L025b - Thu 11 Jun 1998 / Jeu 11 Jun 1998 1
The House met at 1830.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND WORKPLACE DEMOCRACY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT ÉCONOMIQUE ET SUR LA DÉMOCRATIE EN MILIEU DE TRAVAIL
Mr Flaherty moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 31, An Act to promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry, to further workplace democracy and to make other amendments to labour and employment statutes / Projet de loi 31, Loi visant à promouvoir le développement économique et à créer des emplois dans l'industrie de la construction, favorisant la démocratie en milieu de travail et apportant d'autres modifications aux lois ayant trait au travail et à l'emploi.
Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): I propose to share my time with the honourable members for Niagara Falls and Simcoe Centre.
I am pleased to begin this debate on second reading of the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act. It's an appropriate title for an important piece of legislation. This is an act that promotes economic development and job creation, the kind of economic development and job creation that this province has benefited from for the past three years. Since 1995, this government has carried forward a plan aimed at creating a positive environment for economic growth and job creation. As we heard in the throne speech and the budget, the plan is working thanks to cuts in personal income taxes, cuts to payroll taxes and cuts to taxes on new homes. Tax cuts create jobs, which has been proven in Ontario.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, as you know. We see provinces, even provinces with NDP governments such as Saskatchewan and British Columbia, in their budgets this year imitating the province of Ontario, following the lead of Ontario, cutting taxes in order to create jobs. This government is continuing to hold fast to the pro-growth, pro-jobs policies needed to ensure that Ontarians succeed in the 21st century.
Recently the media have been reporting that the national unemployment rate has stayed relatively stable at about 8.4% nationally. More to the point, the rate has dropped to 7.1% here in Ontario. That's good news after the massive unemployment in the early 1990s, but for this government that's not good enough for the long term. We're proud that some 350,000 net new private sector jobs have been created since 1995, but too many Ontarians are still unemployed. Especially worrisome is the jobless rate among young people aged 15 to 24.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder whether there is a quorum present.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Would you please check and see if there is a quorum.
Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Durham Centre.
Hon Mr Flaherty: Especially worrisome is the jobless rate among young people aged 15 to 24, which sits at 15.7%.
Our goal is to create a climate of job creation that benefits all Ontarians for the long term, and to reach that goal we need to develop the kinds of job-creating instruments that Ontario's businesses need to put people back to work and to keep people working. That is expressly what the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act has been designed to do.
This province is benefiting from the government's economic leadership. Tax cuts create jobs. Consumers have responded by spending to stimulate the economy. Large and small businesses across the province are creating thousands of jobs, and over the past few months small and large businesses in Ontario have responded to this more favourable economic climate by announcing substantial job-creating investments.
For example, I was in Sarnia recently for a ribbon-cutting ceremony that launched construction of a Dow Chemical Corp multimillion-dollar product development plant, the first new facility that Dow has built in that area in 24 years. It will create some 400 construction jobs over three years and many permanent jobs for the Sarnia community.
But I emphasize that that is a development plant and what we want to attract in Ontario as the next large investment is the commercial plant that should grow out of that development plant, which would create thousands of jobs not just in construction but in the plant itself as well as the spinoff jobs arising out of that plant happening here in Ontario.
Then there is the Bayer Inc new multimillion-dollar investment, which was announced just last Thursday, a $300-million expansion over three years featuring 200 construction jobs. As Bayer's senior vice-president Dr Gunter Hilken said last Thursday, "We are counting on the provincial government to provide a leadership role in a pro-growth, pro-job environment."
There are dozens of other job-creating, capital investment decisions just waiting to happen in Ontario, but actually making those investments happen, getting shovels in the ground and people on the job depends on the competitiveness of our construction industry. Plant construction costs in Ontario are still largely uncompetitive for major capital projects. For example, the folks in Sarnia tell me that Ontario's construction costs are approximately 22% higher than those in Alberta. The impact of such an uncompetitive construction sector is clear: Projects go elsewhere, jobs go elsewhere, infrastructure ages, skills migrate, opportunities are lost. We cannot let that happen.
As the speech from the throne indicated, this government is committed to creating competitiveness in the construction industry and, to do that, Ontario has to develop innovative ways to attract outside investment. Bill 31 would do that. It would enhance competitiveness in the construction industry by creating a framework to negotiate specific agreements for major industrial projects in Ontario.
Since we're talking about construction, think about this framework as the foundation on which a building is built. As everyone in this House knows, you don't just pour a foundation without some thought and preparation. Construction employers and trade unions have been discussing the development of such a framework for many months now and I've encouraged them repeatedly in those discussions. These discussions have helped shape the section of Bill 31 that deals with project agreements, and I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about why project agreements are important to construction industry competitiveness.
1840
As members of this House know, Ontario has had province-wide construction collective agreements since 1978. Those collective agreements have helped create a certain amount of stability in the construction market, but they haven't allowed the flexibility that Ontario needs to compete nationally and globally for major industrial projects.
For instance, let's say you are running a major petrochemical plant and you've been given the green light to bid on a major expansion planned by your head office. You call up all the local trade unions you need to complete the project, electricians, carpenters, framers and so on, and you say: "We want to build a new multimillion-dollar facility that's going to create lots of construction jobs as well as a whole lot of permanent jobs in the community. How can we make this happen in a way that our Ontario plant will win the bid to build this project?" You sit down with the unions and work out a winning deal and the upshot is that 90% of the trade unions involved support that agreement. But there's a wrench in the works. One union doesn't like the deal, even though 90% of the other unions do. According to the Labour Relations Act as it stands now, if you don't have 100% support of all the unions involved, the deal is dead.
Let's look at another scenario. All the trade unions agree to the project conditions, but halfway through the project one of the trades goes on a province-wide strike. The result is everyone drops their tools, work stops and the project effectively dies. What's the lesson here? Capital is more mobile than labour. If you start to tie up capital with labour delays, the capital simply goes somewhere else and so do the construction jobs, the long-term permanent jobs and all the spinoff jobs.
This bill would change that. It would amend the Labour Relations Act to allow variations to provide province-wide construction collective agreements for major industrial projects. The project agreement would be negotiated between the project's proponent, for example, the plant owner or the owner's agent, and the local unions for a specific project. Then, if the proponent plus 60% of the identified local unions ratify the agreement, if they agree, the agreement stands.
As well, Bill 31 provides that there could be no strikes or lockouts during the term of the project agreement if that is negotiated by the parties. That gives some security to both the proponent and the working men and women on the building site, and it's important to note that any of the identified local trade unions can object if the project agreement forces its members to accept disproportionate wages and benefit concessions.
The result of these project agreements would be a fair, mutually beneficial way for major construction projects to happen. These agreements would help large and small businesses compete for economically significant projects with the potential to bring thousands and thousands of construction and spinoff jobs into Ontario's communities.
What kind of projects are we talking about? One example is the project being considered by the multibillion-dollar petrochemical sector. Then there are other innovative, high-technology-based industries which are looking to expand to meet the needs of their customers.
What kind of jobs might result? In the short term, lots of well-paying, unionized construction jobs for working men and women across the province. Over the longer term, however, this kind of investment opportunity will create even more of the well-paying, permanent jobs that are the bedrock of every community in Ontario.
Last week, the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association estimated that passage of this bill, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, would put Ontario in the running for more than 42,000 jobs in that sector alone. There are even more jobs just waiting to be created in other high-technology sectors. That is why both unions and employers agree that project agreements are the right way to go.
But while introducing this framework for project agreements is mainly about creating jobs, it is also about creating self-reliance, the kind of self-reliance that has become the hallmark of this government's approach to labour relations. Bill 31 would put the onus on the employer and the trade unions to work out a competitive, workable project agreement. They know what's best to get the project completed and the jobs created.
Passing the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act would also address another long-standing issue. It would ensure that only employers in the construction industry are covered by the special construction provisions of the Labour Relations Act. In the past, if a company hired a construction worker to build just one counter top and was certified, that company would be bound from that day forward to the province-wide construction agreement. This has meant that a whole range of employers, from your corner coffee shop to your local school, are lumped in with the big construction companies and are covered by these complex provisions of province-wide construction agreements.
It also meant that employers could not tender work to non-union contractors, many of whom are small business operators in many of our communities across the province. Bill 31 would change this peculiar job-killing situation. It would let those certified employers whose primary business is not construction, for example, retail employers, municipalities and school boards, negotiate agreements specific to the circumstances of their sector in the same way that other non-construction employers do.
This corrects the situation of these employers being bound by province-wide agreements that they have little opportunity to influence. In addition, employees of these non-construction employers would be entitled to certify and bargain collectively under the general provisions of the Labour Relations Act, and non-construction employers currently in bargaining relationships that are governed by the construction provisions of the Labour Relations Act would continue to be covered by the old legislation. These employers, however, would be entitled to ask for an order, if this bill is passed, from the Ontario Labour Relations Board removing such bargaining rights, provided the employer does not employ any members of the affected union when it applies.
We think this is a good, fair solution to a long-term problem. It would free several non-construction employers from legislative procedures that simply don't fit with their line of business. It would give those large and small companies and institutions the freedom to make local, job-creating capital investments without being bound by the province-wide construction provisions that they have no chance to influence. It would let non-unionized subcontractors, who tend to be small business people across this province, bid on work for municipalities, for school boards, for retailers, that have up until now been restricted to unionized contractors.
As the title puts it so clearly, this bill would promote economic development and create jobs in the construction industry. It would make the construction industry more competitive and it would level the playing field in terms of which employers are in the construction business and which employers are not in the construction business.
Having addressed the construction competitiveness part of Bill 31, let's look at the other aspect of this legislation, which is furthering workplace democracy. First, let's talk about some key, fundamental principles. The chance to vote is important. Respecting the will of the majority is important. Fairness is important. Self-reliance is important. In other words, democracy is important.
1850
Democracy is about respecting those principles and especially about respecting the rule and the will of the majority. I think we would all agree with that. That's why we in this government have been confounded by this phenomenon of a minority voting in favour of union certification and then having the Ontario Labour Relations Board tell the entire workforce, including the majority of people who didn't want to join a union, that they are now union members, like it or not. This was clearly an unbalanced situation where workers' wishes were simply not respected in the certification process. The existing legislation is flawed and we want to remedy that.
I know that union certification is a complex thing. You need to determine the size of the bargaining unit, and as an aside, thanks to this proposed legislation, employers would be permitted to challenge union evidence on this point. You need to communicate well, letting workers understand the pros and the cons of union membership. You need to have a level playing field, since sometimes the union certification process can be open to misconduct both on the part of employers and on the part of unions. But we cannot let the important principles of workplace democracy be lost.
The simple fact is that, first, each worker should have the right to vote on whether to join or not join a union. Second, the wishes of the majority must be paramount. Automatic certification, even though it may have been applied with good intentions, has been a clear violation of these fundamental principles.
This legislation, if passed, would ensure that workers' wishes are both sought and respected at all times, because employees should not lose their right to choose whether to be represented by a union because of the misconduct of the management or the union. What about potential misconduct during the certification process? Quite simply, that kind of conduct is unacceptable and there are lots of powerful remedies that remain unchanged in the Labour Relations Act.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board has the power to order employers to rehire employees who have been dismissed as a result of the union certification process. The board can impose damages on employers if they act in an improper way. The board can force employers to pay the costs of the organizing drive. It can order the employers to pay employees to attend union meetings. It can order the employer to post signs explaining the behaviour of the employer. The same applies, I should say, to the unions if they act in an improper way during a certification drive. The Ontario Labour Relations Board has a number of important and flexible powers to remedy an improper situation and to make sure that a fair vote takes place.
All this bill says is that employers, unions and the Ontario Labour Relations Board must guarantee an employee's right to determine unionization by secret ballot in all cases. This is an issue that is important to workers, but it's also important to Ontario's potential investors. They too need to have confidence in the certainty of Ontario's labour laws. These amendments ensure that the democratic rights of employees are respected in the certification process. They also send a message to all investors that workplace democracy is in place in Ontario and that this democratic spirit is part of our openness to business and investment and jobs. Stability in the labour market, as we all know, is good for job creation.
