Manitoba Committee Hansard — Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 5 (37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-ir5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Industrial Relations Chairperson Mr. Daryl Reid Constituency of Transcona Vol. L No. 5 - 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, August IS, 2000

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARREIT, Becky, Hon. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, HalT)' FAURSCHOU, David FILMON, Gary FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, lion. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATIILIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, LaiT)' MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

MIIIYCIIUK, MaryAnn, Hon. MITCIIELSON. Bonnie NEVAKSIIONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCIIELLENBERG, 113fT)' SCIIlJLER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, lion. SMITII, Joy SMITII, Scott STEFANSON, Eric STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCIIlJK, Rosann, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Lac du Bonnet Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Rossmere Springfield St. Boniface Fort GaiT)' Brandon West Kirkfield Park Dauphin-Roblin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.I'. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. I'.C.

N.D.P. N.D.I'. I'.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. I'.C. N.D.I'. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.I'. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.IH. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.I'. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.I'. P.C. N.D.I'. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.DP. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.I'. N.D.P. I'.C. N.I>P P.C. N.D.P P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.DI'.

Il l LEGI SLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL REL ATIONS Tuesday, August 15,2000 TIME - 6:30 p.m. LOCATION- Winnip eg, Man itoba CHAIRPER SON (Transcona) Mr. Daryl Reid VICE-CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Scott Sm ith (Brandon West) ATTENDANCE -11 -QUOR UM -6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Ms. Barrett, Hon. Ms. Mihychuk, Hon. Mr. Sale Messrs. Enns, Loewen, Nevakshonof f, Reid, Rondeau, Schuler, Smith, Mrs. Smith APPEARING: Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, MLA for St. Norbert Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson, Interim Leader of the Official Opposition Mr. Leonard Derkach, MLA for Russell Mr.

Larry Maguire, ML A for Arthur- Virden WITNE SSES: Mr. Chris Christensen, President, South Eastern Manitoba Labour Counc il Mr. Grant Ogonowski, Private Ci tizen Mr. Roland Boisvert, President, Chambre de commer ce francophone de Saint-Boniface Mr. Ron Hambly, Executive Vice-President, Winnipeg Construction Association Mr. George Floresco, President, Canadian Unio n of Postal Workers, Winnipeg Local Mr. David Condon, Canadian Un ion of Postal Workers, Prairie Region Mr. Brian Short, International Association of Machin ists and Aerospace Workers Mr. Grant Mitch ell, Private Citiz en Mr.

George Fraser, Executive Director, Manitoba Home Builders' Association Ms. Maureen Hancharyk, Manitoba Nu rses' Un ion Mr. James Hogaboam, President, Delivery Drivers Alliance of Manitoba Mr. Kenneth Emberley, Ci tizens for Democracy and Less Poverty Ms. Darlene Dziewit, Private Citiz en Ms. Julie Sheeska. Private Cit izen Ms. Joy Ducharme, Private Citi zen Ms. Alice Ennis, Private Citiz en Ms. Kelly Gaspur, Private Citiz en Mr. Colin Trigwell, Private Ci tizen Mr. Larry Mci ntosh, Private Citiz en Mr. Graham Starmer, Coalition of Manitoba Bu sinesses Mr.

Gerry Roxas, Com mun ications Energy and Paper Workers Union of Canada, Local 830 Mr. Dale Paterson, Canadian Auto Workers Ms. Maria Soares, Union of Needletrades, Industrial and Textile Employees, Local 459 Mr. Neal Cu rry, Westlands Plastics Ltd. Mr. Bob Dol yniuk, Manitoba Truckers Association Ms. Ly dia Ku brakovic, Canadian Federation of Students Mr. Krishna Lalbiharie, Canadian Federa tion of Students Mr. Todd Scarth, Director, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives-Manitoba Mr. Rod Giesbrecht, Private Ci tizen Mr. Albert Ceri lli, President, Manitoba Federation of Unio n Retirees Mr.

Peter Olfert, President, Manitoba Government Employees' Un ion Mr. Robert D. Zi egler, Private Cit izen Mr. John Godard, Private Ci tizen Mr. Mario Javier, Private Ci tizen Ms. Margot Lavoie (Manitoba Oblates Justice and Peace Com mittee) Mr. Thomas Novak (Manitoba Oblates Justice and Peace Com mittee) Mr. David Newman (Private Citiz en)

11 2 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS: Ms. Ilene Lecker, Private Cit izen Mr. George Bergen, Private Ci tizen Un ited Steel Workers of Am erica Ms. Joyce Reynolds, Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association Mr. Bob Stevens, Manitoba Restaurant Association Mr. David Martin, Manitoba Building and Construction Trades Counc il Mr. Ron Teeple, The Brandon & District Labour Counc il Mr. Grant Mitche ll, Private Cit izen MATTERS UNDER DI SCUSSION: Bill 18 - The Labour Relations Am endment Act Bill 44 - The Labour Relations Amendment Act (2) * * * Mr.

Cha irperson: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Will the Standing Comm ittee on Industrial Relations please come to order. Th is evening the Com mitte e will resume consideration of the following bills: Bill 18 , The Labour Relations Am endment Act; Bill 44, The Labour Relations Am endment Act (2). At a previous sitting this com mitte e came to an agreement on the following points: We agreed to hear public presentations before consideration of the bills. We agreed to hear presentations on Bill 18 before presentations on Bill 44. We agreed to hear out-of -town presenters before in-town presenters.

For absent presenters we agreed to call names once before dropping them to the bott om of the list, and then to call names again at subsequent meetings considering these bills before dropping them from the I ist. A motion was passed setting IS-minute time limits for presentations and a 5-minute time limit for questioning. We agreed to leave presentations open on both Bills 18 and 44, and I will now read the names of the remaining persons who have registered to make public presentations this evening.

I guess first I should ask, if ther e are any individuals here that wish to make presentation on Bill 18 , please indicate with the Clerk at the back of the Cham ber, and then we will give you opportunity to make your presentation this evening. With respect to Bill 44, we have listed Mr.

Edward Zi nk, Chris Ch ristensen, Bruce Buckley, Brian Etkin, Grant Ogonowski, Ron Hambly or Alfred Schl ieer, George Floresco and John Friesen, Cin dy McCal lum and David Condon, Brian Short, George Fraser, Maureen Hancharyk, James Hogaboam, Kenneth Emberley, Darlene Dziewit, Julie Sheeska, Donna Favell, Joy Ducharme, Alice Ennis, Kelly Gaspur, Co lin Trigwell, Larry Mci ntosh, Graham Starmer, Gerry Roxas, Dale Paterson, Jer ry Woods, George Bergen, Maria Soares, Neal Cur ry, Bob Dolyniuk, Bob Stephens, Lydia Kub rakovich, Jim Murray, Todd Scarth, John Mann, Rod Giesbrecht, Buf fy Bu rrell, Albert Cer illi, Richard Chale, David Martin, Ron Teeple, Peter Olfert, Grant Mitchel l, Robert Zi egler, John Godard, Lou Harris, Mario Javier, Thomas Novak, Herb Schu ltz, Doug Stephen, Roland Boisvert.

If there are any other individuals wishin g to make a presentation here this evening and their names were not read out, please indicate to the Clerk at the back of the room here this evening. Those are the persons who are registered to speak this evening. We have no more presenters registered to speak to Bill 18 . Are ther e any other persons in attendance, as we have indicated, who wish to make a presentation on Bill 18 ? Please indicate to the Clerk at the back of the room.

Seeing that ther e are no other members who appear to be interested in speaking to Bill 18 , is the Committe e ready to conclude the public presentations on Bill 18 and proceed with the hearings of the remainder of the presentations on Bill 44? [Agreed] I would like to remind presenters that 20 copies are required of any written version of presentations. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see the Clerk of this co mmittee. As a cour tesy to persons waiting to

Au gust 15 , 2000 LE GISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 11 3 make presentations, did the Comm ittee wish to indicate how late it is willing to sit this evening? Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): think midnight is a reasonable time. Most people do have jobs in the morning to go to. I think it is respectful of those individuals that have to get up tomorrow morning that we would put a time limit of midnight on it. Mr. Scott Smith (Brandon West): I would like to suggest that we sit unt il the presenters that have come tonight to present are completed and that everyone is heard. Mr.

John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Out of respect for the people who are presenting to us tonight, as my colleague from Springfield has mentioned, there are a great many people here who have put a lot of time and effort and thought into their presentation. Most of them do have day jobs to go to tomorrow. I think out of respect for them, we should sit until midnight, and then allow those that are not heard by midnight, who want to come back or, for that matter, who are not hear d by ten or eleven o'clock, to come back tomorrow morning.

I do not see why we are in any great rush to pressure people into making presentations at two, thr ee, four or five o'clock in the morning. We have got a lot of presenters. I think to be fair to them we should sit unt il midnight. If ther e are others that would prefer to give their presentation in the morning or to come back tomo rrow at 6:30, then I do not think they would be asking too mu ch of this co mmittee to deal with it on that basis. Hon. Becky Barrett (Mini ster of Labour): would recommend that we do as we have done in the past, which is sit until midnight and assess the situation at midnight.

We did that last night. We did that in Bill 44 and have done that in the past. Mr. Schuler: Sorry, Mr. Chair man, I am new to the process, so I forgot to read my motion into the record. I move that we end commit tee sitting at 12 midnight out of cour tesy to the presenters. * ( 18:4 0) Motion presented. Mr. Cha irpers on: We have a motion on the floor. Hon. MaryAnn Mihy chuk (Mini ster of Ind ustry, Trade and Mines): Just on the motion on the floor, I think that you need to consider the fact that people have made arrangements to present tonight.

Having been a presenter in other situations at other times, sometimes it is up to the people whether they would like to stay on and present their submission, if it is 12 or 12:3 0. I mean, let us have some consideration so that people do not have to come back on another day. I think that this comm ittee needs to have some flexibility. I think we do what the Minister has recom mended; that we be consi derate to the audience. If we can get the job done tonight, I think that that would be beneficial. There have been people sitting here through yesterday, this morning. and now again. Th eir time is precious.

