SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL
Report continued from volume A.
1520
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House in committee of the whole.
SOCIAL CONTRACT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LE CONTRAT SOCIAL
Consideration of Bill 48, An Act to encourage negotiated settlements in the public sector to preserve jobs and services while managing reductions in expenditures and to provide for certain matters related to the Government's expenditure reduction program / Loi visant à favoriser la négociation d'accords dans le secteur public de façon à protéger les emplois et les services tout en réduisant les dépenses et traitant de certaines questions relatives au programme de réduction des dépenses du gouvernement.
Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I just want to notify members that on my immediate right is senior legal counsel for Management Board secretariat, Mr Graham Stoodley, who is the director of legal services for the Ministry of Finance, to assist me this afternoon.
Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We're dealing with a very complicated piece of legislation. There are a number of amendments I understand the government has that we haven't even seen yet. I don't know how much time we're going to have to deal with amendments, and I see that the government has professional expertise that you've allowed to sit with them. I wonder if the opposition parties could be afforded the same courtesy.
The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The answer is no.
Mr Harris: Could we have unanimous consent then, Mr Chairman, that we could have the same privilege accorded the government? Otherwise, I withdraw my unanimous consent.
The Chair: Is there unanimous consent? No. There is no unanimous consent.
Mr Harris: Mr Chair, then I withdraw our party's unanimous consent for the government to have their expertise with them as well.
The Chair: We don't need unanimous consent. It's not required for them. They automatically have advisers.
Mr Harris: And we can't?
The Chair: And you can't.
Mr Harris: And we can't have unanimous consent?
The Chair: That's correct.
Mr Harris: Is that sexist too?
The Chair: Order, please. Are there any questions or comments to section 1?
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): If I might ask you a question, Mr Chairman, have we now received all the amendments that we're going to receive from the government?
Hon Mr Laughren: My understanding is that a complete package was sent across to the two opposition parties.
The Chair: Have you received them yet?
Mr Phillips: We've not received those amendments. I suppose the staff may have them. Have we received from the third party their amendments, Mr Chairman?
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: I'm asking the Chair.
Mr Harris: Perhaps I can assist the Chair, even though I'm not allowed, as the government is, to have staff here to assist in this very complicated matter. I know you have some of the amendments. I believe there are a few others that our critic will be bringing forward. To the best of my knowledge, because I can't have staff here to help me as the government can, I have not got all the amendments from the government.
Hon Mr Laughren: My understanding was that previously the amendments that were tabled last week were already sent over and that the third party had those, and that this afternoon several additional amendments were sent across to the opposition. That's my understanding.
Mr Harris: Well, I'm sorry, I don't have them. Maybe I do, but I can't leave right now to --
The Chair: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, you didn't receive any?
Mr Phillips: I have not, but I understand our staff have just received them and are copying them now. But I wonder if we mightn't receive copies from the government and perhaps --
The Chair: We'll try to sort it out in a few minutes. We will wait until you get your package.
Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Chairman, it was sent over to the House leader's executive assistant in each case, but I have an extra set of the new amendments. They already have the previous ones. I'd be happy to send the new amendments over right now, if that would be helpful.
The Chair: I'd like to read the following again:
"All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the Assembly by 4 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House following passage of this motion. Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5:45 pm on that sessional day. At 5:45 pm on such sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession."
Are there any questions or amendments to section 1?
Mr Harris: I move that section 1 be deleted.
The Chair: Shall section 1 stand as part of the bill?
Hon Mr Laughren: I assume that we are now debating section 1. The leader of the third party has moved that section 1 of the bill be deleted. The leader of the third party has moved from playing a role in which he was attempting to make amendments to a role now in which he would delete the section of the bill that lays out the purpose of the bill or the act, as it will eventually be called. I don't understand why he would do that, but it certainly makes no sense to delete a section of the bill that lays out its purpose.
Mr Harris: I withdraw it.
The Chair: We're debating section 1.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The rationale, I think, that the leader has is twofold.
Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): He just withdrew it.
Mr Stockwell: I heard him. I think the point he's trying to make on deleting section 1 was this: I suppose some staff have received copies of the amendments that this government has just drafted. We don't have copies of those amendments. We don't even know what portions of this piece of legislation they're applicable to. We have been denied the right to have staff sit on the floor so they may advise us because they're the only ones who have seen your amendments.
All we're doing is making the point -- I think it's been well made -- that this government has not supplied us with the amendments it just dreamt up yesterday, and we haven't read them. We've been denied the right to have staff sit here to advise us, who have had at least maybe 10 minutes to read them. I think the point was well made. If the Treasurer doesn't understand it, then I accept that.
Hon Mr Laughren: I won't get into the argument ad hominem of the member for Etobicoke West and cast slurs and insults at him personally the way he does across to this side.
I would simply say to you that there were roughly 25 amendments -- I actually didn't count them, but I think about 25 amendments -- that were tabled last week for which there was ample time for the opposition to examine them. Today there were, I believe, eight new amendments tabled, and the purpose of going through clause by clause is to look at each amendment by itself and debate it. If the opposition doesn't feel that it can do that, I don't understand it. It's a long tradition in this House that this is exactly what we do in committee of the whole.
Mr Phillips: I just want to respond to the Minister of Finance and say two or three things. One is that in the House earlier today, you indicated to the House that the reason you had moved closure was because the debate was going nowhere.
I will say to you very, very, very directly, the debate started at 3:30 in the afternoon and at 4 o'clock our House leader's office got your closure motion. The debate had gone on for half an hour, so you cannot use that argument, and it does you no service to be using that argument, to say that the debate was going nowhere. It was within half an hour of the debate starting, and the Hansard will show that. So I resent deeply you suggesting that, and I would suggest you not use that again.
Secondly, I would say to the House and to the public, this is the most important bill this House will debate in five years. There is no doubt about that, no doubt, and now we find, five minutes before we begin the final three hours of clause-by-clause debate, the minister has given us another, I gather, five or six amendments.
Mr Stockwell: Eight amendments.
Mr Phillips: Eight amendments. I will just say that this bill will impact one out of five workers in this province, it will impact the budget dramatically, it will impact 9,000 collective agreements, and I think the government has a lot of nerve to lay on the table eight amendments.
Some of them may be major. We don't know, because we got them five minutes ago, and then to suggest that the opposition somehow or other doesn't deserve a debate on this, as I said before, does you no service, Minister, and to suggest that we were filibustering when you decided after one half-hour of debate -- one half-hour of debate in this House -- to impose the closure motion, simply is inconsistent with what I'd hope would be a sensible, logical debate on a very important bill.
1530
We will get on with this bill, but now we've got less than three hours to debate it. We now have another eight amendments; 25 amendments that in my opinion demonstrate this bill was hastily drafted, is unworkable and is a huge mistake, and time will prove us right on that. Time will prove us right on that but you've got the guns to our heads. You will have your way and you will have this bill passed into law tomorrow, but I will say to you, to give us eight more amendments five minutes before we begin the last three hours of debate is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Mr Stockwell: I would just like to respond quickly to the Treasurer. I don't often stand and call him to order on a couple of points, but I will this time.
Sir, I don't know who I slurred, and if I slurred anyone, it's withdrawn. I only suggested that we hadn't received copies of these amendments. It was frustrating and very difficult to deal with a bill as complicated as this. If I slurred anyone, I apologize. All I requested was that we have our staff here and we be given time to read these amendments and deal with them. Again, if it slurred anyone at all, I certainly withdraw it, but I'm not certain who I slurred.
Hon Mr Laughren: The member is well taken in his point and I probably did exaggerate in my language in my references to what he'd said, and I withdraw what I said as well.
The member for Scarborough-Agincourt, however, talked about inadequate time and how there wasn't time to debate a very important bill. I would just say to him that last week he made reference to the time allocation motion being tabled, which indicated that there would be debate the rest of that day, all of the time allocation motion yesterday, and the bill again for the rest of today.
Despite the notification that there was restricted debate on time, the opposition chose to spend the rest of that afternoon not moving off section 1. We're still on section 1, despite the notification that there was going to be restricted time allowed for debate. At this point in time, when a whole day was spent not debating --
Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): You moved it within half an hour.
Hon Mr Laughren: The rest of the day wasn't spent moving through the bill; it was spent on not even moving off section 1. If you were that concerned about getting through the bill and having adequate time to debate, tell me why you spent all last Wednesday debating section 1.
The Chair: Order, just for a minute. I want to make a point here. We have serious matters ahead of us to debate amendments and the clock is ticking. If you don't want to start, that's your affair, that's your business. We'll continue on. I will recognize members but I just want to remind you that there are amendments to be debated.
Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I note that in the package of new amendments which the Treasurer has put before the House there is included at least one amendment which affects previous amendments that the government had put, particularly with respect to the impact on school boards, many of which are facing bankruptcy or other extremely severe impacts as a result of the amendments which were placed last week.
There has been no time to analyse the impact of these particular amendments which have been placed. As the debate started, the amendments were received by members here, and in every single school board area in the province, public and separate, the impacts are yet to be analysed or even known about.
I think it's unconscionable that the Treasurer has come forward without the kind of consultative process that would be available to the opposition members as well as to government with respect to the difficulties its previous amendments had put. I think this is an outrageous abuse of the parliamentary process and of this Legislature.
Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I guess what we really want to do is proceed through the bill, as painful as it is. I do apologize. I was downstairs looking at the announcement by OPSEU. In fact, the government has made some inroads there. OPSEU has announced that in spite of the legislation, it's going to be supporting it.
Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Small sector.
Mr Cousens: Small sector.
What I wanted to do is, if we could, deal with section 1 of the bill and then deal with the amendments before you. I don't think there's any doubt that we don't like having a gun to our heads and no time to deal with it, and somewhat of a reasonable time, if the time is going to be half an hour for every amendment, and then you could work through it and every point of view could be expressed. The Supreme Court can deal with big issues in 15 minutes and they're over and done with.
I feel there's been sufficient discussion and that we could deal with section 1. The government has an amendment on section 2. Our first amendment is on section 7 of the bill. Certainly, the intent from our caucus, and I'm speaking on behalf of them because no one else has seen your amendment, but I don't think it's going to change the world. I would be able to support your amendment to section 2, where you're clearly defining what the sectoral framework's all about, so that we get one of them out of the way and get on to some of the other ones that are before the House.
We've got a chance right now to make some constructive change to a bill that we feel is flawed; I have every hope that we have a chance through dialogue and discussion on the specific amendments. My colleagues in the House are extremely interested in how these amendments can impact certain health care units and certain municipalities and school boards, so then we can proceed with those specifically.
I understand how there are others who may not want to deal with amendments. I am here today to try to get as many amendments discussed, debated, considered, and through the dialogue we have, moved forward. As limited as the time is, I'm saying, in an effort to show that intent, that we will be supporting the first amendment the government has. If we could then have a vote on sections 1 and 2, then we can proceed hopefully more quickly to some of the other amendments that are before us.
Hon Mr Laughren: Since the member for Markham made reference to an agreement that had been signed, I wonder if the members would allow me to bring him up to date on what has happened today, if there's no disagreement.
The following development: At the community services table, which was one of the eight sectors that's been set up for sectoral bargaining, both employers and employees have signed a document which has been recommended to me for designation as a sectoral framework agreement. There are some 7,000 agencies in this sector, involving over 100,000 full- and part-time employees providing crucial services to the most vulnerable groups and individuals in our society.
At the municipal table, an agreement has been signed by the government and one of the major unions, and now is going through the process of approval by other participants, including the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, AMO.
Similarly, at the police subsectoral table, the police associations and the government have signed an agreement which awaits approval by the police services boards.
As social contract negotiations continue at other tables, I want to thank all the participants, public sector employers and employees, for working hard for the people of this province through a new and inevitably difficult process, and I want to express the hope that those still in talks will achieve similar success.
Mr Jim Wilson: I was wondering, Mr Chairman, if I could just comment briefly on the Minister of Finance's statement. I was able to watch the press conference and I think the Treasurer would have to admit that, yes, there's been agreement in the community services sector, but "one of the easier sectors to which agreement is possible" is exactly what the presenters at the press conference said, because a number of the employees, particularly the Ontario Association for Community Living, spoke up and said, "A number of our employees are below the $30,000 mark, therefore we didn't have to get into slashing wages," which is a point obviously germane to this legislation.
Interjection: Slashing?
Mr Jim Wilson: Cutting wages then.
They're able to bring some efficiencies to the sector and that's how they're going to achieve their savings.
The Treasurer also didn't point out that the Service Employees' International Union, at the same press conference, indicated that it has five other tables it sits at and it very clearly said at the press conference that it will be withdrawing from the social contract talks. Perhaps the Treasurer would like to comment on that.
1540
Hon Mr Laughren: I suppose it's whether you wish to describe your glass as being half full or half empty. I would simply say that I was pleased with the events of today.
This is a very difficult process, I think everyone would acknowledge, and it's not easy for the parties at the table to come to an agreement.
The reason I believe it's in everyone's best interests to do so, though, is to achieve the lower reduction targets that are available when a sectoral agreement is signed so that local agreements can then be signed and get access to the job security fund and redeployment and so forth and avoid the fail-safe mechanism that's contained in this bill.
I acknowledge the fact that there's a long way to go yet. I hope I didn't put too optimistic a spin on my comments. I tried to be rather just simply factual about it. I hope very much that the other sectors will come together and sign agreements as well, but I acknowledge that it's an extremely difficult process and that we've got a long way to go yet. So I wasn't implying that because this has happened today, it's clear sailing from now on. That's not what I was trying to convey to members opposite.
Mr Cousens: Shall section 1 carry, and then we can deal with the amendment? Is that what we're really trying to do here, systematically go through --
The Chair: Thank you. Shall section 1 stand as part of the bill?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Shall the motion carry?
Mr Phillips: Is there an intent, Mr Chairman, that we will be stacking these votes? Is there an agreement on that?
The Chair: You need five persons to stand up. The motion is carried, therefore. We'll now deal with section 2.
Mr Phillips: No, I was standing for a vote.
The Chair: You need five people.
Mr Phillips: I understand that.
The Chair: There are not five people, so the vote is carried. We'll now deal with section 2.
Hon Mr Laughren: I move that the definition of "sectoral framework" in section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out "section 11" in the second line and substituting "section 11 or 33.2."
