Grey-Owen Sound PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Manikel, Tannis
Staff / Personnel:
Hopkins, Laura, legislative counsel
Richmond, Jerry, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1542 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 Vice-Chair (Mr Mike Cooper): I'd like to call this meeting of the committee to order. Before we start, as I am the parliamentary assistant on this piece of legislation, I think it would only be fair that we elect an Acting Chair for today, as Mr Huget has had an operation and won't be able to attend. Nominations?
Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I'd like to nominate Dan Waters.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Does it come with any extra emolument?
The Vice-Chair: None.
Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Dan sounds good to me.
Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Yes, he sounds good to me too.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Waters, if you'll take the chair.
Mr Mahoney: There must be a little opposition on this.
Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Yes, we've got to have a recorded vote on this.
The Acting Chair (Mr Daniel Waters): I suggested that we nominate you, Steve, but they sort of thought that --
Mr Mahoney: You should have done that, and then I could have given an hour's speech about how you're trying to muzzle me.
The Acting Chair: Yes, I know. That was the feeling we had when I suggested it.
Just before we start today, I'd like a comment from the legislative researcher. He has passed out Summary of Recommendations: Bill 80 and maybe he has a couple of comments for us.
Mr Jerry Richmond: All I want to do is just introduce the summary. I'm sure you've seen these things for many other committees. What I've done is collected all the recommendations and viewpoints of the various deputants in written and oral testimony to us and related it, as you can see, to the most appropriate section of the bill.
At the beginning, if you look on page iii, there's an introduction there which very briefly describes the summary. At the beginning, though, on page 1, you've got there general viewpoints both for and against the bill. Then, carrying on, you've got the various positions on the various sections of the bill and at the back, starting on page 20, you've got various other matters collected that were expressed by witnesses that don't really relate to any section of the bill but none the less were brought forward. Finally, at the back, you have an abbreviated listing of the various deputations, primarily trade unions, that appeared before us.
If there should be any questions, I'm more than willing to attempt to answer them, but otherwise I suspect it should be relatively straightforward. If you wanted to get a quick sense of who said what, hopefully that's the document for you. If there are any questions --
Mrs Witmer: I don't have any questions, and I certainly don't want to trivialize the work that's been done in the preparation of this document and I appreciate it. I guess my only comment would be that this unfortunately is too late to assist us as legislators. I certainly plan to use the document, but unfortunately, not having been given the document ahead of time, I can't use it to the best of my ability and I do find that regrettable, that this was not prepared for us. That's certainly not your problem; it's the problem of the government. In their haste to pass this bill now, unfortunately the debate is not going to be of the nature and the depth of the debate that's necessary on this piece of legislation.
Mr Mahoney: Just to make a comment about that, I guess the only alternative to doing it this way would be to have this kind of summary done at the end of each sitting of the committee, because the staff couldn't possibly present this until after it had happened, hopefully. I think you've done a good job of highlighting points for the purposes of any of the amendments, at least, and I think that's all it's really intended for. I don't know if the committee wants to entertain having staff do a compilation of presentations at the end of each day, because that's really the only way you could do that.
Mr Richmond: You would know, Mr Mahoney, I did prepare an earlier one last week. It's just a question of logistics. Even to prepare this we had quite a tight time frame.
Mr Mahoney: Well, thanks for doing it. I think you did a good job.
The Acting Chair: Thank you to legislative research for their work again. They always keep us --
Mr Mahoney: A little extra something, then pay it back. What do you think?
Mr Hope: You can get a Rae day off. Go ahead.
The Acting Chair: Anyway, thank you again.
I guess the next order of business is, do you want to make opening statements, each of the three parties, or do you wish to go directly into the bill and start going through the clause-by-clause? I'm in your hands.
Mrs Witmer: Given that we only have one hour and 10 minutes to deal with the legislation here before we move into passing each section, I would prefer not to make an opening statement, other than to indicate to you that we do not have any amendments because our party feels very strongly that this legislation should have been withdrawn and we cannot support the bill as it is.
I guess the other thing I would simply indicate to you is that in the past, when we have brought forward hundreds of amendments, in the case of employment equity and Bill 40, none of them were ever accepted by the government. So it's absolutely futile. We know the only amendments that are going to be supported today are those that have been put forward by the government.
The only amendments we would have introduced were amendments to totally withdraw sections of the bill, and those would have been ruled totally out of order.
Mr Mahoney: Perhaps for the record I should just say that we have put forward some amendments after consulting with people in the trade labour movement in the construction sector, not because we support the bill or the principle of the bill by any stretch of the imagination, but because we've somehow got to try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and to give the people in the construction trade labour movement an opportunity to put something in place that's more liveable and more workable.
The amendment which we'll be getting to with regard to complaint-driven: I get, I do know, a suspicion that even though I've asked the minister publicly in the Legislature if he would support that and didn't receive a positive answer, I have some indication from some government members that there may be support. I don't know. That, time will tell.
But I would hope that Ms Witmer's comment, that only the government amendments will carry, will not be the case. I would hope that at the end of the process, the amendments that I'm putting forward as Labour critic for the Liberal caucus, after consulting with these people, will have a chance of seeing the light of day.
Having said that, I can tell you that we're still opposed to the bill and are only agreeing to the amendments because the people affected need someone to put them forward on their behalf when the government refuses to do that. So they'll be put, and hopefully carried, and we'll still be opposed to the bill even with the amendments that are put in place.
1550
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: If we might get on with it, we'll move then directly into clause-by-clause. The first one is a government amendment, section 1.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I move that section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"1. Section 120 of the Labour Relations Act is amended by striking out `sections 121 to 138' in the second line and in the fourth line and substituting in each case `sections 121 to 138.7.'"
The Acting Chair: Mr Cooper, I have to inform you that this amendment attempts to amend a section of the act which is not included in the original bill, and such amendment is out of order.
Mr Cooper: I'd move that we get unanimous consent to support this amendment.
The Acting Chair: Is there unanimous consent?
Mr Mahoney: Not without some explanation. Are you telling me the government has come forward with an amendment to a government bill that's out of order?
Mrs Witmer: This is a rush.
Mr Mahoney: Somebody better explain this one to me.
The Acting Chair: Mr Cooper?
Mr Cooper: We have some technical people here.
The Acting Chair: If the people from the Ministry of Labour are going to be commenting, could you introduce yourselves for the purposes of Hansard and the members around the table, please.
Mr Jerry Kovacs: My name's Jerry Kovacs. I'm with the legal services branch of the Ministry of Labour.
There is an error in section 1 of the bill. It was an error to refer to section 119 of the Labour Relations Act and it was the intent throughout to refer in that section to 120.
Let me explain why. Section 119 is the first provision of the construction part of the Labour Relations Act, which goes from 119 to 155. Section 119 states that the definitions in that section apply to the entire construction part. If you look down in the Labour Relations Act to the next section, section 120, it says,
"Where there is conflict between any provision in sections 121 to 138" -- those are the construction industry provisions -- "and any provision in sections 5 to 58 and 63 to 118," -- those are the general provisions of the LRA -- "the provisions in sections 121 to 138 prevail."
The purpose of section 120 of the Labour Relations Act is to ensure that construction industry parts of the LRA prevail over general LRA provisions. So section 1 of Bill 80 was meant to amend the references to 121 to 138 that are in section 120 to make them read 121 to 138.7.