Finally, Bill 31 proposes that we finalize in law some important changes that make our adjudicative procedures more efficient. Among other issues, this bill calls for exempting industrial maintenance work performed by a construction union from strike and ratification vote requirements. This is something that both unions and employers have been asking for from this government.
In summary, the Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act has been aptly named. It continues this government's long-term focus on strengthening the Ontario economy by introducing measures that would make our construction industry more competitive.
It would stimulate job creation and economic growth in a number of key industries. It is job-creating legislation that would position Ontario to attract economically significant construction projects which, in turn, create jobs. But it is also legislation that respects the rights of all workers to make the decisions that affect their working lives.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It's a privilege for me to rise and give some comments on this Economic Development Workplace Democracy Act. I would point out that the minister has had a great deal of consultations and discussions with labour groups, and in the construction industry with general contractors and subcontractors. He has spent a great deal of time pushing these groups to a negotiating table to see if they could come up with industry solutions to some of the problems that are out there, problems that this legislation addresses. He's been very patient with that process, he's been very open about it and the legislation reflects the time he's taken in that whole process and the amount of consultation he's done.
The Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act promotes economic development, the kind of economic development that this province has benefited from in the past three years. We are taking a long-term view of things, introducing the kinds of new instruments and initiatives that will put people to work and keep them working.
We are continuing to develop a climate in which this economy will continue to flourish. Bill 31 will play a large role in continuing to develop that economic climate. The bill boosts the competitiveness of Ontario's construction industry. Like the majority of this government's initiatives, Bill 31 attracts investment and creates jobs.
I want to focus on the aspects of this bill targeted at Ontario's multi-billion dollar construction sector. It's an important economic sector, responsible for thousands of jobs and a significant percentage of Ontario's gross provincial product.
There are two key components to this bill's amendments to the Labour Relations Act which would increase competition in the construction industry. First is the creation, as the minister has alluded to, of project agreements. The second is in exempting non-construction employers from the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.
Let me deal first with project agreements. Project agreements, as the minister has talked about, create a framework to negotiate specific agreements for major industrial projects in Ontario. Currently, the Labour Relations Act provides for province-wide bargaining in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of the construction industry.
These province-wide agreements can only be modified by the parties' bargaining agencies, not by individual employers and local unions. Bill 31's amendments would allow project agreements that give all the parties involved the flexibility to negotiate specific agreements for major industrial projects.
For example, a short time ago a s$150-million project in the Sarnia area - I believe the company was Bayer - was about to be undertaken. They were going to build a chemical manufacturing facility. Twelve of the 14 trade unions that were going to work on that project agreed to project agreements, but because two didn't, the whole project was scuttled and did not go ahead.
Shortly after we announced that we had come to a resolution, that we were going to introduce this legislation, I think Bayer now is going to go ahead with the project. That's vital.
1900
Nova, another petrochemical company which wanted to build a project in Ontario - I believe it exceeded $500 million - has been hesitant to go forward and build their project in Ontario because of the lack of flexibility and lack of ability to come to some similar agreements as Bayer is looking for, project agreements which would make building in Ontario more attractive for them. Instead, they were looking to Texas and perhaps Alberta to build this facility.
One has to wonder how many large facilities like this we have missed out on already, and it's quite scary how close we have come to losing some. The legislation the minister has introduced is going to address that and we're going to be able to keep that work here.
I would note that it's my understanding that even the two unions that wouldn't agree on a project agreement in Sarnia earlier have actually contacted people and said, "Introduce something, because we kind of wish we had had that project agreement so we could have gone forward with that project." So I think there is a lot of support, even in the construction union sector, for this type of flexibility.
I want to tell you what exactly a project agreement is. A project agreement will allow the unions and the building proponent to move away from the province-wide agreement, and this project agreement will set the terms and conditions for construction employees hired to work on that major long-term project of significant economic value. These terms and conditions, instead of those in the province-wide agreement, will apply instead of the otherwise applicable provincial agreements. Each agreement would be agreed upon in a democratic manner.
Local trade unions that would be supplying members to the project would negotiate with the project's proponent. If the proponent and 60% or more of the affected local unions approve the agreement, it would be binding on all local unions that were given notice of the negotiations. Project agreements would continue beyond the term of a general province-wide industrial sector agreement, regardless of strikes or lockouts elsewhere in that sector. This is very important, because it gives security to the project's proponent and to the workers on the project that it won't be interrupted halfway through. This is something vital to people looking to invest in Ontario. This type of security is absolutely vital to those folks, and that will bring us quite a few more jobs in Ontario.
What has been the reaction to this bill? Paul Nykanen, the vice-president of the Alliance of Manufacturers and Exporters Canada, said, "The changes regarding project agreements are a positive step to help Ontario's construction competitiveness and ultimately the competitiveness of the whole province."
The board of trade said, "These amendments look like a real gain." They are a real gain for Ontario's investment climate, for job creation and for continuing the kind of economic development this province needs as we move into the 21st century. I know the members opposite don't like to improve the investment climate in Ontario. We on this side of the aisle do. The result has been the creation of over 350,000 jobs in Ontario since we came into office, and I think those 350,000 people are quite thankful and grateful for that.
Let's go beyond that group. There are a few more people who have had very positive comments: "The Canadian Chemical Producers' Association...welcomed the government of Ontario's unveiling of amendments to the province's labour law as it relates to the construction industry." The "CCPA chairman...said: `These amendments are good for Ontario as they will create a competitive and attractive environment for investment in the province. This, in effect, opens the door to a pool of potential new investment of some $2.5 billion to $5 billion.'"
As the minister alluded to earlier, that type of investment equates to 42,000 new jobs for Ontarians. We're not ashamed of creating work for Ontarians. That's what we were elected to do.
The members opposite wanted to know who else has had some positive comments about this bill other than businesses. I'll tell you some. In the Observer from Sarnia, Ontario, an editorial said, "Labour Bill Good for This Area," and I'd like to quote a little bit from this.
"A new provincial bill introduced Thursday is good news for Sarnia-Lambton.
"The Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act addresses the issue of competitiveness in the construction industry. Specifically, the bill creates a framework for companies and unions to negotiate specific agreements on major industrial projects in Ontario.
"The changes, once they become law, will allow for what's known as project agreements, which help local firms complete for high-tech and petrochemical projects.
"The bill also makes the union certification process more democratic. For example, it ensures certification can only occur when a majority of employees support a union in a secret ballot. As it stands, a union can be certified to represent employees without a vote, or regardless of its results."
"Sarnia MPP David Boushy, who had a hand in the amendments, is all smiles today."
The very last line is, "`Be ready to invest,' is Boushy's mantra these days." The Observer says, "Be ready to invest indeed," because the Observer has the common sense to understand how much investment and how many more jobs this bill is going to help attract to Ontario.
I might add too that Mr Boushy and Mr Beaubien, two members of our government from the Sarnia area, do have a lot to be proud of, because they did work very hard to see to it that the Minister of Labour and this government moved on this issue of project agreements.
I'll give you another clip so that it's not just businesses that are commenting. Here is the Timmins Daily Press. What did they have to say about this bill? After talking about the project agreements and after talking about the automatic certification provisions, they said:
"Such proposals are a good idea, especially for those in the construction industry. Particularly since the act seems to curb the impact that a few smaller unions could have on business across the province."
Interjections.
The Acting Speaker: Order. I can allow only one conversation in here, and it must be the person who is recognized by the Chair and has the attention of the House. I can't allow other conversations.
Mr Maves: I know that the members opposite want to interrupt the Timmins Daily Press, but I'd like to continue. They said that they very much appreciate the proposal.
"It hasn't been that many years since projects across the province ground to a halt when one union decided to strike. Such actions created a financial hardship for many more people than those directly involved.
"They also sent a loud warning to any company wishing to do business to think again before coming to Ontario - not the message the government wants to send if it intends to ensure a healthy economy.
"We applaud the decision of the Progressive Conservatives to balance the rights of business with those of labour to ensure the province will attract more business and more jobs."
That's from the Timmins Daily Press and the previous one was from the Sarnia Observer. We couldn't agree more with those sentiments.
That's project agreements.
Another part of the bill the minister mentioned has to do with non-construction employers. This is an instance where a retailer or quite often some school boards in Ontario could go out and hire a carpenter who happened to have a union card. From that point on, as the labour law would be followed, that retailer or that school board would be bound to the province-wide construction agreements and could only use unionized construction if they did any for the projects. They're really not a construction employer. Their principal businesses, not construction, yet they are treated under our current labour law as a construction employer.
We don't really think that's quite right and we have made adjustments to that, so that if, for instance, a person who owned a doughnut shop happened to use a unionized electrician, that doughnut shop then would not be bound for the rest of its business life to use only unionized construction; it would be allowed to have perhaps a bidding process and could use unionized or non-unionized labour. We think that's only fair, so that only those whose principal business is construction can be bound to the province-wide agreement.
1910
We move along. There's an interesting part of the act right now in certification under the Labour Relations Act. A union can hand in signed cards when they're trying to organize a workplace, and if they have 40% of that bargaining unit sign cards, then they can have a vote on whether that workplace will become certified. One of the problems we have right now, which we feel is a little unfair, is that an employer may have 300 employees who should fall into a bargaining unit, and if the union trying to get certification says, "I've got 40 cards signed," and there are 100 people in the bargaining unit, what can happen under current law is that that employer can't challenge and say, "Wait a second; 40% before you have a vote. I've got 300 employees who should be considered, so having 40 cards signed isn't 40%."
Right now they don't have that ability to protest the bargaining unit the union puts forward. This bill clarifies this. The board can take the union's bargaining unit, conduct a vote with the people they say are in the unit, put those ballots aside, then go out and listen to what the employer has to say about what the bargaining unit should be. The board will determine the bargaining unit. After those determinations the board will determine if the 40% threshold for a representation vote has been met. If it has been met, the ballots from the representation vote will be counted and if the majority prefer a union, the place of business will be certified. If it has not been met, the ballots from the representation vote are destroyed, the certification qualifications have not been met and that place would not be unionized.
Those are some things that are in Bill 31. The minister talked about automatic certification provisions in the bill. The Windsor Star -
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is interesting. I would hope we would have a quorum present to hear. Is there a quorum present?
The Acting Speaker: I'll check and find out. Would you see if there is a quorum present?
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Niagara Falls.
Mr Maves: I know my colleague from Simcoe West has some thoughts that he wants to put forward on this, so I will close by reading again from the Windsor Star, a paper in a really good union town. I want to tell you what their comment was on this legislation. They give a rose to Jim Flaherty.
Interjections.
Mr Maves: It's a rose.
"Provincial Labour Minister Flaherty has introduced legislation that would take away the Ontario Labour Relations Board's power to overturn the results of union certification votes. The board has had the power to override the results of certification votes if it found there was misconduct on the part of an employer or union that influenced balloting. At the east side Wal-Mart store in Windsor, for example, the board ordered union certification even though workers voted 151-43 against a union drive. Under the proposed legislation, the board must recognize the majority outcome, but could still order a new vote if it believes the vote was unduly influenced."
I must tell you that the board, in this legislation, has a lot of other remedies if they find out there's undue influence upon the employer. For instance, they can order the employer to pay damages; they can order employers to rehire employees if they've been dismissed unfairly; they can force employers to ask employees to attend a union meeting; they can post signs explaining the behaviour of the employer was wrong. There's a wide variety of remedies that the labour board has at its discretion if the employer is acting improperly during a certification drive, and then if they have another vote, those remedies will make sure that vote is a true representation of people's feelings about a union.
I'd like to congratulate the minister on this bill. I'd like to reiterate my congratulations to Mr Boushy and Mr Beaubien, who worked so diligently on this bill. I know one of the places in this province that is going to see immediate investment and immediate job creation is the Sarnia area. Those two members are to be congratulated for their efforts.
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to follow the member for Niagara Falls and the honourable minister.
I'd just like to comment on the title of the bill, Economic Development and Workplace Democracy Act, 1998. The job creation record of the government certainly has been very good. There are some recent statistics with respect to the job creation. Since the election in June 1995 there have been 338,000 net new private sector jobs created in Ontario. Also in the month of May 1998 there were 13,300 net new jobs created in Ontario. Ontario's unemployment rate has continued to decline from 7.2% in April to 7.1% in May of this year.