If the members would like a short explanation, it might be helpful to the debate. I know it's asking members to jump ahead, and I apologize for that, but if they were to cast their eyes ahead to the new amendment, section 33.2 -- and I really, I think, would be ruled out of order if I got into a debate on it now, but it deals with the designation of sectoral agreements after August 1, so this simply makes sure that the definition of "sectoral framework" doesn't apply only to the earlier part of the bill, section 11, but also to the later part, 33.2.
Mr Jim Wilson: I was just wondering if we could have a copy of that amendment the Treasurer just put forward, because I understand it's a new amendment and many of the members on this side of the House simply don't have a copy of it.
The Chair: It is my understanding that copies were distributed.
Mr Jim Wilson: We're going ahead with an amendment that we were given a very few copies of from the government. I wonder if they have any extra copies, Mr Chairman, because our photocopier can't keep up with the pace of the new amendments coming in from the government.
The Chair: The Treasurer is taking the means now to get you some copies; if you want to patiently wait, he will get you copies.
Mr Charles Beer (York North): Mr Chair, on the same point: Just to note that the additional reference the Treasurer made to section 2, definition of "sectoral framework," is about four pages long, so in addition to getting it, can we just have a moment to be able to read it?
Hon Mr Laughren: I would be glad to be helpful. I don't want to presume for a minute how members opposite wish to engage in the debate this afternoon. I would hope we'd get to section 33.2. That's not my decision, but I would hope we'd get there because it is a fairly substantial amendment. What we're doing here now is voting on an amendment which allows 33.2 to cover the definition of "sectoral agreement" as well.
Mr Jim Wilson: Mr Chairman, briefly, through you to the Treasurer: We're not stalling, Treasurer. We simply want to know what we're voting on as we go through each clause.
Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Perhaps while we're waiting for those amendments, Mr Minister, looking at the definition of "public sector" on page 4 of section 2, the question arises, does "public sector" include the local hydro utilities? If so, the hydro utilities are saying they shouldn't be included, first of all. Second, if they are included, any cuts they make -- as there's no transfers in money to the local hydro commissions from the province of Ontario, they're saying the money they have to pay to the province of Ontario should be put towards paying down the debt of Ontario Hydro and the money should not go to the province of Ontario.
I wonder if you would comment on, first, are local hydro commissions included under "public sector" in section 2? Second, if you're insisting on extracting money from the local hydro commissions even though they receive no money from the province of Ontario, will you allow the cuts to go towards paying down the debt of Ontario Hydro, as the Municipal Electric Association has requested?
Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, they are under the public sector, to answer directly the member for Don Mills.
Secondly, I would ask him to keep in mind that this comes up in several areas, such as Ontario Hydro, the Workers' Compensation Board, some of the agencies that are somewhat at arm's length from the government and so forth. The fact is that it's because of the social contract that compensation will be reduced, so for that reason, the savings are not being allowed to be simply subsumed within those agencies, whether it's for debt reduction or whether it's for building something new. That's the reason it's being done the way it is.
Mr Phillips: The member for East York raised it, and I think one of our members raised this question the other day. Does the public sector include private sector companies that may be involved in waste disposal, waste removal and in busing? The reason I ask this is because the Premier indicated in the House that it was not the intent of the bill to capture any private sector company that may be supplying, for example, garbage pickup in a municipality. But under the schedule in the back, under Municipal Affairs, there's an indication of "collection, removal and disposal of garbage and other refuse for a municipality."
Maybe the minister could clarify that, because I don't think we got that clarification the other day.
Hon Mr Laughren: I think that's correct; we didn't get the clarification the other day. It is our intention to remove that by regulation.
Mr Cousens: As I look at what you've done, and it does take a minute to go back to 33 and understand the new section as it ties in, you've really tried to have the definition cover both the sectors before August 1 and after August 1; in fact, you're not really changing the sectors thereafter. It's a matter of just saying the agreements of the bill will then apply to both, but as defined under the two sections.
1550
I don't see any massive problem with that. It's what you're going to do afterwards that's causes us to worry. If we can get to those amendments, we'll deal with the authority that you're trying to bring upon yourself. We're going to change your name, instead of being Happy Floyd or Pink Floyd or Pink-Slip Floyd, to King Floyd. If we can get some of these amendments through, we'll at least be able to have the prince brought down a little bit.
I don't see any massive concern on this, although I think the concerns being raised by the member for Don Mills and others have to do with the way in which all sectors are being treated equally, and that's an important aspect to it.
Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member is correct in that this is not a major amendment. It's just because of a subsequent amendment that this is required to be done.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments on the amendment to section 2? Are we ready for the question?
Mr Laughren has moved that the definition of "sectoral framework" in section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out "section 11" in the second line and substituting "section 11 or 33.2."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
This question will be stacked.
Any further amendment to section 2?
We now have a motion on section 5.
Hon Mr Laughren: Have we done 3 and 4?
The Chair: Just a minute, please. Shall sections 3 and 4 carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
Mr Jim Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't think we've had the vote on section 2 yet.
Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): On a point of order, Mr Chair: We haven't done section 2. We've only done the amendment on section 2.
The Chair: Could I have just a few minutes, please.
Because there is an amendment to section 2, you're right; your point of order is right on.
We will stack it and will vote on the amendment, and after that on the section itself.
Shall sections 3 and 4 carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
This is also stacked.
We'll now deal with section 5; an amendment to section 5.
Mr Laughren moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Limitation:
"(3) The minister shall not designate an organization as a bargaining agent under subsection (1) for employees who are represented by a bargaining agent.
"Bargaining rights
"(4) A bargaining agent designated under subsection (1) has the right to bargain on behalf of the employees for the purposes of this act."
Are there any questions or comments?
Hon Mr Laughren: An explanation might be helpful, Mr Chairman. The way the bill read was a little disconcerting, because what we wanted to do was make sure that although the minister has the power to designate a bargaining agent, we wanted to make it absolutely clear that this would not be an attempt to go around an existing legitimate bargaining agent for the employees. In some cases there is no bargaining agent for the employees, and this would allow the minister to designate a bargaining agent for the employees. The new subsection (4) would clarify that the designated bargaining agents -- the new ones where there are no other ones already there -- have the bargaining rights to carry out under this act. An example would be an employee association where there's no traditional bargaining agent.
Mr Phillips: I'm just trying to get some idea of what we're buying here, because in theory this gives the minister the power to unilaterally determine who the bargaining agent is for all non-organized groups. That's an enormous power. That's how I read the bill: "The minister may recognize as a bargaining agent...." How will the minister determine what bargaining agent you're going to recognize? Will the employees be required to vote on the bargaining agent, or exactly what process will you follow here?
Hon Mr Laughren: So far it hasn't been a problem. An example would be management employees in the Ontario public service, where they have an organization that requested standing at the table for negotiating purposes, and we recognize that and take it very seriously; it's legitimate.
I would remind you as well that this relates only to this act. It does not relate to any other acts, so no one should think that it transfers to me or the minister of the day enormous powers in terms of recognizing who the bargaining agents are for any other purposes. It's strictly for the purposes of this act.
Mr Cousens: I don't have any problem with this particular amendment, although it begins to set a precedent we really have to careful about. Having started down this road of the social contract, one had greater hopes that there'd be accommodation more quickly arrived at by all parties. Inasmuch as it isn't there, it means now that when the government has to legislate every step along the way, it then has to assume rights and powers that heretofore have been established in other codes and acts, such as the Labour Relations Act and so on. Now the government has to take an extra presumption in order to deal with the social contract law.
Once you start breaking into those rules and guidelines -- and for the New Democrats to do it is to take a special sense of zeal -- you should be very, very cautious when you're in the process of making the kinds of decisions you're making here. I think it has to be exercised with tremendous caution. For the government to be doing this, it's all the more surprising that it's Bob Rae's government that's doing it.
Notwithstanding that, if the social contract is going to work, then you're going to have to have that authority along the way to establish certain bargaining agents, so as painful as it is, I'm prepared to see this amendment go ahead.
We're going to have to make sure along the way that we put some control on the honourable Minister of Finance, who may not always be as honourable as he can smile away in the House. There are other times when he's in there, under the influence of Ms Lankin and others, that he might be inclined to do things that aren't just as good-natured.
Having said that, we would generally support the intent.
Mr Murphy: I am delighted to hear that the Treasurer has said it's to apply only "for the purposes of this act," although I don't think the amendments do that. I know those words are in there, but frankly, if you wanted to make sure that was the case, I'd add the word "only," because I don't think it says that on its face. It says "for the purposes of this act," but it's not exclusively to those purposes. I think it could be read as saying "for those purposes," and doesn't say that other purposes are not permitted. I think that the addition of the word "only" is some limit on that power.
I'm concerned with this provision in general. I think it does provide the minister quite a substantial authority that is unfettered, in his or her opinion.
Hon Mr Laughren: You're not a lawyer, are you?
Mr Murphy: No, I just play one on TV.
Subsection 5(2) is an odd sort of section. In other words, 5(1) gives the minister all the discretion to decide what organizations to recognize. Subsection (2), in theory, provides limitations, but those limitations are what the minister thinks the limitations should be. It's a bit of an odd way of drafting it.
1600
I don't think that the minister's stated objective, as I indicated, is achieved by these further amendments, and I think, as a matter of principle, it gives the minister an enormous amount of unfettered power.
Hon Ms Lankin: I just wanted to say that I appreciate the concern raised by the member for Markham, but I want to assure him that it's misplaced. Unfortunately, the Treasurer is rarely under my influence.
Hon Mr Laughren: But we're working on it.
The Chair: Shall the amendment to section 5 carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
This will be stacked with the others.
We'll now deal with section 6.
Hon Mr Laughren: I move that section 6 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"6. Nothing in this act shall be interpreted or applied so as to reduce any right or entitlement under the Human Rights Code or under the Pay Equity Act."
I'd just like to explain very briefly that the act as it was originally written made sure that no entitlement under the Pay Equity Act would be reduced. This extends it to make sure also that no entitlements under the Human Rights Code will be affected as well.
Mr Stockwell: The question I have upon reading section 6 -- I've just read it too -- it would seem to me that if you read subsection 22(3) of the act on page 13, it says, "A non-bargaining unit employee has no right to grieve under the Public Service Act or any other act in respect of actions taken by his or her employer in accordance with a non-bargaining unit plan." So, in essence, you're taking away any rights to grieve. How would you know if someone's going to grieve under this particular situation, when you've taken away all their rights to grieve?
Hon Mr Laughren: I've listened to the advice of people with legal minds, but it seems to me there's a big difference between a traditional grievance and a complaint under the Human Rights Code. That's what this is designed to do, to protect complaints under the Human Rights Code.
Mr Stockwell: Just quickly to follow up, the Human Rights Code and Pay Equity Act are being recommended here, but it goes completely counter to what you've said in 22(3), where you've taken away all, under any act. Should you not straighten it out there as well, if you're going to do that?
The Chair: Minister, if you want to take your time to look, please.
Hon Mr Laughren: Okay. If I might, I hope this addresses the problem of the member for Etobicoke West, because subsection 22(3) is quite clear: "A non-bargaining unit employee has no right to grieve under the Public Service Act or any other act in respect of actions taken by his or her employer in accordance with a non-bargaining unit plan," which means under this act.
I fail to understand the concern of the member. We've made sure that the Human Rights Code cannot be affected, complaints under the Human Rights Code. All we're saying is that there's no right to grieve under the Public Service Act if it has to do with conditions that are being applied because of this act.
Mr Stockwell: Then the question is, and if you just read a little further, you might reach my concern, you have no right to grieve under the Public Service Act or any other act. It's very clear: "or any other act." Now you're saying --
Hon Mr Laughren: In respect of this bill.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, in respect to the agreement. Now you're saying "excluding the Pay Equity Act." Should that not be added as an amendment to 22(3)?
Hon Mr Laughren: I thought that putting it in section 6 would mean that you wouldn't have to put it in any other section in the bill, that by putting it right up front or as close to the front as possible under section 6 that it just makes that assumption through the rest of the bill both in terms of the Pay Equity Act and the Human Rights Code.
Mr Stockwell: So you can't grieve for any other reason, wrongful dismissal. You can't grieve for anything according to any act except what you've outlined in section 6. Those are the only two reasons you can grieve, period, if anyone's trying to implement this piece of legislation.
Hon Mr Laughren: Only if it's attached to conditions as a result of this act.
Mr Stockwell: I don't mean to belabour this. If it's attached to the conditions of this act, you can grieve no other reason, under any conditions or acts at all, for wrongful dismissal, for any reason except these two exceptions.
Hon Mr Laughren: If employers acted outside the terms of this particular act, then of course they would be in violation of the act, and it would be appropriate to grieve under those circumstances.
Mr Stockwell: Lastly, the point I think is being missed. As long as they live within this act, they can operate outside the terms of the law except for these two acts. You can dismiss somebody if you say it's part of your plan. You can dismiss somebody according to the plan and not have any worry about wrongful dismissal or any repercussions by that employee at all unless he cites the Pay Equity Act or she cites the Human Rights Code. Those are the only two reasons you can grieve for wrongful dismissal at all, if you've just followed the plan as laid down in this piece of legislation.
Hon Mr Laughren: I won't repeat what I said before. I'm going to add something to that, that if an employer is required to post the plan and if there's something wrong with that plan, it can be challenged to an adjudicator who must make a ruling, so that there is the safeguard, I hope and I believe, in the act that will prevent abuses by employers, for example. I think that's important to note at this point, in view of your comments.
Mr Beer: Just a question on this: Treasurer, this covers the Human Rights Code and the Pay Equity Act, but I take it that the act still overrides the Employment Standards Act which also has some entitlements. I see a nodding head.
Hon Mr Laughren: That's correct. As long as it's in keeping with the spirit of this act.
Mr Cousens: I'm following up on the point made by the member for Etobicoke West. What is stopping the Human Rights Code from being part of every act and all acts in the province of Ontario? In other words, legally, if you had forgotten to put this in, would it have given you the right as a government to not pay attention to the Human Rights Code? I'm saying, therefore, is it absolutely mandatory to be in there?
Hon Mr Laughren: I guess you could debate that depending on what happened subsequent to the act being passed, but this certainly makes it very clear that this act can't be used to get around the law, namely, the Human Rights Code. That's the purpose of making it very clear in this bill.