It was a simple error on my part to instruct legislative counsel to draft section 1 of Bill 80 to refer to section 119. It should have been a reference to section 120. So there's no change in intent, and the motion would be for the purpose of correcting that unintentional numbering error.
Mr Mahoney: Just to help me understand it, what would be the impact if this amendment were not carried?
Mr Kovacs: The impact would be that if a provision in the general section of the Labour Relations Act conflicted with one in the construction industry provisions, then it would prevail over the construction industry --
Mr Mahoney: Sorry, give me that again. If an amendment what? Say again.
Mr Kovacs: Sorry. If a provision in the general section of the LRA conflicted in any way with a provision in the construction part, then the general provisions would prevail over the construction part.
Mr Mahoney: The construction part of --
Mr Kovacs: The Labour Relations Act.
Mr Mahoney: The LRA, not of Bill 80.
Mr Kovacs: Bill 80 of course adds new provisions to the construction part. Section 120 provides that all construction parts prevail over all general parts, and the purpose of section 1 of Bill 80 was to add reference to the new Bill 80-added provisions to the construction part of the LRA.
Mr Mahoney: The bottom line of this is that if there is a conflict between the two acts or this in the OLRA general provisions, the general provisions would prevail?
Mr Kovacs: That's correct.
Mr Mahoney: In other words, you wouldn't be able to implement sections of Bill 80 outside of the general provisions of the OLRA.
Mr Kovacs: I'm not sure whether that's true. That's arguable.
Mr Mahoney: Being arguable, there will not be unanimous consent, Mr Chair.
The Acting Chair: The amendment is out of order. Now what we have to do is vote on section 1 as it stands. Any further discussion?
Mr Cooper: As we can't get unanimous consent on that, obviously the government won't be able to support section 1 now.
The Acting Chair: Any other discussion? Seeing none, shall section 1 carry? Section 1 is defeated.
Section 2 is a Liberal amendment, I believe.
Mr Mahoney: Is that on jurisdiction?
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Mr Mahoney: I have a couple of questions. I'm not sure; should I be directing my questions to the technical staff?
The Acting Chair: I would suggest that you direct them to Mr Cooper, and if he feels the need, he will redirect to the appropriate person.
Mr Mahoney: The issue here, as I understand it, is whether or not work should be included in the jurisdictional disputes. You could have one over geography where a couple of ridings were arguing over boundary lines or things of that nature -- not ridings. What did I say? Ridings? A couple of unions, locals, arguing over their geographic boundaries.
The sectoral jurisdiction, it seems to me, covers the issue of type of work, because in essence you're talking about the sector to which the dispute refers, and there's a broad base, I recognize, within each sector. In residential there might be a broad base of types of work.
But the current document that's set up that is used to settle disputes between perhaps the pipefitters and the plumbers or, you know, trying to think of the jurisdictions where there may be some overlap in the type of work that's done, it seems to me it is already covered under that particular section, that particular operation.
Are we now going to have to refer every dispute over work to the OLRB for a decision if we leave the word "work" in there, and if in fact we have to do that, have we analysed the time it will take? I know there is an amendment here to deal with the OLRB's settling disputes within 15 days, but have we analysed the time it would take for the OLRB, the staffing component it would take, the availability of a hearing officer or officers it would take, the cost to all that, whether or not a visit would have to be made to the actual site to determine the dispute, which often has happened, I'm led to believe, by the international in settling disputes in the past, the knowledge of the individual making the decision? Do we have to find specially trained hearing officers available to go and settle these disputes?
Mr Cooper, as the parliamentary assistant, has the ministry thought out how this dispute system is going to work? Would you not be better off leaving the settlement of disputes over work to the current system and deleting it from this bill?
1600
Mr Cooper: I think you'll find in most cases that most of these internal problems are dealt with properly between the local and the international and a lot of them wouldn't be complained about, but it's necessary to keep it in there because if you look at places like electric power systems, certain work jurisdictions are assigned strictly to Hydro in there.
But there is a provision that there will be somebody from construction on the board to deal with these matters who would have some expertise in the field. So it wouldn't be that every case would go to the board, because, as happens now, most of it's settled without going to any dispute mechanism at all.
Mr Mahoney: How many people would you see being on the board who would be competent in the area of making a decision like this?
Mr Cooper: My understanding is there would be at least one person from the construction sector on the board who would have expertise.
Mr Mahoney: Do you see a lot of complaints going to the board on this type of thing? You've said that most of the disputes would be settled between the local and the international anyway. I assume you mean regardless of Bill 80. They would be settled by the international and the local, the way they always have been.
Mr Cooper: That's what we've heard in the past, but what we're doing is setting up a mechanism so that if there is a dispute, then there would have to be just cause shown.
Mr Mahoney: Do you have any indication, with one competent individual on the board, that that individual would be able to settle these disputes, that, assuming the 15 days carries, they'd be able to settle the dispute within 15 days, given the size of this province and the number of disputes there could be and the number of complaints there could be?
I'm assuming how this is going to work is, the international will make a ruling -- and, again, we're talking about this a little bit in isolation, because we haven't dealt with the amendment on a complaint-driven process. But assuming the complaint-driven process is in place and assuming the 15-day hearing process is in place, then the system would work, as I see it, on the basis that there would be a dispute between two locals over work. The international would come in and make a ruling. If both locals accept that ruling, everything's fine. If one local doesn't accept that ruling, there would be a complaint filed with the ORLB, at which time there would be an investigation, a hearing and a decision made by that one individual. Is that a safe chronology of how it would work, in your view?
Mr Cooper: That there would be a ruling made by the board?
Mr Mahoney: No, the chronology that I laid out. The international and the local would either agree or disagree. The international would make a ruling. One of the two parties, obviously the one that loses the work, would then automatically file a complaint with the ORLB.
Mr Cooper: Right.
Mr Mahoney: So you're dragging the ORLB into every single complaint over work jurisdiction in the construction industry.
Mr Cooper: When there is a complaint.
Mr Mahoney: Well, why wouldn't there be a complaint every single time? Are the people who lose the work going to just say, "Oh fine, have a nice day," when they've got a complaint process to appeal to? Why wouldn't they just complain every single time?
Mr Cooper: If the local realizes they're not viable, as happened in the past, then the international parent has gone in there and taken control.
Mr Mahoney: So you don't really need the work dispute in there because it's working fine the way it is. That's what you're saying.
Mr Cooper: No, not in every case, as has been indicated by some of the presenters to the committee.
Mr Mahoney: I haven't heard work disputes. I've heard people who lost their elected position in the trade labour union that they were involved in and couldn't get it back again or had been removed. I've heard complaints about 15-year-old trusteeships. But I don't recall any complaints -- I stand to be corrected; the record would show -- over work jurisdiction.
Mr Cooper: All right. Basically the attempt here is to avoid any conflicts in the past. As the bill is open, let's fix everything that could possibly happen.
Mr Mahoney: Even though it isn't broken.
Mr Cooper: Just for protection.
Mr Mahoney: Over what?
Mr Cooper: In case. That's what Bill 80 is. In case there is a dispute, that's what Bill 80 is there for.