It's a fact that all the jobs created in Canada in May were created right here in Ontario. As a whole, Canada lost 7,300 jobs and the national unemployment rate remained at 8.4%. That's a fairly staggering figure, considering the way Ontario has been performing. We're basically carrying the country.
It's very important to note that not only is Ontario leading all the provinces in job creation and employment growth; predicted in the 1998 Ontario budget by the Ministry of Finance is a 1998 job growth rate in the 3.5% to 4% range. That's very good news for Ontarians.
I think it has a lot to do with the initiatives that have been taken by the Ministry of Labour throughout the mandate of this government. They started off with Bill 7, an act to kill Bill 40, the job-killing legislation of the previous government; Bill 8, which was removal of those unfair quotas in terms of fair hiring; Bill 15, which was an act to increase efficiency in the administration of the Workers' Compensation Board; then Bill 49, which is another piece of legislation which was to increase the efficiency of the Employment Standards Act; that was followed by Bill 99, which was the reform to the Workers' Compensation Act.
These are fundamental changes that have resulted in a very improved situation for employers and workers throughout the province, because these are fair and economic changes.
I applaud the Ministry of Labour because it's taken a number of initiatives, tough decisions that had to be made to redress the wrongs and not only the stupidity of the previous government.
I'm going to focus on the bill, Bill 31, which deals with a couple of aspects. I want to deal with economic fairness, which deals with the non-construction sector aspect of the bill. I also want to deal with the workplace democracy part, which deals with the section 11 part of the bill that deals with representation votes.
In dealing with the non-construction sector, the changes that have been brought about through the bill are fairly straightforward. They address the anomalous treatment of non-construction employers such as retail stores, schools and municipalities by removing them from the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.
1920
Non-construction employers may be bound by a province-wide construction industry agreement; however, they have very little ability to influence the negotiations which result in such an agreement because of the way the system works.
If you're a non-construction employer that happens to be working on a construction project, for example, a school board doing some renovations, and you're unionized by a union with a designated trade in the province, what happens is that you're bound by the industrial-commercial-institutional sector under the Labour Relations Act and you're automatically party to the provincial ICI agreement for that particular union. That's just by doing one project, and you're not even in the construction industry.
I give you an example, which was a case that involved the Windsor Board of Education, where the board of education undertook the renovation of classrooms, the alteration of washrooms and showers and the installation of handicapped washrooms, which included a substantial capital outlay. It was determined by the Labour Relations Board to be an employer carrying on business in the construction industry, notwithstanding that it was also the owner of the property. There's a situation where you have a school within the school board. They're not in the construction industry. They're there to provide education. They get involved in a renovation project and they are automatically bound to become certified by the ICI sector of the Labour Relations Act. That's one of the wrongs we're trying to correct.
It's obvious that these provincial ICI agreements were not designed for non-construction workplaces. They're designed for construction contractors. It's very inappropriate for employers to be bound by an agreement over which they have virtually no control and which does not fit their workplaces. When I say "no control," that's because province-wide ICI agreements are negotiated by employer agency groups and the large union. They negotiate every three years through their respective bargaining agencies. The school board would just be a minor player there because it's not in the construction industry. Yet when they negotiate the agreement, because they're bound by that agreement, they have no input but they continue to be bound and all the changes that are put in there are made a part of their agreement.
Those are some of the changes that I think are very important. That applies, for example, to a car dealership that wants to do a renovation project. They're in the car business. They're not in the construction industry. Same with a coffee shop or a doughnut shop. They're doing some renovations and they get unionized and they're part of the construction industry provisions.
We're changing that. I think it's very fair and I think it creates what we call economic fairness. It also brings some common sense to the situation because non-construction employers shouldn't be bound by the construction employer provisions under the Labour Relations Act. That's just a fact.
With respect to section 11, it's a very interesting area, dealing with workplace democracy essentially. The section 11 provisions deal with a situation where there have been unfair labour practices in the board's determination, which should do away with the representation vote results and automatic certification for the trade union. As to the changes to what we call certification decisions, which should be based on votes, if passed, the bill would eliminate the Ontario Labour Relations Board's power to override the results of a secret ballot vote. Employees would have the opportunity to determine, in every case, by secret ballot whether or not they wish to be represented by a union. That's a very fundamental situation where you have an employer who has acted improperly, imposing their will on a situation which will bind their employees. The principle of labour relations is the majority principle. It should be a majority of the employees in their wishes want to be bound by a trade union.
What section 11 does is impose a situation where the labour board, notwithstanding their wishes not to be bound by a trade union, but because of the actions of the employer, has determined they should be punished for those actions. It results in the employees being put in a situation where they're bound by the board's decision and they become certified. That's unfair to the employees.
How that can be dealt with and the remedy the minister has put forth through the bill is that the board can order sanctions and another representation vote will be held. But it will always be a representation vote that will be the final decision-maker with respect to whether employees are bound by a collective agreement. That's very fundamental because that's the way workplace democracy should work. That's also supported by the statistics. We're not looking at something that happens on a regular basis.
I was looking at statistics with respect to the number of automatic certifications. In 1992 there were three, in 1993 there were four, in 1994 there were two, in 1995 there were four, in 1996 there were three, and in 1997 there were six. With respect to the number of certifications, the number of certifications that are filed far exceed this. I'd just like to refer to the Labour Relations Board's annual report covering the period 1994 to 1997. The statistics that are provided in there are very significant. What they show for the period fiscal years 1992-93 through to 1996-97 is that with respect to the certification of bargaining agents, the number of applications received for that period was 4,547. What we're looking at is -
Mr Wildman: So it's not really a big problem.
Mr Tascona: That's right. The application's automatic certification isn't a major problem in terms of those figures. It's very fundamental to be fair to the workers. That's not a remedy that is often awarded by the board, but the fact of the matter is the statistics reveal that it's very important that when you're dealing with certification, because of the number, the employees' wishes are represented.
It's also important to note the results of representation votes conducted in the fiscal year 1996-97; there were 596 certification votes held in that period of time. That's a very significant number, considering the number of applications that were disposed of during that period of time was 656.
When we're dealing with section 11, what we're dealing with is really a fundamental attempt by the Minister of Labour to bring workplace fairness into the situation. The statistics support him because automatic certification is something that should not be imposed on the employees. They have a right to vote. They should be given that right to vote. They should be able to decide their own future. It's a very fundamental decision because what it results in is a third party negotiating their terms of employment rather than themselves. We have to protect that. That's a sacred right. It's as sacred as the right to work. I say that the right to be represented not by yourself but by a third party should be made by the employees.
When we look at what's happening out there with respect to section 11, the provinces with automatic certification provisions include British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia; whereas Saskatchewan, Quebec, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island allow for automatic certification without a vote where the union proves adequate membership support. Bill 7 removed a similar provision from the Labour Relations Act.
The bottom line is that Ontario is not only leading the country with respect to job creation and economic growth, it's also leading the country with respect to making sure that it has fair and equitable labour relations legislation, because it's very fundamental. When you're dealing with legislation that through the previous government was overtly and intentionally directed towards benefiting trade unions, we have to bring it back and we have to bring it in perspective so that employees have their rights protected in a fair and equitable manner. I say that section 11, the changes that have been made are long-overdue. They complement what the government in its wisdom put forth through Bill 7, because representation votes are something that employees should have a right to have, and it shouldn't be circumvented by an employer's actions or through the labour relations process or a legal process.
1930
Let's just keep it simple. If you want to have a trade union, the trade union knows there's going to be a vote and they're going to have to win the hearts and minds of the employees. They can't impose - I wouldn't say "imposed," I would say violated by the Labour Relations Act, essentially. When you look at the Wal-Mart case, where there was overwhelming support for not having a union, yet the board imposed a union. What does that create? That doesn't create good labour relations. That's not even good labour relations sense, when employees do not want to be represented by a trade union. They don't want to be represented by a third party.
When you look at the current construction industry situation that's going on in this province right now, the minister has taken a very major step forward with respect to project agreements in the industrial sector, and also recognizing the unfairness in the non-construction-sector employers. But there are other changes that I believe should be made also, because right now we're going through, as we do every three years in the ICI sector and the residential sector, a lot of labour relations activity. Quite fundamentally in the residential sector, they've had 19 strikes in the last 10 years. Especially in my riding of Simcoe Centre, there's been a lot of interference with non-union employers because of this type of activity. It's not right, because it's affecting people who want to move into their homes; it's affecting non-union employers with respect to layoffs. It's a situation where I think, when you look at the construction industry - it hasn't been looked at since 1980 - these are some fairly fundamental steps the minister is taking. I obviously hope that he takes further steps in looking at the construction industry.
In closing, I support this bill. I think it's fair. It deals with construction competitiveness. It's also a complement to the government's strategy with respect to economic development, because the best security anyone has in this society is a job. That's what we're trying to do, produce jobs, and I think the minister's initiatives are contributing towards that.
The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'd be delighted to make some comments on the minister's presentation of the bill and on the other members' comments.
I just want to address the introduction that the minister made in saying that tax cuts have been done with the intent of creating jobs and spurring the economy. I have to say to the minister and the members of the House that if this was the only intent, then we have a truly big problem on our hands. I think the minister realizes, as the member realizes, as I do, that the minister is not the only one pushing legislation. I believe that he may have difficulties with it, as he has other people behind him who push a government's will to do certain things its own way and not necessarily in the minister's way.
If the Premier, the Minister of Finance or any other member of the House were to ask the people out there, "What would you like to see, a tax cut or reasonable tuition fees for college or university students, medical students?" they would often say 100%, "We would rather have reasonable tuition fees." If you were to say, "What would you like to see, seniors being kicked out of their houses because they can't support their taxes any more, or a tax cut?" they would rather say, "We'd like to support the seniors staying in that particular house." If they were to be asked, "What would you like to see, reasonable health care for everyone in Ontario or a tax cut?" they would say, "We'd like to have the peace of mind in knowing that when needed, we have access to a hospital and reasonable health care in Ontario." So the tax cuts really have nothing to do with creating jobs by giving $6.5 billion to the rich.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): In response to the government's hour-long propaganda, first of all let's acknowledge that everything they talked about in terms of support was always on the employer side, it was always on the investor side, and everyone acknowledges that is indeed an important part of the equation. But just as equal, contrary to the priorities you set, are the workers who are affected.
Pat Dillon: You made reference to his comments. He's here tonight. I want you to put on the record all this great support you say he's offering up for this bill you've got on the floor today.
Wayne Samuelson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, is here today representing the workers who are impacted by this. Why don't you tell me how much you think he supports this?
I see John Carpenter from one of the building trades. There's Wayne over there. There's a whole flood of labour leaders here. I'm going to make sure they're all mentioned, so make sure your names come to me so I can acknowledge and show who's here.
Your corporate friends, of course, are at home salivating because they know you've got the majority to ram this through, Minister. But the workers are here in person to look you right in the eye and say once again you're attacking them, you're attacking their right to belong to a union and you're attacking their standard of living. That's what this is all about.
Let me say again to the member for Simcoe Centre, I believe, I can't believe that a government member would want to stand up and talk about defending their track record on labour relations by mentioning Bill 7, which has brought scabs back to Ontario; Bill 15, which denied workers the 50% say the NDP gave them on the Workers' Compensation Board; Bill 49, where you took away rights from people who don't have the benefit of a collective agreement; and Bill 99, where you took $15 billion out of the pockets of injured workers and gave $6 billion to your corporate pals. That's your track record.
Mr Frank Sheehan (Lincoln): I would like to compliment the minister for bringing forward this bill, but my compliment has to be just a little bit moderated because I think he was a little reluctant to go as far as he might have. However, having said that, I get concerned about this automatic certification. I know of three small businesses where the union organizing these businesses threatened to do a section 11 on them; namely, claim unfair practice. One company signed on in agreement and the other two are pending a decision of the labour relations board.
I can talk more so about automatic decertification. There's a family-owned business in Sarnia. The father sold it to the sons. They had 26 employees. They're now down to two: the sons. The father was relying on this as his pension cheque. He has not received a cheque in two years. I think the automatic certification should have been complemented by an easier way to decertify.