I thin k we sh ould try to be as expedient as possible. If people wish to present after midnight, I do not think we should cut them off. Mr. Schuler: Just a clarification then to members opposite. If they are saying that we would sit and listen to anybody who wanted to present tonight, and then reconvene again, tomorrow, to listen to those who cannot, certainly that is something we would consider entertaining. Because how do we know who did not want to present tonight, if at thr ee in the morning, they have already left?

So, if the other side is recommending that we listen to whoever wants to speak tonight, we would agree to that as long as the Commit tee is reconvened again tomorrow for those who cannot stay. We live in a kind of society where individuals do have to get home; who have families to atte nd to. Often, the babysitter meter is running. They have to get home to take the babysitter home. Tomo rrow they have to get to work. So I think it is reasonable then to hold over.

We would be willing to let anybody who wanted to present today go ahead and reconvene tomorrow and let anybody else who cou ld not stay for the night proceed tomorrow. Hon. Tim Sale (Mini ster of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Chai rperson, I be lieve the motion is probably not helpful to the number of people who have taken time now twice in a row

11 4 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 to come. I believe that the Minister's suggestion is the appropriate one, that at midnight we take a look at what we have and what people would like to do, and that we reassess it at that time. I think that has been a very consi stent approach that has been taken on other similar bills, and I do not think it is fair to ask people to keep com ing night after night to see what we are doing. I guess I would ju st make one other comment to all of us on both sides. We can waste a lot of presenters' time by talking about this issue.

I do not think we want to do that. I believe we should come to a conc lusion on this, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair person: Mr. Loewen, did you have your hand up? Mr. Loewen: Well, ju st one further comment. I have some concern, because I have been thr ough a number of com mittees, and in particular one that involved a number of people at this table.

Sure enough, at twelve o'clock, instead of allowing people to carry over to another day, the members on the opposite side used th eir majority numb ers on the Commit tee to end public presentations at a time when all the presenters had not yet had a chance to speak and some had gone home due to the lateness of the hour. So I am comf ortable sitting here after twelve, as long as people want to present, as long as we have the agreement that tomorrow morning or at some point tomo rrow, maybe 6:30 or in the morning, this com mittee will reconvene and it will be open to public presentations.

That is all we are asking for is to make sure that individuals who, for whatever reason, cannot stay tonight have the opportunity to present in the morning. Mr. Mar cel La ur endeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Loewen has stated basically what I wanted to say.

If the Minister is prepared to put on the record that she will not close debate tonight after midnight, some people might choose to go home at a reasonable hour the way they have in the past couple of nights, and if the Minister is prepared to put on the record that she is willing to not close the public presentations this evening, I am sure that we can make sure that we hear everybody that wants to be heard this evening, and myself and the House leader can negotiate to have another co mmittee established for tomorrow night. Mr.

Sale: These discussions tend to drag on. thin k there is no right answer often in regard to these issues, because each time we give the indication that people travel here for a hearing they give up an evening, and then they wind up not being heard . I think that is very impolite, basically, to people who would want to be heard. I believe that it is always in our interests to be willing to acco mmo date those who have taken the time and made the effort to develop a presentation. We see here many bills, many presentations of a very high quality.

I really do not think that it is appropriate to shut thin gs down at a pre conceived time, particu larly when people may not have the ability to come back at the next hearing of the Commit tee, for whatever reason. We feel that we have had a great deal of time on this bill. We have had a great deal of good input and, of course, people who are not able to present at previous comm ittees on which all of us have sat, the approach to that problem has been to be willing to receive people's presentations and read them into the record as received.

That way the presentations that people have worked very hard to develop are received by the Comm ittee. They are part of the record. They get filed in the legislative papers, and they are available for the Minister and for the House to review. I certainly do not have any problem with agreeing to that approach for those who have presentations ready tonight but are not able to stay or are not able to come back. The idea of receiving those presentations at the co mmittee table and agreeing that they will become part of the record is something that other co mmittees have done.

I would appeal to the Opposition House Leader (M r. Laurendeau) to hear his views in terms of whether the Comm ittee would always be willing, as it has been in the past, to receive the presentations from groups who are not able to stay and put them in the record and allow them to be part of the record, even if the presenter was not able to make a presentation. I thin k we have always agreed to that, and I would hope we would do that, which might be one of the ways we could acco mm odate people who are

Au gust 15, 2000 LE GISLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 115 not able to return another time. I think we should come to a conclusion on this issue ju st as quickly as we can. I hope that the Opposition House Leader (Mr. Laurendeau) would indicate his agreement that, if there are people who want to table their presentation without being able to present in the meeting tonight, he would agree that should happen. Mr. Chair person: Is the Commit tee ready for the question? Some Honour able Members: Question. Mr.

Cha irperson : The question before the Comm ittee is as follows: That we end the co mmittee sitti ng at 12 midnight out of consideration for the presenters. The motion is in order. Shall the motion before the Commit tee pass? Some Honour able Members: Yes. Some Honour able Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperson: Those in favour, please indicate by saying yea. Some Honour able Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: Those opposed, please indicate by saying nay. Some Honour able Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperso n: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Formal Vote Mr. Loewen: A recorded vote, please. Mr.

Chair person: A recorded vote has been called. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 4, Nays 6. Mr. Cha irperso n: The motion 1s accord ingly defeated. * * * *( 18:50) Mr. Smith : Mr. Chair, I would like to move a motion. I would move that the Commit tee sit unt il all presentations are completed. Motion presented. Mr. Cha irperso n: The motion is in order. Mr.

Loewen: I mu st put on record my disappointment that the government side is using th eir majority on this co mmittee, as they are well aware that they have more voting members on this commit tee than the Opposition, and I am very disappointed that they are going to be forc ing people who have come to this com mittee with the best of intentions to stay here late into the evening or early into the morning to give their presentations and possibly not be able to do them ju stice due to the lateness of the hour.

Again I just want to record that I do not understand what the big rush is to jam this through, but having said that, we will proceed with the vote. Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Cha irperso n: The question has been called. Is the Com mittee ready for the question? The question before the Comm ittee is that the Comm ittee sits until all presentations are completed. Is it the pleasure of the Comm ittee to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Mr. Cha irperso n: All those in favour of the motion, please indicate by saying yea.

Some Honour able Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperso n: All those opposed, please indicate by saying nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay.

11 6 LE GISLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 Mr. Chair person : In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Formal Vote Mr. Schuler: We would like to call for a recorded vote, please. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 6, Nays 4. Mr. Cha irperson: The motion is accord ingly passed. * * * Mr. Chair person: For the information of members of the Comm ittee, we have received a request to the Comm ittee to hear a French presentation this evening from Mr. Roland Boisvert, No. 50 on the presenters' list.

Due for the need for translation staff to be in attendance for this presentation, is it the will of the Comm ittee to move Mr. Boisvert to the head in the presentation order so that the translation staff are not required to remain for the entire evening? [Agreed] For the information of members of the Com mittee, translation staff have requested that the presentation occur somewhere around 7:30 p.m. Is it the will of the Comm ittee to allow that to occur? [Agreed] Before the translation staff departs, we will canvass the room to ensure that no other French presentations have been requested.

Also for the information of members of the Comm ittee, we have received a presentation, and I have been advised that Ilene Lecker is unable to attend the comm ittee meetings. Ms. Lecker has asked that her brief be distributed to the Commit tee and considered as a written submission. Does the Com mittee grant its consent for th is written submission to appear in the com mittee transcripts for this meeting? [Agreed] It also has been distributed to members of the Commit tee as well. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Chair, I do not seem to have a copy of that report, so if we could have some more copies. Thank you.

Bill 44-The Labour Relations Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Chair person : I will now call on presenters as we have indicated earlier for Bill 44. The first name appearing on the list is Edward Zi nk. Is Edward Zi nk in the audience here this evening? Floor Comment: Mr. Chair, I indicated earlier on that he will not be making any presentation. He had a death in the family. He is in British Columb ia, and you can strike him off the list completely. Mr. Chair person: Thank you, sir. As a matter of process, we have to call the names, and we will strike the name from the list. Thank you for that information. The next name we have on the list is Chris Christensen.

Is Mr. Chr istensen in the audience here this evening? Please come forward, sir. Do you have a written presentation? Mr. Ch ris Ch ristensen (President, South Eastern Man itoba Labour Council): I have five copies. You will need to make more. Should I proceed before you get your copies? Mr. Chair person : If it is the will of the Commit tee. Is it all right if the presenter proceeds before all of the written presentations have been distributed? [Agreed} Okay, Mr. Chr istensen, please proceed. Mr. Ch ristensen: It is an honour and a pleasure to be here. I missed the proceedings up till now.

I came for the rules last night and could not stay, so I hope that what I have to say is not redundant. I know you people have a lot to do. I am sure you have heard many of these thin gs before, and you will hear more after. I am going to try and be a little bit different in what I say. My background, first of all, I work in Pine Falls at the paper mill. I have been there 27 1/2 years. The previous I 0 years, I was president of the Paper Workers Local 9 of those I 0 years. I am currently past president.

I am currently also president of the South Eastern Manitoba Labour Coun cil, which is the body that takes care of the unionized workers within a region, which kind

Au gust 15 , 2000 LE GISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 11 7 of mirrors what used to be Provencher before the electoral boundary changes. At the outset, I want to state for the record that I support the cur rent actions of the Government aimed at restoring to labour unions thi ngs that were taken away by the previous government. A number of those thi ngs we found a� workers were insulting and downright disrespectfu l.

They were a nu isance, parti cu larly the reporting of financials which was quite a red herring in that unions being democratic report their fi� ancials to their membership regularly and the1r members have access to those thin gs on request if they want them. From what I understand. ther e have been no requests since this legislation was enacted so it was a waste of everyone's time. In �ny case, t_ hat is not to say that I totally agree w1th the legislation. I am disappointed that ther e is no legislation to proh ibit striker replacement. I think that is something that is necessary.