Mr Mahoney: So there's nothing broken, but Bill 80 comes in to --
Mr Cooper: To take care of any disputes that arise.
Mr Mahoney: Even though there aren't any. Who's on first?
Mr Hope: That's the scenario you're using, too.
Mr Mahoney: Randy, you go ahead and answer the question. I'd be delighted, Mr Trade Labour Movement.
Mr Hope: No problem.
Mr Mahoney: You answer the question. Why would you not accept the amendments to delete the word "work"?
Mr Cooper: My understanding is that when Local 1788 was here, they did make an allegation that their work jurisdiction was being affected.
Mr Mahoney: Have you done a look at any of the time or the cost I referred to? Can you tell me if it will be necessary for this one hearing officer who will be a board member to travel to Elliot Lake or wherever there happens to be a dispute on a project? Have you looked at the mechanics of that?
Mr Cooper: No, I haven't.
Mr Mahoney: So you don't know what it's going to cost. You don't know how much time it's going to take. You don't know if the officer would be able to deal with it without going to a site inspection. You don't know anything about this.
Mr Cooper: There are factors that have to be taken into consideration when they go to the board. The board has to take certain things into consideration when it's determining.
Mr Mahoney: Well, I guess we should vote on the motion.
Interjection: No, no.
Mr Mahoney: Do you want me to read it?
The Acting Chair: Yes.
Mr Mahoney: I move that the definition of "jurisdiction" in subsection 138.1(1) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"`jurisdiction' includes geographic and sectoral jurisdiction but does not include work jurisdiction."
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Mahoney.
Mr Mahoney: I'd like a recorded vote.
The Acting Chair: Any further debate?
Mrs Witmer: I would just like to indicate that I will be voting against the amendment, simply because I disagree totally with the implementation of Bill 80.
The Acting Chair: Seeing no other debate, we'll move into the vote. All those in favour of Mr Mahoney's motion, please signify.
Ayes
Cleary, Mahoney.
The Acting Chair: All those opposed to Mr Mahoney's motion.
Nays
Cooper, Hope, Klopp, Murdock (Sudbury), Sutherland, Witmer.
The Acting Chair: Mr Mahoney's motion is defeated.
Mr Mahoney: The Tories and the NDP gang up on us again.
The Acting Chair: The next motion is a government motion, number 3.
Mr Cooper: I move that subsection 138.2(4) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Council
"(4) The minister may, upon such conditions as the minister considers appropriate, require a parent trade union and its local trade unions to form a council of trade unions for the purpose of conducting bargaining and concluding a collective agreement,
"(a) if an affected local trade union, parent trade union or employer requests the minister to do so; and
"(b) if the minister considers that doing so is necessary to resolve a disagreement between a parent trade union and a local trade union concerning conducting bargaining or concluding a collective agreement."
The Acting Chair: Discussion on Mr Cooper's motion?
Mr Mahoney: I just want to make sure I'm clear on the difference. Could someone tell me the basic difference? As I see it, it's giving the minister certain powers.
Mr Cooper: Basically it takes the power away from the minister unless the parent trade union and local can't work it out themselves.
Mr Mahoney: Well, I need some help on that. I'm looking at subsection 138.2(4). So it's not discretionary. First of all, there must be a request from either the local or the parent or the employer?
Mr Cooper: Yes.
Mr Mahoney: Any one of those three makes a request to set up a council for the purposes of collective bargaining, and this would be a council that would bargain on a provincial basis as opposed to a local basis?
1610
The problem I'm having is that the councils are supposed to be established to bargain province-wide for the particular sector, yet they're being set up at the request of a local in a dispute. So who's going to make up the council? Who's going to make those decisions?
You say it's taking power away from the minister. Clause (b) says if the minister considers that doing so, setting it up, is necessary to resolve a disagreement, then he can do that. That sort of gives him a broad base that these guys come to a point of disagreement and he can just go in and set up a whole new body to come in and take over the negotiations.
Mr Cooper: With the conditions that are listed under (b).
Mr Mahoney: What are those conditions?
Mr Cooper: "If the minister considers that doing so is necessary to resolve a disagreement between a parent trade union and a local trade union concerning conducting bargaining or concluding a collective agreement."
Mr Mahoney: So the only condition is that if the minister thinks he needs to do it, he can do it. How do you say that takes power away from the minister?
Mr Cooper: In (a) it says, "requests the minister to do so."
Ms Murdock: And that's the answer.
Mr Mahoney: Well, I'm sorry; this says, "if an affected local...parent...or employer requests the minister to do so," I see, and you're saying, and also, "if the minister considers that doing so is necessary." Right? So they have to go hand in hand, those two?
Mr Cooper: That's right.
Mr Mahoney: Is that correct, to the staff?
Mr Kovacs: Yes.
Mr Mahoney: Both conditions have to be met?
Mr Kovacs: Yes.
The Acting Chair: Any further discussion on Mr Cooper's motion?
Mrs Witmer: I just want clarification. I see that this amendment supposedly is to limit the minister's intervention in cases where an affected party has applied, but I just want to make sure that (a) does have to occur before (b), that it's not an either/or situation.
Mr Hope: The word "and" makes --
Mrs Witmer: It says "and," but I'm not --
Ms Murdock: Under the Interpretation Act, legally, "and" is inclusive and the two must occur. If it was going to be an either/or situation, it would read "or."
Mrs Witmer: So you are saying what then, Ms Murdock, for the record?
Ms Murdock: Legally, "and" is inclusive. Both have to occur.
Mrs Witmer: So what has to happen first?
Ms Murdock: Both must occur for the minister to intervene.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Ms Murdock. Any further discussion, Ms Witmer? Any other questions?
Mrs Witmer: No.
Mr Mahoney: What would happen in the case where the local, the parent and the employer all came in and said, "We're at loggerheads here, we want a council set up to help us resolve this problem," and the minister said no? Does the minister then have the right to turn around and say no to those people?
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: Well, maybe your minister wouldn't, but another one might.
Mr Hope: Let me pose the question --
Mr Mahoney: I'm open to that.
Mr Hope: I think he's got to answer it. It's easy to ask a question, but when you've got all three parties coming forward, why would any individual do it? You're bringing a hypothetical viewpoint in. That's a hypothetical. Why would a minister, if all three parties come forward with a unanimous recommendation to do something, reject it?
Mr Mahoney: You could get a government in the future that believes that interfering in the collective bargaining process was inappropriate and therefore just ships them back.
Mr Hope: But you always get governments who come in on the request of both agents to act as a mediator to solve a dispute problem. That is common. That's been going on in labour history for ever.
Mr Mahoney: Then that begs the question as to why this is here at all.
Mr Hope: So why would they?
Mr Mahoney: If that's been going on, Mr Hope, why is this here at all?
Mr Hope: I'm not saying in this sector and that sector --
Mr Mahoney: The current status quo is that where there's a dispute and they come in and ask -- now what you're asking for is that the government, just like in essential services --
Mr Hope: No, no. It's easy to twist things.
Mr Mahoney: -- or in the school teacher dispute, the government's now going to get in and resolve potential strikes, or even existing strikes in the construction industry, because these guys can't cut a deal. That's what you're saying.
Mr Hope: No, you're twisting words.