I have a one-man electrical contractor in my riding who's been trying to decertify his company for two years. He's having a hard time getting a majority, I understand, or it might be that the legislation is just causing him a little bit of a problem.
I think the minister also could have addressed some other issues such as the overtime issues. Currently the ministry cranks out certificates to permit corporations and businesses to run overtime, but the legislation is locked back in a time warp, at something like 44 hours, which does not reflect modern-day just-in-time delivery problems; it does not recognize changes in the classifications of work. People are covered off and maybe they're management and maybe there are workers. It doesn't allow for the fact that these standards are different today.
I think the minister is to be complimented on what he has offered here.
The Acting Speaker: Comments and questions? The member has two minutes to -
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: I don't want to pretend I'm pulling the trigger kind of fast here, but if you're going to be speaking on behalf of this, then I'd like you to be up and presenting yourself. The Chair will recognize the member for Oriole.
Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I was really fascinated by the minister's comments regarding youth employment in this province. The track record of this government is absolutely abysmal when it comes to the young people in this province. The unemployment rate for young people, for youth, is absolutely double that of those over the age of 25. That's a shameful record. This government has done absolutely nothing to help young people, to assist them to find employment. I am shocked that this minister would invoke youth as any part of this bill.
1940
It's interesting. My colleague the Minister of Education and Training announced that there would be significant changes to Ontario's apprenticeship laws. I'll be speaking later this evening and I will address some of those concerns. If you think young people are going to want to get involved in building trades, in any trades in this province because of this piece of legislation, you've got another think coming. There's nothing in Bill 31 which makes a young person want to go into an area where their wages are going to be reduced, absolutely no incentive. For this minister to suggest at all that this piece of legislation is going to go anywhere towards helping the young people of this province, I have to tell you, Speaker, I am incensed.
I have to put on the record my utter disgust at the minister's comments and the lack of action by Mike Harris and the disregard that this government has had for the young people of this province. I would hope there would be some proactive measures to help and assist our young people to make the trades a much more attractive possibility for them.
The Acting Speaker: The minister from Durham Centre has two minutes to respond.
Hon Mr Flaherty: I listened with interest to the comments of the member of the third party, the member for Hamilton Centre. He's so concerned about this bill, he says. This bill was introduced last Thursday and there has not been one question from the NDP, from the third party, that says it's so opposed to this bill, says it's so concerned about this bill. Let the truth be out: not one question in question period about this bill from this so-called greatly concerned party.
We have a common goal of creating jobs in this province. Negotiations have taken place involving the building trades, involving the various participants, particularly in the petrochemical sector. They have not been able to bridge the gap. They have not been able to arrive at that agreement that would permit these thousands and thousands of jobs to happen in Ontario.
We are bridging that gap. We are providing that framework within which the unions will be able to negotiate with the proponents of the project. Surely that's a good thing. Surely every reasonable union leader would want good union jobs in this province - not down south, not in Alberta. Some of you want to send jobs south.
Mr Christopherson: Why are they opposed, Flaherty? Why are they here? They have nothing else to do?
The Acting Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, come to order.
Hon Mr Flaherty: You want to send jobs to Texas. You want to make our skilled workers have to leave Ontario, leave Sarnia-Lambton and move to Alberta. Well, we don't. We want to keep these good, well-paying union jobs in Ontario, not in Alberta, not in Texas.
Mr Christopherson: That's the best argument you've got. If you've got something to say, put it on the record. You had something to say about Pat Dillon.
The Acting Speaker: Order. Member for Hamilton Centre, I will not warn you again.
Further debate?
Mr Sergio: I'm pleased to join the debate on Bill 31, a very important piece of legislation, I have to say. Before I do that, I would like to ask for unanimous consent on a couple of things. One is the deferral of our lead time on this bill and the remaining time split among myself, the member for Yorkview, and the members for Oriole and Prescott and Russell.
The Acting Speaker: Mr Sergio has requested unanimous consent to stand down their leadoff time and to share the time among their numerous members here. Is it agreed? It is agreed.
Mr Sergio: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and members of the House for allowing us this opportunity. Also, I'd like to recognize Pat Dillon, who is the business secretary of the Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, a member, I have to say, long affiliated with the construction industry who for a long time has been voicing the concerns of the trade workers in the construction industry. He's also a very frustrated member of that association with respect to the negotiations during the preparation of this legislation with the ministry staff, and I think has been a very tireless promoter of workers' rights. I find it terribly unacceptable that the ministry couldn't find a workable, acceptable solution for those members and the members they represent as well. So I'd like to welcome him myself.
Addressing Bill 31 in the time that we have allotted, and I'll try and cover as much as I can within that time, let me say that, as in previous bills introduced by the government, this one is also terribly flawed. I would dare say we haven't seen the end of this bill, and I wouldn't be surprised if the government, and the minister on behalf of the government, is already working hard, relentlessly, on amendments. I wouldn't be surprised. I would also hope that the minister, being in the House here tonight, will consider, once this goes through second reading, that we will have a reasonably extensive period of time for public hearings, consultation with not only the opposition side but also members of the construction industry.
I believe from what I can read in this bill, the way again it has been presented and drafted, that Bill 31 is nothing more than an act to promote confrontation and remove whatever incentives we now have for frank, open, democratic negotiations, rights, if you will, of the individual construction worker.
The bill was introduced just a few days ago and it does, I would say, two major things, among a few others: It amends the special provisions of the Labour Relations Act for the construction industry - and when I say construction industry, I don't know if the minister mentioned it, I didn't hear it, but it's specifically the industrial-commercial-investment section, since the residential sector and the commercial sector are eliminated. I have to set the stage, just in case I either forget or I don't have the time, that for whatever reason, the other sectors have been left out. But the minister, as I said before in a couple of other attempts, has retained the sole power to regulate at his own will whichever projects would fall within this particular new guideline. Speaking of red tape, I would say here we go again.
How are we going to accomplish all of that when the minister says, "This is what we're doing for the creation of jobs, for the economic improvement of our economy here"? Yet funding has been cut severely. Staffing has been terribly reduced, and that increases the responsibilities on whom, Minister? Those are some of the things this bill does with respect to creating that democracy or democratic process which I believe we have now in the construction industry.
1950
It also eliminates whatever uniformity we have now within the negotiating process. That is lost, I would say, with the introduction of Bill 31. I hope, Minister, that you will surely consider what we have to say in this House, but in the meantime I hope you will hear from the construction industry and other groups and that indeed you will bring those necessary amendments and present them quickly so that we can debate them openly in an open forum during a public hearing.
What else does this do? It changes quite a bit how we conduct business in the industrial-investment field nowadays. This gives more power to the Labour Relations Board; it gives power to one, sole, individual contractor; it gives power to one, sole, particular person "on behalf of"; it gives more individual powers to a lobby or lobbyist group "on behalf of". All of that can be done and can be negotiated on certain terms and those terms, I have to say, are not in favour of those trades workers, because now certain other workers are no longer being considered to be part of the building trades industry.
Those conditions are all included to favour only the employers' side. Let me say that I have nothing against employers, I have nothing against developers. They are entitled to put their money and make a profit. I have absolutely no problem with that. The thing is that this government has continually attacked individuals and individual workers' rights within the building industry and in other areas as well. We have seen this with the Workers' Compensation Act, removing whatever rights of those poor workers in low-paying jobs, working hot and sweaty or cold or whatever in industrial factories. They have removed those rights and they have given more powers, tilting the balance completely on the other side, to the employers.
I don't think that is fair. I don't think that would create the atmosphere, the aura that perhaps, with all due respect to the minister, he intended to create in principle when he started to draft this bill. But then, as I said at the beginning, he has other people behind him who say: "We have an agenda here. We have to do it in a certain way and it has to be our way, regardless of what the people out there say or what the opposition members say in this House." We find that quite unacceptable.
Those conditions have changed. It means now that the minister is telling the general workforce, the industries what a large, small, medium or extra large project is all about and what a union can do and what the rights of those trade unions are. I find that quite appalling. Only 60% of those workers affiliated with the construction industry would have to say yes and then the rest would have to abide, rightly or wrongly, by the decision of those 60 so-called affiliates of the construction industry.
What about the others affiliated with the construction industry? They are not being treated the same, either because of the working conditions or paying jobs or whatever. They would have to go along. Are we saying, Minister, that the rights of those other trade workers are protected? I don't think so. I would hope that you would take that into consideration and seriously look again at how flawed your bill is and make amends.
Oh, sure, we may say that they have a right to appeal to the so-called Ontario labour board. We know how easy it is to do that appeal but how difficult the process is to go through for a worker. So really when we say "promote development" - because the big Ontario corporations have demanded it. Why this doubletalk? I don't want to be harsh with the minister because I know for a fact that he has a heart, he has a soul, he has certain feelings for the trade workers out there. But why have doubletalk? We say: "Look, we've been creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. The economy's booming." If that is the case, why are we continuing to pick on the poor workers, if the economy is doing so well? Is it possible when the economy is doing so well that big corporations are suffering? Who is doing well, if not the big corporations? I ask the minister. Aren't the big corporations doing better, the best, if you will, in this particular economic time?
With all due respect to the minister and the members in the House, don't tell me that it is their policies that have created the present environment. Absolutely not. They ought to be very thankful for a very stable Canadian dollar, for a very stable Canadian interest rate, if you will, for a very friendly south-of-the-border President and a booming US economy and, I have to say, with all due respect, with the exceptions of a few spots here and there, a very warm global economy.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): That is why our dollar is at the lowest level ever. Are you proud of our federal cousins?
Mr Sergio: When they hear that truth, the member for Scarborough East doesn't like it because it is the truth. I wonder where he would have got $6.5 billion if it wouldn't have been indeed for a wonderful Canadian dollar and low interest rates, and yes, the construction industry is booming. If you didn't have that, Minister, you wouldn't have this bill here today and you wouldn't have got the $6.5 billion from the most needy. The truth hurts, but the fact is that you cannot run away.
Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am just wondering if there is a quorum present.
The Acting Speaker: I will find out for you.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): The member for Yorkview.
Mr Sergio: Mr Speaker, I believe I have a couple of minutes left, since we are sharing time on our side here. Let me again remind the minister, when they keep on saying, "We have created so many thousands of jobs," I have to say that even members of the government side themselves agree that their policies in creating jobs, especially for young ones, have been a totally dismal affair.
I would like to say to the minister, concentrate on creating jobs for those people. Don't think always about the multinationals, because the multinationals can think for themselves. But the poor people we have in our province, the unemployed, the young ones who are coming out of college, university or some trade schools, are looking seriously to find that first employment.
As it is, I would find it very difficult to support this bill as presented with all the flaws that it encompasses. I would hope that perhaps if the minister considers bringing in those necessary amendments and going through public hearings and whatever we may get from the construction industry and other groups, we could find some consensus and some position where we can find it more acceptable.
2000
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill 31. But one thing I am really surprised at in this bill is that we haven't done anything to protect the Ontario construction workers. When I say we haven't done anything to protect construction workers, at the present time we know that there are 19,000 fewer jobs in construction in Ontario compared to seven months ago. That is, over a period of seven months, according to the labour construction employment research document, we have 19,000 fewer jobs this year than we had seven months ago.
But looking at this at the present time, we know that we had a public hearing in Ottawa on June 1 because we have received many, many complaints about the Quebec construction people coming into Ontario. When we look at the numbers of jobs that we lost in Ontario - in the Ottawa-Hull area, for example, they say there are 13,000 construction workers crossing the bridge every day to come and work in the Ottawa area. When you take those 13,000 jobs and the 19,000 jobs that were lost, I think there should be something within this bill that would protect the Ontario construction workers.
In Ottawa on Monday, June 1, a week and a half ago, the Quebec construction people were complaining at this panel. The panel was formed of three MLAs from Quebec and three MPPs from Ontario. We had additional MPPs from Ontario in the audience also. The complaint that we received from the Quebec people - and I think we should look at it very closely - the plumbers and the electricians especially were saying they have a hard time coming to work in Ontario. I said, "Good, because right now we have all sorts of difficulty going to work in Quebec."