We have the scenario in the United States, for example, where they have right-to work states. and it is a true union-b usting strategy to have scabs working when people are on strike or locked out. From what I know of members from my union who are in the United States, it is quite a test on union workers to maintain their status in that scenario, and I strongly urge this commit tee to add such a provision to Bill 44. So, having said that, I support in general term_ s the legislati� n. I give my qualified support for 11. I want to JUSt tell you a little bit more ab� ut mys� lf.

Prior to being a union president, pn or to bemg a shop steward, I used to believe that unions were a necessary evil. For many years I carried a union card simply because it was job protection. I am one of those who thought that unions are really just a po litical thin g that really have no use other than to control peo� le, and that was based on a previous point ofv1 ew, based on a previous religious viewpoint. *( 19:00) � entered into work here in Pine Falls, and prevw usly I worked in British Columbia for Safeway, and being in the union was ju st someth �ng you had to do.

It was not really somethmg you wanted to be involved in. 1 mention that because I know there is a certain segment of society, because of a religious bent, think that unions are bad thin gs. They think in princ iple, they are wrong. What I have seen and experienced over my working lifetime has caused me to re-evaluate organized labour. I have come to see that, despite certain significant phi losophical flaws, in my opinion. that union organizations have and that the political arm of labour has, particu larly within the context of democ racy, I want to ph rase my remarks.

Uni onized workers have the best potential and maybe the only organized form of opposition to the cruelty and injustice of �nbridled capitalism. I believe at this time in my hf e that non-parti cipation by workers within a union framework is nothing less than an abdication of democratic responsibility.

Now again, ju st to address that issue, and I do not know if you have had that addressed here from a religious point of view, those who think that unions are, sh all we say, part of the world and you know Ch ristians are no part of that well I think that is a misapplication of scripture. ' If I might ju st cite Romans 13 , the Apostle Paul made it very clear that God allows man to form the kinds of governments he does, and he does not say, well, you can have this kind of government but not that kind of government. Democracy is the type of government that has evolved in our area, which means we are the government.

If we do not participate in gov� rnment, we are abdicating. It is that simple. It IS actually an obligation I would say scripturally to anyone who makes that argument that we should be involved in our government. Unio�s are a form of government. They are granted hc ence by the various jurisdict ional powers in what is called the democratic or free world, and they have the ability to collect the tax .. Th e� administer thin gs. Th ey provide serv1� es.' JUSt as governments do, mu nic ipal. pr� vmc1al, federal.

So there is nothing wrong w1th that as I see it from that perspective, but 1 do not want to base my comments simply on t� at. That is j� st my background and my world v1ew and my his torical frame of ref erence. On the other _ hand, hi story does record very clearly the su ffen ng and oppression of working

11 8 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 people around the world right up to this very day where ther e is no access to free trade unionism, where ther e is mu rder and tyranny in places like Columbia for people who do organize workers. If capitalism had its day, unfettered by unionism, we would see the same thi ngs happ ening here, and we did see them here before there was unionized work. We could say that capitalism's version of the golden rule is he who has the gold rules, and that is the kicker.

Since money is the thing that seems to make the world go round and everybody is chasing the dollar or the peso or whatever it happens to be, then there is a disparity. There is not an equality. Those who have the gold rule, and they do not necessarily rule fairly, kindly or hu manely. The question of fair and equitable dis tribution of the profit made by workers in service to the ir employers underlies the whole debate here today, because that is what good financial economy is all about. It is not good to say that while the corpo rations are making profits head over heels the workers are barely subsisting.

That is not a good economy. That is a bad economy. The ant i-union business lobby that is attacking Bill 44 alleges that individual demo cratic rights are being thr eatened. Now this is kind of strange. In reading the articles in the paper, pro and con, I find, you know, I have the CLC constitution here, I have my own union constitution, and I think it is generally true that in every constitution we find exhortations to fight for social justice, for democr atic rights and principles. So here we are. Capitalism is telling us that we are undemo cratic. We are saying, no, we support democracy.

Perhaps what we should do is define the debate. What is democracy? Perhaps Mr. Schuler and his group can tell us what they believe democracy really is. Maybe we should have a separate co mmittee meeting to debate that and define what it is we are arguing about. If we both believe in democracy, both groups, why are we arguing? Defining the debate. What is democracy and how does it work? What is the his torical basis of our democracy? Is it ancient Greek Athenian style where you have direct self-government; the citizens actu ally participated in the resolutions of the ir municip al business?

Or is it by parlia mentary style representation? Is it majority rule of 50 percent plus I from the total group or 50 percent plus I of those who show up? After all, the world is run by those who show up. So if that is what we are doing here is defining the debate, then perhaps we can move on to look at the status of unions in law. For those who do not know this, again, some of these thin gs are basic, and I am sure it is just refreshing people's memories about many of these thing s, althoug h it appears that there is some degree of ignorance about what is actually the truth here.

What is the status of unions in law? Well, going way back to the common- law system of England, which is still part of our system, we still have some common law, but in any case that which has been legislated into existence based on the common law recognizes that unions are voluntary non-profit entities, and they are categorized along with religious organizations. They are in the same category. I would analogize and say that for business to tell workers how to organize and how to conduct their internal business is like atheists telling believers what to believe and how to act. There is a self-interest there.

It is obviously a negative interest. Why should they interfere? Relative to civil rights within a free and democr atic society, which accord ing to the

preamble of our Ch arter of Righ ts and Freedoms is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law, ther e is freedom of association. That is a fundamental democratic freedom that we enjoy. It should be illegal, an unfair labour practice, for any company to interfere with union organizing activity. End of discussion. It is not management's place to try to negatively influence such activity.

Now, when it is said that that is not what management does, I can give a specific case that I know of directly where, within the last couple of years, a new company that came into this province. Louisiana-Pacific, had an organizing drive by IWA. You may have a presentation, maybe you have already had it, from someone from IWA. They can tell you. We have relatives that work- 1 mean we are in the forestry business, so we

Au gust 15 , 2000 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 11 9 know what went on there. When the organizing drive was announced, management called each worker, one by one, into the ir of fices and what do you think they told them? Well, to put it succinctly, there was no successf ul organizing drive at that time. They ju st delayed the inevitable, however. It was union ized. But management had no right to do that.

That is what they want to do, and I will deal with my own situations so you can get a better idea of what happens, not only in an organization that is anti-union but one that claims to be pro-union and that treats unions with respect. Media bias. Again, I will get into that situation with what we are hearing in the press. It is really too bad that unions and the MFL have to buy time in the papers to get the true story across from th eir perspective. I do not have to preach to the converted here. Those of us in labour know that you cannot get equal time in the press.

You cannot, and I can speak from personal experience as to what happened in the com mun ity of Pine Falls. The story should have been told. We had an investigative journalist team come in and do a story. That story never aired. To this date it has never aired. Why? Media bias, in my opinion. You have all heard the story that in Pine Falls the employees bought the mill. The press still relates the fact that we are all millionaires. Well, I can attest we are not.

Some are, the management people became very, obscenely rich from what they invested, wher eas we did all right, but it was certainly no glory story such as is related in the press. But there is a lot more about that story. One day I hope the story is told truthf ully. I chal lenge the media to tell the truth, to report fairly and clear up some of this bias, and perhaps we will not have these kinds of arguments. Actu ally, in conclusion, I ju st want to say that I think perhaps we are showing a little bit too mu ch respect to this shri ll outburst from business.

I think the public generally recognizes that they have gone ove rboard and they are wailing for nothing. I have a lot more I could say but that is my time. Do you have any questions? Mr. Chair person : Thank you very much, Mr. Christensen. Hon. Becky Barrett (Mini ster of Labour ): Thank you very much for your presentation this evening, and you definitely do bring a different perspective to this whole issue we are looking at.

I for one found it very interesting, and you have given me some food for thought about his torical perspectives and the jux taposition of the religious view of this whole issue, so I thank you very much for your presentation. * (19:10 ) Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Ch ristensen, thank you for coming out and making this presentation. We have heard qu ite a few already, and I expect we will be hearing a lot more, and I think I can probably speak for our side that this has truly been a uniqu e presentation unto its own.

You have brought a lot of different perspectives to the Comm ittee, and we appreciate that very mu ch, and certainly, when we start going into the line by line, the various perspectives will be considered. So thank you very much. Mr. Cha irperson: No other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Chr istensen, for your presentation here this evening. The next name on the list is Bruce Buckley. Is Mr. Bu ckley in the audience this evening? Mr. Bruce Bu ckley. No, he is not here. His name will then be dropped from the list. The next name on the list is Brian Etkin. I hope I have pronounced that right. Is Mr.

Etkin in the audience here this evening? Brian Etkin. Mr. Etkin is not here this evening. His name will be dropped to the end of the list. It is the first time having been called, I believe. The next name I have on the list is Grant Ogonowski. Mr. Ogonowski, do you have a written presentation, sir? Good evening. Please proceed whenever you are ready. Mr. Grant Ogonowski (Private Citizen): For those who know me in this room, they know I am not famous for brevity at all, so two positive thi ngs have happened recently. One is I have ju st returned from vacation and quickly jo tted down some ideas on paper.

The second thing is I probably would do well to ju st simply read them . Otherwise, if I start getting animated, much like

120 LEGI SLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 my friend, Mr. Chri stophe, here, we could be here till 3 a.m. in the morning. I am pleased to be able to part1c1pate in these most important democratic proceedings and offer my opinions regarding the proposed changes under Bill 44. Since 197 4, by way of introduction, I have been working in the field of labour relations, both in a line-staff position and eventually in a managerial position. Through that time, I have observed a number of legislative changes.

I would like to, right off the top, con gratulate this government for what I consider to be a sincere attempt to rebalance the Manitoba labour relations environment. Bill 44, in my opinion, unlike the previous administration's legislative amendments, cannot be cha racterized as anti-labour, but neither can they be char acterized, in my view, as anti business. Changes in labour legislation under the previous administration were anti-labour in nature, were highly political, I think created a horrif ying imbalance between the rights of working men and women in this province and employers.

While I see this bill attempting to address the imbalance, regrettably, I see it not going far enough to correct it. First I would like to start with the financial and compensation statements and the union dues for po litical purposes. That section, it is impossible to believe that it was ever enacted, but there are certain circums tances which I guess existed that made it very possible, and it was unfortunate.