Mr Mahoney: I'm not twisting anything.
Mr Hope: Yes, you're bringing in the hypothetical. It could rain tomorrow. You're making a deal with hypotheticals. That's exactly what you've been doing in the last two presentations.
Mr Mahoney: I asked a very simple question.
Mr Hope: And I threw it back to you.
Mr Mahoney: That is, if all three parties came in collectively and said they couldn't come to an agreement, why would the minister have the option of somehow, in some omnipotent way, deciding that it's not necessary and sending them back out? If you really want to resolve the problem and all three parties come forward, why wouldn't the minister set it up? Why would he have the option of walking away from it?
Really the question is, why is he in the position in the first place? It's ridiculous. Mr Hope has admitted --
Mr Hope: No, no, wait a second.
Mr Mahoney: -- that currently the way the system works is that people come forward and ask for help and that help is there and there's not a problem. Once again, another amendment to a bill that's superfluous to the entire issue.
Mr Hope: He's twisting words constantly.
The Acting Chair: Mr Hope, you wish to respond?
Mr Hope: I'm just saying he's twisting words constantly. He makes statements, and you know you can't interject until the Chair recognizes you, so he gets to put it on Hansard. He can twist words any which way he wishes.
Mr Cooper: First of all, what we're trying to do here is make it so that the minister isn't intrusive, that he doesn't get involved until it's brought to him. Yes, there is a condition where he could quite possibly say, "No, I'm not going to help you with this," and then it would be sent back to the employers, the parent international and the locals to deal with it themselves. But obviously he'd be looking at conducting bargaining, including collective agreements, when he takes this into consideration. If it would cause a disruption, I can't see a minister walking away from it.
The Acting Chair: Ms Witmer, you had a question?
Mrs Witmer: Yes. Actually, this amendment is going to allow more ministerial intervention, because if you take a look at (a), my concern is that only one of the local trade union or the parent trade union or the employer request the minister to get involved. Really, I would be much more comfortable if all three were required.
I can see that as a result of this particular section you're going to see far more ministerial intervention in cases where the bodies should be dealing with the problem themselves, and I'm most concerned. That's what this bill is all about: It's more interference in the negotiations that properly should be taking place between the trade unions and the employer.
Mr Cooper: In the original wording in Bill 80, the minister can go in at any time. What we're saying now is that it's only if somebody approaches the minister that he would go in. By requiring all three, if there's a disagreement out there, obviously all three aren't going to be coming in together asking the minister to settle it.
Mr Mahoney: Point of order: There is no requirement to require all three. The word "or" is used.
Mr Cooper: Ms Witmer is asking for all three, which is what I'm responding to.
Mr Mahoney: I'm sorry. Okay.
Mr Cooper: Obviously if there is a dispute out there, all three wouldn't come forward. Basically what Bill 80 is doing is trying to give fairness to the locals away from the international, so to ask for all three to come forward would be unworkable.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Cooper. Any further discussion on this amendment?
Mr Mahoney: Recorded vote.
The Acting Chair: Mr Mahoney has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour of the government motion?
Ayes
Cooper, Hope, Jamison, Klopp, Murdock (Sudbury), Sutherland.
The Acting Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Cleary, Mahoney, Witmer.
The Acting Chair: The government motion carries.
Mr Hope: What about Mr Murdoch over there?
The Acting Chair: Mr Murdoch is not a voting member of the committee.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I'm not --
The Acting Chair: He's just a member who has interest, as does Mr Kormos in the back.
Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm so used to being in the back, Chair, that I wouldn't think of sitting anywhere else.
The Acting Chair: Why did I do that? It's self-destruct.
The next motion is also a government motion, dealing with section 2, government motion number 4.
Mr Mahoney: Could I have some explanation of this?
Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): How much do you want?
Mr Mahoney: Well, it looks like it says the same thing. I don't understand what the problem is.
Mr Cooper: Basically it's just a technical amendment to bring in the more usual language used in the Labour Relations Act.
The Acting Chair: Would you read the motion in?
Mr Cooper: I move that subsection 138.2(6) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Compliance
"(6) The parent trade union and the local trade unions shall comply with rules made by the minister."
The Acting Chair: Mr Mahoney, you wanted some discussion on this, I believe.
1620
Mr Mahoney: Maybe the staff could explain to me why it just looks like we took the same basic words and juggled them around; I don't know.
Mr Kovacs: Yes, that's right. They were juggled to meet the more usual format of LRA provisions that require compliance with a statutory rule, so the statement that certain parties are required to do something.
The Acting Chair: Mr Mahoney, any further discussion?
Mr Mahoney: I don't see that, but I'll vote against it anyway.
Mrs Witmer: This amendment in the revised draft that came out on October 4 said that every parent trade union and local trade union shall comply with rules made by the minister. You've changed it to read "the parent trade union." What's the difference?
Mr Kovacs: The same explanation applies. There's not intended to be a difference. The LRA, when it creates an unfair labour practice, talks in prohibitionary terms, and the original language didn't use that typical prohibitionary language. So this follows the language that the labour board is accustomed to seeing and that the Labour Relations Act uses in every other provision that creates a rule that a party governed by the act is required to follow.
The concern was that use of a different grammatical format might force the labour board to believe there was some different sort of reading that it was to give to this provision as opposed to every other provision in the Labour Relations Act that creates a rule that a party must follow.
The Acting Chair: Any further questions, Ms Witmer?
Mrs Witmer: No, that's fine.
The Acting Chair: Seeing no further discussion on the amendment, all those in favour of the amendment put forward in the government motion, please say aye. Opposed? The ayes have it.
We move on to a Liberal amendment, amendment 5, Mr Mahoney.
Mr Mahoney: I move that subsection 138.3(1) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Jurisdiction of the local trade union
"(1) A parent trade union shall not alter the jurisdiction of a local trade union, whether established under a constitution or otherwise, as the jurisdiction existed on May 1, 1992, unless there is just cause for the alteration.
"Board powers
"(1.1) In an application under section 91 relating to subsection (1), the board shall consider the trade union constitution when determining what constitutes just cause and may take into account such other matters as the board considers appropriate."
The Acting Chair: Any discussion on the motion?
Mr Hope: Could we get Mr Mahoney to explain that for us?
Mr Mahoney: Basically, the important part is that, "The board shall consider the trade union constitution," which took up an awful lot of the time of the deputants and the members of this committee in debating and discussing. I want to ensure that in fact the board when looking at it will indeed consider their constitution and that we all recognize, frankly, the significance of a constitution passed in a democratic way.
Mr Cooper: We won't be supporting this because we have an amendment coming up later on and in consultations with the AFL-CIO, which has asked for stronger wording on the just cause, which isn't covered under the Liberal motion but will be covered under our amendment.
Mr Mahoney: Which is your amendment?
The Acting Chair: I believe it's number 8, Mr Mahoney.
Mr Mahoney: Okay.
The Acting Chair: Any further discussion on Mr Mahoney's amendment? Hearing none, all those in favour of Mr Mahoney's amendment? All those opposed? The nays have it. Mr Mahoney's motion is defeated.
Mr Mahoney, Liberal motion 6.
Mr Mahoney: I move that section 138.3 of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Decision
"(4) On an application relating to this section, the board shall issue a decision within fifteen days after the application is made.