Mr Murphy: I have a question for the minister related to the comment from the member for York North to the extent that it overrides the Employment Standards Act, and that obviously has provisions relating to severance and termination pay. There may be some employers where the over-50 employees, the other rules relating to extended pay would come into effect perhaps, in some circumstances, in order to meet the target. If those are overridden, I'm wondering whether you can provide insurance that employees are going to receive anything, what they're going to receive under this act and how that differs from what they'd receive under the Employment Standards Act, and if so, by how much.
1610
Hon Mr Laughren: I'm not sure I understand the full impact of the member's question, but one reason this is here: If, for example, in the critical services area there was a requirement, because of the need of that particular employer to meet its expenditure reduction targets and the 12 days -- let me use the 12 days as an example -- that the 12 days couldn't be achieved because of the critical nature of the service the employees provided and that the savings could be achieved under what would normally be paid holidays, then there is a provision that says that will be stretched out beyond the length of this social contract so that those workers would be protected in the longer run, but at the same time would allow the employer to accomplish that, given the targets it would have. If you didn't have that requirement in the bill, then it might be impossible for some employers, where there are such critical areas of service to be delivered, to achieve their savings targets.
Mr Murphy: Just to follow up, the question I have is: For example, if a non-bargaining unit employee is to be laid off under a provision of a plan within the confines of this bill that meet the minister's criteria, the employee gets laid off, doesn't have access to the Employment Standards Act provisions that might have otherwise entitled him to severance termination pay, depending on the circumstances, the question then is, how much would he be entitled to as an individual under this bill versus what he might have been entitled to under the Employment Standards Act, which no longer applies because of this bill?
Hon Mr Laughren: I'm trying to sort it out. It applies only to hours of work, paid holidays; it's not meant to be draconian in nature, simply --
Mr Jim Wilson: "I'm sorry it is, but it's not meant to be."
Hon Mr Laughren: I think we can debate all over again the principles of the bill, which we did on second reading, I say to the member for York Centre, but I don't think that's the purpose of our exercise this afternoon.
There's no override. I'm just handed a note, "Does not override the notice of termination pay, for example." It wouldn't override that.
Mr Cousens: How do you figure that out? Where does it say that?
The Chair: Order. The member for Markham, please take your seat. There is a debate, there is a conversation going on between the two members and obviously that conversation has not terminated, therefore I must give them the floor. Once you take the floor after that, I will make sure that your debate continues. It's as simple as that.
Mr Murphy: Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I'm reading subsection 22(3): "A non-bargaining unit employee has no right to grieve under the Public Service Act or any other act...."
There are ways in which you can bring forward under the Employment Standards Act your concern regarding being laid off without adequate compensation. The question is, does this provision -- you've indicated that it doesn't override it; my concern is that it might override it. Your section 6 amendment says, "To cover that off, we're going to say the Human Rights Code and Pay Equity Act have provisions specifically within them to provide for complaint mechanisms under the Human Rights Code and the Pay Equity Act."
The question is: For example, under the Employment Standards Act there is also a mechanism for employees to complain about being laid off without appropriate severance determination. My concern is that this subsection 22(3) would catch the Employment Standards Act and may then exclude those employees from complaining about being terminated. Then the question is, what compensation does this act provide that's in any way different, better than the Employment Standards Act?
Mr Stockwell: That's what I said.
Mr Murphy: The member for Etobicoke West is saying, "That's what I said," and I agree. I think I started this by saying, "Following up on his question." So my concern is that this provision would have the effect of catching the Employment Standards Act. There is no saving provision such as your amendment to section 6, and therefore my concern is that you're going to have an employee whom an employer could lay off without protection, without severance, without termination, and this act permits it.
Hon Mr Laughren: For me, the comfort in this section is in the first subsection of 22,
"The provisions of a non-bargaining unit plan prevail over any provision in any other act or the regulations thereunder that relates to" -- and this is where the comfort is, for me anyway -- "holidays, vacations, hours of work or overtime pay, but only to the extent that the provisions authorize measures that would be authorized under part VII if that part applied to the employer's non-bargaining unit employees."
If an employer acts outside the Employment Standards Act, it would seem to me that would be a violation of the law, and that would look after it.
The Chair: Are you satisfied, the member for St George-St David?
Mr Murphy: Well, I don't think we're ever satisfied.
The Chair: I will now recognize the member for Markham.
Mr Cousens: In order to deal with some of the failings the government has raised by its amendment by including the Human Rights Code as one of the protectors that really has to be inherent to what the bill is all about, I am tabling therefore an amendment to the amendment. It would just add to the words after "Pay Equity Act" "or under the Employment Standards Act or the Labour Relations Act." I had one copy here in these circumstances.
What that would begin to do is then to give protection under these other very important acts which are very current to the Legislature, and maybe it's the kind of thing that the minister will accept even now without having -- you could even take the credit for that motion if you wanted to.
Hon Mr Laughren: I would never want to take credit for anything that the member for Markham initiated. I do view his amendment as being appropriately motivated. My concern with what he's moving, though, is that if you added the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act to the list, it would be counter to subsection 22(1), which deals with the holidays, vacations, hours of work or overtime pay. It seems to me that if we're going to achieve the savings, which after all is a major purpose of this piece of legislation, we need to maintain the right of this particular act to override certain other acts, with the cautions that are contained herein.
Mr Cousens: On that very issue, when you start pointing to 22(1), that really relates to working on holidays and other times, whereas these are two very implicit acts to what labour understands Ontario to be all about. That's the kind of theme our caucus is looking at here, and it makes sense that you at least incorporate that intention of support and understanding for those bills at the very beginning.
We've spent I don't know how long on the Labour Relations Act, but up till some of the other pieces of legislation were brought in, that's the piece, Bill 40, that this government has done so much for labour. Why not include something in here that protects it? Number two, the Employment Standards Act -- it just allows too much freedom for people along the way if you don't have some guidance that that can give.
Hon Mr Laughren: It seems to me that since one of the ways in which we will achieve the $2 billion in savings that are laid out as the purpose of this bill -- not in the bill itself, but one of the reasons we're doing this is to achieve $2 billion in savings, and that is obtained largely through the pay freeze, the wage freeze, and the days off without pay. If you put in here the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act and, for example, there was a challenge to us doing the wage freeze and the days off without pay under one of those acts, then it seems to me you can kiss goodbye to any savings, ie, $2 billion that we want to achieve under this bill.
Mr Stockwell: I heard you state in your answer to the member for St George-St David that if they did make a decision that was contrary, they would be falling outside the law.
Hon Mr Laughren: If it's not covered.
Mr Stockwell: Right. The question I have for you is, the acts that are in place are in fact the law, any of the acts you operate under as far as wrongful dismissal or termination etc are concerned. They are the law, sir. Reading subsection 22(3), "or any other act in respect of actions taken by his or her employer in accordance with a non-bargaining unit plan," if you remove all other acts, you're in fact removing the law, are you not?
Hon Mr Laughren: I'm saying that in order to achieve what's laid out in this bill there is going to be a necessity in some cases to override other acts or the savings will not be achieved.
1620
Mr Stockwell: So in fact this piece of legislation is drafted in such a way that it allows employers to break existing laws to create their savings.
Hon Mr Laughren: No, we're lawmakers, not lawbreakers. What this would do would make this act take precedence over other acts. Following the rules under this act, because of the comfort that's given in these sections, it means you're not breaking any laws.
Mr Stockwell: I guess the question's better said this way: Without this piece of legislation, you'd be breaking the law. Agreed?
Hon Mr Laughren: If there weren't these overrides provided in this bill, in some cases that's correct, absolutely.
Mr Murphy: Minister, same theme of questions relating to section 33 of the bill and specifically subsection 33(4): It's a limitation on a proceeding being brought against an employer. Your comment with respect to subsection 22(1) would, at least to some degree, apply with respect to subsection 33(3), but the wording of subsection 33(4) appears to imply that an employee can't bring a proceeding in relation to the release and does not have a limitation related to holidays, vacations, hours of work or overtime pay, as a more general section.
I'm wondering if this section would bring in the same concerns we've been raising with respect to section 22, which we were talking about just before. Then, in that circumstance, there might be some override of the Employment Standards Act by virtue of this and, therefore, a complete bar to any action of any kind. I think "proceeding" is usually defined fairly broadly and can include anything from a grievance to an action. It seems to me that this could be interpreted as overriding that Employment Standards Act guarantee in circumstances to which this section 33 applies.
Hon Mr Laughren: The member, I think, is referring to subsection 33(4), and that is a section where we are moving an amendment to make sure that the limitations on the right to proceed or to sue -- I'm not a learned legal friend -- would be limited to the fail-safe part; ie, the salary freeze, the unpaid leaves and the special leaves. There's a restriction on the right to sue, limited to those three areas of the fail-safe part of this bill.
Mr Phillips: Very quickly, because I know that in the future someone will use this section and say, "You were very specific that nothing in the act shall be interpreted to reduce any entitlement, only under two acts, pay equity and the Human Rights Code," can the minister, with the assistance perhaps of his legal staff, indicate to the members, just so we know what we're getting into, what acts this bill will have the authority to override? I gather it's the Employment Standards Act. I gather it may be the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Are there any other bills where it has the authority to override?
Hon Mr Laughren: One that comes to mind immediately is the Public Service Act, and I'm trying to think if there are any others: in certain conditions the Employment Standards Act, the Labour Relations Act and the teachers' collective bargaining act. But in all cases it's override in relation to the provisions of this bill, yes.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Not highway traffic.
Hon Mr Laughren: Not the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, no.
Mr Murphy: To follow up, Minister, you referred to an amendment that you said was going to limit section 33. I have three piles of government amendments and I'm just wondering if you could perhaps point out which one you're referring to.
Hon Mr Laughren: I'm referring to subsection -- I better make sure I've got the right one -- 33(4). I can tell you what it reads if that helps, that 33(4) be struck out and the following substituted:
"(4) Actions of an employer taken in accordance with section 24, 25 or 26 shall not be the subject of any proceedings brought by any person against an employer."
Then you have to of course go back to 24, 25 and 26 and look at the provisions therein.
The Chair: Any further questions or comments to the amendment to section 6?
Mr Cousens: The amendment to the amendment first, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Before we proceed to the vote, I would like to remind the member for Markham that your subamendment to the amendment is out of order because it is past 4 of the clock, and if you recall when I read, I said, "All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the Assembly by 4 o'clock." Therefore, I declare your subamendment to the amendment out of order.
We will now vote on the amendment to section 6. Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Therefore the vote is stacked.
Mr Cousens: My next amendment is on section 7, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: I just asked the question, are there any other amendments to section 6? If not, we will proceed to section 7. Minister?
Hon Mr Laughren: No, I have no amendments to section 7.
Mr Cousens: Mine is the next amendment, section 7, Mr Chairman.
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't want to waste a lot of time, but the subamendment that you ruled out of order was because we didn't have it in at 4 o'clock. With all due respect to the Chair and the other parties, the opposition and the government, we didn't have the amendment at 4 o'clock. Well, maybe we had the amendment at 10 to 4 or whatever. Certainly, we didn't have a copy of it here, nor did the person have the amendment who wanted to read it. To expect the opposition parties to invent the government amendments and then invent subamendments to the invented government amendments is maybe asking a tad much.
The Chair: You know, frankly, there's nothing I can do, because I am advised here by the paper what I have to do and it says it very clearly, that the amendments have got to be brought in by 4 o'clock. There's nothing I can do to change that.
Mr Stockwell: There's nothing you can do? Well, with all due respect, yes, there is. You're the Chair. You can understand the situation that we're in as opposition parties. Having not been given the opportunity of reading the amendment, how could we possibly know what our subamendment would be? I ask for unanimous consent to allow the subamendment to stand, please.
Mr Murphy: On a point of order.
The Chair: Just a minute, please. Is there unanimous consent? No, there is no unanimous consent. On a point of order, the member for St George-St David.
Mr Murphy: Yes, Mr Chair. I would like just to join in at least on principle with the comment made by the member for Etobicoke West and I think place on record our concern that it is highly unfair, it seems to me, to have a set of rules that say that you cannot propose an amendment after 4 o'clock, and then the government introduces a set of amendments at 10 to 4, and then presuming that we have an opportunity to analyse and assess them in the short period of time and to prepare an amendment.
It's been our position that this bill's unworkable from the start. I think the haste is obvious from this, but I think it's important to place on the record that this is frankly an entirely unfair way to run the business of the Legislature.
The Chair: Perhaps the House should look at this at a further date.
The member for Markham, you have an amendment to section 7.
1630
Mr Cousens: Yes, and I will move that amendment to section 7. I thank the member for Etobicoke West for his support on our amendment. It's the difficulty in trying to deal with a very, very complex and difficult bill in the very short time frame we have to deal with it. The limit to the debate is that there might be --
The Chair: Will you please move the amendment?
Mr Cousens: I'm about to do that. I have the floor and I will do it right now.
There might be the sense that we're moving forward in such a way that maybe the House would be unanimous to allow us to continue the debate on these amendments till later on tonight, but we'll suggest that at a later time this afternoon.
I move that section 7 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsections.
"Targets to be equal in percentage terms
"(5) An expenditure reduction target, or other reduction or limitation on amounts payable, established or prescribed under this act shall be equal in percentage terms among sectors and within sectors, having regard to the compensation of employees and other persons except for such employees as are referred to in paragraph 3 of subsection 11(3).
"Reduced expenditure equal in percentage terms
"(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to the minister's obligation to establish lower expenditure reduction targets under subsection 7(2) but a lower expenditure target established under subsection 7(2) shall be equal in percentage terms among and within sectors, having regard to the compensation of employees and other persons except for such employees as are referred to in paragraph 3 of subsection 11(3)."
The first thing that's implicit to this is that we title section 5, "Targets to be equal in percentage terms." In other words, there would be no one group within the sectors that would have anything higher than 5% that would be ascribed to them. The limit then is at 5%, so that if in fact another group has been targeted by the government, for whatever reason, to be responsible for more than 5% to help the government achieve its $2 billion, this would prevent, for instance -- this is what I referred to yesterday as we talked about this -- doctors then would not be a target of the government.
There's a situation in the Frontenac County Board of Education, and there is the sense within that board that it is being targeted for more than the 5%. What we're really trying to do with these amendments is to establish that the percentage of saving that the government will get from any of the sectors will not be more than the 5%. That becomes a limit. Beyond that, you'd have to find it within those groups.
We feel it doesn't take away from the objective of finding $2 billion, but it does protect other groups from being attacked, undermined or in any way let down by a government that may have other agendas. This would force the government to be fair to all groups. That's the objective of this.