In Ontario there are 11 municipalities that require plumbers and electricians to have a master's licence. I think this master's licence should apply, should be within this bill, that it should be required to work in any municipality in Ontario for every trade, not only plumbing or electricians. This way we would make sure that we are protecting the Ontario construction workers' jobs.
At the present time also, when I looked in the report, over a period of three years there was a total of over $50 million of WCB claims to people with Quebec addresses working in Ontario: $50 million of claims. We have the report that I could give to the minister. This report was given to me by the WCB office. Over 5,000 claims - 5,117 claims - were submitted to the WCB.
Why? I've been to many construction sites. I have been with a video camera to film the construction sites, especially in the Nepean riding. At the present time, we know there are two major schools under construction and there is Nortel under construction, all controlled by Quebec construction workers. It's a good thing that Nortel has PCL as the general contractor, but the subs and the high school in Barrhaven, taken over by the Quebec people.
I don't have anything against the Quebec construction people as long as we have a level playing field, which doesn't exist. When I look again at the number of WCB claims that we have paid, it's because we don't have the health and safety officials in place. We don't have the inspectors in place. I walked into one of the construction sites and there were 10 people as bricklayers. I looked at them. They had running shoes and no hard hats. Then it would end up that we Ontarians would have to pay for the WCB.
If the minister would think about having a clause in this bill that we could leave that to the building inspector of the municipality - they are properly trained; they have a major responsibility to make sure the construction is built according to the Ontario Building Code - then they would be right on the spot to catch those people who are working and are costing us an awful lot of money because of all the WCB claims that we get.
This government has been saying, "Let's give the power to the municipalities." In this case, we could do it. We could turn around and say to the municipalities: "Do you want to make an extra buck? We'll give you the responsibility of going to every construction site to make sure that health and safety standards established by the Ministry of Labour are followed." This way, we would be sure that we would protect our construction workers.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Wildman: I listened carefully to the comments of my friends from Yorkview and Prescott and Russell. I know the passion with which the member for Prescott and Russell speaks about the difficulties in the construction industry between Quebec and Ontario, particularly in the Ottawa area, on the border. I understand his views. I listened carefully to the member for Yorkview, and I must say that I wasn't quite certain what position he was taking on the bill except that he said it was flawed. I wonder if he is aware that the project that apparently is used by the minister as the reason for one of the provisions in the bill, the Bayer project in Sarnia, was completed last year, with construction being done by union members at union rates.
At any rate, neither the member for Yorkview or for Prescott and Russell mentioned the other sections of the bill. I really would be interested in finding out what the Liberal Party's view is of the Wal-Mart section, the section that essentially says that if an employer intimidates the workers during a union drive, the Labour Relations Board will no longer be able to consider that evidence and then order certification, but rather they would simply be allowed to order another vote. Then the intimidated workers could be further intimidated as they go to a second vote.
I really wonder what the position of the Liberal Party is with regard to that section of the bill, which, in an Orwellian way, this government calls workplace democracy. George Orwell would be proud. The way this government names legislation is really bizarre. Black is white and white is black. Workplace democracy has nothing to do with this bill. I'm sure the Liberal Party members agree, and I'd be interested in their comments on this regard.
Hon Mr Flaherty: The member for Algoma and I will simply have to disagree. I respect the majority views of workers, and if he does not, we will have to disagree.
The member for Yorkview was concerned that 60% of the unions, of the bargaining agents, could agree on a project agreement and 40% would not. With respect to the member, that's the problem. That's why we need project agreements. They've been negotiating for more than a year. They have not been able to arrive at a way of resolving this themselves. That's why the government has to act. That's the whole issue with respect to project agreements. That's why we're bringing this solution forward, so that the proponents and the builders and the contractors and the building trades will have these projects here in Ontario, so that the thousands and thousands of unionized construction jobs will be here in the province of Ontario and not on the Texas Gulf coast and not in the province of Alberta. That's why we need this framework, so that the parties can negotiate within that context. Hopefully, these project agreements will become very successful in the province and attract those projects here so that those high-paying unionized jobs will happen here in the province of Ontario.
It's not just those construction jobs. After those construction jobs, it's all the jobs in the plants that are built. And it's not just those jobs, it's the jobs that come after that, the spin-off jobs. This is wonderful news for the province, for unionized workers in the province of Ontario, that they'll have these high-paying, skilled jobs in the construction sector and that their votes will be respected; that if they voted for a majority it'll be respected, but that minorities will not dominate majorities, not in the province of Ontario, not in our workplaces.
2010
Mr Caplan: It's always fascinating to listen to the spin of the Conservative government when they talk about consulting. Both of those words start with "con," and I think that's what they're trying to do to this province, to the workers of this province, to the opposition of this province and the people of this province. It's just a con.
I would share with the government members the words of one of their own. The member for Eglinton, the former Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, Bill Saunderson, said, "Ontario is leading the industrial world in competitiveness." On October 14, 1997, in a newspaper article, he said that Hamilton, Sarnia, London, Toronto, Sudbury and Ottawa all compared well against the rest of the world. Isn't that amazing? Bill 31 and the minister's comments say that these jobs are going to Texas, to Mexico, to Europe. Yet Bill Saunderson, your colleague from Eglinton, Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, said we lead the world in competitiveness.
I know that the members opposite would not want to cast aspersions on their colleague from Eglinton, but they might want to inform their colleague the Minister of Labour about the comments of the member for Eglinton, because he is well respected and I know that when he speaks the members opposite listen. When he says we lead the world in competitiveness, the members should heed that. I say here and I say now that I agree with the member for Eglinton.
Mr Christopherson: When the member for Prescott and Russell talks about construction workers in Quebec versus in Ontario, this bill, as far as we can tell, does absolutely nothing about that. He's right to raise that. The government will know that when we were in power we took the first steps with an interprovincial agreement. Granted, it did not resolve all the problems, but it did lay down a number of solutions that dealt with some of the problems immediately, but more importantly laid out the path that would lead ultimately to resolving these very serious discrepancies.
As we know, these are not simple matters. No one is suggesting they are. Given that this is probably the only discussion it'll get this evening, it's important to mention the fact that federation and constitutional matters do impact on this. The relationship between Ontario and Quebec is a key part of the constitutional discussions that make up our whole country.
But at the end of the day, I agree with the member that there needs to be something more done, and the government to date has not focused on any labour issues that affect workers directly, other than to attack them and take away their rights. Every labour issue that's outstanding, such as this interprovincial agreement, that would have the effect of benefiting workers is either shuffled off to the side completely or, at the very most, pushed to the back burner and forgotten about. That's the litany and the record of this government.
The Speaker: The member for Yorkview has two minutes for a response.
Mr Sergio: I'm fascinated by the political aroma that sometimes permeates this House, especially when I hear members of the NDP loathing the PC side. I have to forgive the member for Algoma, because he's the whip tonight for the third party and he was busy whipping two people, so he was not listening to my presentation. I have not deviated from the position of the Liberal Party. Our position has always been and will be to defend the rights of the workers.
I want to address my comments to the minister again: do not tilt the balance completely on the other side, because the ones who will keep them moving are the people working in the trenches in the construction industries, and we cannot be fair once we neglect the rights of those people.
I have to say, with all due respect to the other comments, and I thank all of them, that this is a very important piece of legislation. As I said, it is flawed. To the member for Hamilton Centre, indeed we need changes, and even if they bring in another 16 amendments, provided they bring correctness to this particular bill, we'll support them gladly. Our position has always been and will be -
Mr Gilchrist: You'll be out of the House the day the vote is taken.
Mr Sergio: Oh, when it comes to heckling he's the champion of the House, but when he's supposed to speak on behalf of the people of Ontario, he's nowhere to be seen. That is the member for Scarborough East.
Mr Speaker, I thank you and thank the members of the House for having been given the opportunity to speak on this particular bill.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. Let me first of all go back to the very beginning, when we first learned there were going to be changes. Even prior to that, let me acknowledge that there's one hour available for leadoff. I intend to break my comments up in such a way that I can deal, hopefully, with the majority of the issues.
While it seems like a relatively small bill in terms of its physical size, the implications, the technical aspect of it, and the sheer number of workers affected make this an incredibly important, far-reaching bill.
As I was saying, let's go back to understanding where this sort of thing comes from. I think it's important to do this. My comments at the time, during the throne speech - and I have a copy of the speech from the throne. These were the words of the Lieutenant Governor. She said on behalf of the government, "MPPs will be asked to consider legislation that readies our electricity industry for the challenges of competition; eliminates job-killing red tape; amends labour legislation, particularly as it affects the construction industry." I remember saying at the time, in my speech in response to the throne speech, "God help construction workers," because any time this government says they're about to change labour legislation, whoever is involved in that is in serious trouble.
I remember the heckles and the usual nonsense from the government backbenchers who didn't know or didn't care what was coming down the pike. Of course, here we are today with Bill 31, which has major implications for working people in the province of Ontario and rights they now have, rights they should continue to have quite simply because they're the right thing in terms of natural justice.
I'm going to address, I hope, all the key issues that the government has offered up as reasons they're doing what they're doing.
The first thing I want to do, though - you can't let these sort of things go by. The government once again talks about "workplace democracy." That is just so insulting, that this government would talk about workplace democracy. Democracy is the last thing you care about.
2020
I mentioned earlier Bill 7, where we've got scabs who are keeping working people, who democratically voted to go on strike because they had to, out on picket lines for an obscenely long period of time. Workers at S.A. Armstrong watching scabs go in every morning for over two years: Prior to your Bill 7, that strike wouldn't have happened; there would have been a negotiated settlement. The gold miners at Red Lake, out also for over two years, because you tipped the balance in favour of your employer friends.
Now there's another disgusting example, J.B. Fields in Trenton. There were a lot of us who stopped by there on our way back from Kingston. That is turning into a very ugly situation. All those strikers are women. We were there watching the scabs go in under police cover, because the police now have an obligation to enforce your anti-democratic law to let those scabs go in and perform the jobs of those democratically striking workers, thereby keeping that strike going and keeping those people out on a picket line. That union there is UNITE, and I would encourage anyone who cares about the plight of people, especially women, who are struggling for natural justice, to please contact that union and offer any support you can.
I can't leave the issue of democracy without at least talking for a second about the changes to the Election Finances Act, again, another piece of legislation that you're ramming through, you're not going to give the public any input on. It will double the amount of money that corporations can contribute - and we know that you're the big winners in that - shorten the campaign period, raise the amount of money that can be spent, remove controls on polling and research. All those things are meant to give you a huge advantage going into the next election, and you have the audacity to speak about democracy.
Bill 15, where you took away the right of workers to have 50% of the seats on the board of the WCB: It's just as much the injured workers' board as it is the employers' board, but you've gone back to giving the employers the majority control on that board. That's what you think about democracy. Now, with that kind of track record, you want the people of Ontario and you want the workers and their leaders and representatives who are here tonight to believe that you give a damn about democracy?
Since I've mentioned, and I said earlier I would mention, a lot of the labour leaders who are here, I want to take a moment to mention those who care enough and quite frankly are angry enough and worried enough, either for their own jobs or those of the people they're elected to represent, that they're here tonight to make sure that you backbenchers and the minister know that they do care about this, they don't support this at all. This bill is all about giving your pals more power, more control, and quite frankly it's all about trying to crush unions and eliminate them from your right-wing agenda. That's what this is all about, and anyone who has any doubt about that, remember, we now have a Minister of Labour in this province who supported a private member's bill that would have eliminated the Rand formula, the foundation of the modern-day labour movement. We have a minister who not that long ago in this place spoke to and supported a private member's bill that would eliminate the Rand formula. That's why these people are here tonight: because they want you to know that they care.
Let me tell you something just on a practical level. For all the friends who own construction businesses and are involved in the other businesses that benefit from this who are going to give you piles and piles of money because you're going to change the election laws - and they will give you piles of money - guess what? You probably couldn't put all of them in this room and fill the seats that are available in terms of what really matters, and that's votes in the ballot box. Those folks who are here tonight and the people they represent, that's where the votes are, and you in the back benches had better wake up and realize that it's not your corporate buddies or the buddies of the cabinet that you're going to go knocking on the doors of. It's on their doorsteps that you're going to be and on their members' doorsteps, and you're going to have to defend this anti-democratic, anti-union, anti-worker piece of legislation.