"Same
"(4.1) The board may extend the deadline established under subsection (4) if it considers such an extension appropriate in the circumstances."
I think it's self-explanatory. I guess time being of the essence, the concern about the backlog, it's been addressed in other discussions, the ability of one member of the board to deal with this in an expeditious manner, and the nature of the business, the fact that it's in construction, whether it can play an important part. Timing is critically important and I just think we want these disputes dealt with as quickly as possible.
I understand the government has some amendment -- and I will be honest, I haven't had time to look at it -- so I'm prepared to consider whether or not it encompasses this and replaces it if Mr Cooper wants to address that. I don't which one it is.
Mr Cooper: Yes, Mr Mahoney. Right at the end of the package, we will be dealing with expedited hearings.
Mr Mahoney: Number 22 is the amendment?
Interjection.
Mr Mahoney: Could I get an explanation? I mean, looking at 22, I can't make that out at all. To the staff: Would that comply with the intent under the amendment I've put forward on page 6?
Mr Kovacs: Rather than setting an exact time limit of 15 days for issuance of the decision, what subsection 104(14) of the Labour Relations Act does is permit the labour board to establish special rules for expedited proceedings. The board, since being empowered to do so, has created expedited proceedings that result in issuance of decisions often faster than in 15 days.
Mr Mahoney: It would be strictly up to the board, though, whether or not. They could take 30 days or 60 days on such a hearing under that section.
Mr Kovacs: None of the rules they have now take 30 or 60 days.
Mr Mahoney: No, I didn't ask that. Could they take whatever time they wanted to dispose of an issue with the amendment that's being proposed on page 22?
Mr Kovacs: I'm not sure of the answer to that, frankly.
Mr Mahoney: Well, I need an answer. If not, I'm leaving my amendment on the floor then.
Mr Hope: Call the vote then.
Mr Mahoney: Recorded vote.
The Acting Chair: All those in favour of Mr Mahoney's motion, please signify.
Ayes
Cleary, Fawcett, Mahoney.
The Acting Chair: All those opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Hope, Jamison, Klopp, Murdock (Sudbury), Sutherland, Witmer.
The Acting Chair: The motion is defeated.
The next is once again a Liberal motion, number 7.
1630
Mr Mahoney: I move that section 138.3 of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Complaint
"(5) If a local trade union makes a complaint to the board concerning the alteration of its jurisdiction by a parent trade union, the alteration shall be deemed not to have been effective until the board disposes of the matter."
By way of explanation, we heard a lot of complaints from people in support of Bill 80 saying that the international could simply come in or that a change could occur without any opportunity for them to have any impact, and presumably that's the purpose of Bill 80.
What I'm suggesting here would need to go hand in glove with the other amendment that it be based on a complaint system so that in real terms the international would do whatever, make a ruling on something, and a complaint would then be filed by the local and the board, had my previous motion carried, would've had 15 days in which to make a decision. Now of course it's open-ended and we don't know the answer as to how long they can take, but in any event this is really an amendment in support of those people in favour of Bill 80, because this says the changes won't take effect until the matter has been disposed of by the board. I understand that's a particular bone of contention for people who think the internationals have been able to act in a unilateral, arbitrary way.
Mr Cooper: I know we've looked at this and we have discussed it. We were looking at it that if complaints were put in place the board could bring down an interim order. But there was some question about this, and duplication and all that, so I think we'd be prepared to support this amendment.
Mr Mahoney: I might have to reconsider it.
Mr Cooper: Just to facilitate the proceedings.
Mr Mahoney: Somebody has screwed up big time here; I don't know.
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: We'll go for it. Nice to win one.
Ms Murdock: Just on that, the point that's raised by Mr Mahoney and was raised by other people who made presentations here is that in actual fact they would probably just ask for an interim order anyway, but this would resolve that and it would save the OLRB some work.
Mr Mahoney: Happy to help.
Ms Murdock: We're happy to be supporting this. We won't have to listen to you any more telling us how we haven't supported any of your amendments.
The Acting Chair: I take it we have no further discussion. Mr Mahoney has asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour of Mr Mahoney's motion?
Mr Mahoney: Hold your nose.
Ayes
Cleary, Cooper, Fawcett, Hope, Jamison, Klopp, Mahoney, Murdock (Sudbury), Sutherland.
The Acting Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Witmer.
The Acting Chair: The motion is carried.
The next is a government motion, number 8.
Mr Cooper: I move that section 138.3 of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Jurisdiction of the local trade union
"138.3(1) A parent trade union shall not, without just cause, alter the jurisdiction of a local trade union as the jurisdiction existed on May 1, 1992, whether it was established under a constitution or otherwise.
"Notice
"(2) the parent trade union shall give the local trade union written notice of an alteration at least fifteen days before it comes into effect.
"Determination of just cause
"(3) On an application relating to this section, the board shall consider the following when deciding whether there is just cause for an alteration:
"1. The trade union constitution.
"2. The ability of the local trade union to carry out its duties under this act.
"3. The wishes of the members of the local trade union.
"4. Whether the alteration would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems.
"Same
"(4) The board is not bound by the trade union constitution when deciding whether there is just cause for an alteration."
Mr Mahoney: This amendment, probably more than anything, shows the absurdity of this whole issue, of the whole bill. If you took subsection (3) and pulled it out of this amendment, you'd say it makes sense that "on an application relating to this section, the board shall" -- and the key word is "shall" -- "consider the following when deciding whether there is just cause for an alteration." You're putting some sort of sense into arriving at the just-cause debate here.
The first thing they shall take into consideration is the trade union constitution. Then it turns around and goes down and says the board's not bound by that same constitution.
What is the point of them even considering it? You're just spinning wheels, or trying to put out some kind of sop to the union to say: "We're going to look at your constitution, but we don't really care what it says. It's irrelevant to the issue, because we're not bound by it, even though it was voted on by a majority of your members, even though you have a system in that constitution to deal with disputes, to deal with amendments, to deal with jurisdiction, to deal with all of those things. Even though your constitution's probably 100 years old, we're going to ignore it. We're just going to go ahead and deal with this."
To the clerk: Is it in order that an amendment is actually contrary within itself, where it says in one that they shall consider the trade union constitution and then, without even taking a breath, says that they're not bound by that constitution? Is there any opinion, Mr Chair, as to whether or not this thing is contrary to its own intent and therefore out of order?
The Acting Chair: Mr Mahoney, I've just looked at it again, and I would have to disagree.
Mr Mahoney: Disagree with what?
The Acting Chair: With your statement on that.
Mr Mahoney: It was a question.
The Acting Chair: Okay, your question.
Mr Mahoney: How can you disagree with my question? Is the answer yes or no?
The Acting Chair: The answer is no.
Mr Mahoney: Well, I'm going to vote against this, and I think this is really the nub of the whole thing, that what we're going to wind up with as a result not only of this bill but this ambiguous amendment is the government now coming along and solving all the problems which in essence are internal to the construction labour sector that they should be and have been resolving by themselves. The parliamentary assistant has already admitted that most of the disputes get resolved by themselves in any event.
Mr Hope: No, he didn't.