Hon Mr Laughren: I'm somewhat puzzled by sub (5), which says, "Shall be equal in percentage terms among sectors and within sectors, having regard to the compensation of employees," which seems to be heading in the right direction and then it says, "except for such employees as are referred to in paragraph 3 of subsection 11(3)," which deals with the low-income cutoff of under $30,000.
If I read it correctly -- and I stand to be corrected by the member for Markham in this regard -- it would mean that the percentage that would be applied to a sector would disregard the number of low-income persons in that particular sector. Also, I think you would find it very inflexible to say that there should be the same percentage reduction applied to every sector.
Mr Cousens: In response to the Minister of Finance, what we're doing is putting a maximum, and the maximum is 5%, but it also ties in to a new look at subsection 11(3) where we're talking about those employees who are making less than $30,000 annually. What we're really trying to do -- as you'll see in some of our other amendments, as you would well understand -- is that this is a way of somehow protecting them. It will tie into our future amendments where we have another way of dealing with it, so that if a sectoral group has come to an agreement where those who are in the under-$30,000 group have been worked out and have met their terms, then that group would be satisfactory; but if another group by August 1 hasn't established an agreement, we would then invoke another section, which would mean you could look at those who are under $30,000. This would protect the option that the government would then have to look at those who are in the lower-income bracket.
Mr Jim Wilson: I just want to, on behalf of my colleagues, as the Health critic for the Ontario PC Party, make a few comments to this, through you to the Treasurer. I think it's a very reasonable amendment, and as the member for Markham has said, it simply attempts to cap the savings the government may want to achieve in any sector at 5%.
If we look at sections 34 through 39, we see some pretty draconian aspects of the legislation with respect to OHIP fees, physician payments, dispensing fees for pharmacists and a number of other items. I think what our worry is, and a number of the health care groups have come forward and asked us to express concern with respect to this issue, is that when we look at the expenditure control plan of the government and then look at Bill 48, which is before us now, we see that it's pretty unfair when it comes to physicians and pharmacists, to take two examples right now.
The government, under the expenditure control plan, is looking for a saving of $1.6 billion out of the health care sector. Then in Bill 48 we see the wording, for example -- you could take any of these sections, but section 34 says, "An amount that is payable by the crown in right of Ontario or the government of Ontario to an employer may be reduced by the prescribed amount." What we're attempting to do with this very reasonable amendment is to ensure that the prescribed amount, that is, an amount that may be sketched out in regulations on which the public will have no input, not exceed 5%.
I'd appreciate the Treasurer's comments with respect to that, because it strikes me that this bill isn't very fair. In the case of physicians, in 1991 both the former Minister of Health, Frances Lankin, and all members of the government side bent over backwards to pat themselves on the back with respect to the collective agreement or the memorandum of understanding that the government had reached with the Ontario Medical Association. Part of that memorandum of understanding requires the government to work through the joint management committee which, as the name implies, is a committee established between the government and physicians and the OMA to negotiate OHIP fees, to negotiate thresholds with respect to physicians' salaries, physician payments, and what we see in Bill 48 is an override of the joint management committee process.
The member for Markham, on behalf of our caucus, with this amendment is simply trying to bring in some safeguards so that the government doesn't disproportionately hit certain sectors harder than others. If I may just conclude by pointing out the example of pharmacists: Bill 29 and this legislation, Bill 48, essentially gut the Ontario drug benefit program, the negotiation and mediation process spelled out there with respect to pharmacists and the government in terms of setting dispensing fees which are paid to pharmacists. It's draconian, and we're trying to help the government make this legislation less draconian and to make it fairer. I'd appreciate the Treasurer's comments with respect to the amendment.
Hon Mr Laughren: I'll try and respond to both members, the member for Simcoe West and the member for Markham.
First of all, what the member for Markham was saying I don't see as being reflected in his amendment: such as the maximum, such as 5%. I don't see that in the amendment. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see it.
Secondly, I would caution the member as well on the same percentage. I'll give you an example: the community services sector, which the member for Simcoe West, I believe, raised earlier, indicating that while they had reached sectoral agreement, there are a lot of people below $30,000 in that sector so it doesn't affect a lot of people. I believe the compensation reduction in that sector, I may not be exactly accurate on this number, but I think it comes to less than 1%, something like 0.8% of the total compensation in that sector. I think if you tried to apply a common percentage across the various sectors, we'd soon run into trouble, and this would get us into more trouble than it would solve problems.
1640
On the member for Simcoe West talking about the health care sector, when so many people in the province are making a contribution to our financial problems, I can't imagine why doctors or pharmacists would be excluded from that. I think there would be an outcry in the province if we said, "We're going to effect all of these expenditure reductions and, secondly, with the social contract, a lot of people are going to have to make a sacrifice in order to get our financial house back in order," and then we said, "Because there's been an agreement signed with the Ontario Medical Association, it will be exempt."
There are agreements signed with all sorts of people in the public sector and they're not being exempted from this. So I would suggest that to move in the direction suggested by the member for Simcoe West would not be appropriate. I can understand, and I'm not suggesting that he's simply trying to protect his friends in the medical profession or the profession of pharmacy. I would never suggest that for a moment. Having seen the member for Simcoe West in full flight when he's angry, the last thing I want to do this afternoon is make him mad.
Mr Jim Wilson: It's an interesting little bit of political tap dancing we've seen from the Treasurer. I did not say exempt physicians or pharmacists. I did not say that, Treasurer, and I resent the fact that you got up and tried to twist around a reasonable argument I made.
The amendment speaks to ensuring that you don't pick on one sector more than others. Your own government admits that through the joint management committee over the past two years you've saved $1 billion in health care, and you've done it primarily on the backs of physicians. The fact of the matter is you've done it in a relatively cooperative manner to date.
This legislation speaks to doing away with any of the joint management committee negotiating process, and your draconian intention, I assume, is to hit doctors, hit physicians and hit pharmacists extremely hard under Bill 48. What we're saying is, don't exempt them. They must take their fair share of the pain in order to help the government that has spent itself into oblivion correct its wrongs of the past. It's unfortunate that we're even debating this legislation today, but none the less, it is what we're doing.
I think what the Treasurer didn't respond to is the fact that under this legislation, the government may now delist any insured service. The Treasurer, Dr Floyd, Pink Slip Floyd -- I call him Dr Floyd -- Dr Ruth Grier, the Health minister, and bureaucrats are going to decide what services Ontarians need and deserve with respect to OHIP by allowing sections 34 through 39 to speak to prescribed amounts. The public has no assurance as to the extent of the cuts that are forthcoming and continuing in the health care sector. Our amendment simply intends to bring a reasonable balance.
I didn't hear the Treasurer respond to any of my specific comments. What he did was to play the politics of old and simply try to twist around what I said. Now I know the NDP takes great pleasure in picking on doctors. They're a very anti-doctor government and they take great pleasure in picking on professionals.
But I dare say that some day the Treasurer may not feel well and he'll have to go to a physician, and you want to just make sure there are still some around, I say to the Treasurer, and that those physicians don't have a gun to their heads but still want to provide medical services to the people of Ontario.
This bill, I think, sends out the wrong signal. It sends out the signal to physicians, "It's politically expedient in this day and age to pick on you and to single you out, even though you've already done that through the expenditure control plan." They took the biggest whack of that, $1.6 billion, and they've saved you a billion dollars over the last two years, in addition to that, through the joint management committee.
So I'd appreciate if the Treasurer would not play the politics of the past and would restrict his comments to the points that I actually raised and not the ones that he thinks I raised.
Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the restraint being shown by the member for Simcoe West.
Mr Murdoch: We can only hold him down for so long.
Mr Stockwell: Don't start up now. I've got the key, Floyd.
Hon Mr Laughren: I'm trying very hard not to tease the bears this afternoon, Mr Chairman.
I acknowledge that the member for Simcoe West didn't say, "Exempt the doctors," but I think he was implying that, through the expenditure control exercise and the social contract, we are somehow picking on doctors and pharmacists. I think that's a fair categorization of what he said.
I would simply say to the member for Simcoe West, first of all, we're not an anti-doctor government. That's nonsense. We respect very much the work that the medical profession performs. I would simply say to the member for Simcoe West -- and I hope he won't characterize this as being politics of old -- that something had to be done.
I'm not saying this to pick on the official opposition, but during the 1980s health care costs went up an average of 11% each year over the previous year. The Ontario drug benefit plan went up an average of 18% a year each year over the previous year. Now that was not sustainable.
I suppose when revenues were flowing in in record numbers, tax increases were being imposed in record numbers, at that point you could make some arguments that the system could afford some of that. But I think fairminded members would acknowledge that in the 1990s that is completely unsustainable, even if inflation has dropped substantially. But something had to be done. We had to restrict the growth in health care costs.
Any government over here would have had to do the same thing. You might have done some things differently. You would have had to restrict the growth in public sector compensation. You might have done it differently as well. You might not have brought in a bill like this. I don't know what you would have done and you don't know either, and you wouldn't know unless you were here. If you'd asked me three years ago if I would be standing in my place debating a bill in my name like this, I would have said no as well. But let's face it, the problems of the day require that this kind of action be taken.
I would just simply conclude by saying to the member for Simcoe West that there's no attempt to pick on any particular sector, but I think that if you standardized the 5%, for example, maximum, which he implies, to each sector, we'd end up with enormous problems of fairness that wouldn't solve the problem of fairness. I think it would create more. So for those reasons, I could not support this amendment.
Mr Phillips: On section 7, I think the amendments we have before us illustrate the problem that we have with the whole section, and that is that, firstly, it once again gives to the minister an enormous hammer. If I'm not mistaken, it's a $400-million hammer. You say to the groups, "Either you come to the sectoral table and reach an agreement or we're going to take $400 million away from you." That may be a convenient hammer, but it's one that really intrudes on fairness in collective bargaining.
The second thing is that it's the minister alone who will make the determination on what the targets will be. I appreciate that the Conservative amendments are trying to impose some additional fairness into it, but I would say that subsections 7(1) through (4) build in an unfairness, firstly on the hammer. I would say, as we discussed last Wednesday -- we got into this last Wednesday but we didn't get the answers.
The minister implies that it was a waste of time. It was not a waste of time for us, although the answers were. But I go back to the questions we raised then. What happens if a sectoral agreement can't be reached, but in the best interests, parties are working locally to try to reach an agreement? They still lose the $400-million equivalent, I gather.
Secondly, is it true that it is the minister and the minister alone who determines what the expenditure targets will be sector by sector? It implies there are various ways of expressing it, but it is the minister only who will set those targets.
1650
Hon Mr Laughren: I guess I would explain the sectoral targets a little differently than does the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. He calls it a hammer. I call it an incentive. I know that some people would argue that a hammer can be a pretty good incentive, but that's not how we view it.
The targets are laid out sector by sector, and if there are sectoral agreements, then that target is reduced. So there's an incentive to reach a sectoral agreement. You can call that a hammer if you like, but it seems to me that's a very strong incentive to achieve a sectoral agreement.
At that point, the local agreements can voluntarily kick in -- we're talking now prior to August 1 -- and because of the local agreement being signed as well as the sectoral agreement, then there can be achieved access to the job security fund, which is $100 million a year, and redeployment in the public service. I would say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that I think that it's a very responsible way to provide an incentive.
I hope very much that all eight sectors, by August 1, would sign sectoral agreements which would allow the local agreements then to take effect. But he's right when he suggests that if there's no sectoral agreement, if they haven't taken advantage of that incentive, then the target is not reduced for that particular sector.
Mr Phillips: I realize you call it an incentive. I will just say that firstly, if it was private sector bargaining and this was a company and it said, "You have until August 1 to agree to our terms or we cut our offer by 20%" --
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: I'm going to go forward, I hope. The minister says, "Go back." But if you were to say to anyone in the private sector, a union in the private sector, "You must come to agreement on those terms or you lose 20% of the offer," they would view that as bad-faith bargaining. I will predict that there will be many, many, many employers and employees who, once they see the sectoral agreement that's been reached, will have real difficulty locally.
I will say it because the gun is to their heads, and the people who are at those sectoral tables will say: "Well, I'm sorry. If we didn't reach the agreement in four weeks, we lose the equivalent of $400 million." The Minister of Finance may say that's an incentive. I will say that's a hammer that is at the head of everyone at that sectoral table. It's a, pardon the expression, damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation.
You can do that. That's why we have a problem with it, Mr Minister. You can do that, and I unfortunately think I see the consequences of that, which are that in 9,000 local collective agreements there will have been imposed conditions from the sectoral table that will change dramatically the relationship between the employers and the employees. That's why we have difficulty with this section.
We would have preferred, as you all know, a very, very simple bill, done weeks ago, that would have allowed local collective agreements to take place.
This section 7 is the section that begins to really impose on local collective agreements. As I say, we have a problem with that. The Conservative amendments attempt, in a small way, to add, I guess, some certainty in the allocations, but the first four points under section 7 give the minister such enormous power that regardless of what these amendments are, he has the power to exercise that authority.
Hon Mr Laughren: I just wanted to make sure that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, and I suspect he understands it -- make it very clear that a sectoral agreement can't bind a local agreement. It has to be signed on locally.
What is possible, of course, is that if a sectoral agreement, with the employee representatives there at the table, is arrived at, then the local agreements can indicate that's their local agreement. They can sign on and say: "That's it. For us that's our local agreement." That's fine. So much the better, in my view. But at the same time, they don't have to do that. They can negotiate a local agreement with their employer.
I wouldn't want to leave the impression with anyone that the sectoral agreement is imposing something that would be unwanted or undesirable at the local level.
Mr Murphy: Comment on the amendment moved by the Progressive Conservatives: I've got a package of stuff now recently provided to me, up to about 30 amendments showing the unworkability of the bill.
The question I have is, if the mover is still here with the Conservatives, that I have some difficulty understanding the provision related to having regard to the compensation of employees in the sense of how it impacts upon percentages applying to sectors and within sectors.
Specifically, I met, for example, today with members of a foundation within my riding that provided provincial funding of about two thirds of its total funding. Most of the people within the organization earn less than $30,000 because of the nature of the organization. What I don't understand is how this would apply to them. Does "having regard to" that compensation mean that this foundation would not have to implement any reductions at all? While I understand the spirit of trying to make amendments to recognize these difficulties, I'm not sure this is going to achieve it and reflects, I think, some of the unworkability of the bill.