To impose specific requirements for employees' organizations and not place that same requirement on employers, I daresay it creates an imbalance of the worst nature, and I am happy that this politically motivated attempt to imply that unions are less honest in their finances than business is finally being repealed. The fact is that unions and any other businesses are audited yearly at fiscal year-end, and those statements are made available on request for any members interested, and generally passed out on a regular basis at conventions to all convention delegates and any observers there.

Th is proposed amendment simply returns the situation to what it was prior to the changes. Further, in 76( I), 76(2) and 76(3} -1 have just copied that at the back of the brief for your ref erence-req uiring a union to consult with each employee was nothing more than an attempt to remove the freedom of speech from employee organizations. First of all, that requirement was almost impossible to administer, in light of the fact that the same administration refused to provide addresses of hundr eds of its employees, standing on confidentiality and the strictest

interpretation of 76( 1)(a), (

b) and (c), particularly (

c) where the requirement is that-1 made an error there. It should be, there is a requirement in 76(2). I believe, that information provided to unions must be the amount of dues provided, the employee's name, the ir employee numb er and the date for which the money is transmitted. We lived in a situation not long ago where the previous administration actually hir ed people all over this province, refusing to pr ovide the union with the addresses of those people. Now, how in the name of God is a union supposed to administer this

section of the law when they cannot even com mu nicate with the employees to whom they are supposed to be com mu nicating under law to ask them whether or not we have permission to use any portion of th eir dues for some political purpose. and I dare say, who was going to interpret what was a po litical purpose and what was not? So we found ourselves, under the previous administration. not having access to a number of members and not being able to ask them and even comply with this ludicrous section.

I certainly consider this amendment to be purely political retribution for the '95 election where unions concerned with the decline in public services voiced the ir members' opinion thr ough television and printed media. Following the great "We'll save the Jets" illusion and the subsequent re-election. the unions paid the price for the loss of freedom of speech by imposition of impossible conditions on them.

While it was okay for the Chamber of Com merce and other business organiz ations to use its money to support its champions and its causes for all intents and purposes. the same right was taken from the employees' organizations. On certifications and votes, the previous repeal of the automatic certification in my view

Au gust 15 , 2000 LEG ISLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 121 was again just another plank in the previous administration's strategy to discredit employee organizations. The implication was that unless employees were being coerced, they would not otherwise join unions. In 26 years in this field, I have never had to do much more than answer the phone and respond to requests by employees to organize them. I am not really sure why business is afraid of the automatic certifications.

Small businesses, which our society and our economy need, are not the most likely to be organ ized, unless the employer is seen by his employees to be ruthless in some aspect or another. Even larger businesses practising fairness in all aspects of relationships with its employees escape unionization. There is some truth to the old adage that unions are born from discontent and, in fact, we are invited generally to help equalize the relationsh ip in some very untenable situations. If fear pervades the workplace, it is because the employer makes the workplace fearful.

Unions are called upon, an organization drive takes place, and potential members make application to join the union. A simple majority should suffice for an automatic certification. It was prior, 55 percent, to the previous administration's first amendment to 65 percent, and then following the retribution act of 1996 , those are my own words, the retribution act of 1996 , mandatory expensive redundant votes were called for again.

The suggestion was that unions must be coercing employees, otherwise, why were unions con tinuing to be successf ul, con trary to all attempts to break them? * (19: 20) The previous administration made a very important amendment to 6(3 ) of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act, no longer preventing an employer from interfering with an employee's right to organize by com munic ating to an employee during the employee's campaign. I am a little disappointed that that has not been repealed at this point in time. 6(3)(

f) was couched in terms of legitimacy. The legitimacy was wonderful words that included: "a statement of fact or an opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business," and the emphasis is mine on reasonable. Once that door was opened, the employers then required time to approach the employees in a final mechanism to measure its success and a vote was implemented. We have heard over and over again at these hearings the problem with the time span for votes and the damage that can be done.

I can cite you from personal experience people who have lost th eir jobs, a prominent car dealership in this city that simply interrogated every one of its members under the guise of reasonableness for the business. Four people were terminated. They ended up with settlements eventually after applications were made to the Labour Board. Several others requested that their application cards be returned to them simply because the employer had that opportunity to intimidate the living hell out of them.

There are currently only five ju risdictions in Canada, Manitoba being one, that do not recognize the right of automatic certification based on a majority of employees applying. In my experience, if 65 percent signed application cards, it is most certain that an expensive vote process will inevitably produce the same results. Theref ore, I can only conclude that the real issue with opposition to this amendment is the one last kick at the cat to intimidate and dissuade employees to a possible vote. I congratulate this government in bringing sanity back to labour relations on this issue.

Ratification votes and last offers. Votes ought to be conducted by signed members only. I refer to the short comings of 76( 1) (

c) where no address is required for each employee by the employer. An employee is hir ed; dues are collected, if the employer determines the employee is in the bargaining unit, and we have found hidden employees in those areas, and are submitted to the union. A new name appears on subm issions, but no address of the new employee. Where does the union send the new employee a card to be signed? For small workplaces, it is not necessarily a major problem, but, for example, for mu lti-office work locations or mu lti-locations throughout the province, it is a major problem. For government it was a major problem.

When the hom e-care program or Highways Department hir ed employees and sent their dues in, they were not required by law to provide any more information than 76( I )(

c) called for. Were

122 LEGI SLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 they employed in Brandon, Winnipeg, Dauphin, and Ashern, who knew? Calls to the departments resulted in a dec laration that addresses were confidential. They then became rand contribu tors, themselves not realizing that they were not members. How does one provide non-union members, rand members, with an opportunity to vote if one cannot send them a ballot? Rand contribu tors take notice at ratification time if they have not received a ballot which other co workers have. They contact the union, ask questions why they are not being allowed to vote.

Following an explanation of the fact that they are rand, they generally request an application card. You may think that you are a union member because dues are being deducted, but you are not. I resented the previous administration's interference in employees' rights of freedom of assoc1at1on by denying that union the opportunity to co mm unicate with each new employee under the guise of confi dentiality.

To ensure that everyone has freedom of choice of association, voting by members only encou rages rand contributors to contact the union at ratification time and find out why they have been left off the mailing lists in a backhanded way that ensures choice. I cannot send a ballot or a copy of an agreement to someone whose address I do not have. Last offer votes. Em phati cally, only the employees with their elected union represen tatives should determine which offer, if any, they will vote on; no employer initiation, no ministerial initiation, employees and duly elected representatives only.

I commend the Government on this step in terms of settlement during work stoppages. I commend the Government on this step towards balancing the playing field and collective bargaining. I am of the view that this is a step but falls short of where the province should be. This

section may be seen by businesses as somewhat of a blow but only to those who wish to use the forced strike or lockout to union bust. I believe firmly that this amendment may in fact be helpful to both unions and employers who unwittingly negotiate themselves into a situation they never wanted in the first place. It clearly may have the effect of bringing closure to bad and inflammatory decisions made by either party in a heated moment. Clearly one cannot argue this creates an imbalance for the employees, when all the advantages in the greatest majo rity of strikes and lockouts currently rest with the employer.

To finely balance the relationship, this legislation should be accomp anied by anti-scab legislation, which I am greatly disappointed this government did not propose. conclude with final-offer selection because, while this government should be commen ded for some of its amendments, I regret that they have not seen fit to re-establish FOS. FOS in legislation simply focusses both parties to a co llective agreement to be reasonable in their position for fear of losing their position in its entirety. Easily researchable stats of this legislation speak for itself.

As long as one party or the other has the economic means, gains which severely undermine the co llective process may be played to the benefit of only the one playing th em. The simple thr eat of FOS has proven to have a most positive effect on bargaining relations. Some believe strikes and lockouts are an archaic way of resolving disputes. If that is so, then FOS has a rightful place in dispute solving. In any event, FOS ought to be available as an alternative dispute-solving mechanism. Until ther e is FOS and anti-scab legislation, the balance remains in the favour of the companies, corporations and governments.

In conclusion, wish to thank this comm ittee for listening and commend the Government for its attempts to bring balance back to Manitoba's labour relations, although without other needed legislation I fear this falls short of its mark. After so many years of retribution against employees for which Manitobans will continue to feel the negative effects for some time, this legislation has an air of freshness about it, an air of fairness and decency towards salary and hourly paid, indeed all Manitoba employees, and I will relish it until further common-s ense legislation is passed. Thank you. Mr.

Cha irperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Ogonowski.

Au gust I 5, 2000 LE GISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA I23 Ms. Barrett: Thank you for your presentation. Ju st a comment. If those were a few notes dashed off, I would like to see what a fully thought-out presentation would be. You have done a very good job in putting down many of the issues that have been raised by people in consultations prior to the hearings and in the hearings. so I appreciate your having taken the time to come and make the presentation. Mr. Ogonowski: Thank you. Mr. Schuler: Grant, excellent presentation. We certainly appreciated your comments.

I have two questions and I will ask them both because one basically follows the other, and that has to do with Bill 44. Have you been given any indication by the cur rent government that Bill 44 is in fact the first step in labour legislative cha nges? My next question is: If Bill 44 was the final step in labour amendments in the foreseeable future, the next four years, could you live with the cha nges in Bill 44? Mr. Ogonowski: The answer to your first question is no. I am certainly hopef ul that this is not the end of the line because this does not correct the imbalance cr eated.

The answer to your second question is I will happily breath in fresh air anytime it comes my way, but I am not satisfied with the end result of Bill 44. I would like to see Bill 44 go much further. Mr. Chair person : Thank you very much, Mr. Ogonowski, for your presentation this evening. The next presenter we have on the list is Ron Hambly. One second please. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): I ju st had to take an opportunity to go back to the office after the government members moved the motion of closure on us this evening just to gather my thoughts.

I notice that there were some of the presenters that were not here this evening. I am prepared, at this time, to ask one of my colleagues to move a motion that the Clerk's office would phone the presenters listed to inform them that the ir democratic rights have been taken away from them this evening and that if they do not present this evening, they will not have an opportunity to put forward their remarks. * (I9 :30) We have been calling co mmittees for different days, and we have not moved any motions of closure as of yet in th is session.