Mr Mahoney: Well, this parliamentary assistant did. For some minute perceived alleged disputes that can't be resolved within -- really the private sector is what it is, because the unions are private sector organizations -- we're going to bring in a hammer and we're going to resolve it for them, and then we're not even going to be bound by their rules, which have been put in place by their constitution.
You know what's next? We're going after Rotary clubs next. After we take care of the trade labour movement, we're going to tell those Rotarians that they've got no business meeting for lunch on Wednesdays. We're going to fix them, let me tell you, boy.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Don't be so paranoid.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mahoney.
Mr Mahoney: I'll tell you, Rotarians are in deep trouble now, and then maybe the Optimist Club, and then maybe the Knights of Columbus.
Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Is this part of your red book? Is this Liberal policy?
Mr Mahoney: This is a government for the people, I can tell you. What a joke.
Mr Sutherland: Come back to reality some day, Steve.
Mr Mahoney: I'm against this, by the way.
Mrs Witmer: I would indicate to you that it's fine to tinker with this whole section 138.3, but certainly one of the amendments we had considered introducing which would have been ruled out of order would have been to completely delete and strike out the entire section 138.3, because certainly this does allow for government interference in the internal affairs of the organizations within the province of Ontario, and we are very concerned about the intrusion into the area of jurisdiction. As I say, we would have asked for that, but that would have been ruled out of order because you can't make motions to strike out sections.
I'm concerned, if you take a look at 138.3 here that's being proposed by the government, that we have a totally new requirement here. That is 138.3(2). We've got a totally new requirement here that was not part of the October 4 revised draft. That is, "The parent trade union shall give the local trade union written notice of an alteration at least fifteen days before it comes into effect." If you take a look at 138.3(3), we have a totally new clause here in 4 which was not part of the October 4 draft, "Whether the alteration would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems."
In 138.3(4) this is new wording, and this means, it says here, "The board is not bound by the trade union constitution when deciding whether there is just cause for an alteration," which simply means, "It doesn't matter what's contained here, folks, the board can overrule the trade union constitution": invasion, intrusion, interference in the internal affairs.
Personally, I don't believe the government has any right to interfere in the internal affairs of these organizations within this province, and that entire section, as far as I'm concerned, should have been struck out.
1640
Mr Cooper: I guess I should respond to Mr Mahoney. With the Rotarians, the thing is theirs. If they choose to disaffiliate, they can disaffiliate. This is what the problem is here, the disaffiliation problem.
Mr Mahoney: You took that out of the bill.
Mr Cooper: That's right, but this whole thing is to create some harmony within the construction trades. That's what it's for. So this is what that's all about.
As for being insignificant, if you look at it right now, 95% of labour disputes are settled peacefully internally, but still there's that 5% who do use that right to strike, and that's why we need this for the 5%, or whatever percentage can't come to an agreement, that there would be a dispute mechanism.
As for taking the constitution into consideration, it's best to take it into consideration rather than ignore it, and this is something that was asked for, that we don't totally ignore the constitution. That's why it's written in there. But also the board has to have the freedom to not be bound by the constitution.
Mr Hope: I just wanted to mention that at the beginning of this process, legislative research filed a report with this committee which is very useful. It just says on page 13 that what this amendment does is present an issue that was brought forward by the Building and Construction Trades Department. Clearly it's a good thing we have legislative research to do good work, because it just shows in the amendment. The people's concerns they brought forward have been addressed in the amendment put forward by the government.
The Chair: Any further discussion? Hearing no further discussion, unless you want to make --
Mr Mahoney: Recorded vote.
The Chair: Mr Mahoney has asked for a recorded vote on the government motion. All those in favour?
Ayes
Cooper, Hope, Jamison, Klopp, Murdock (Sudbury), Sutherland.
The Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cleary, Fawcett, Mahoney, Witmer.
The Chair: The motion is carried.
The next amendment is a Liberal amendment.
Mr Mahoney: I move that subsection 138.5(1) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out "directly or indirectly in such a way that the autonomy of the local trade union is affected" in the fifth, sixth and seventh lines.
By way of explanation, I think it's fairly simple. The concern is one of definition. How broad do you get with this "directly or indirectly"? What does it mean? It's left open to interpretation of how a local's autonomy may or may not be affected. I think members might agree that you could even have disputes over whether or not that autonomy was affected within the local itself. That happens on a regular basis. So you're leaving it open to fights, frankly, within the labour movement that are not necessary.
What it should say is, "A parent trade union or a council of trade unions shall not, without just cause" -- and it's your principle that the just-cause thing should come into play in the construction industry -- "assume supervision" -- that's clear -- "or control of" -- that's clear -- "or otherwise interfere with a local trade union."
If they do that, then the local already has the right to appeal to the OLRB, or will have, if that amendment is carried. They will have the right to appeal a complaint. There will be a hearing and a decision will then be made.
It seems to me it's duplication here and very argumentative to put in the words "directly or indirectly" interfering in their autonomy, and I think you're going to save a lot of trouble if you adopt this particular amendment.
The Acting Chair: Any further discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question. All those in favour of Mr Mahoney's motion?
Mr Mahoney: Carried.
Interjections: No.
The Acting Chair: No? The nays have it. The motion is lost.
Mr Mahoney: You'll be sorry.
The Acting Chair: Number 10 is also a Liberal motion.
Mr Mahoney: I move that subsection 138.5(3) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Board powers
"(3) In an application under section 91 relating to this section, the board shall consider the trade union constitution when determining what constitutes just cause and may take into account such other matters as the board considers appropriate."
The purpose here is probably the greatest fear and concern that has been expressed by those opposed to this bill, how things are sort of left up in the air, the definition of "just cause."
I don't think anybody would dispute that if someone had stolen all the money or something in a local, that constitutes just cause. In fact it appears from what research we have done and what we've seen in the presenters that those trusteeships have been indeed surrounding issues of that magnitude: misappropriation of funds or whatever, that type of thing -- dishonesty or alleged dishonesty. Nobody wants to see that in relationship to the locals and the relationship with the international.
So if an international receives complaints and there is evidence, they would go in and investigate, and if they receive complaints that the treasurer or the business manager has absconded with the money, they could then impose a trusteeship, at which time someone could complain and the OLRB would hear it. But the reality is that if indeed the money's gone, then that trusteeship would obviously be upheld and there would be some work between the international and the local to replace the individual who had committed the foul.
The concern is that that's one clear-cut example of just cause. There may be examples where just cause is once again up to subjective opinion. What's just cause to you may not be to me and vice versa.
All I'm asking for is that when determining what constitutes just cause, the board shall consider -- that's all it says -- the trade union constitution in arriving at that. It even goes so far as, it may take into account such other matters as the board considers appropriate.
I think this is a very fair amendment that might at least give the parent union and the members of that union, and all the people who are opposed to this bill, the feeling that at least they're going to look at the constitution in making the ruling.
Mr Cooper: I bring Mr Mahoney's attention to number 13, the government motion we'll be putting forward. I think it's covered under there, almost word for word, with a slight variation. The board powers, at the bottom.
Mr Mahoney: The problem is that we have to vote on that particular amendment in its entirety. We can't sort of split the motion, which is, by the way, something for long-term parliamentary reform we should consider doing, splitting motions, because very often you find that you or the opposition could support certain parts of an amendment and not other parts. That's an argument for another day.