I was thinking, for example, as well of workers in the day care sector, who are recognized to be among the lowest-paid groups of people providing service to our society. I'm wondering too, for example, in that aspect, would that mean the day care part of the broader public service has to face a lesser reduction in the transfer from the provincial government because of the wording of this amendment? "Having regard to" is a very difficult and imprecise phrase, and I think it's not a workable way to achieve what I think is trying to be achieved.
Mr Cousens: It's an opinion and I respect the fact that it is an opinion, but what we're really looking at is that there has to be some control, there has to be some equity right across the board. We believe this will bring equity among all the sectors so that there isn't going to be any sector that's going to be differently treated -- that's the key to it -- and that the reduced expenditure will be equal in percentage terms.
That's really where we're coming from, and as you consider your views, I think it's exciting that you're finally participating in the debate. It's just too bad that -- I know where you're coming from. You haven't supported any amendments so far. It's probably your intention not to support any right now. I think we've had enough debate on it. I'd suggest we get on, vote on it and get to the next one.
Mr Murphy: I'm a little concerned that activities I'm engaged in are causing the member to be excited, but I don't think I heard in that an answer to the question I posed to the mover related to how they envision that working in terms of -- for example, it says the expenditure reduction would be equal within a sector, but having regard to that compensation.
I'm wondering whether that means that where a sector under paragraph 3 of subsection 11(3) primarily has employees earning less than $30,000, that sector would not have to achieve expenditure targets, or would it then have to, none the less, achieve them despite that fact?
1700
Mr Cousens: You've missed the point. If you will look at the amendment, sections 25 to 32 are removed. We bring in a number of other amendments where this will then fit into it.
Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a comment to the Minister of Finance. In the interest of accommodation, I think it would be helpful if the Minister of Finance would recognize the fact that there are different times, and to allude back to things that happened in our government is really not helpful. Looking around, until very recently you were the only member of the Legislature when the 1985 accord was entered into. I remember that at the time, a lot of negotiations went on. There were, I think, 18 points that had to be established, after which the support of the NDP would be given to the Liberals. I don't recall one single point that said, "We will only support you if you reduce the health care costs." I don't think that was on the table. I don't remember that being part of the accord. As a matter of fact, I don't remember one single item that came up for discussion in which it was suggested that something should be cut back. If anything, almost every one of the provisions, in order to get the support of the NDP for the change of government, was that there would be certain things expanded; certain policies would be expanded to include people who were not at that particular time accommodated.
The other thing is that -- I'm not being critical; I just want to put it into perspective -- in the 1990-91 budget, there was a totally different approach to what you're doing now. Again, different times call for different approaches. You have done a total 180-degree reversal from the statements that you can read in the preamble to your budget of 1990-91, in which you stated that you were not prepared to fight the recession on the backs of the workers and that you were not going to address the deficit and all of those things.
Again, Mr Minister of Finance, I'm not being critical. All I'm saying is that different times require different solutions, and it is not helpful to have you and members of your government constantly trying to portray that you now have all of the answers, you've always had all of the answers, and that if only previous governments had had the same wisdom that you now have, we wouldn't be in this situation. I'm only suggesting that we are all part of the problem and we all have to be part of the solution. I think it would be helpful if we laid aside that particular rhetoric and dealt with the problem that everybody acknowledges is a problem and is something that we have to address.
The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the Minister of Finance have a reply?
Hon Mr Laughren: On this particular section of the bill to which the member for Wilson Heights refers, I did try to say in my response to the member for Simcoe West that the health care costs went up at a certain rate of increase during the 1980s which was unsustainable. I think the member for Wilson Heights would agree with that. I wasn't blaming the Liberals for that when I said it. I said those were different times. There were revenues coming in that were natural increases in the growth in the economy that made all sorts of things possible. The rate of inflation was higher in the 1980s; I acknowledged that.
My only point to the member for Simcoe West was that the rate of increase was not sustainable in the 1990s and that we had to take action, and if that meant the health care sector had to be part of the restraint exercise, then so be it, that's the way it had to be. It wasn't meant to be a slam at the free-spending habits of the Liberals in the 1980s.
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Over the course of the last couple of months, as we've been looking at the proposals of the government in the area of this social contract legislation and also the response from the third party, I've had occasion to chide the third party for its position or lack thereof. When I saw the package of amendments that was put forward, I started to understand why they're having some difficulty opposing the legislation. It's obvious that the third party at this point just hasn't understood that this legislation is so bad that it can't be amended.
I'd like to point out why the amendment that is before us doesn't fix the legislation, from my reading, and ask the Minister of Finance if my analysis of what this amendment would do is an accurate one. I'm not attempting at this point to be overly partisan or engage in rhetoric. What I'm looking at is a proposal that I believe is fundamentally flawed and is not going to achieve the purpose the government has established for itself. I don't believe the amendment that's before us is going to achieve that goal either.
One of the concerns we've expressed in a piece of legislation that intrudes in a centralized way into that which we believe can only be resolved locally is the fact that every municipality, college, university, school board and hospital is functioning in a relatively different environment. We also know that there are some of those transfer partners -- and we refer to them as "transfer partners" because of their relationship with the provincial government. They are the employers of those over 800,000 workers who are not in the direct employ of the provincial government but are still considered part of the broader public sector.
Some of those employers have negotiated wage freezes and days off without pay already. It's my view that this amendment would be very unfair and hamper the flexibility that would be required to make sure that where you've had employers already take that kind of action -- a change to this bill that said it has to be the same within the sector and between the sectors will not allow an acknowledgement of that which has taken place already.
As I ask the question, I see the Treasurer is prepared to respond. My concern is that the legislation as it stands now isn't flexible enough to be able to respond to that reality. I think the amendment that's been put forward here further ties the hands of those managers and employers locally who require that kind of flexibility and could, in my opinion, do so in a local collective bargaining environment if they had a very clear and established number from the Treasurer and perhaps a framework agreement of how the Treasurer had dealt with his own employees, both unionized and non-unionized, to achieve his own suggested target.
I'd like his response to my concern that what this amendment does is reduce the amount of flexibility for local solutions to be found.
Hon Mr Laughren: I agree with the member for Oriole that the bill as it now stands is better than what the amendment would make it. I don't think that will convince the member for Oriole to support it, so I don't know why I should bother entertaining the rest of her comments.
Mr Jim Wilson: Given that I and the member for Markham raised a number of points and that the member for Markham moved this motion, I just want to indicate, also given the time constraints, that we perhaps should move to a vote on this PC amendment.
1710
Mrs Caplan: I have some real concerns about the discussion around this amendment and others, because I think this amendment suggests that it's going to do something which it simply can't and will not do.
Mr Stockwell: In your opinion.
Mrs Caplan: In my opinion, and I'm expressing my view at this point in time because this is the opportunity that we have, an opportunity to debate not only the bill but the amendments to it, which the third party is purporting will fix this bill.
The concern that I have, and I've said clearly and I understand the Minister of Finance's sensitivity about the fact that I don't think his bill will do it, but the point I'm making is this amendment won't make it better. This amendment in fact will make it worse because it will restrict whatever flexibility the existing legislation, as it stands now, might afford and provide to employers.
What I would like him to speak to is, does he feel that this amendment is more restrictive than the existing legislation out there for managers and employers in the broader public sector?
Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, I didn't mean to be so dismissive in my previous comment, but I do believe that the amendment put by the member for Markham is unduly restrictive, does not allow flexibility, does not recognize the differences in the various sectors. I think that for those reasons I would not support the amendment put forth by the member for Markham.
Mrs Caplan: I appreciate the clarification from the Minister of Finance because this amendment that's being put forward by the third party, the Progressive Conservative Party, is suggesting that it will make this legislation more flexible and fairer when in fact a reading of this amendment suggests to me and to others in this House that it will do exactly the opposite. It's the reason I don't believe this legislation can be fixed, but more than that, this amendment will not fix it.
I've heard some, shall I say, interjections by some honourable members in this House about what would we do instead, and I would like to take this opportunity, because we're looking at the first of a very significant package of amendments to attempt to fix a bill which I don't believe is fixable, and so if I could, while I'm on my feet and while I have the floor, I would like to put forward to the Minister of Finance another option which I think he could consider instead --
Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: We are now doing amendments clause by clause. The honourable member for Oriole, I would just have to suggest to you that we are now going seriatim through the bill. It would not be the time to go off that particular section.
The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Oriole, do you have some rapid remarks?
Mrs Caplan: I will be brief. I do believe that rather than attempting to amend a bill which is so fundamentally flawed as to be unfixable, I think the Minister of Finance could withdraw this legislation. He could very clearly say to his own employees, who are in the excluded group, "This is how we are going to achieve expenditure reduction."
Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Not more than half an hour ago, we had a subamendment ruled out of order because it wasn't in by 4 o'clock. We have a raft of amendments to go through, and I'm not being critical of the Liberal Party but they offered not one -- let me finish, please --
The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Mr Stockwell: I'm not finished, Mr Chair. They've offered not one written amendment. I hardly think it's in order or appropriate for the member for Oriole to start outlining the Liberal position on this bill when they offered no amendments at all.
The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Oriole, we're working on an amendment to section 7 of the bill. Please address that amendment or we will vote.
Mrs Caplan: I think the comments from the member for Etobicoke West speak to exactly why I'm making the point that I'm making, and that is that the amendment to section 7 of the bill, as put forward, is not going to fix the bill. The proposals that we have put forward and that I'm putting forward instead of this amendment --
The Second Deputy Chair: We are not in a position to accept proposals or subamendments.
Mrs Caplan: I'm not putting forward a specific amendment to this bill because this bill is not amendable. I am suggesting to the Treasurer and to the Minister of Finance what he could do instead of this and saying to my friends from the third --
The Second Deputy Chair: On section 7.
Mrs Caplan: Yes, I am. Rather than section 7, what he could do is establish clear expenditure targets, announce how he is going to deal with that for his own employees, negotiate a framework agreement with his union and then begin that implementation. Then that, as a model agreement, could solve the problem that section 7 of this bill will not be fixed by this amendment that's been put.
The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you. We are now ready to vote on the amendment.
Interjections.
The Second Deputy Chair: Order, please. We are moving to vote on the amendment to section 7. Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment carry?
All those in favour please say "aye."
All those opposed please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
This amendment will be stacked till 5:45.
Shall sections 8 through 10 carry, as originally submitted? Agreed? No.
All those in favour of sections 8 through 10 please say "aye."
All those opposed, please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
Sections 8 through 10, carried.
We now move to an amendment to subsection (11), moved by Mr Cousens.
Mr Cousens: I move that subsection 11(3) of the bill be amended by deleting the words "in the opinion of the minister."
I know that there are a number of members, my colleagues from our caucus, who did want to comment on this, and I did put a few points on the record yesterday, but the bill gives extensive powers to the Minister of Finance in ruling on: What is the plan? Who is in the plan? What is the sectoral framework? What sectoral framework will be considered? By taking out "in the opinion of the minister," it removes this business where there's a non-technical, non-scientific approach.
I realize that the honourable minister probably has a good opinion on some things, but I just don't want to leave it to his discretion and his determination or the guidance of others who might be around him, to make up his mind in ways that are not consistent with what has been absolutely confirmed within the bill. This is one of those limiting acts on the minister that would just cause him to be accountable to the legislation, and in that sense it would mean that he does not have the absolute, complete freedom that the bill now gives.
I don't know of another instance in Ontario law where you'll come along and you'll see that kind of power given to a minister. It now reads, "The minister shall not designate a plan as a sectoral framework, unless in the opinion of the minister, the plan meets the following criteria," and it goes down and it delineates what those criteria are, as it has to do with who is in it, what the plan is, what the support is for the plan, what the provisions are in it, the different classes. So there are a number of things around it.
It is a powerful, powerful clause that we would just say, may the minister let his wings be a little clipped by having that removed from it. We would feel much better to see "in the opinion of the minister" removed from that section.
Hon Mr Laughren: We also have an amendment to this section, but I'll deal with the amendment put forth by the member for Markham first.
At some point someone has to exercise some judgement in this regard. If there's going to be a sectoral agreement, because it is such a powerful incentive and because there's a lot of dollars involved if the sectoral agreements are achieved, to allow lower expenditure reduction targets and to then allow the local agreements to kick in with those lower targets, it's important that there be the opportunity for some judgement to be exercised as to when there should be a sectoral agreement.
1720
If I could move to the Conservative amendment that deals with 50% of employers and 50% of employees being a requirement for a sectoral agreement, that one bothers me a great deal because I can think of a case where in a particular sector you could have one or two large employers with perhaps 60% of the employees represented, and you could have an agreement with them, which would be more than 50% of employees but it would be less than 50% of the employers. I think it would be unfair to that sector and to the employees who work in it at the local level, in particular, to not be able to take advantage of a sectoral agreement by people who represented more than 50% of the employees.
I hope that's not too convoluted an explanation, but for that reason I would reject the Conservative amendment, not because I think it's an attempt to undermine anything in the bill -- I think it's a well-intentioned amendment -- but for those reasons I would caution against supporting it, because I think it could rule out the recognition of a sectoral agreement when 60% or 70% of the employees in that sector will be able to take advantage of it even though fewer than 50% of employers employed that very large percentage of employees. For that reason, I would not accept this amendment.
Mr Cousens: In response to that, we have another amendment that does go and put the definitions on how many would be allowed to, if you were to look at the sector, that 50% would be required to participate, so we come in future amendments on it. I apologize that when I made my introductory comments I didn't draw that to your attention and remind you of it, but that is the plan. We've moved further in other sections of the bill that would do that.
Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I understand where the mover is coming from on this and I have a great deal of sympathy for the point he's making, but unfortunately, I don't think the motion, even if passed, would be effective. Even if the words "in the opinion of the minister" were not there in black and white, they would be implicitly.
The bottom line is that I think everyone recognizes that economics is hardly a science. Perhaps the method by which we gather the information could be deemed to be a science, but at some point somebody has to interpret the information and make some kind of a judgement. The minister would at some point, obviously, have to be offering his opinion, and whether or not we have those words in there, implicity they are and the minister will be offering his opinion.
Hon Mr Laughren: I think he's responding to the amendment put by the member for Markham rather than what's in the bill.