I thought everythin g had been moving along quite well without closure and everythin g was on track for a nice smooth landing, as we might say. Now that closure has been invoked, I would ask the Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith) if she would move a motion that the Clerk's office be directed to make the calls to inform the public that they should come out and have the ir voices heard this evening. Mrs.

Joy Smith (Fort Garry): I move THAT the Clerks now phone all presenters to inform them that the Government mem bers invoked closure, forcing the presenters to speak tonight or in the wee small hours of the early morning or they will lose th eir democratic right to speak. Mr. Cha irperso n: Is the motion in writing, please? The motion is in order. Ms. Barrett: First of all, I would like to inform the members of the Co mmittee and the members of the public who are here this evening that this not an invocation of closure, in the technical sense.

Secondly, and more importantly I think, unlike most other com mittees in this government and in former governments, we have actu ally, in this com mittee, given three separate days. People were called and they were given two days' notice prior to the com mittee hearings, which I might add is something that is new in this Legislature in my term . In past years, in the former government, it was sometimes the same day that people were called to make presentation to public comm ittees. So, No. I, the people on the list of presenters had at least two days' notice before the calling of the Commit tee.

As a matter of fact, I think it was at the end of last week. Secondly, they had three specific times that were scheduled for the com mittee hearings: last night at 6:30; this morning at I 0; and th is evening at 6:30. People

124 LE GISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA Au gust 15 , 2000 have had ample opportunity to make arrangements. Most of the people who are on the list to present have presented, understand the co mmittee structure and recognize that we actually have given more advance notice and longer advance notice of the co mmittee hearings. It is not unusual at all. Remember the sale of MTS, Bill 26, Bill 72, many bills in the former government went to the wee small hours of the morning. I would suggest that this is merely an attempt to disturb and upset the commit tee process and that we are not abrogating anyone's rights at all.

As a matter of fact, we have extended th em. Mr. Ha rry Enos (La keside): Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat amused that the Minister chooses to always hark back to saying how the former government conducted their business and that all they are trying to do is do the same, ju st carry on with how the former government conducted th eir business. What are we doing with Bill 44 then, if former government legislation is all right, or the way we conducted the co mmittee hearings is all right? When it suits this government to use the former government's example, that is the case they put forward.

Surely you should not be conducting yourselves on the performance of the former government. We are led to believe that this is a New Democratic Government. You are doing things differently. Let us do them better. Hon. Tim Sale (Mini ster of Family Services and Housing): I think that probably for all of those who are here in attendance, as well as for the members of the Opposition, I believe that the intention here is a reasonable intention.

I think they need to understand that the Clerk's office phoned yesterday through the list, they phoned this morning through the list, they phoned this afternoon thr ough the list. So there have been very strenuous attempts to notify. I think we have also already agreed that if someone is not able to present we would be glad to receive their presentation and enter it into the record. That has been our his torical practice.

I also want to bring to the attention of members opposite that in 1996 the previous government went through 50 presenters and closed presentations on their bill in 1996, in spite of various objections, and the Commit tee went to 2:19 a.m. on that particular occas ion. So I understand the ir concern, but I think it is important to underline that the Clerk has done a very reasonable, commendable job not ifying all presenters. I believe the Comm ittee has already made a decision in this regard, and I believe it is also consistent with Manitoba practice.

Certainly, it is consistent with the previous government's practice that in 1996, on the labour bill, on this same issue, the Government gave notice, I believe in a reasonable manner, to all presenters. and at that time made a decision that it was time to move thr ough the hearings, and they did so. So I think we should get on with the hearings, rather than taking more people's time sitting listening to debate of com mittee. Mrs.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Int erim Leader of the Official Opposition): I know, it suits this government to look back to wha t we did when we were in government and ju stify th eir actions based on that. I would like them to consider the legislative agenda and the way we presented our legislative agenda when we were in government. We traditionally came in with a Throne Speech in the fall and introduced legislation, took a break, came back in the spring with a budget. That legislation was tabled.

Members of the Opposition had an opportunity to take the legislation out to the general public for some consultation and some feedback on how people would respond or react. They had the opportunity for consultation. We did not bring legislation in in the middle of the summer hoping that people would not have an opportunity to look at it and that legislation would be rammed thr ough and passed in the heat of the summer when this government thought that no one would be watchin g and no one would be caring what is going on.

Well, I want to indicate to this government that, as a result of those tactics and that arrogant attitude of this government, we have a business com mu nity today that has taken significant offence not only to what is included in the legislation but the manner in which this government has brought legislation in. This is unprecedented. It is un heard of. So if this government wants to take lessons from what happened in the past, maybe they should look back at what they have done this year and the wedge that they have placed in between labour

Au gust 15 , 2000 LE GISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 125 and business as a result of the tactics that they have used. This is an arrogant government that in its first session in the Legislature has upset a portion of our com mun ity and invoked closure tonight, again, in the middle of the summer when they are hoping that they can ram this legislation thr ough before people get back from their holidays and back into a routine and see what this government has done to the econom ic climate in our province as a result of this kin d of legislation and the manner in which they have presented it.

I ask that the arrogant attitude that is being displayed ton ight be seen for what it is. Closure is closure. Make no mistake. Those of you who have been waiting patiently to make your presentations, this is invoking closure by a government, and the Commit tee and the public of Manitoba need to know that. *( 19 :40) Mr .. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): I ju st want to correct a couple of errors, I think, that the Minister made. I think she should be well aware that everyone was given 48 hours' notice, and it was done at the agreement of the House leaders. It is not her that should be trying to take credit for that.

She knows full well that the House leaders agreed last week that we would not hold these comm ittee hearings until after the Premiers' Conf erence, someth ing that all three parties agreed to, so she is right. I should also like to note for the record that I have also been to comm ittees called by this government that were called late on Thur sday for Monday morning where there was no notification.

In fact, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities missed an opportunity to present at that co mmittee because they were not notified in time, particularly during the summer when people are away, and they were not accom modated. As a matter of fact, the Government used their majority at the table to shut down presentations, to not allow the Association of Manitoba Municipalities to come in Tuesday and give their presentation, even though they knew full well the Commit tee was going to meet on Tuesday morning. Ther e is no doubt that this government, in my mind, is invoking closure.

I cannot speak to all the his tory of the Legislature because I am a new member and I was not here, but, qu ite frankly, I do not care. The issue to me is: Are we treating these presenters in a respectful way? Quite obviously we are not. Anybody who was here yesterday came here last night-and the room was jammed full. People were certainly led to believe-and we struck an agreement last night that the Comm ittee would sit until twelve o'clock and that for people who could not stay that late, it would be agreed that they would be heard the next day.

We managed to get through about 20 or 25 presentations last night and this morning. Cert ainly anybody who was here last night would probably have the same understanding that there are a numb er of presenters here tonight that we would not get through, and that they would have an opportunity to make their presentation to this com mittee at some time the following day. I appreciate the fact that the clerks have phoned everybody. I do not believe the clerks would have phoned and said: By the way, tonight is your last opportunity to make a presentation, but this government decided to invoke that type of closure.

So we have people who are not here who have taken the time and effort to register, have made presentations, and this government is not even going to have the common courtesy to have someone phone them and tell them if they really want to come down and make the ir presentation that this government has decided that tonight is their last opportunity. I think that is extremely regrettable. It is extremely selfish of this government, and the ir attitude is extremely arrogant. My message to them would be that if you truly want to have a consultation, as the Premier (Mr .

Doer) mentioned in the House today, then you will not be afraid to open up that consultation one more day. I mean it should be six or eight months, as we have heard from a numb er of the presenters, but there is no harm in opening it up one more day to allow presenters to make their positions heard. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Over the cour se of debate on this bill and others in the House we have heard from ministers that in the debate on second reading and in comm ittee the public of Manitoba would be given ample

126 LEGI SLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 opportunity to make presentations before this comm ittee. This was the Government's way of consulting with Manitobans. On Bill 42, when the trustees began the ir presentations, they had no knowledge that in fact they would be limited to I 0 or 15 minutes in th eir presentation. As a matter of fact, they were even closed down in terms of being able to present their entire presentation. Mr. Chair, this is invoking closure on Manitobans to express their views on this bill, whi chever side they choose to present on.

I think the motion that was put forward by the Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith) is a reasonable one, where it is asking because this decision was made on th is particular evening that we would not sit again as a com mittee to consider presentations on this bill until we have gone through all presentations, that indeed it would be in order for the Clerk's office to place those calls to individuals who are not here.

It is not going to take a lot of time, but indeed at least then members of the public will know in fact that this is the last day, that closure has been invoked and that in deed they have to get down here tonight or else they will not be he ard by this government. Mrs. Smith: I think everything has been said. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The fact of the matter is closure was invoked really with Bill 42 and we went to the wee hours of the morning. It is mandatory that this does not happen again. Thank you. Some Honour able Members: Question. Mr. Chair person : The question is being called. It has been moved by Mrs.

Smith THAT the Clerk now phone all presenters to inform them that government members invoke closure, forc ing them to speak tonight or in the wee hours of the morning or they will lose th eir democratic right to speak. The motion is in order. Is the Comm ittee ready for the question? Some Honour able Members: Question. Mr. Cha irperso n: The question before the Commit tee is as follows-do you want me to read the motion again? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Mr. Cha irperso n: Dispense. Shall the motion pass? Some Honou rable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Yes. Voice Vote Mr.

Cha irperso n: All those in favour of the motion, please indicate by saying yea. Some Honour able Members: Yea. Mr. Cha irperso n: All those opposed, please indicate by saying nay. Some Honour able Members: Nay. Mr. Cha irperson : In my opinion, the Nays have it. Formal Vote Mr. Schuler: Recorded vote, please. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chai rperson : A recorded vote has been called. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 4, Nays 6. Mr. Chair person: The motion is accord ingly defeated. • • • Mr. Chair person: As had been previously agreed, and, hopef ully, with the consent of Mr .

Hambly, the Comm ittee had previously agreed to hear Mr. Roland Boisvert. We ask that Mr. Boisvert please come forward to make his presentation, if he is in the audience this evening.