So I would ask you to support this in its own right, which makes the amendment, and then if your amendment, obviously, would carry, you could make the adjustment. I don't know how that would physically work or technically work with the staff, but I've got some concerns about the motion on 13.
1650
The Acting Chair: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favour of Mr Mahoney's motion, say aye. All those opposed? The nays have it. The motion is lost.
The next one is Liberal motion 11.
Mr Mahoney: I move that section 138.5 of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Decision
"(3.1) On an application under section 91 relating to this section, the board shall issue a decision within fifteen days after the application is made.
"Same
"(3.2) The board may extend the deadline established under subsection (3.1) if it considers such an extension appropriate in the circumstances."
I've already made the arguments in favour of the 15 days, so I won't bore the committee and make them again. There you go: God's little mercies.
The Acting Chair: Any discussion on the motion?
Mr Cooper: Same arguments as were presented under Liberal motion on page 6. We will not be supporting it.
The Acting Chair: Any other discussion? Hearing none, all those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The nays have it. The motion is lost.
Liberal motion 12.
Mr Mahoney: We might get one here.
I move that section 138.5 of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Complaint
"(4.1) If a local trade union makes a complaint to the board concerning an action described in subsection (1), the action shall be deemed not to have been effective until the board disposes of the matter."
I believe that goes together with the other amendment the government members supported already.
Mr Cooper: I disagree. When we were talking about jurisdiction, there was prior notice given, and that's why it was necessary there, but we don't see it as necessary at all in this case.
The Acting Chair: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favour? Opposed? The motion is lost.
Government motion 13.
Mr Cooper: I move that subsections 138.5(1), (2), (3) and (4) of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Interference with the local trade union
"(1) A parent trade union or a council of trade unions shall not, without just cause, assume supervision or control of or otherwise interfere with a local trade union directly or indirectly in such a way that the autonomy of a local trade union is affected.
"Same, officials and members
"(2) A parent trade union or a council of trade unions shall not, without just cause, remove from office, change the duties of an elected or appointed official of a local trade union or impose a penalty on such an official or on a member of a local trade union.
"Board powers
"(3) On an application relating to this section, when deciding whether there is just cause the board shall consider the trade union constitution but is not bound by it and shall consider such other factors as it considers appropriate."
Mr Mahoney: I'll have to check the Hansard, but I think I heard Mr Cooper say in relationship to the motion I put forward regarding subsection (3) under board powers that the wording was virtually identical. I think those were the words that you used.
This is the problem. What you guys think is virtually identical is not even close. Mine says, "The board shall consider the trade union constitution when determining what constitutes just cause." This one says, "when deciding whether there is just cause the board shall consider the trade union constitution but is not bound by it." It's a minor detail to add that "but is not bound by."
I hate to be so picky in this stuff. "Is not bound by it." Why are you bothering? I mean, it's contrary. You're telling them they should consider the democratically elected constitution, "But don't worry about it, guys, because you don't have to pay any attention to it."
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: Well, that's what you're saying. It's just nonsense. This does not replace the amendment on page 10 that I valiantly fought for and lost.
The Acting Chair: Ms Witmer, you wanted in on the discussion.
Mrs Witmer: Yes. This certainly would have been an area, 138.5 of the act, that we would have moved to have struck out altogether. We're very concerned about the interference that's going to take place with the local trade union.
I see as well that there have been some changes made in subsection 138.5(2). There has been an addition and there has been some new wording added here, "or impose a penalty on such an official or on a member of a local trade union." As well, I'm very concerned about subsection 138.5(3).
This new wording that has been introduced by the government is much more far-reaching, is much more intrusive, because it is not limited to just cause. What you have here is a board which once again is not being bound by the constitution. I'm certainly extremely concerned about the ability of the board to interfere in the internal affairs and the fact that the government wording is much more intrusive than it was in the original version. It appears that what the government has done in the Bill 80 amendments is to listen to only one side of the debate.
The Acting Chair: Any further discussion? Oh, Mr Hope. I'm sorry.
Mr Hope: I was interested in Mr Mahoney's comments, and I'd just ask him, with all the labour background I know his father used to have with the Steelworkers, where under any board or quasi-tribunal system or any judicial system the constitution superseded any judicial process.
Mr Mahoney: Do you want me to answer that?
Mr Hope: Yes.
Mr Mahoney: I don't know of any other jurisdiction anywhere in the world that has seen fit to impose legislation in such a heavy-handed way on private sector unions in resolving their disputes.
I know what the Steelworkers did. They resolved their problems between the locals and the internationals and concentrated on getting better-quality living conditions for their members. That's what they were concerned about, and on keeping plants like Algoma and Stelco and Dofasco and others in business.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: I believe Mr Hope was up first.
Mr Hope: I asked a direct question, and I didn't get a direct answer, so that's what I was just curious about. I know he rambled on about labour history and solidarity. We're all familiar with that. But I did ask a direct question about the quasi-tribunal and judicial process upholding the constitutions that are there in any decision-making process and Mr Mahoney just kind of went around the long bend --
Mr Mahoney: They lived by the ILO rules too. That's another thing they did.
Mr Hope: -- and never answered the question I put forward.
Mr Mahoney: CLC and the Steelworkers lived by the ILO rulings.
Mr Hope: Check them.
Mr Mahoney: Oh, I know them well.
Mr Hope: Check them.
Mr Mahoney: Not only was he on the Steelworkers, he was on the ILO. I know it well.
The Acting Chair: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favour of the government motion? Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried.
Mr Mahoney: By the way, why don't you make this apply to steel? That would be a heck of a good idea.
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: Mr Mahoney, Mr Jamison, please.
We have another amendment, the Liberal motion number 14.
Mr Mahoney: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following section to the act after section 138.5, entitled "Arbitration" -- a novel procedure:
"Arbitration
"138.5.1 A party to a dispute relating to subsection 138.3(1) or 138.5(1) or (2) may request the Minister of Labour to refer the matter to an arbitrator, and section 46 applies with necessary modifications."
The traditional way of settling disputes through mediation, through arbitration, through collective bargaining, through negotiations seems to me should still be upheld, particularly by this supposedly traditional labour government. It would be interesting to see them vote against something as democratic as arbitration.
1700
Mr Mahoney: Recorded vote.
The Acting Chair: No further discussion? It's a recorded vote. All those in favour of Mr Mahoney's motion?
Ayes
Cleary, Fawcett, Mahoney.
The Acting Chair: Opposed?
Nays
Cooper, Hope, Jamison, Klopp, Murdock (Sudbury), Sutherland, Witmer.
The Acting Chair: Mr Mahoney's motion is lost. We're at the end of section 2.
Shall section 2, as amended, carry? Carried.
It now being 5 o'clock --
Mr Mahoney: Here comes the hammer.
The Acting Chair: I should inform you before we go into this that amendment 22, the government motion, is out of order. This amendment once again attempts to amend a section of the act that is not included in the original bill. Such amendment is out of order.
Mr Mahoney: Could I get some explanation from staff? That's two government amendments that are ruled out of order, yet they were brought forward by the government as being necessary in this bill. Can somebody tell me what happens now? What have we got? Have we got a camel or have we got a donkey?