Mrs Caplan: The amendment that's put forward to subsection 11(3), while I think it's well intended, will not fix this bill. The reason I say that is that this bill is an intrusion into collective bargaining in the province of Ontario unlike what we have ever seen in the past. I predict that as a result of Bill 48, collective bargaining in Ontario will be for ever changed. The powers of the minister will not be diminished simply by deleting the words "in the opinion of the minister."
I believe as well that just by deleting those few words you will not restore a climate of good faith for bargaining. I believe this bill eliminates an environment of good faith and goodwill. In fact, I think Bill 48 will breed an environment of not only bad faith, but of tensions which could be avoided if we opted for local solutions rather than impose central command and control kinds of solutions.
The concern I have with this amendment is that it's a very simplistic response to an area of intrusionary powers of a Minister of Finance into all aspects of collective bargaining in the province which not only is unheard of in the province of Ontario, but simply removing those words, "in the opinion of the minister" in subsection 11(3), as well intended as they are, will not fix the fundamental flaw in this legislation.
I think the Minister of Finance said it very clearly in his response to this proposal, and while I'm very sympathetic to what the member for Markham is attempting to do in moving this, I hope he'll agree with me that when you look at this, this does not fix the bill. It still gives the Minister of Finance huge and enormous intrusionary powers. Again, I believe the alternative to this kind of intrusion of the Minister of Finance would be to see him withdraw this bill and allow for local solutions through good-faith collective bargaining among the employers and the employees who are part of the broader public sector.
Hon Mr Laughren: I would disagree with the member for Oriole on a couple of points. One, I don't think it's a simplistic amendment. I think it's designed to make sure that the powers of the minister, the judgement of the minister of the day is curtailed and restrained by the bill, so it's not wide open for judgement. That's correct. I understand that. I think that's a natural inclination by opposition. I can recall in another life engaging in similar debates and I remember the reception I got from the other side of the House in those days.
I would say to the member for Oriole, though, that I don't know why members of the official opposition talk about centrally imposed sectoral agreements, if those were her words. These are not imposed sectoral agreements; they are agreements reached through bargaining with the employees, employers and the government. That's not centrally imposed. They don't have to sign sectoral agreements. There is an incentive to do so, but even if there's a sectoral agreement arrived at, there's nothing that compels locals to sign on to that sectoral agreement.
It's not imposed on anybody, and to say we should just withdraw the bill is to somehow ignore the enormity of the problem we have, called $2 billion, and to say it's going to be achieved through simply the traditional way in which collective bargaining goes on, ignores what's gone on for the last couple of months.
There's nothing I would like more than on August 1 to have all eight sectoral agreements in place voluntarily signed and agreed to by the various sectors and the representatives from employers, employees and the government, so that you would have voluntary agreements all across the province in all eight sectors so the fail-safe wouldn't apply. I understand that, nothing would make me happier, but I think to assume or to pretend, even, that would be the case if we withdrew the bill, simply flies in the face of reality and what's gone on in the last several months.
One of the members of the third party was commenting on the fact that if it's an NDP government bringing in this bill, it must be a serious problem that we're facing. I think that's fair comment, for this government to be bringing in this kind of bill. I acknowledge that. It's extremely difficult for us to be proceeding with this kind of bill, but I can tell you that in my view the principles this bill overrides are overridden themselves by the principles that are maintained, ie, protection of vulnerable people all across the province by the continued provision of essential services to people who are the most vulnerable, and to the protection of jobs in the public sector.
We could withdraw this bill and take $2 billion out of transfers to everyone out there in the province, reduce services accordingly all across the province. That would mean fewer jobs in the public sector: 20,000, 30,000, maybe 40,000 fewer jobs. That would mean some very vulnerable people who need the services out there would not get them because of the reduction in services. For members to pretend that we could just withdraw the bill and the problem will go away and it'll all be resolved, really is not dealing with it in a very fair and upfront way, because there's no reason to believe that that would be the case.
1730
Mr Cousens: Just to close it off so that we can deal with the other amendments, I in part agree with the concern expressed by the member for Oriole that it is a tragically flawed piece of legislation. I don't think there's any doubt that it's going to lead to problems along the way, and I don't doubt that the government may well withdraw this before two years are up; maybe it can if the economy improves and other things come to life.
Notwithstanding that, we're living in a situation where we in Ontario have a problem, and in opposition we can continue to criticize all we want, but if we can help with the solution, as painful as it is, our caucus is determined to work with the government to try to find ways of improving this legislation. We have over 25 amendments now that we have tabled, and this is part of those amendments.
Undoubtedly, you're no different from anyone else, where it's all piled up on our desks today and you haven't had time to read it, but I put them into Hansard yesterday. We have done a number of things with this bill that will give it long-term benefit, that will cause the minister to be very restricted in some of his activities, because we can put into the bill technical data that force the minister to act in a certain way. We've called for a review of government programs and services. We've called for a different approach rather than the 12 days off, which is just going to have a surge on other costs.
So there are many elements to our amendments. This fits into it in part; it is just one small part to the overall perspective that we have. If possible, we'd like to see this amendment voted on and proceed with the others, because we're losing time.
Mr Phillips: It is an important amendment, and I just want to reply to something the Minister of Finance said, that this is always the risk with government. I realize we face a very tough financial situation. I realize that we have to deal with it; there is no question of that. But I'd just say to you that for literally decades ahead, Minister, your words will be used when people say, "Back in 1993 they had a fiscal problem and that overrode some very basic rights."
In this particular case, Minister, you and you alone will finally designate whether a sectoral agreement is a sectoral agreement, you and you alone have the $400-million incentive, or hammer, and you and you alone can determine whether or not there is that consensus.
It is an important part of the bill, and that's why we have so much difficulty with this bill. I won't go over the option we had before. It's clear the three parties have a difference of opinion. The government believes this is a good bill, the third party believes that with amendments it can be a good bill, and we believe it's a fundamentally flawed bill.
I happen to believe that tomorrow the Conservatives and the Liberals will vote against the bill. I hope some of the NDP caucus has a chance to really think about it. I hope they might also vote against the bill.
The amendment by the Conservatives, by the way, without the minister having the discretion for the bill -- there's no other way for the sectoral agreements, I gather, to be approved. We have a fundamental agreement with the sectoral agreements, but if this amendment passes there is no other part of the bill where a sectoral agreement could be approved. I don't have any difficulty in voting against the amendment, with the backdrop that we fundamentally believe this bill is a bad piece of legislation. To repeat ourselves, we'll be voting against it. If we were to support this amendment, no sectoral agreements could ever be approved, I gather.
Hon Mr Laughren: I get the sense that members would like to vote on the amendment put by the member for Markham, and then I have an amendment to subsection 11(3) and perhaps I could make some more general remarks at that time.
The Chair: Further questions or comments on the amendment to subsection 11(3) of the bill?
Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps we might deal with his amendment first, because I have an amendment to subsection 11(3). It's up to you.
The Chair: Shall the amendment to subsection 11(3) of the bill carry?
Hon Mr Laughren: I'm sorry. Are we voting on the amendment put by the member for Markham?
Mr Cousens: Yes.
Hon Mr Laughren: All right, then we are voting against that.
The Chair: All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Therefore, we will stack the vote.
Mr Cousens, you have another amendment.
Mr Stockwell: It's the government amendment to 11(3).
The Chair: No, it's the Progressive Conservative motion.
Mr Cousens: Mr Chairman, the order has got reversed. The next amendment on section 11 is the government amendment.
Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Chairman, I have an amendment to paragraph 11(3)3.
The Chair: We've just noticed here that the motion presented by the Progressive Conservative is the first one to go. That's the first one we must debate. The reason for this, if you look under section 11, is that your amendment, Mr Cousens, is paragraph 11(3)1 of the bill. The one presented by the minister is paragraphs 3 and 5. Therefore, you are the first one.
Mr Cousens: We've dealt with mine. That's what we just voted on. So the next one now is the minister's.
The Chair: No, we voted on something else.
Mr Cousens: I apologize. I move that the bill be amended by striking out paragraph 1 of subsection 11(3) and substituting the following:
"1. The plan is supported by fifty per cent of the employers who among them employ at least fifty per cent of the employees in the sector for which the plan is to be designated as the sectoral framework."
I referred to this in the earlier amendment and this is consequent to it; that is, by having first of all limited the powers of the minister, if we'd been able to remove "in his opinion," then this would have been a way of ensuring what a sectoral framework would have been.
None the less, even although he has his opinions and that amendment didn't carry, this amendment is still valid, because what we would then call for is that before the minister can have an opinion that may not be based on numbers that are meaningful or realistic -- and this is almost in the intent that the minister gave in answer to my question, a week ago today almost, in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. I asked him the very question that led to this amendment: "What freedom then do you have to do what you want when you want?" You gave back an answer that showed good intent, that you would only do it if a majority of those who are part of that sector were going to be in favour of it. What I've done is to take that intention that you expressed at that time and put it into these words. It means that by the bill itself you're limiting what you will do and can do.
Hon Mr Laughren: I probably inappropriately in addressing the previous amendment addressed this one in anticipation, in great anticipation of this one, and commented that the 50% rule that's in this amendment would be I think wrong if you had a couple of large employers in this sector representing over 50% of the employees but not 50% of the employers.
Therefore, you'd be saying to that whole sector and all the employees in it, "Even though more than 50% of you employees want this sectoral agreement because of reduced targets and so forth, you can't have it because there are not 50% of the employers who have signed on to the sectoral agreement." I think that would be not in the best interests of anyone. You'd save the government money, I suppose, but that's not the purpose. The purpose was to encourage the voluntary agreements before August 1 by offering incentives.
1740
For those reasons, I really think it would not accomplish what even -- I don't want to assume what he would think -- he would like to see, namely, that a sectoral agreement could be hamstrung completely because of a small number of people holding it up, despite the fact that more than 50% of the employees were represented and had signed on to the agreement.
Mr Cousens: But that really is the point, and indeed what we really are saying is that if the minister is going to make a determination about a sectoral agreement, the minister have at least as a minimal guideline that there be 50% of that sector in agreement.
If the minister wanted to play politics on this, and I don't think he is today, but there would be days that he might, if he just wanted to say, "Look, we're moving in a progressive way towards a resolution within that sector," he could decide, "Well, roughly 25% or some municipalities are coming into it. Hey, I just think I'll move with it."
I'm really just trying to give it a clear idea of when you are making progress towards a sectoral agreement. In that sense, it shouldn't limit any successes anywhere. It really has a way of saying that you've got a minimal line to cross to say that you're beginning to have some success at all.
Mr Stockwell: I just want to add to that. It seems to me very clear in the democratic process we're engaged in here, regardless of the size of the employers or the employees, that if you can't, through a sectoral agreement, guarantee yourself 50% support within that sector, then I doubt very much that the plan can be adopted and designated as a sectoral framework. Now, I don't know who would argue against that.
This is very clear. It says, "The plan is supported by fifty per cent of the employers who among them employ at least fifty per cent of the employees in the sector for which the plan is to be designated as the sectoral framework."
The thrust of this is clear. If the minister is going to designate a sectoral framework, there's only one precursor, there's only one condition, and that condition is what every democratic person, every fairminded individual would hope would be there, that the majority approve of it, and if they don't, I would hate to think the minister is going to designate sectoral frameworks when the majority don't agree.
Hon Mr Laughren: I'm concerned about the amendment as put by the third party. It reads that in order for it to be a sectoral agreement, "The plan is supported by fifty per cent of the employers" -- employers. No mention of employees at all.
Mr Cousens: It does. In the next line. Keep going.
Hon Mr Laughren: -- "who among them employ at least fifty per cent of the employees in the sector." It doesn't say that the plan is supported by the employees; it just says "employers." I think that would be inappropriate.
But if I could go one step further, if it was supported by less than 50% of the employers and you had sign-on by the employees and those employers represented 80% of the employees, this would rule it an invalid sectoral agreement because you didn't have 50% of the employers, because there might be a large number of small employers, so you wouldn't be able to recognize that agreement as legitimate because you didn't have 50% of the employers. I don't think that's what the member would want.
Mr Stockwell: To entertain the first point with respect to employees, it goes on to say in the amendment "who among them employ at least fifty per cent of the employees." Mr Finance Minister, as I understand your legislation, it says that it can't come before you and be designated as a sectoral framework unless they have agreement. By its very nature it's before you because 50% of the employers who equal 50% of the employees have an agreement.
That argument you made is a red herring. It's not before you unless they have 50% of the employees that they've got an agreement with, and that's the only reason it's before you, to designate it as a sectoral agreement. So that makes your first argument a red herring.
The second point is, you said there could be small groups. Well, of course. What is this doing? This whole piece of legislation and what you're trying to do here is to ensure fairness and protection of smaller work areas. It would seem to me, Mr Finance Minister, that if you're trying to be fair --
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I didn't quite understand that. Explain that one again.
Mr Stockwell: Tony didn't understand it, but I hope you did, so I'll carry on. You can explain it to him later.
What I think would be fair is that no matter how small you are, you've got to live within the framework of your legislation.
The Chair: Order. Your time is up. Sorry.
It is now 5:45, and according to the terms of the order of the House dated July 5, 1993, all remaining amendments are deemed to have been moved. I shall now put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections and amendments.
Shall Mr Cousens's amendment to subsection 11(3) carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
Shall the amendment to subsection 11(3) proposed by the government carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
Shall the amendment to subsection 11(3) carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
Mr Cousens: Mr Chairman, just to be clear, that motion you're referring to, is that paragraph 5 of the bill you're referring to?
The Chair: Subsection 11(3), paragraph 3.
Mr Cousens: Well, there are several on 11(3). I just wanted to be clear as to which one it is you're referring to. Maybe it would be best if we read each of them in as we go along.
The Chair: Mr Cousens moves that:
"For purposes of clarity, an employee who is temporarily or permanently laid off in accordance with the provisions of a collective agreement or in accordance with employer policy or practice shall be deemed not to be adversely affected."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with Mr Cousens's amendment to subsection 11(3), paragraph 5, and it reads as follows:
"I move that the bill be amended by striking out paragraph 5 of subsection 11(3)."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with Mr Cousens's amendment to subsection 11(4), which reads as follows:
"I move that the bill be amended by striking out subsection 11(4)."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
1750
We're dealing with section 12 and the Progressive Conservative amendment.
Hon Mr Laughren: On a point of order, if I might, Mr Chair: The government had an amendment to 11(3), which was tabled.