Au gust 15 , 2000 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 127 Good evening, Mr. Boisvert. Do you have a written presentation for the Comm ittee? Mr. Roland Boisvert (President, Chambre de commer ce francophone de Saint -Boniface): Yes, right here. Mr. Chai rperson: Whenever you are ready, Mr. Boisvert, please proceed. Mr. Boisvert: A lors je represente Ia Cham bre de commer ce francophone de Saint-Boniface.

D'abord, nous sommes de !'avis que le gouvernement du Manitoba, dirige par le Nouveau Parti Democratique-et j'insiste surtout sur le mot "Democratique"- a Ia responsabilite d'assurer le plus haut standard de democratic. Pour ce faire on doit done autant que possible assurer un vote a bulletin secret, et surtout sur une question si importante autant pour les employes que pour les employeurs. Si Ia loi presente assure que les employeurs n'intimident aucunement les employes interesses a se syndiquer, surement on devrait s'assurer de Ia meme chose de Ia part des chef s des syndicats.

Deuxiemement, nous croyons que !'arbitrage obligatoire apres 60 jour s risque d'augmenter le temps de greve plutot que d'eviter les periodes de greve couteuses pour les employes autant que pour les employeurs. Pourquoi faire des compr omis difficiles quand on peut plutot attendre qu'une tierce

partie le fasse? De plus, si on veut faciliter l'acces a !'arbitrage obligatoire aux employes, en toute ju stice, il faudrait aussi le faire pour l'employeur. Troisiemement, apres avoir siege pendant six ans personnellement a

titre de co mmissaire a Ia Com mission des droits de Ia personne, si un employeur, selon cette loi, doit s'assurer que ses employes ne soient pas brimes dans leur personne ou leurs responsabilites par d'autres employes, surement les employes doivent etre tenus responsables de leurs actions en tout temps, et encore plus en temps de greve ou les esprits risquent de s'echauf fer. D'ailleurs, Le Code des droits de Ia personne ne prevaudrait elle pas sur le projet de loi present?

Finalement, Monsieur le president, notre province jouit presentement d'une belle croissance economique, et il est important de le soutenir autant pour les employeurs que pour les employes. Et ici je pense a nos jeunes et a nos moins jeunes, qui peuvent finalement trouver toutes sortes d'opportunites d'emploi sans avoir a quitter notre belle province. Je vous remercie. [Translation} I am representing the Chambre de com merce francophone de Saint-Boniface.

Firstly, it is our opinion that the Government of Manitoba, under the New Democratic Party-and I particularly emphasize the word "Democratic "-has the responsibility to ensure the hig hest standards of democracy. In order to do so, we must, as far as possible, ensure voting by secret ballot, especially on an issue that is of such importance both for employees and employers. If the cur rent act ensures that employers do not in any way intimidate employees who are interested in unionizing, the surely we should ensure the same thing on the part of union leaders.

Secondly, we believe that compulsory arbitration after 60 days may make strikes last longer rather than avoiding strike periods that are costly both to employees and employers. Why make difficult compromises when you can wait for a thir d party to make them instead? Moreover, if the intent is to facilitate access to compulsory arbitration for employees, in all fairness the same should be done for employers.

Thirdly, having sat for six years on the Human Rights Commission, I believe that if, under this act, an employer mu st ensure that his or her employees are not subjected to .any harassment by other employees, either as regards the ir person or th eir responsibilities, then surely employees must also be held accountab le for the ir actions at all times, and still more so during a strike when tempers may rise. Would the Hu man Rights Code not prevail over this bill anyway?

Finally, our province is currently enjoying excellent econom ic growth which it is important to maintain, for the sake of both employers and employees. Here I am thinkin g of our young and

128 LE GISLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 not-so-young people who finally can access all sorts of job opportunities with out having to leave our beautiful province. Thank you. * (19:50) Mr. Chair person: Thank you very much, Monsieur Boisvert. Ms. Barrett: Merci. Tha t is pretty much the extent of my French, I am af raid to say, but I appreciate your having taken the time to come out this evening and make your presentation. The issues that you have raised very succinctly have been raised by, as you know, other presenters.

We are discussing these issues and appreciate your having shared your concerns with us tonight. Mr. Boisvert: Thank you for having taken time. Mr. Schuler: I will keep my comments as brief as your presentation. Thank you very mu ch. We certainly appreciate you hi ghlighting the thr ee key areas, areas that we have continuously heard . Ju st for the record, are you calling for the withdr awal of the Bill? Mr. Boisvert: Yes, we are. Yes, we do want it recalled. Hon.

MaryAnn Mihych uk (Mini ster of Ind ustry, Trade and Mines): I would like to ask if you are familiar with the other clauses where there was agreement in the Bill, the other seven clauses where there was agreement from both the management and labour side thr ough the management review co mmittee. In such a case, do you st ill feel that those clauses should be with drawn and not enacted upon? Mr. Boisvert: I would go back to my presentation. saying that our main concern is the secret vote. We really believe in the secret vote. This is the main concern now.

I am not familiar with the last previous bills that you have passed, but the secret votes and the way of arbitration are certainly what we are after, and we believe strongly in it. Mr. Laurendeau: Monsieur Boisvert, pouvez vous me dire pour quelle raison les 60 jours, quelles sortes de problemes se posent avec les organisations? [Translation} Mr. Boisvert, can you tell me what the reason is for the 60 days, what sort of problems occur with organizations? Mr. Boisvert: Je crois que si on etablit 60 jours pour les employes, tres bien, mais pourquoi pas pour l'employeur? C'est �a notre point.

Nous cr ayons beaucoup quand meme a Ia ju stice. Ce qui est bien pour l'un devrait quand meme etre bien pour )'autre. [Translation} I think that if we set 60 days for the employees, fine, but why not for the employer? That is our point. We really believe strongly in ju stice. What is good for the one should also be good for the other. Mr.

Laurendeau: Pensez-vous que si c'etait Ia meme affaire pour les employes que pour les employeurs, �a prendrait soin des employeurs- [Translation j Do you think that if it were the same thing for employees and employers, this would take care of employers- [English} -takes away the ir rights? Mr. Boisvert: Bien, je crois que oui. Moi meme, je suis un employeur. J'ai parti une compagnie personnellement, et je n'ai jarnais vu un temps ou mes employes n'ont pas eu tous les droits qu'ils devraient recevoir. Je pense qu'ils ont toujours ete bien traites.

Je pense que beaucoup, beaucoup de petites entreprises traitent bien leurs employes. Surement qu'il y en a, probablement dans quelques instances ott peut-etre qu'il y a eu des problemes, mais je pense qu'en general les employes sont bien traites. Je ne connais pas beaucoup d'employeurs qui se seraient permis de faire autrement.

August 15 , 2000 LE GISLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 129 {Translation] Well, I believe so. I am an employer myself. I started a company personally, and I have never seen a time when my employees did not have all the rights that they should receive. I think that they have always been treated well. I thin k that many, many small businesses treat the ir employees well. Of course there are some, probably in certain instances where perhaps ther e have been problems, but I think that in general employees are treated well. I do not know many employers who would have allowed themselves to do other wise. Mr.

Loewen : I will def er to Mr. Laurendeau, if he has one. Mr. Laurende au: Monsieur Boisvert, sur Ia question d'avoir Ia capacite de voter sur !a comment on le dit en franr;ais? [Translation] Mr. Boisvert, on the matter of being able to vote on the -how do you say it in French? Mr. Boisvert: Sur le vote secret? [Translation] On the secret ballot? Mr. Laurende au: Pour quelle raison pensez vous que Ia ministre veut cha nger r;a? Je lui ai demande r;a a Ia Chamb re, et elle ne m'a rien dit.

A vez-vous entendu une raison pour laquelle elle veut cha nger r;a? {Translation] Why do you think the Minister wants to change that? I asked her that in the House and she said nothing. Have you heard a reason why she wants to change that? Mr. Boisvert: Pourquoi est-ce que Ia mtntstre voudrait le changer, je ne peux pas repondre, mais je peux dire que s'il n'y a pas un vote secret dans les temps critiques, sCtrement qu'il va y avoir du monde qui vont se faire intimider, et ensuite quand on vote les mains ouvertes, est-ce qu'on vote tou jours comme on aimerait vraiment voter?

C'est peCtt-etre r;a le plus gros point. [Translation] As to why the Minister would like to cha nge it, I cannot answer, but I can say that if there is not a secret ballot at critical moments, surely there will be people who will be intimidated, and then when you vote openly, do you always vote as you really would like to? That is perhaps the biggest point. Mr. Loewen: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Boisvert. Ju st a quick question, we have heard from a number of labour leaders that they feel that we were part of this legislation in an antiworker, anti-union business climate.

Speaking on behalf of the Chambre de commer ce francophone de Saint-Boniface, would you concur with those statements? Mr. Boisvert: What was your question again? Do you want to clarify it? Mr. Loewen: I am asking if you would agree with a number of the labour leaders we have heard from in this co mmittee who are of the belief that presently in Ma nitoba we have a business climate that is antiworker, anti-union. Mr. Boisvert: No, I do not believe so. There may be the odd case where there is unfairness, and this is going to be in every industry, but as a rule, as the majority, I do not believe so, no. Mr.

Loewen: Just a comment, because you mentioned that you feel ther e are a numb er of small businesses that treat the ir employees very well and where there is no need for a union. Just for your information, I happened to work with a company that employed over a thou sand people for 25 years, was president and CEO. We were never afraid of a union. The fact of the matter was our employees never wanted a union. So there are large businesses that do not re quire unions as well. Mr. Boisvert: That is correct, yes. I can only agree with Mr. Loewen. I agree that a lot of businesses do not require unions.

I would say that some of them maybe do require some, but as

13 0 LEG ISLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 a rule, all of my experiences, the people I have dealt with never really required them. Mr. Chair person : Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Boisvert. [Translation] Thank you very mu ch, Mr. Boisvert. Mr. Boisvert: Bienvenue. [Translation] You are welcome. Mr. Chair person: I would like at this time with the indulgence of the co mmittee members to canvass the audience to see if there are other presenters who wish to present in French this evening. If there are, please come forward.