The Acting Chair: I'm afraid that it's now 5 o'clock and discussion is out. I can just notify everyone that this motion is out of order.
Interjections.
Mr Mahoney: Section 1 of the bill doesn't exist.
Mr Cooper: If I could have unanimous agreement to respond to this, to Mr Mahoney's concern, just clarification?
The Acting Chair: With unanimous consent, as far as I'm concerned, you can do virtually anything.
Mr Cooper: Basically, if number 22 is not done in the bill, it will be done through regulations. The purpose of doing it through the bill was to have it all together in one section in the bill so that people wouldn't have to be cross-referencing.
Mr Mahoney: And that applies to the first amendment you put forward as well, because this bill technically, in being reported --
Mr Cooper: No, not the first one, just this one.
Mr Mahoney: It's the first one that I was asking about. We're reporting this bill into the Legislature under time allocation without section 1. You defeated it. It doesn't exist. This bill starts at B in the alphabet. What do we do now, go home?
Mr Kovacs: May I respond?
The Acting Chair: Yes. I think we have unanimous consent for this discussion, so indeed.
Mr Kovacs: The purposes of the section 1 amendment and this amendment are different ones. The section 1 amendment, as I noted, was a technical error. The second motion, which we're discussing now, does not attempt to correct any error in the bill; rather, as I understand, it's a government response to submissions made during the public hearings, in particular requests for expedited proceedings.
Section 104 of the Labour Relations Act creates a regulation-making power whereby the government may pass regulations that would permit it to list particular provisions in respect of which the labour board might make special rules to expedite proceedings. So the effect of this motion could be achieved by regulation. It was the ministry's advice to the government that it would be preferable to have this amendment occur within the statute so the community that's affected by the provisions can read all the provisions that affect it on the face of the statute, rather than referring to the statute and a regulation.
Mr Mahoney: What about section 1? What happens now? We report this bill to the House without a section 1 of the bill?
Mr Kovacs: I think you should refer that question to legislative counsel. That's right, it would be without section 1.
Mr Mahoney: Staff suggests that we refer the question to legislative counsel. The question was, section 1 of the bill was defeated. There was no amendment approved to replace it, so it's gone. So we now report this bill without section 1, only section 2 and 3. Is that correct?
Ms Laura Hopkins: That's correct, and when the bill is reprinted, it will be renumbered so it begins with section 1.
Mr Mahoney: How tricky. Look at that.
Mr Hope: The consent was to discuss this one, not to discuss section 1.
Mr Mahoney: I got my answer.
Mr Hope: I know, and unfortunately it was out of order, for the simple fact --
Mr Mahoney: I don't think it was out of order at all.
Mr Hope: -- that there was unanimous consent that was asked to discuss this one, not the one --
Mrs Witmer: He's out of order.
Mr Hope: No, no, no.
Mr Mahoney: My question was on both, and it was on the basis of how you report a bill --
Mr Hope: It was brought up under this section here.
Mr Mahoney: -- with government amendments being put forward and withdrawn because they're out of order. It's most unusual. As Mrs Witmer has pointed out, they didn't put amendments because they all would have been ruled out of order. It's not unusual to have opposition amendments ruled out of order. It seems to me somewhat unusual --
Mr Hope: No, it's not.
Mr Mahoney: -- to have government amendments ruled out of order and then to have the government members vote against their own section within a bill.
Mr Hope: That's pretty common. I've seen it done many times. I've seen it done by you guys when you used to be over here, quite a bit.
Mr Mahoney: It's been an interesting education the last three years.
Mr Hope: I used to see it quite often when you were over here.
Mr Mahoney: Thank God it will be coming to an end.
Ms Murdock: I don't think so.
Mr Sutherland: Oh, yes, everything was perfect before, wasn't it?
Mr Mahoney: It was a hell of a lot better than this, let me tell you that, Kimble. You probably had more fun too. You were still in school.
The Acting Chair: Are we ready to proceed?
Mrs Witmer: It's up to you, Mr Chairman.
The Acting Chair: I've allowed some debate, by unanimous consent. Are we now ready to proceed?
Mr Cooper: For clarification, is Mr Mahoney not giving unanimous consent?
Mr Mahoney: On what?
Mr Cooper: On the one that's out of order, on 22?
Mr Mahoney: I wasn't asked.
The Acting Chair: No one was asked.
Mr Mahoney: I was told you were going to do it by regulation.
Mr Cooper: No, what we were saying is it could be done by regulation --
Mr Mahoney: Well, I think that's probably how you'd better do it.
Mr Cooper: -- if we don't get unanimous consent to keep it in the bill, which would facilitate it for everybody concerned, because then it would all be in one location in the bill.
Mr Hope: That side always asks not to have things dealt with in regulations but out in the public and out in the open, and now you're --
Mr Mahoney: If you guys would get it right the first time, there wouldn't be a problem.
Mr Hope: Am I hearing the member opposite now telling us to put stuff in regulations so they're not being put forward?
Mr Mahoney: It wouldn't be a problem. We're now in the public, Mr Chairman.
Interjection.
The Acting Chair: One at a time, please.
Mrs Witmer: Mr Waters, I will not give unanimous consent.
The Acting Chair: You do not have unanimous consent, Mr Cooper.
Mr Hope: I'm just curious, because it's open for debate, is Mr Mahoney telling the government now not to put stuff in the acts, in the legislation, but also now to use regulations to put clarifications in there? He was making comment and I just wanted his opinion when he's talking about this.
Mr Mahoney: Mr Chair --
The Acting Chair: The Chair has been more than --
Mr Mahoney: You have, but I've had a question asked of me specifically on the record. I'd like to respond. The Acting Chair: Okay, you may respond, Mr Mahoney, and that's it.
Mr Mahoney: Since Mr Hope wants advice from me, I can appreciate that. What I'm telling you and the government is that you should withdraw the entire legislation, because you can't even get your amendments right.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr Mahoney. We're moving on now. There's been enough discussion on this. Mr Cooper did not get his unanimous consent for number 22, so we'll move back to number 15, which is the government motion. Shall the government motion carry?
Interjections.
The Acting Chair: At 5 o'clock it was deemed that all the amendments had been put, and therefore we are now voting on each and every one. The government motion number 15 is what we're voting on.
All those in favour of the government motion number 15? All those opposed? Carried.
Number 16, government motion: All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Number 17, government motion: All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Number 18, government motion: All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Number 19, government motion: All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Number 20, government motion: All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Number 21, government motion: All those in favour? All those opposed? It's carried.
Shall section 3, as amended, carry? It's carried.
Number 22 is out of order.
Number 23, a Liberal motion: Shall the Liberal motion 23 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? It's lost.
Shall section 5 carry? Carried.
Shall the title of the bill carry? Oh, I'm sorry, I've missed one.
Shall section 4 carry? Carried.
Now we'd better do it back over to make sure we have it in the right order.
Shall section 5 carry? Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
Shall the bill carry? Carried.
Shall I report the bill, as amended? Carried.
That ends clause-by-clause of Bill 80. Therefore, we now stand adjourned until Wednesday.
Interjection: We meet Wednesday?
The Acting Chair: Yes, we do, at the beginning of orders of the day, organization over the intersession. Thank you very much for your attendance today. Enjoy late-night sittings.
The committee adjourned at 1714.