The Chair: Yes, I did mention it, 11(3)5.
Hon Mr Laughren: You've done it? Okay.
The Chair: Yes, it's been deferred.
We'll now deal with section 12. The amendment from the Conservatives on section 12 is out of order.
Mr Cousens: Are you saying that the motion about striking out section 12 is out of order?
The Chair: That's correct.
Shall section 12 carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
Section 13, amendment brought in by the Conservatives to section 13(6):
"Notwithstanding 13(5), where there is a sectoral framework that relates to the sector of the employer and where in the opinion of the minister the employer has made all reasonable efforts to enter into a local agreement with one or more bargaining agent(s), the minister shall designate the sectoral framework as the local agreement(s) between the employer and the bargaining agent(s)."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We're now dealing with section 14, an amendment brought by the Progressive Conservatives, subsection 14(2), paragraph 2, which reads as follows:
"For purposes of clarity an employee who is temporarily or permanently laid off in accordance with the provisions of a collective agreement or in accordance with employer policy or practice shall be deemed not to be adversely affected."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with the government amendment to subsection 14(2), paragraphs 2 and 4, which reads:
"The agreement will not adversely affect employees who earn less than $30,000 annually, excluding overtime pay.
"The agreement will be fair and equitable in its application to all employees."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with the government amendment to subsection 15(2).
Interjections.
The Chair: Order, please.
"Conflict with collective agreement
"The provisions of a local agreement prevail over the provisions of a collective agreement."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with section 16, Conservative amendment to subsection 16(3), paragraph 2:
"For purposes of clarity an employee who is temporarily or permanently laid off in accordance with the provisions of a collective agreement or in accordance with employer policy or practice shall be deemed not to be adversely affected."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with a government amendment to subsection 16(3), paragraphs 2 and 4:
"The plan will not adversely affect employees who earn less than $30,000 annually, excluding overtime pay.
"The plan established under subsection (1) will be fair and equitable in its application to all employees."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
Shall sections 17 through 21 carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The motion is carried.
We'll now deal with section 22, government motion, amendment to subsections 22(2) and (4):
"Actions of an employer taken in accordance with a non-bargaining unit plan shall not be the subject of any proceeding brought by any person against an employer.
"Subsections (2) and (3)" --
Mrs Caplan: What's fair about that, Floyd? Take away their rights. Wipe out individual rights.
The Chair: Order, please -- "apply only if the actions taken by the employer would have been authorized under section 24, 25 or 26 if part VII applied to the employer's non-bargaining unit employees."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with the government amendment to subsection 23(2):
"This part does not apply to employees who earn less than $30,000 annually, excluding overtime pay."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We now deal with the Progressive Conservatives' amendment to subsection 23(2):
"That the bill be amended by striking out subsection 23(2)."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We now deal with the Progressive Conservatives' amendment, subsection 23(3):
"Nothing in this part prevents an employer from laying off either permanently or temporarily an employee described in subsection 23(2)."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We will now deal with section 24, an amendment brought by the government to subsection 24(4):
"An increase in compensation after June 14, 1993" --
Hon Mr Laughren: Dispense.
The Chair: Dispense?
Mr Stockwell: Read it in.
The Chair: "An increase in compensation after June 14, 1993 under a collective agreement existing on that date is void.
"Despite subsection (4), a bargaining agent, by written notice to the employer, may elect to preserve increases in compensation provided for in a collective agreement existing on June 14, 1993, other than compensation described in clause (2)(a), (b) or (c).
"The notice of the election must be delivered to the employer not later than when the bargaining agent gives notice to the employer to bargain a renewal or new collective agreement which may extend beyond March 31, 1996.
"If an election is made under subsection (4.1),
"any increase in compensation shall be deferred until the third anniversary following the day on which it would have occurred under the collective agreement; and
"no increase in compensation, other than those preserved by the election, shall be given before the third anniversary following the day the collective agreement expires, or, if the collective agreement has been extended under section 33.1, before the third anniversary of the day it would have expired had it not been extended.
"An employee is not entitled to any increases in compensation after March 31, 1996, by way of,
"merit increases;
"cost-of-living increases or other similar movement of or through ranges; or
"increases resulting from any movements on any pay scale or other grid system, except as prescribed by regulation,
"in respect of employment during the period beginning June 14, 1993, and ending March 31, 1996."
1800
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We will now deal with the government amendment to subsection 24(6):
"(6) Despite subsection (1), if employees are represented by a bargaining agent that,
"(a) was certified or recognized as the employees' bargaining agent before June 14, 1993; or
"(b) applied for certification as the employees' bargaining agent before June 14, 1993,
"and a first collective agreement comes into force on or after June 14, 1993, the rate of compensation of an employee to whom the first collective agreement applies is, for the period beginning on the day the first collective agreement comes into force and ending with March 31, 1996, fixed at the rate first payable under the first collective agreement."
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We now deal with the Progressive Conservative amendment to section 24.
"24(1) Subject to subsection (4) the rate of compensation of an employee who on August 1, 1993, is bound by a collective agreement is, for a period of three years beginning on the first anniversary of the agreement falling on or after August 1, 1993, fixed at a rate 5% lower than the rate that was in effect immediately before that anniversary.
"(2) Subject to subsections (4) and (7), the rate of compensation of an employee who on August 1, 1993, is not bound by a collective agreement is, for a period of three years beginning August 1, 1993, fixed at a rate 5% lower than the rate that was in effect immediately before August 1, 1993.
"(3) An amount that is payable by the crown in right of Ontario or by the government of Ontario to an employer for compensation purposes shall be reduced by 5% on the first anniversary date of the collective agreement falling on or after August 1, 1993, in the case of employees subject to a collective agreement or on August 1, 1993, in the case of employees not bound by a collective agreement and shall be fixed at the reduced level for a period of three years from that date.
"(4) During the three-year period established by subsections (1) and (2) employers and employees may apply any wage savings realized as a result of improvements in productivity and the elimination of waste and inefficiency to financing compensation increases with the amount and distribution of the increase to be negotiated by the employers and the employees.
"(5) Nothing in this section prevents increases in compensation as a result of a promotion or acting promotion of an employee to a different position.
"(6) If a collective agreement existing on August 1, 1993, provides for increases in compensation after that date, those increases are cancelled.
"(7) If a collective agreement has expired before August 1, 1993, and on that date the employees that were formerly bound by it are without a collective agreement, the compensation of these employees is fixed at 5% less than the amount they were receiving under the last collective agreement in force before August 1, 1993.
"(8) If employees are represented by a bargaining agent and a first collective agreement has not been concluded before August 1, 1993, the compensation of those employees is fixed at an amount 5% less than the amount they were receiving immediately before August 1, 1993."
Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We are now dealing with a government amendment to subsection 24(4).
Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I may have my numbers a little out. Will you be dealing with our alternate amendments, since that other one didn't carry? Maybe you can just clarify.
The Chair: Sorry. We are dealing with the Conservatives' amendment to section 24.
"24(1) The rate of compensation of an employee who on August 1, 1993, is bound by a collective agreement is, for a period of three years beginning on the first anniversary of the commencement of the agreement falling on or after August 1, 1993, fixed at the rate that was in effect immediately before that anniversary.
"(2) Subject to subsection (6), the rate of compensation of an employee who on August 1, 1993, is not bound by a collective agreement is, for a period of three years beginning August 1, 1993, fixed at the rate that was in effect immediately before August 1, 1993.
"(3) For greater certainty, 'compensation' in this section includes,
"(a) merit increases;
"(b) cost-of-living increases or other similar movement of or through ranges; and
"(c) increases resulting from any movements on any pay scale or other grid system.
"(4) Nothing in this section prevents increases in compensation as a result of a promotion or acting promotion of an employee to a different position.
"(5) If a collective agreement existing on August 1, 1993, provides for increases in compensation after that date, those increases are suspended.
"(6) If a collective agreement has expired before August 1, 1993, and on that date the employees that were formerly bound by it are without a collective agreement, the compensation of those employees is fixed at the amount they were receiving under the last collective agreement in force before August 1, 1993.
"(7) If employees are represented by a bargaining agent and a first collective agreement has not been concluded before August 1, 1993, the compensation of those employees is fixed at the amount they were receiving immediately before August 1, 1993.
"(8) The compensation of an employee who starts employment after August 1, 1993 is fixed at the starting amount until July 31, 1996."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
1810
We're now dealing with a Progressive Conservative amendment to section 24 of the bill.
"The rate of compensation of an employee is, for the period beginning August 1, 1993, and ending with July 31, 1996, fixed at the rate that was in effect immediately before August 1, 1994.
"For greater certainty, 'compensation' in this section includes,
"merit increases;
"cost-of-living increases or other similar movement of or through ranges; and
"increases resulting from any movement on any pay scale or other grid system.
"Nothing in this section prevents increases in compensation as a result of a promotion or acting promotion of an employee to a different position.
"If a collective agreement existing on August 1, 1993, provides for an increase in compensation after that date, those increases are cancelled.
"If a collective agreement has expired before August 1, 1993, and on that date the employees that were formerly bound by it are without a collective agreement, the compensation of these employees is fixed at the amount they were receiving under the last collective agreement in force before August 1, 1993.
"If employees are represented by a bargaining agent and a first collective agreement has not been concluded before August 1, 1993, the compensation of those employees is fixed at the amount they were receiving immediately before August 1, 1993.
"The compensation of an employee who starts employment after the date on which this bill receives royal assent is fixed at the starting amount until July 31, 1996."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with the Progressive Conservatives' amendment to sections 25 through 32 of the bill.
Hon Mr Laughren: Are we dealing with 24(4), Mr Chairman, if you are moving to Conservative motion 25?
The Chair: We dealt with subsections 24(4) and 24(6). Section 25 now. We're dealing with the Progressive Conservatives' amendment to sections 25 to 32.
"Subject to subsection (2), no employer shall, during the period of three years beginning on the date on which this act receives royal assent, employ any person who was not employed by the employer immediately before that date.
"An employer may employ a person described in subsection (1),
"if it is necessary for the employer to do so in order to comply with a provision of an act of the Legislature or the Parliament of Canada or a regulation made under such an act that requires the employer to employ a specified number of employees; or
"if the employer would not be able to provide an essential service unless the employer employed the person.
"Clause (2)(b) does not apply to allow an employer to employ a person unless the position in which the person would be employed is one that has been designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council or is one that is a member of a class of positions that has been so designated."
I wonder if you could keep your conversation low.
"In this section, 'essential service' means a service that is necessary to enable the employer to prevent,
"danger to life, health or safety;
"the destruction or serious deterioration of machinery, equipment or premises;
"serious environmental damage;
"disruption of the administration of the courts; or
"disruption of any publicly funded service."
I wonder if you could keep your conversations lower.
"A committee to be named the expenditure review committee in English and comité d'examen des dépenses in French is established.
"The committee shall be composed of three persons appointed by the Minister of Finance, one of whom shall be designated by the minister as chair of the committee.
"The minister shall not appoint any person who is a member of the Legislative Assembly or an employee of the crown.
"The appointments shall be made not later than September 1, 1993.
"If any member of the committee becomes unable to continue to serve on the committee, the Minister of Finance may appoint a substitute.
"The committee shall,
"conceive of a method of preventing administrative units of the government of Ontario that have their own budgets from attempting to spend to the limit of their budgets if such spending is not necessary to the performance of the tasks assigned to the units, particularly where such spending would occur near the end of a fiscal year;
"conceive of a method of protecting employees of government institutions from reprisal on the part of the institutions for having disclosed the existence of acts or omissions that constitute gross mismanagement or that cause a waste of money or other resources;
"conceive of a method of rewarding employees of government institutions who, individually or collectively, make recommendations that lead to a reduction of expenditures or a conservation of resources through the elimination of waste or an increase in the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of the operations of the institutions; and
"review all programs administered and services provided by the government of Ontario and identify any programs or services that should, having regard to the desirability of efficient and cost-effectiveness, be,
"eliminated,
"reduced in scope or scale, or
"transferred to the private sector.
"The committee shall submit a report to the Legislative Assembly,
"on the matters referred to in clause (6)(a), on or before December 31, 1993;
"on the matters referred to in clauses (6)(b) and (c), on or before March 31, 1994; and
"on the matters referred to in clause (6)(d), on or before March 31, 1995.
"In subsection (6), 'government institution' has the same meaning as 'institution' has in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We now deal with a Progressive Conservative amendment subsection 25(5).
Subsection 25(5) of the bill be amended by adding after the words "unpaid leaves of absence" in line two the words "provided no person is employed or assigned to replace the employee on unpaid leave" so that the subsection would now read:
"If a collective agreement provides for unpaid leaves of absence, provided no person is employed or assigned to replace the employee on unpaid leave, or other temporary lay-offs, the employer must utilize those provisions before requiring unpaid leaves under subsection (1)."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with a government amendment to subsection 25(5), which reads that subsection 25(5) of the bill be struck out.
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
I declare the motion carried.
Interjections.
The Chair: I did say the motion carried.
Interjections.
The Chair: All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
1820
We will deal with the government amendment to subsections 26(6) and (7).
"For the purpose of clause (5)(a), the employer shall make all reasonable efforts to accommodate an employee's request for compensating days off."
Interjection: Dispense.
The Chair: Dispense?
Mr Cousens: No. I don't seem to have it. What number is it again that you're reading in?
The Chair: Subsections 26(6) and (7).
Mr Cousens: I don't have that amendment. Was that in by 4 o'clock? No, I'm serious. It's not on my list.
Hon Mr Laughren: Last week.
Mr Cousens: That's why; the list isn't merged.
The Chair: Yes, it was in.
"Despite clause (5)(c), compensating days off may be converted to money for an employee who ceases to be employed by the employer."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We now deal with the government amendment to subsection 27(2), paragraph 2.
"Employees will not be required to take an unpaid leave of absence to the extent that it would result in their annual earnings, excluding overtime pay, being reduced to under $30,000."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
Shall sections 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The motion is carried.
We will now deal with section --
Mr Stockwell: You missed our five.
The Chair: Pardon me? There were not five; there were only two people standing up.
We are now dealing with section 32.1.
"An employee to whom a collective agreement applies may use the grievance or arbitration procedures under the collective agreement to decide any difference between the employee and his or her employer arising out of the interpretation, application, administration or alleged contravention of a program developed by the employer under this part.