Seeing that there are no other presenters. we will resume with the members of the list that are indicated. The next member on the list is Mr. Ron Hambly. Will Mr. Hambly please come forward. Thank you ver y mu ch, sir, for your indulgence. Do you have a written presentation for the Comm ittee? Mr. Ron Hambly (E xecutive Vice-President, Winnip eg Construction Association): Yes. Mr. Chair person: Please proceed when you are ready, sir. Mr. Hamb ly: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ron Hambly. I am the Executive Vice-President of the Winnipeg Construction Assoc iation.

We had registered Mr. Schl ieer, Alfred Schl ieer, the President of PCL, to be here tonight. Unf ortunately, he is out of town and sends his regrets. I am here today on behalf of the Winnipeg Construction Association, the oldest and the largest commercial construction association in the province. We represent approximately 325 companies of al l sizes engaged in various capac ities in the industrial, commercial and institutional construction industry in the province. Our members are responsible for probably 75 percent of the commercial work that takes place in Manitoba every year.

Our association has had a very long hi story. a very positive his tory of working with governments, both national and provincial, on behalf of the construction industry. We have participated or have been consulted in matters related to education, apprenticeship, skills shor tage, industrial wages and workers com pensation. We are actively involved in workplace safety in Manitoba thr ough the Manitoba Building Contractors Safety Program. The Winnipeg Construction Association is proud to have both unionized and non-unio nized contractors as its members.

Some of our unionized firms operate in both environments as they are signatory to certain trade union agreements and use non-union subcontr actors for other components of the same projects. We have endeavoured. in our association, to create an atmosphere that encour ages both types of firms and recognizes that individual firms have the right to make choices in this regard. Construction work, by its very nature. is short-term employment. Construction trades and labour move from project to project. from company to company throughout the year.

A carpenter or an electrician may have a union card, sign a union card and be working on one project, and three months later may be employed on another project, a non-union project, and two months later be on another union project along the way. Th is may seem unusual in the traditional sense of emp loyment, but it is the way the construction industry in our province operates. Minimum wages in this industry are established in The Construction Industry Wages Act. They are competitive regardless of whether a company is unionized or not. Given today's labour shor tages, wages are very competitive.

Wages range today from a low of over $16 an hour fo r unskilled labour to over $24 an hour fo r ski lied tradespeople. * (20:00)

Au gust 15 , 2000 LEG ISLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 131 Now I offer these observations to provide a foundation today for our comments which we are bringing forward to Bill 44, and particularly in the light of the negative remarks we have heard in the media directed at groups opposing such amendments. Our association-! would like to make this clear-is not anti-union, nor do we desire to exploit our workers. Over the past three months, we have been following the development of this legislation. We have been actively participating in the Manitoba Employers Counc il of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce.

Th is group subm itted a position paper last night on Bill 44, and once again we endorse the views expressed in that document. In addition, one of our associates who presented this afternoon is serving on the Labour Management Review Comm ittee, and we recognize the hard work of that group. While our views have been articulated thr ough these bodies, we want to take this opportunity to further comment on these amendments to ensure that the specific concerns of our members have been fairly represented. In a Jetter to the Premier (Mr . Doer) and the Minister of Labour (Ms.

Barrett) in July, we indicated that our association has three principal objections to the proposed amendments. Picket line violence is the first one. We object to the proposal to allow reinstatement of an employee following strike-related violence. Th is provision, as we have heard many times in the last two days, was enacted as a direct result of a violent picket line inc ident, and we do not see why the Government should weaken the Act and in effect condone this behaviour. We are very encour aged by reports of late that this amendment may be withdr awn or modified.

In terms of certification votes and the automatic certification issue, it is our belief that a democratic vote free of pressure and intimidation is still the best way to decide issues in today's society, and we believe that the cur rent provision in the existing legislation, whereby a secret ballot vote is called if more than 40 percent of the union sign a union card, continues to be the best solution.

There has been a suggestion that during the period in which a vote is being arranged and the employer has time to intimidate employees, the remedy for this, as we have heard again today, as it currently exists. is the filing of an unf air labour practice action and the potential for automatic certification of the employer. If this remedy is inadequate. and we have heard some discussion of that today, it is inadequate to deal with intimidation from either side, then deal with that particular issue and leave the secret ballot process in place.

We have not heard or seen that the cur rent legislation impacts on a union's ability to certify companies. Our question is, if that is the case. why are we proposing these amendments? The thir d item, the settlement of collective agreement by arbitration after 60 days. We are very concerned with both the substance of this proposed amendment and the Jack of con sultation that preceded it. The Labour Management Review Comm ittee, at the eleventh hour, was asked to consider ways and means of alleviating protracted strikes.

Associations such as ours, even though we are participating in the process, did not have the opportunity to discuss possible alternatives with our members, and as such our representative at LMR C could not represent us in this respect. In the absence of this discussion, we have now been presented with an amendment that can impose a collective agreement after 60 days of a strike or lockout, subjecting the process to arbitration. In our view, this action would severely limit the employers' and employees' ability to engage in free and collective bargaining.

By allowing the employees the opportunity to veto the process, the proposed amendments upset the labour and management balance entirely. More to the point, and as I ju st said, we have not seen an unusual numb er of work days lost to long strikes and do not really understand the need for this amendment. We are encouraged to see some changes in this one as well. In summa ry, and I would like to keep my remarks brief, I would like to reiterate that our industry has enjoyed a particularly good construction season in the last two years.

The amount of public sector work, schools, health care facilities, et cetera, has been significant, but the real growth area that we have seen in the last year has been in the area of the private sector.

13 2 LEGI SLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Au gust I 5, 2000 We have also seen relative labour peace and we would not like to see this change. The proposed amendments, if they proceed, could well precipitate a change in the investment and labour climate in the province of Manitoba. We wanted to ensure that the views of our industry are heard in this process that our concerns are not based on fear or the desire to press work on people in Manitoba. We are encour aged, as I said, with reports to see that some of these concerns are being addressed through amendments, and we encour age your work in this regard.

On behalf of the Winnipeg Construction Association, thank you very much. Mr. Chairp erson: Thank you very much, Mr. Hambly. Ms. Barrett: Thank you for your presentation. A couple of things. One, we have announced that the employee vote to begin the alternate dispute resolution mechanism will be amended so that we will address that issue.

I believe that we have heard a numb er of views of the constr uction industry and other industries in the province, and I look forward, as I have in the past, to having good constructive meetings with you and your association as we deal with other elements of labour legislation and issues that come about, such as The Construction Industry Wages Act. So thanks again for making your presentation tonight. Mr. Loewen: Thank you very much, Mr. Hambly, for your presentation. I just go to page 3 of your presentation because it is at odds with statements that the Minister has made in the House.

Time and time again under questioning she has indicated that she sent every single element of Bill 44 to the Labour Management Review Comm ittee and that they had the opportunity to go through their process and come back with the ir recommendations, indicating in come cases they reached consensus and others they did not. What you are saying is that this issue was not even presented as a foregone conclusion but more or less at the eleventh hour as a fish ing expedition into receiving opinions. Is that correct? Mr.

Hamb ly: The Manitoba Employers Coun cil, thr ough the Labour Management Review Com mittee, our members were able to see I I amendments and we ha d some good discussion on them . We support the Labour Management Review Commit tee's review of that and the ir recommendations for, I be lieve, seven, in concur rence with seven of them. The issue with regard to the arbitration 60- day clause was not proposed initially and was floated quite late in the process. We never did get a chance to see that one and shar e it with our members.

I think some of the comments we have heard lately are that perhaps there is a flaw in the process. In that respect, if ther e is the opportunity to leave that one aside for the time being and come back to it, review it a little more. we would be happy to see that, but that is the case, yes. Mr. Cha irperson: Mrs. Smith. Mrs. Smith: I will def er to Mr. Loewen. Mr. Loewen: Mr.

Hambly, the Minister has also indicated that she is going to be willing, although we have not seen it, to look at an amendment to the 60-day clause to take away the veto by employees, but I believe that would leave it up to either the employer or the union to demand and receive arbitration. Does that go far enough to satisfy your association? Mr. Ha mbly: Well, I think that is the issue. cannot say that, because our members have not seen that. It may very well go far enough. Mr.

Loewen: We have also heard from a number of labour leaders that they believe since I 996 ther e has been an anti-union, anti-worker climate in this province. Could you share with us your experience in terms of the Construction Association with regard to labour management relations? Mr. Hamb ly: As I said in my presentation, Mr. Chair man, we have enjoyed a period of relative labour peace in a very stable construction industry in the past few years and certainly hope it continues. Mrs. Smith: Thank you for your presentation. I find this very worrisome when in your presentation you said: The Labour Management

Au gust 15 . 2000 LE GISLATI VE AS SEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 13 3 Review Comm ittee, at the eleventh hour, was asked by the Minister to consider ways and means of alleviating protracted strikes. Associations like ours did not have the opportunity to discuss possible alternatives. The connotation here is the consultation process was indeed very flawed. In the House, day after day. the Minister said that every single element was sent to the Labour Management Review Comm ittee and that ther e was complete collaboration.

In view of the fact that you have said this tonight in your presentation, would you be amenable to encou rage the Minister to shelf Bill 44 and take more time for consultation and collaboration before push ing this bill through? Mr. Hamb ly: As I have said, I think we would be prepared to entertain that that particular amendment be removed and dealt with at a later time. We have indicated, and through the Manitoba Employers Counc il in their proposal last night, that we endorse seven of the recom mendations in Bill 44. We are willing to see that proceed.

However, we have not had significant discussion on this last particular issue. Our members have not seen it. We have not discussed it. We do not have a formal position on it, and that is the way it stands. We would be happy to review it further, as I understand some of the members of the Commit tee had a chance to do. * (20: 10) Mr. Chair person: Thank you very much for your presentation this evening, Mr. Hambly. Time has expired for qu estions. The next presenters we have on the list are George Floresco and John Friesen. Are they in the audience here this evening? Please come forward.