I won't mention them all, because there are more and more showing up, but I do want to mention some. As I mentioned earlier, the president of the Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, Pat Dillon, is here. Forgive me if I get some of the titles wrong. I'll make sure that Hansard gets the spelling right. What really matters is that people get a flavour of the kinds of folks who are here who are opposed to your legislation.
Pat Dillon is here; John Cartwright, of course, from the Toronto building trades; Wayne Samuelson, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour; Chris Shenk from the Ontario Federation of Labour; Mike Yorke, Local 27 of the carpenters; Jimmy Moffat, the Ontario sheet metal workers' union; Al Budway, Local 30, sheet metal; John Collins, Local 30, sheet metal; Jim Love, sheet metal; Ed Olivera from the roofers; Bill Signal, Local 46, UA; Danny - and I don't have Danny's last name - from Local 46; Barry Stevens, Local 353, IBEW; Monique Joly from CUPE; Jerome Peterson, Toronto building trades.
Most of these folks, by the way, government members, are elected labour leaders, elected democratically in their union by their members.
Applause.
Mr Christopherson: Applauding is not going to help. You know what they would say to you if they were allowed to speak right now? "Save the applause. Save the big pucker. Vote against Bill 31." That's what they'd really like from you if you really want to show them you care about them.
Ron Hillis from the operating engineers; Tom Collins, Canadian director in the Steelworkers for the retail-wholesale; Roger Falconer from the Steelworkers; Doug Reed from the Steelworkers; Mike Piche from the Steelworkers; John Aman, Allison Collier; Mary McCarthy is a steelworker and she was a Wal-Mart employee who understands very clearly what the changes to this legislation will mean; Doug Hammond from steel; Gord Currie and Frank Turco. To those whose names I butchered your names, I apologize.
The other thing I want to mention before I get into specifics of this is, at this point, I have still not heard the minister, who likes to talk about democracy and put it in the names of his bills, say that there's going to be any public hearings on this very important piece of legislation. Are we going to have public hearings? The parliamentary assistant is not too far away. The minister was here. There's the parliamentary assistant there. In his two-minute response to me, I would ask him to acknowledge and commit to the fact that there will be public hearings on this legislation so that the people who are here in the gallery can come forward and represent their members in a democratic fashion. For all your talk, let's see some democracy in action.
I see the minister himself has rejoined us. I would hope, since he likes to talk about democracy, that he'll rise in his place and ensure that all those who want an opportunity to speak to this anti-worker, anti-labour piece of legislation will be given that opportunity. That, Minister, is the very least you can do in terms of democracy.
While we're on the note of democracy, let's move to the issue of the automatic certification. We've heard the government members stand up time and time again and talk to us this evening about the fact that majority rules and under all conditions there ought to be a majority vote and that majority vote will hold. You know what? On the surface, that makes an awful lot of sense. Who could argue with it? Who could argue with that argument when you hear it put that way in the absence of any other details, any other evidence, any other realities?
There's a lot of evidence to put forward on this and there are a lot of realities to consider. First of all, this particular amendment to the Ontario Labour Relations Act came about in 1975 under a former Tory government and was kept in place by a Liberal government and by an NDP government and it took Mike Harris and his extreme right-wing Reform lunatic fringe friends to suggest that somehow this was an anti-democratic clause in the labour law and it's got to go. Up until then, everyone else who has formed power in this province said that was a fair piece of legislation.
2030
Why did that do that? Because there is every bit of evidence to show that once you've poisoned the workplace by threatening employees with their very jobs, you no longer have a free environment for democracy to take hold and for the majority to express their will. I realize that if I were offering that up as some new idea before it had ever been in law, you would all be pounding the desks and saying we're crazy and that we're way off the wall and that that sort of thing won't work. But the reality is that it did become the law because it is true that when you poison a workplace by threatening the workers with the fact that they will lose their jobs if the union comes in, you can no longer see democracy in action. Democracy is gone.
Let me give the evidence of the Wal-Mart case. Many here will know that Wal-Mart is well known as a very anti-union employer. They make no bones about it. A lot of their whole human resource policy is all about keeping unions out. That's the only thing they care about, first and foremost. In fact, when they bought up over 100 stores here in Canada, nine of the 22 they didn't buy - what a coincidence - just happened to be unionized and all the others were non-union. What happened in that particular case? I'm going to refer to that and I'm also going to refer to the decision of the OLRB because they go on in their document to make the case of why automatic certification is part of a just and democratic workplace in terms of labour relations legislation.
The Steelworkers began an organizing drive in the usual fashion. Over a period of time, the management of the company conducted themselves in such a way that the union ultimately charged them in front of the Ontario Labour Relations Board with unfair labour practices, saying that they had indeed poisoned the workplace to the point where the vote that ultimately came out was not a true reflection of democracy.
The board agreed that Wal-Mart's actions tainted the vote in such a way that instead of asking whether the employees wanted a union, they were being asked if they wanted a job. The employer then took the OLRB decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the labour board.
First of all, the government makes the claim that there is nothing that overrides a majority vote, plain and simple bumper-sticker slogan, and there ends the thinking on the matter. We have a piece of legislation in Ontario that's been there for almost a quarter-century, brought in by Tories, that says that's not the case. We have Wal-Mart, which is found guilty, there's an automatic certification by the board and the Supreme Court of Canada upholds the fact that the board made this decision. If anybody needs anything further, I can't imagine what it would be to justify that there are circumstances where that's the only thing left to do.
Why? Let's go to the actual Wal-Mart decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. This is quoting from the decision:
"While the union has asserted numerous breaches of the act by the company, the key allegation in the union's view is that the company raised issues of economic and job security with the employees and then refused to answer questions asked on these matters. In the union's view, the company's failure to answer the question, `Will the store close if the union is successful' led the employees to conclude that the store would in fact close if the union was successful. Therefore, the union requests the board set aside the vote and certify the union pursuant to section 11 of the act."
That's what the union is alleging. They're alleging that things were so tainted by the implied threat to the employer that a proper vote couldn't be held and the vote that was held there needs to be set aside and an automatic certification put in place.
Okay. That sets the stage. Where do we go from there? Let's first of all take a look at section 11, which is the clause that's being eliminated.
"Section 11 of the act provides that the board may certify a trade union as the bargaining agent for the employees in a bargaining unit if satisfied that the following circumstances are present:
"(a) an employer or a person acting on behalf of the employer has contravened the act;
"(b) the result of the contravention is such that a representation vote does not or would not likely reflect the true wishes of the employees about being represented by the trade union;
"(c) no other remedy including the taking of another representation vote is sufficient to counter the effect of the contravention."
What we have are criteria that say the board has all kinds of measures they can take where the employer has contravened the act, but that there are occasions where holding another vote is still not going to give you democracy. That's what the clause is there for.
The minister shakes his head. I'll be interested to hear his argument that such an argument doesn't exist or that such criteria haven't been there or that under no condition could it be that you can't hold a second vote and have democracy reflected.
The board went on - and this gets very technical. I realize this isn't the kind of sexy stuff that really gets everybody going, but the reality, as I mentioned at the outset, is that this is very complex legislation with a lot of technicalities, a lot of theory, quite frankly, of why you have certain laws and the thinking behind it. It gets a little dry, but it's crucial, because we can't afford to let you, the government, ram this through without people understanding what's being lost.
The board goes on to use the example of the Trulite Industries Ltd case in 1983, and here's what was said in that case:
"Certification without a vote under section 8 was designed as a deterrent to illegal employer interference in union organizing campaigns, and a device to provide a meaningful remedy in those cases where the employer's interference undermines his employees' statutory rights, and, in addition, precludes the board from undertaking its usual determination of employee wishes through a representation vote or an assessment of the union's membership evidence. In other words, section 8 is a kind of `second best' solution, to be applied where the employer's misconduct not only frustrates the union's organizing drive, but also impairs the board's ability to ascertain whether the majority of the employees do or do not wish to be represented by the union."
Another example: Domus Industries, 1994. The board ruled:
"Once the well is poisoned in this manner, it becomes impossible to ascertain the true wishes of the employees as a group and the legislative remedy in section 9.2, certification without a vote, may be applied by the board. To conclude otherwise would be to award an employer for its commission of unfair labour practices."
2040
That's exactly where you're taking us. What you're going to do is deny the board the one remedy that does bring about democracy when the workplace is so poisoned that you can't hold a vote. What you're going to do is remove the ability to have automatic certification to overcome that poisoned workplace, and what you're going to do is put in place a series of measures and most of them are going to be dollars. At the end of the day there are going to be dollar penalties.
Do you know what that means, Minister? What it means is an employer will be advised by someone studying your labour law, "If you're prepared, Client Employer, to pay possibly X number of dollars if you get caught, then that'll be the price of keeping the union out of your workplace." Absolutely, Minister. That's why this law was brought in in the first place, to counteract that.
Hon Mr Flaherty: Totally wrong. Absolutely wrong.
Mr Christopherson: Absolutely. Every fine that you put in place, every employee who is forced to be hired back, money that has to be given to the union for organizing, none of that will change the fact that those workers in that workplace have been denied their democratic right to have a union if they so choose.
Hon Mr Flaherty: So the minority can dominate the majority.
Mr Christopherson: I hear the minister mumbling about the "minority shall dominate." It doesn't matter what you can show them as long as they can provide some little thin shield that takes care of their corporate pals. That's what this is all about and you bloody well know it. This is going to unleash all kinds of intimidation, coercion, firings, the whole anti-union litany whenever there's an organizing drive. I've heard some people say this only affects the non-construction sector. Let me tell you, this is going to affect construction workers just as much as it does anybody else. No one will have their democratic rights protected when you change that law because you're going to deny the board the one remedy that in some cases - not many but in some cases - is the only one that lets democracy shine through.
All you're going to do is let employers - let's be clear about this - intimidate all they want, and if they get caught, which is unlikely but if they did get caught, the worst that'll happen is it's going to cost them some money, but at the end of the day they kept the union out. For a company like Wal-Mart that means everything because it doesn't matter whether you hold the vote two weeks later or two months later, the intimidation and threat will always give you a negative vote.
You basically have snuffed out organizing in Ontario, and given the fact that you're the guy who's comfortable eliminating the Rand formula, it's clear that suits you just fine, doesn't it? It suits you just fine to see organizing in Ontario in terms of unions absolutely dry up and die. You would probably consider yourself some kind of wonderful, successful labour minister if that happened, and unfortunately and sadly that is what's going to happen in these cases.
The board also goes on - the minister just refuses to accept this so I'll just appeal to everyone else's common sense since he refuses to use his own - to say, "We have no doubt that the intentionally generated implied threat to job security which occurred in this case" - and they're referring to Wal-Mart - "had the result of rendering the representation vote taking on May 9, 1996, meaningless."
The very vote that you say should rule the day has been deemed meaningless by the Ontario Labour Relations Board because the workplace was poisoned by the threat of job loss.
They go on to say, "This case is a classic example of a situation in which the conduct of the employer changes the question in the minds of the employees at the vote on May 9 from one of union representation to one of `Do you want to retain your employment.'"
"Section 11(1)3" - this is the board talking - "requires us to consider whether any other remedy short of automatic certification" - which you're eliminating with your new bill - "including the taking of a second representation vote" - which is the only real solution you're offering in eliminating this, Minister - "is sufficient to counter the effect of the employer's contraventions of the act." You see, what the employer did was against the law. "We are of the view that a second representation vote in this case would be equally meaningless."
The first vote was deemed meaningless because of the threats of job loss or plant closure. There was such a poisoned environment that that vote was meaningless and the board has said that the remedy of a second vote, which is the only one you're going to leave in place after you ram this Bill 31 through, is equally meaningless. Do you know what's going to happen? I guarantee you, if not the minister, one of them's going to stand up, and they're just going to ignore all of that and all they're going to say is, "A minority should not dictate to the majority." Of course we all know if they really believe you, they -
Hon Mr Flaherty: That's a good rule.
Mr Christopherson: Do you think that's a good rule, Minister? It's funny. You didn't get a majority in the last election, but you're still driving around in the limo.
Mr Maves: The same limo you used to use to drive around in.