"In a grievance or arbitration under subsection (1), the arbitrator or board of arbitration shall not make any decision that an adjudicator is entitled to make under subsection 31(2)."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We will deal with a Progressive Conservative amendment to subsections 33(3) and (4), that the bill be amended by striking out subsections 33(3) and (4).
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll deal with a government amendment to subsection 33(4):
"Actions of an employer taken in accordance with section 24, 25 or 26 shall not be the subject of any proceeding brought by any person against an employer."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with a government motion to subsection 33(5):
"An employee has no right to grieve under the Public Service Act or any other act or a collective agreement in respect of actions taken by his or her employer in accordance with section 24, 25 or 26."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with a government amendment to section 33.1:
"A bargaining agent may, by written notice to the employer of employees to whom this part applies, require that a collective agreement be extended to March 31, 1996, if the agreement was or is governed by an act that permits the employees to strike.
"The notice may be given before or after the collective agreement expires.
"The giving of the notice extends an existing collective agreement or, in the case of a collective agreement that has expired, revives and extends the expired agreement to March 31, 1996.
"This section applies despite subsections 33(1) and (2) and is subject to,
"regulations excluding from the application of this section collective agreement provisions respecting staffing levels or workplace restructuring; and
"subsections 24(4) to (5).
"This section is not limited to collective agreements that expire after June 14, 1993."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We're now dealing with a government amendment to sections 33.2 to 33.7:
"Despite subsection 11(2), the minister may" --
Interjection: Dispense.
The Chair: Dispense? Dispensed.
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with the Progressive Conservatives' amendment to section 34:
"The prescribed amount referred shall not in respect of any employer exceed the expenditure reduction target determined under section 7."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We now deal with the Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 35(1):
"The prescribed amount referred shall not in respect of any employer exceed the expenditure reduction target determined under section 7."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say 'aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
1830
We will now deal with the Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 36(1):
"An amount that is payable by the Ontario health insurance plan for an insured service rendered by a physician or practitioner or in or by a health facility may be reduced by the amount which the joint management committee determines is necessary to achieve a reduction in total OHIP fee payments equal in percentage terms to the compensation reductions in other sectors."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We're dealing with another Progressive Conservative amendment, to subsection 36(2) of the bill:
That the bill be amended by adding following the words "prescribed amount" the words "to a maximum of 5 per cent."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We're now dealing with the Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 36(3):
That the bill be amended by adding following the words "prescribed amount" the words "to a maximum of 5 per cent."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
Stacked vote.
We're now dealing with another Progressive Conservative amendment, to subsection 36(4) of the bill:
That the bill be amended by adding following the words "prescribed amount" the words "to a maximum of 5 per cent."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We're dealing with the Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 37(1):
"If a maximum amount payable by the Ontario health insurance plan in respect of services rendered by a physician, practitioner or health facility during a given time period has been established by agreement, the maximum may be reduced by an amount to be negotiated by the joint management committee but the amount of the reduction shall not exceed 5 per cent."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We're dealing with the Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 37(2):
That the bill be amended by adding following the words "the prescribed amount" the words "but shall not exceed 5 per cent."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
Shall section 38 carry? Carried.
We now deal with the government amendment to section 39:
That the bill be amended by striking out "35" in the second line and by inserting "the requirement to make a payment under section 35" after "37" in the same line."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We're now dealing with the Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 40(2):
That subsection 40(2) of the bill be amended by striking out the word "suspended" in line eight and substituting the words "null and void."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We're now dealing with a government motion to subsections 40(3) and (4):
"Despite subsection (1), an arbitration award or decision may increase the annual earnings of employees to a maximum of $30,000.
"Despite subsection (1), an arbitration award or decision may increase compensation to an employee to the extent required to redress any improper denial of a promotion or improper classification."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We're dealing with another government amendment, to subsection 40(4.1):
"(4.1) Subsection (1) does not apply to an arbitration award or decision that settles a first collective agreement applicable to employees represented by a bargaining agent that,
"(a) was certified or recognized as the employees' bargaining agent before June 14, 1993; or
"(b) applied for certification as the employee's bargaining agent before June 14, 1993."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We're now dealing with a Progressive Conservative motion, an amendment to clause 41(1)(e), that the bill be amended by striking out clause 41(1)(e) and substituting the following:
"(e) designating a position or class of positions for the purposes of subsection 25(3)."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
We're now dealing with a government motion, subsections 41(3), (5) and (6).
"(3) A regulation made under subsection (1) may be made retroactive to such date, not earlier than June 14, 1993, as is set out in the regulation.
"(5) A regulation made under clauses (1)(f) or (g) is not effective to reduce an amount payable referred to in section 36 or 37 if an agreement reciting that it is made for the purpose of this act is made between the government of Ontario and the physician, practitioner, health facility, health service organization, other person or entity referred to in subsection 36(2), independent health facility or operator of a pharmacy concerned or his, her or its agent before August 2, 1993.
"(6) A regulation made under clause (1)(k) is not effective to increase a threshold payment adjustment referred to in subsection 38(1) or to reduce a threshold level referred to in subsection 38(2) if an agreement reciting that it is made for the purpose of this act is made between the government of Ontario and the Ontario Medical Association before August 2, 1993.
"(7) An agreement referred to in subsection (5) or (6) that needs to be ratified shall be deemed to have been made before August 2, 1993, for the purpose of this act, if it is signed before that date by the parties to it and ratified not later than August 10, 1993."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
Shall sections 42 to 46 carry? Carried.
1840
We'll now deal with section 47 and an amendment brought by the government to subsections 47(2), (3) and (4). Dispense?
Mr Stockwell: No, read it in.
The Chair: "Any power or duty conferred or imposed on the administrator or an adjudicator may be delegated by the administrator or adjudicator, as the case may be, to a person designated by him or her and, when purporting to exercise a delegated power or duty, the delegate shall be presumed conclusively to act in accordance with the delegation.
"A delegation under this section shall be in writing and may be subject to such limitations, conditions and requirements as are set out in it.
"In a delegation under this section, the minister, administrator or adjudicator may authorize a person to whom a power or duty is delegated to delegate to others the exercise of the delegated power or duty, subject to such limitations, conditions and requirements as the person may impose.
"The minister, administrator or an adjudicator may authorize the use of a facsimile of his or her signature on any document except an affidavit or statutory declaration and may authorize a person to whom a power or duty is delegated under this section to authorize the use of a facsimile of that person's signature on any document except an affidavit or statutory declaration.
"A facsimile signature referred to in subsection (5) shall be deemed to be the signature of the person who authorized its use."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 47, as amended, carry? Carried.
Shall section 48 carry? Carried.
We will now deal with section 49, a government amendment to subsection 49(1):
"Subject to subsection (2), this act, except subsections" -- dispense?
Mr Stockwell: No.
The Chair: -- "24(4.3) and (4.4) and section 43, is repealed on a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The vote is stacked.
We'll now deal with a Progressive Conservative motion to section 49.1:
"The Minister of Finance, for as long as this act is in force, shall table in the Legislative Assembly an annual report on the progress made by the government and the sectors toward meeting the expenditure reduction targets, any recommendations concerning adjustments to those targets which in the opinion of the minister are warranted, estimates of the number of jobs lost as a consequence of measures implemented pursuant to the act and any other information which, in the opinion of the minister, is relevant to providing the Legislative Assembly, the sectors and the public with an objective assessment of the effectiveness of the restraints imposed by this act."
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the nays have it.
The vote is stacked.
Shall section 50 carry? Carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
The preamble is carried.
Now we'll deal with the schedule.
Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.
Shall the title carry? Carried.
We've made a slight mistake here.
Shall section 51 carry? Carried.
We will now call in the members. It's a five-minute bell.
The division bells rang from 1847 to 1852.
The Chair: We'll now deal with the government's amendment to section 2.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing. This is a government amendment to section 2. Thank you. Please take your seats.
All those opposed to the motion? Thank you.
The ayes are 81; the nays are 21. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 2, as amended, carry and be part of the bill?
All those in favour will please rise and remain standing.
Same vote. The ayes are 81; the nays are 21. I declare the motion carried.
We are now dealing with a government amendment to section 5.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
My mistake. We have to do a vote first on section 3 and section 4. Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing. Same vote?
The ayes are 81; the nays are 21. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with the government amendment to add subsections 5(3) and (4).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
Same vote?
The ayes are 81; the nays are 21. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Carried.
We're now dealing with section 6, the government's amendment to section 6.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise. Same vote?
The ayes are 81; the nays are 21. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 6, as amended, carry? Carried.
We'll now deal with section 7, the amendment by the Progressive Conservatives to subsections 7(5) and (6).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing. Same vote reversed? No?
All those opposed please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the amendment lost.
Shall section 7 carry? Carried.
We now deal with section 11, a Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 11(3).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing. Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Another amendment to subsection 11(3) placed by the Progressive Conservatives. Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
A government motion this time to subsection 11(3), paragraphs 3 and 5. Same vote reversed? No?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 65; the nays are 37. I declare the motion carried.
1900
We are now dealing with the Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 11(3), paragraph 3.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
We now deal with the Progressive Conservative motion, subsection 11(3), paragraph 5.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing. Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Another amendment by the Progressive Conservatives, subsection 11(4). Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Shall section 11, as amended, carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 65; the nays are 37. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 12 carry?
All those in favour will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 65; the nays are 37. I declare the motion carried.
We are now dealing with the Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 13(6).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 16; the nays are 86. I declare the motion lost.
Shall section 13 carry?
All those in favour will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We are now dealing with the Conservative amendment to paragraph 14(2)2.
All those in favour of the amendment will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
We are now dealing with the government amendment to paragraphs 14(2)2 and 4.
All those in favour of the amendment will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 65; the nays are 37. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 14, as amended, carry? Same vote?
The ayes are 65; the nays are 37. I declare the motion carried.
We now deal with section 15, a government amendment to subsection 15(2). Same vote?
The ayes are 65; the nays are 37. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 15, as amended, carry? Carried.
We now deal with section 16, an amendment brought by the Progressive Conservatives, paragraph 16(3)2.
Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Mr Chair, I said no because I wanted to vote on that particular clause; there was no vote on that clause, and I did say no. Perhaps you didn't hear me.
The Chair: You did say no? We didn't hear you. I apologize. If you did say no, we accept it. It was on section 15, as amended, correct?
Shall section 15, as amended, carry?
All those in favour will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 64; the nays are 38. I declare the motion carried.
1910
We'll now deal with section 16, a Conservative amendment to paragraph 16(3)2.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 16; the nays are 86. I declare the motion lost.
We are now dealing with a government amendment to paragraphs 16(3)2 and 4.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 65; the nays are 37. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 16, as amended, carry? Same vote?
The ayes are 65; the nays are 37. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with section 22, a government amendment to subsections 22(2) and (4).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 22, as amended, carry? Carried.
Section 23, a government amendment to subsection 23(2).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with a Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 23(2).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
We're now dealing with the Progressive Conservative amendment to subsection 23(3). Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Shall section 23, as amended, carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with section 24, a government amendment, subsection 24(4). Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with the government motion, subsection 24(6). Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with the Conservative amendment to subsection 24.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Now, the Conservative amendment to subsection 24. Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
The Conservative amendment to subsection 24. Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Shall section 24, as amended, carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed to the motion will rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with section 25, a Conservative amendment to sections 25 to 32.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
We're now dealing with an amendment brought in by the Conservatives to subsection 25(5). Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
1920
We're now dealing with the government motion to subsection 25(5).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 25, as amended, carry? Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with section 26, a government motion to subsections 26(6) and (7). Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 26, as amended, carry? Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We are now dealing with section 27, a government amendment to paragraph 27(2)2. Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 27, as amended, carry? Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We are now dealing with the government amendment to section 32.1. Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 32.1 stand as part of the bill? Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We now deal with section 33, the Conservative amendment to subsection 33(3) and (4).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
We are now dealing with the government amendment to subsection 33(4).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We are now dealing with the government amendment to subsection 33(5). Same vote?
The ayes are 63, the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 33, as amended, carry? Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We now deal with the government amendment to section 33.1. Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We'll now deal with the government amendment to sections 33.2 to 33.7. Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
Shall sections 33.1 through 33.7 stand as part of the bill? Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with section 34, an amendment by Mr Cousens to section 34.
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Shall section 34 carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with section 35, an amendment by the Progressive Conservatives to subsection 35(1).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Shall section 35 carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with section 36, an amendment brought in by the Conservatives to subsection 36(1).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Another amendment by the Conservatives to subsection 36(2): Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
We're now dealing with another Conservative amendment to subsection 36(3). Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Another amendment by the Conservatives to subsection 36(4): Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
1930
Another amendment by the Conservatives, to subsection 36(4). Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Shall section 36 carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
A Conservative amendment to subsection 37(1).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
A Conservative amendment to subsection 37(2). Same vote?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Shall section 37 carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with section 39, the government amendment to section 39. Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 39, as amended, carry? Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with section 40, a Progressive Conservative amendment, subsection 40(2).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
We're now dealing with a government amendment to subsections 40(3) and (4).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
The government amendment to subsection 40(4.1). Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 40, as amended, carry? Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with section 41, a Progressive Conservative amendment to clause 41(1)(e).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed?
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
We're now dealing with a government motion, subsections 41(3), (5) and (6).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
Shall section 41, as amended, carry? Same vote?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
We're now dealing with section 47 -- we're now dealing with section 49, the government amendment to subsection 49(1).
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed?
The ayes are 63; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.
Treasurer?
Hon Mr Laughren: I only question if we're certain that section 47 got passed.
The Chair: Yes, it was carried.
We were dealing with section 49. Shall section 49, as amended, carry?
Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I think what we really need to do is vote on our amendment, 49.1.
The Chair: The Conservative amendment is section 49.1. It's a new section of the bill; it's not part of section 49.
Shall section 49, as amended, carry?
Mr Cousens: I'm sorry. I don't recall having a chance to vote on 49.1, a motion prepared by the PC caucus.
The Chair: Mr Cousens, it's a brand-new section.
So are we clear on section 49? Carried.
Now let's deal with the Progressive Conservative amendment, section 49.1. Shall the motion carry?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 17; the nays are 85. I declare the motion lost.
Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 64; the nays are 38. I declare the motion carried.
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report.
The Chair: Shall the committee rise and report?
All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.
All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.
The ayes are 64; the nays are 38. I declare the motion carried.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.
Shall the report be received and adopted?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion, the ayes have it.
I declare the motion carried.
It being slightly past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.
The House adjourned at 1943.