Mr Christopherson: You're still driving around in the limo, so there are obviously circumstances -
Interjections.
Mr Christopherson: Oh, I've obviously touched a nerve. Oh, I've touched a nerve. Obviously, Minister -
Interjections.
The Speaker: Minister of Labour, order. Member for Niagara Falls.
Hon Mr Flaherty: They can't count, Speaker.
The Speaker: You're even out of order on two counts.
Mr Christopherson: Obviously the minister, in defending the fact that he's very comfortable driving around in his ministerial limo, suggests that there are some circumstances where the minority will dictate to the majority, but as long as it suits you, you'll accept those circumstances. But when it benefits workers and their democratic rights, oh, no, there can't be anything beyond a simple bumper-sticker solution. That's what's so annoying.
Now I grant you, it's also annoying that there are probably a whole lot of folks who aren't going to pay enough attention to this issue, unfortunately, and that breaks my heart because they will listen to that bumper-sticker slogan. As I started out, on the surface it makes a whole lot of sense, but once you start looking at this issue and start looking real examples of what people who are experts in the field have had to say for almost a quarter of a century, one begins to appreciate why in some circumstances the idea of an automatic certification makes sense.
In most cases, when we talk about an automatic certification, what's the average? It's about a year. We're talking about a year. If the employees are that unhappy, then there is a process that can kick in. This is to make sure that in the initial instance, when there's an organizing drive, there is what you like to call a level playing field, and when the employer goes around and threatens workers with their jobs if they vote for the union, democracy and fairness are not taking place and, therefore, there is ample reason, in terms of worker's rights and worker's fairness, why section 11 ought to be left in place.
2050
I just want to put into the record the final decision of the board in this matter. But before I do that, I also want to mention to the minister that in passing Bill 31, we aren't looking at the number of cases that were mentioned by the member for Simcoe Centre in terms of there's only four, five or six a year. Our initial research shows there were about 15 cases in the last four years. Now that doesn't tell us how many employees are affected, but it's probably more - it certainly surprised me. I didn't think it would be that high, because the threshold of the test is very high. That's a tough thing to prove, that you've poisoned the workplace to the point where a democratic vote can't be held. That's a very high threshold. I personally thought 15 was kind of high.
However, having said that, the fact remains that part of this law was there as a deterrent. In fact, I would say to you, Minister, it was more of a deterrent where employers who picked up that there was an organizing drive going in their place of business would then contact their lawyer and, I believe in an awful lot of cases, most cases, the lawyer said to the employer: "Stay out of it. Stay clean. Let it be a fair, democratic vote, because if you don't and you think you might win the vote without it, you could have the labour board impose" -
Interjections.
The Speaker: Member for Algoma, Minister of Labour, come to order.
Mr Wildman: Sorry, he was provoking me.
Hon Mr Flaherty: He's being arrogant, Mr Speaker.
The Speaker: One was provoking, one was being arrogant.
Mr Christopherson: I thought both applied to the minister, Speaker.
The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre, that's not fair. I think it was my fault. I'm sorry I brought it up.
Mr Christopherson: I withdraw, Speaker.
To end the thought there, the legal advice that an employer received while this section existed would be: "Don't mess around. Don't go out there trying to influence your employees. Don't do any of those things, because at the end of the day if it's proven you did that, you could get an automatic certification. Leave this thing alone."
That's not going to happen now. What's going to happen now is the legal advice is going to be, "If you get caught, here's what could happen," but none of those things is going to be an automatic certification. None of the things that could happen will result in a union being in there because the employer contravened the law. What might be there are fines and having to hire people back and, as I said, paying some organizing costs to the union. But they're all dollar figures and, at the end of the day, that means a licence to keep your place of employment anti-union. To keep the union out of your place of employment will cost you X number of dollars only if you get caught and only if you're found guilty. All those cases where the board says, "A second vote is not a remedy," are all that will be left for those workers.
In other words, workers will be left with meaningless options; according to the board, meaningless options. You know that's exactly what this is all about. This is about making sure that workplaces, your buddies, the people that now can cough up an extra 50% to contribute to your re-election can keep the union out so they've got lots and lots more profit to pour into your re-election so we can keep this insulting, bizarre, dangerous, harmful game going on, where the corporations support you in the election, and when you're in office, you support the corporations so that they can make even more money. And you know what? From where you sit, that's probably a cosy little world. Except you forgot something: the vast majority of people aren't in your equation. They're either up there in the public galleries today or represented by them, because the average working stiff in this province doesn't get a say in your equation - only those with bucks.
I did want to put on the record that final decision. Again, this is the board, after you made your changes, by the way. The board said:
"Having regard to the agreement of the parties the board hereby finds the following bargaining unit to be appropriate: all employees of Wal-Mart Canada Inc at 1950 Lauzon Road, in the city of Windsor, save and except assistant managers, persons above the rank of assistant manager and the personnel manager and persons employed on a temporary basis for a fixed period of time.
"Accordingly, to summarize, the board hereby finds that:
"(a) the employer has violated section 70 of the act as outlined in the body of this decision" - those are the people you're protecting, the ones who broke the law.
"(b) the result of the employer's contravention of the act is such that the true wishes of the employees were not expressed in the vote held May 9, 1996;
"(c) it is not appropriate to direct that a second representation vote be taken."
That was the decision of the board in the case where Wal-Mart's management poisoned the workplace and a democratic vote could not take place. You are going to change all that, and you, for all your touting about democracy in the workplace and caring about workers, are going to in effect, by virtue of that part of Bill 31, eliminate the democratic free choice of workers to decide whether they want to join a union or not. You're going to put in place a licensing fee schedule that says, "Employers, if you're prepared to pay X dollars in fines and other penalties, then you go ahead and take whatever action you want to keep that union out because, boy, oh boy, we took care of that law for you and you're safe now." That's what that part of the law is all about.
Let me talk now about the changes to the construction industry, and I know that a lot of the representatives are here tonight. That's broken into two parts. One is the non-construction employers, the other one is the project agreements, and for all the minister was prepared to say when he was heckling, that Pat Dillon was supportive of this, he didn't have the courage to say it when he was on the record. You didn't say it when you were on the record, so you can still stand up and do it right after you tell me there are going to be province-wide public hearings on this bill. You're great at heckling, but when it comes time to stand up and put it on the record, you clam right up. You've got nothing to say.
Hon Mr Flaherty: Why don't you read the paper? You might learn something. Why don't you read a newspaper? You're dumber than you look.
Mr Christopherson: You're no better. Give it a rest.
The Speaker Order.
Mr Christopherson: Let's take a real good look at what this means. This government, by virtue of the changes in Bill 31 as it applies to construction, is going to provide a system - let me say at the outset that I don't consider myself to be an expert on this, because it is a highly specialized area and it's very technical and it's very complex, and anyone who has dealt with it in any fashion recognizes that it takes a lot of years.
However, there are some fundamental principles here that we can all grasp, and that is that at the end of the day, by virtue of your project agreements, it looks to us like what you're doing is providing a way to circumvent, eliminate through attrition, province-wide collective agreements. At the end of the day, if you make this appealing enough, and it looks like you are, where employers are going to want these project agreements, because they provide in some collective agreements for standards and rates of pay and benefits lower than the province-wide agreement, this is going to be the Cadillac and they're all going to want it.
They're all going to want this, and every time a collective agreement, a province-wide agreement, is watered down, more and more it becomes acceptable, it becomes the norm and the province-wide agreement moves further and further away from being the centrepiece of the wages and benefits and working conditions of people in the construction industry. That's what we think is going on. Unfortunately, since the minister is likely not going to commit to public hearings, we won't know until it's already law and has taken place and we see the watering down of wages and benefits. That's probably another reason the minister doesn't want to have public hearings.
2100
What is the minister suggesting? The minister is suggesting, as they do in their simplistic fashion: "Look, if we can just get 60% of the unions that are going to be participating in a construction project to agree that there are special circumstances so that it can be bid on to be competitive, then why don't they do that? It's a good thing for everybody. The labour leaders obviously aren't representing their own people." There will be some kind of simplistic spin like that. But when we start looking at it - and let me assure the minister that there are people who represent unions who are lawyers, who have spent the last week analysing this and who are still going through it trying to understand the far-reaching implications of what you're doing with this bill.
One of the concerns being expressed, and I want to put it on the record here now, early, is that there's a real possibility that the way you're changing the laws and the process you're putting in place will encourage and allow serious manipulation and corruption. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars. We're talking about a process that affects labour costs, which are a huge part of construction projects, and you're not even going to let the public have a say in how this process may work.
For instance, when the minister says, "We'll just pull together 60% of the unions involved," as I understand it - and I'm not a lawyer; I have to rely on the interpretation of lawyers - the proponent, the person who wants to do the construction project, gets to decide - let's talk about 10 unions on a work site, because it makes it nice and easy in terms of 60% and 100%. It's the proponent who gets to decide which are the unions that get contacted and which are the ones that would be negotiated with. Again as I understand it, it's only those unions which apparently would be involved in the project - no guarantee they'll contact every union that will be and no guarantee that it's only those unions that will be.
As we understand it, if one of those unions makes a concession in a contract - and it doesn't even have to be a concession, to some; it can be an improvement to some, because there are different collective agreements for the different trades. It could be a minor improvement for them but reflect a concession to all the other collective agreements. Once that clause applies, if it's a wage rate or a benefit that's involved, once that principle is in place it applies to every worker on that construction site and every collective agreement.
You talk about majority. Again as we understand it, this isn't even the majority of unions representing the majority of workers. It's six bargaining agents out of the 10. It is possible that those six bargaining agents could represent as little as 10% or 20% of the actual workers who will be on that construction site, yet the other 80% of those workers, who may fall in the 40% who don't agree, will have to live with it. That's our understanding. If that's incorrect - and it would be nice to have public hearings so we could get into this. But if that's the case - and I'd like the minister to be sure that comes out this evening. But right now, that's the way it looks, and that's a real worry.
Hon Mr Flaherty: One union, one vote.
Mr Christopherson: Oh, you're going back to your arguments about why you want to change it, but you're not telling me I'm wrong. You're telling me now, by not saying I'm wrong, that 20% of the workers on a construction site will dictate to the 80% how much money, what the benefits are, what the working conditions are and any other changes that those other six make to their collective agreements. What happened to Mr Majority Rule?
Hon Mr Flaherty: One union, one vote.
Mr Christopherson: All we ever get are bumper-sticker slogans. Any time you offer a thoughtful, insightful analysis, obviously it's just garbage.
Hon Mr Flaherty: Is this too complicated for you?
Mr Christopherson: For all your howling, member, I don't hear you saying that I'm wrong either. It looks as if, at the end of the day, those six - you know what? I'm not even suggesting those six unions are doing anything wrong. It might be that they're the smaller unions. They may not have the best collective agreement, or the areas that are changed in their collective agreement, even if there's a small improvement, it's still not as good as it is in other collective agreements.
Nothing I've mentioned so far is to suggest that those six union leaders - because it isn't the unions themselves, it's just the agents themselves who agree to this; I'm not even suggesting they have to be doing anything wrong.
But when I mentioned the idea of manipulation, it's my further understanding that under this part of your new law the proponent will have a significant say, if not the final say, in what union has jurisdiction over what work. That does a number of things. First of all, your favourite trick of pitting worker against worker is right up front. It lends itself to manipulation, at the very least, and possible corruption. We don't see a whole lot of protection in terms of the labour board being involved to make sure that those kinds of manipulations and potential corruptions aren't taking place. We don't see those protections in here.
This is dangerous. This is not necessarily - not just the workers - in the public good, since a lot of those projects, because you use the example of school boards and municipalities, may be public funds.
I didn't hear the minister. I'm sort of waiting to see if there's any indication that I'm off base, because as I mentioned at the outset, I'm not an expert in this; my background is not the construction industry. But obviously I've at least raised some concerns on behalf of the labour movement and I think on behalf of the public that deserve some response and deserve some consideration. Where are the checks and balances?
Hon Mr Flaherty: Here is your response: one union, one vote.
Mr Christopherson: There he goes again, "One union, one vote." He totally ignores the fact that we're setting up a system where a small minority of workers could be dictating to a larger majority. He just totally ignores that. It's like it didn't happen.
Mr Wildman: Like in election finances: One party, one vote. Is that the way it works, so we get consensus?
Mr Christopherson: Or the province of Ontario: One party, one government. That's what's so frustrating about this government. I thought there might be a change with this minister, but the former minister was exactly the same way: After having a case outlined very clearly to her, she would stand up and say that black is white and white is black, and night is day and day is night, the opposite of what reality is.
All this minister will talk about is the problem he has with the current system. He won't acknowledge that he's setting up a system that could have major manipulation, possible corruption, minorities dictating to majorities, unions being pitted against unions. None of this is good for anyone, except the ones with the bucks at the end of the day. Everything with this government comes back to dollars. The only winners in all of this are the people who get to build their construction site for 10% or 20% or 30% or 40% or 50% less and they can make more money.
Don't give us this garbage about competitiveness. Don't tell us that Wal-Mart does not have some kind of competitive edge everywhere they go, or that banks are not doing well. I'm going to raise them in the context of the major piece that affects the construction industry.
2110
That's what you keep saying this is all about. It's not about that at all, as usual. It's not about workplace democracy; it's about making sure that unions fail in any kind of organizing drive because people are too terrified to vote for a union because they think they're going to lose their job, even though their employer has broken the law by saying that to them.
You yap on about one union preventing an agreement and a competitive bid from taking place, and yet you acknowledge that you're putting in place a system that lends itself to manipulation, possible corruption and a further dictating, to use your symbolism, of the small percentage telling the large percentage what they're going to do. At least under the current system there was fairness. Collective agreements were not breached unless there was unanimity.
If you were coming in here, Minister, with a legitimate, fair process, an alternative way of doing things that doesn't cost only one partner, the workers, something in the deal, you'd be getting a different response than you are today. But because of what you're doing, you're going to get as much resistance - and let's be honest. Let's not kid ourselves at this stage in the government's mandate. The people involved, the unions, those that care, will do as much as they can to resist this government, but ever since they changed the rules of this House, just like they're going to change the rules of the next election, they've got total control.
This House rises in two weeks. In two weeks this session is done; it breaks for the summer. The odds are, unless you hear different from the Minister of Labour, this thing's going to be law by then. We can probably say the same about the election finances. You're going to ram that through too. Yes, you may not see the kind of resistance that would be there if you followed a proper democratic process, but then that's why you aren't, isn't it? Ram it through before the end of June, get into the summer months, get into the new year, attack somebody else, throw the headlines elsewhere. The fact that you've rigged the next election by changing the election rules and changing the financing of elections and changing more labour laws you hope will just be forgotten by people.
There are only a few moments left and I do want to at least touch on the non-construction employers. I wouldn't suggest for a minute that any one of these has a greater priority than the others, but I want to tell you I think that the leaders of the building trades at least had some sense of what you were thinking about with the other issue - not on the Wal-Mart one, but certainly on the other construction one - but the non-construction employers piece apparently just blew them right away. For all your bragging about the consultation and meetings you've been doing, the word we're getting from Pat Dillon and the other labour leaders is that you did not put on the table the fact that you were looking at this non-construction employers aspect of Bill 31, which is typical of you folks. It's typical. Nobody got any input into Bill 7 either, or any of the other anti-labour legislation. You brought all that in.
At the end of the day, it would seem that what this clause is meant to do - and again, the legal people are still looking at this - from what we can gather, having had less than a week to look at it, is to further weaken the rate of unionization within the construction industry in the province of Ontario, because what you're going to say is that if construction is not your predominant business, then the collective agreements of the building trades contractors, the province-wide agreements, don't apply. That means more and more non-union workers in the building industry, which is totally consistent with this government's outlook and, in particular, this labour minister's personal view of what the labour market ought to look like in Ontario.
Further to that, we suspect there's a chance that for some employers, where construction isn't their primary business, who didn't have their own construction arm because of the collective agreement - which is fine; it just means that some other entrepreneur has a construction business and they're doing the work. What it might mean is that there are a lot of employers who will suddenly open up construction divisions of their companies and know the union can't get in. Beautiful. Reagan would have loved it. It's like Star Wars with the shields. You put the law in place, you open up this division of your corporation and guess what? The union can't get in because they're not primarily a construction employer.
Again, these are things that should be fleshed out, talked about and looked at during the course of the summer, during public hearings. That's what ought to be happening. It won't, unless the minister shocks us all and stands up and says there will be public hearings. If he does, I will go on the record as congratulating him and we'll all roll up our sleeves and take a look at this and see what it means and what we can do to make it better. But I suspect that's not going to happen. You're not going to hear any of the major issues that had any complexity that have been raised here tonight, and all we're going to get back are the platitudes and the bumper-sticker slogans about the way the world ought to be according to all the Mr and Ms Sillys who sit on that side of the House.
I will wrap up my comments by just pointing out that anyone who believes this is a minor little bill that only affects a few employers is misreading this. This alone is a major attack on the labour movement and all workers in this province. Taken with everything else they've done, it just points to a disaster in terms of workers' rights in Ontario.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Gilchrist: I appreciate that the member opposite twice in his one-hour diatribe admitted that he had no expertise in the field he was talking about today. I think that showed in the quality of the comments.
I spent 25 years in the same retail industry that he kept besmirching in talking about one of the competitors, Wal-Mart, and suggesting that somehow workers have no power, workers have no rights. I guess it's a foreign concept to him that maybe the reason so many of those stores aren't unionized is because many employers treat their workers fairly. Many of them offer profit-sharing plans and the workers therefore regard it as being their store as much as management's.
But I think more important, in talking about this bill, he fails to recognize that the situation we have right now is no projects taking place, no unions getting those quality jobs down in Sarnia, because it's not a question of whether 5% or 20% or 70% agree with what is being proposed; if you don't get 100% today, nobody gets a job and that's your idea of a better shake for the workers in Ontario.
You should be ashamed of yourself for standing in the way of the -
Interruption.
The Speaker: Order. Stop the clock.
Interruption.
The Speaker: Hold on. Sir, you must leave. The member for Scarborough East has the floor. I've stopped the clock. I'll tell you up there right now, if there's another outbreak I'll clear the gallery. I'm not interested in picking off people one at a time.
Member for Scarborough East.
Mr Gilchrist: When you talk about the poisoned atmosphere, and you yourself read the extract, the reality today is that Wal-Mart, when erring on the side of not scaring their workers, when asked the question: "What would happen if it was unionized?" gave no answer, the OLRB decided that the best idea was to then certify the union.
You've given a great speech, and I am sure the people on whom you rely for your campaign donations are very impressed with what you had to say. But the reality is that four days ago this bill was tabled. You have not stood in your place once, not one of your colleagues has stood, and asked any questions. You've been concerned about lobbyist registration, you've been concerned about election reform, casinos, property tax. You haven't had one concern about the workers, so don't be hypocritical, don't suggest you care about them tonight.
The Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, you must withdraw that comment.
Mr Gilchrist: Which one, sir?
The Speaker You must withdraw the "hypocritical."
Mr Gilchrist: If it's unparliamentary, I certainly withdraw it.
2120
The Speaker: It is unparliamentary.
Questions and comments? The member for Yorkview.
Mr Sergio: When the member for Hamilton Centre speaks with respect to worker's rights, he's always there. I have to give him that.
When we speak about democracy in the workplace, I have to say that democracy, in my book, means that it only exists when the governing majority gives the minority an opportunity to be heard. This is not the way to give an opportunity to the minority to be heard. When we have legislation that allows a major non-construction employer the right to exempt themselves from hiring union workers, I find that really not a democratic improvement in the workplace. It boils down to the oh-so-sad relationship between employers, workers and government. How many times have we heard this government say, "We want less government and less government interference"? Here we go again.
Like if the 40% don't belong to that particular democracy in the workplace - yes indeed, Mr Minister, democracy works and lives and is well when the governing majority gives the minority an opportunity to be heard. You're denying 40% of those workers the opportunity to express their will, their desire and the opportunity to be heard. Those 40% also have families, they have kids, they buy cars, they pay mortgages and they pay our salaries as well. How often do we remember that? How often we seem to forget it.
Mr Wildman: I want to congratulate my friend from Hamilton Centre for his presentation on this very important piece of legislation before the House. I listened, as he was making his presentation, to some barracking from the Minister of Labour to the effect that he believed the majority vote should take precedence at all times. As my friend from Hamilton Centre said, this is a very simplistic and easy argument to make.
I just hope that the minister and his colleagues will consider this one thoughtful presentation: In areas of the world where democratic votes have not been taken before, where governments are organizing new elections, oftentimes they invite international observers to come and observe polling stations to ensure that there isn't intimidation of the voters going on. Why do we do that? Because we know that in many cases where votes are new, where people are involved in a process they haven't been involved in before, they can be intimidated by those who would prefer not to have a democratic vote occur, and who would like to in some way subvert that democratic procedure.
I think this has some analogy in this particular case. If workers have never had an opportunity to express their views in a vote freely in the past, and if they are subject to intimidation by someone who holds the possibility of them not having the wherewithal to provide for themselves and their families, then there must be protections in the law. What you're doing is, you're taking that away. It's not majority over minority, it's a question of real democracy in the workplace.
Mr Maves: The member opposite knows we have quite a long history of people in Ontario voting and they understand the process. They're not so easily intimidated that way.
Just as an aside, although it was mentioned during the member's speech, I'm really one in this House who's tired of hearing people make comments about Mr Silly. I don't know how you can stand here -
Mr Wildman: It was the Premier who raised it first.
Mr Maves: I don't know how you can stand up and mock parents who read to their children. That's what you're doing, so think about that before you continue to mock parents for reading to their kids.
The member talked about employer interference. Employer interference is still not allowed. There is still a wide body, probably a growing body, of remedies that can be offered. The member said: "What does it matter? Let the minority rule. In a year they can vote again." Well, perhaps in this situation, one of the remedies the OLRB will order is some kind of time or a monitoring period before they order another representation vote. So if you said in the one instance it removes the poisoned atmosphere, then it's the same thing.
The other part about project agreements: Project agreements won't happen unless 60% of the unions involved agree to it. It's not anti-democratic. They have to agree, 60% of them. A proponent can't go out there and have two unions out of 14 agree to a project agreement and have everyone bound by it. Just as two out of 14 right now can stop the other 12 from having an agreement and having some economic development, two out of 14 aren't going to stop it from happening. So 60% must support the project agreement. That's a majority of the people these folks up here represent.
You want to have it both ways, member for Hamilton Centre. At the start of your speech you said the labour leaders represent their voters. At the end of your speech, you said, "No, they don't represent their voters, and a minority of them are going to be able to make them join a project agreement." You can't have it both ways.
The Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre has two minutes to respond.
Mr Christopherson: I don't follow the logic of the last part of your thinking. I went out of my way to point out very clearly that the labour leaders could very well be representing their members and we'd get into this jackpot with the 60-40, so I'm not sure what you're referring to there.
To start with the member for Niagara Falls, and I appreciate his taking the time to respond, the whole point of going through all this on the Wal-Mart decision and the ability to have automatic certification is to recognize that in a fair and democratic society, as my colleague from Algoma has pointed out, democracy is not always a simple thing.
There was a Tory government in 1975 and people who served on the Ontario Labour Relations Board for almost a quarter-century who all agreed that there were circumstances where democracy couldn't take place because the workplace was poisoned. We had the same thing in place when there used to be automatic card certification brought in over 50 years ago by a former government. You eliminated that too, and you used the same bumper-sticker slogan. That's what hurts, you know, and I acknowledge it does, because it's hard to counteract some of that simplistic stuff, especially when we don't have the same money as you, in terms of contributions, to hire the professional PR people who come up with these. That's where this stuff comes from, and that's why you spend so much money and effort as a government on public advertising.
To my friend from Yorkview, I appreciate his comments.
The member for Scarborough East is always an interesting fellow. I just happen to be one of those who's quite prepared to stand up in this place and, unlike you, acknowledge that I don't know everything. Every now and then I like to make sure that people understand that. Besides, there's a reason that your nickname is "the member from Canadian Tire," and it always shows itself when you make your arguments.
The Speaker: It now being nearly 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock.
The House adjourned at 2129.