Do you have a written presentation, sir? Mr. George Floresco (President, Canadian Un ion of Postal Workers, Winn ipeg Local): Yes, I do. Mr. Chair person: Wh ich of the gentlemen are you? Mr. Floresco: George Floresco. Mr. Chair person: George Floresco. Thank you . Please proceed whenever you are ready. Mr. Floresco. Mr. Floresco: I would like to thank you first for the opportunity to speak and be here. I am the local president of the Canadian Un ion of Postal Workers, Winnipeg Local. We represent approximately 15 00 employees at Canada Post in Winnipeg, Selkirk, Morden, Winkler, Altona and Steinbach.

We also represent a group of warehouse workers and drivers who work for a private company based in Winnipeg, and through one of other locals in Winnipeg we also represent same-day couriers in Winnipeg who work for a mu ltinational corporat ion. We are appearing here today to support these ch anges to The Manitoba Labour Act. although we believe these changes do not go far enough to ensure workers' rights within this province. I would ju st like to add, too, that our members fall under the federal labour law. federal jurisdiction, but we believe it is important that we participate in this process.

We actually hope that in the very near future we are going to be representing workers who fall under the provincial labour law.

In the beginning of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act, it reads: "WHE REAS it is in the public interest of the Province of Manitoba to further harmonious relations between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and unions as the freely designated representatives of employees." One can certainly read that this is an encour agement for workers to join unions so that they can be represented through collective bargaining, similar to the federal act and most provinc ial acts.

We believe this is an approach that Canadians want in general, that there be representation in the workplace. Workers need that representation in the workplace ju st as they do in the outside world. If they are accused of wrong doing under cr iminal law, they have the right to legal couns el. But in the workplace, if you are accused of doing someth ing wrong, you can be released, terminated, discha rged, and you have no right to representation necessarily if

13 4 LE GISLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 there is no union in the workplace. I will get into that further on. The Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) has stated that these proposed amendments are designed to achieve greater balance in labour relations. Some members of the business co mmunit y are suggesting that the amendments are an attack on the democratic rights of workers and will give unions too much power in the collective bargaining process. Frankly, we believe both are mistaken.

We believe on the issue of automatic certification of 65 percent that that issue has been blown out of proportion, and that is based on what actually happens out there in the workplace or outside of the workplace when people sign union cards. We say: Is it not signing a un ion membership card much more of a declaration of support than a ballot?

I say that based on a worker and an employee having to sit down and sign a card and put th eir name to it carries far more weight in the ir minds than simply marking an X or a check mark on a ballot in private and putting it into a box so that they, frankly, will never be identified as whether they support a union or not. For them to sign that card in the presence of someone else is a very dramatic statement for them to make, and I believe at least two-thirds of emplo yees in a workplace sign that card.

I think it is time to get on with the process of them dealing with th eir issues as opposed to going to the Labour Board and having to go thr ough the formality, and, yes, I believe it is a formality in most cases of having a vote. It eliminates the unnecessary expense as well, and, as I said, in most cases, the vote is there and the workers will support the union. Bu t, in our view, automatic certification with a simple majority should suffice. Th is is the standard set by the federal government and hal f the provinces have lower levels of certification than the proposed amendment.

I ju st want to make a comment too because I get the impression from listening to some people that it is simply a matter of taking membersh ip cards. plunking them down in front of the Labour Board and saying: Here we have the right amount. trust us. They count th em. It is far more complex than that. The names are scrut inized; the list of emplo yees is scru tinized; and the Labour Board has to ensure everyth ing is correct. It is a tedious process at times, but it is a very fair process to ensure that those who have signed the cards are eligible, qualified and fall within the scope of the bargaining unit.

I think that is really important to recognize: It is not just a simple matter of counting; it is also reviewing who has actually signed a card. Some business representatives are sug gesting that unions use intimidation and coercion to get workers to sign membersh ip cards. It is ridicu lous. It has no basis in reality in Manitoba that I am aware of. Union organizers. they use coercion like going to the workplace and sign up members? Well, it is a good chance you are going to get that tossed out and you lose the certification.

But, if an employer does not follow the Act, there is not a great chance that they will be penalized with automatic certification. This is a very unequal situation that has not been addressed, and it does happen. Emp loyers know there is essentially no penalty if they intimidate workers, thr eaten to move their operations or even fire organizers. Many organizing drives have been defeated in such illegal ways. and if the employers knew there was some con sequence to their action perhaps they would reconsider what they were doing.

Now. on the issue of the 60 days. and I know ther e are amendments and I do not want to dwell on this too long. but I think that the proposal to have binding arbitration after 60 days is not going to make much difference in most cases. Business representatives are claiming that this gives the union no incentive to bargain in good faith, and, frankly, I do not know of any workers who want to go out on the street and lose pay for 60 days simply to hope that they will get binding arbitration that will give them something better than they have already.

Un ions are aware of the record of arbitrated settlements, and. in most cases generally, arbitrators' settlements are not beneficial for workers. I do not know where this myth has come out that binding arbitration always goes in favour of the union or the workers. and I have seen it in print in the past couple, thr ee weeks that binding arbitration is the panacea for workers. Well. if it is such a great thi ng. why are

Au gust 15 , 2000 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 13 5 we not all in binding arbitration? The reality is because binding arbitration is not necessarily a guarantee that either party is going to get what they like. The employer, the representatives of the workers, the union, know best what is good for their workplace, and they should be allowed to negotiate. As I have said, in some cases there may be a need for this type of arbitration, but I do not think that is a major issue here.

If the Government is really looking for real change to positively help workers in labour disputes then it should put anti-scab legislation forward. Quebec enacted legislation to deal with this in 1978. Since that time, there has been a marked improvement in the collective bar gaining climate, as well as a dramatic drop in tension and violence during labour disputes. Ontario and British Columbia passed similar legislation, although the Ontario legislation has since been repealed.

It should be noted that the Quebec government has seen a decline in both the numb er and length of disputes since the legislation was enacted. In this beginning to the new millennium, we should not need to defend our jobs on the picket lines because scabs are being used. I would like to touch on another area though that I have not heard much about. What we see as workers is a real need for a cha nge to the Manitoba labour act in the areas of unjust dismissal.

To our knowledge, only two provinces are left with this antiquated notion that you can be terminated for anything the employer chooses as long as you receive two weeks notice. Now there are a few areas where that is not the case. Under the Manitoba human rights legislation and the health and safety legislation, workers can access that in those cases or in the case, ironically, under the labour act, if there is a certification drive going on.

An employer can terminate a worker, and if they give him the two weeks notice, the employee has no recourse other than through litigation on the amount of severance pay they get to contest their discha rge, their release from the workplace. As I say, Manitoba and Alberta are the only two places where that exists. I think that has to be addressed by this government, and something should be put into the labour act that allows workers redress m unorganized workplaces to try and deal with this issue of unju st dismissal.

The Government should also be looking at ways to give more employees the right to combat employers taking advantage of workers through independent contractor schemes or private consultant or contr act work, all of which are used to bypass collective bargaining. Now, on that issue, that goes into a whole new area. I do not want to dwell on that too mu ch, but I want to say that more and more we have seen employers try to use this , that people are independent contr actors so they do not have the obligation to negotiate under the collective bargaining process.

I think that in the future that has to be addressed, because there are many employees who are working in Winnipeg, in Manitoba, who are being classified as independent con tractors and in reality they are not. The law has to be addressed and revised to deal with that issue. * (20:20) Almost two years ago, CUPW established the Workers Organizing Resource Centre as a facility to assist the employed and the unemployed, to facilitate the advocacy work of other organizations and, if workers so wish to organize them, into unions.

Now the time spent at this centre has really opened the eyes of the volunteer advocates that work there. They deal with up to 15 0 complaints every month dealing with issues from employment standards, the labour act, workers compensation benefits, employment insurance, to health and safety issues, human rights and social assistance.

I have been told that in the Centre there is a saying that a worker is only two weeks away from social assistance if they lose their job, because in reality there are many circum stances where workers, if they are released, terminated, fired and they have recourse to no other coverage, two weeks later that is all they have is social assistance. Those issues have to be dealt with to provide a safety net, and I think the labour law has to be reviewed in that matter. What we have seen through this centre in the past two years is that work is really changing. In the past if we were to organize large groups of

13 6 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 workers, they would all have to be in the same work location. They had common interests. There was contact all the time. Now with homework and contract work not being done on site, it has made organizing workers much harder. We admit that. With the advent of more casual and part-time work, not only does it make it harder to organize workers, it also changes the workers relationship to that job. We say that because now workers may have two, thr ee or even four jobs to make th eir livelihood.

This means no one job is the prim ary source of income and the relationship to the workplace is observed as casual or transient. Determining the question of status for these employees is a very cost- and time-consuming process, and I thin k that also has to be addressed at a future date. Un ions are at a great disadvantage in organizing, to begin with, wh ereas the employer certainly has a large advantage with the rules as they stand and with the fact that they basically control the paycheque of the employees. That has a tremendous influence on employees. Business spokespersons are talking about democracy.

Do business organizations have a 65% or 50% rule in making decisions, speaking on behalf of their members, or spending money? Maybe some do, but I would guess that in many circums tances organizations must move quic kly. Democr acy in the workplace has become a rallying point to many who oppose this legislation. It is not likely going to be expanded into wages, benefits, and working conditions in unorganized workplaces. Frankly, I do not see democracy in the workplace allowing employees and non-unionized workplaces voting for their boss or voting on their wages.

In those workplaces, those conditions are set unilaterally by the emp loyer. Through the years, the labour laws have ch anged to acco mmo date employers. Workers have given up a lot in those years. During what is supposed to be the most prosperous period in Canadian hi story, workers' standards of living have dropped, and the erosion of social programs has escalated.

It is ironic that, as we have reached the end of the 20th century, at a time when technical-s cientific achie vements are truly momentous and Canadian society should have the means to meet the needs of all of its citizens, we are seeing declines in standards in social and labour programs. The tone of the arguments from certain business representatives on this issue would indicate that they are interested in increasing the level of conf rontation in labour relations in this province. They appear to be demanding the right to starve out the workers and crush the unions.

If their intention is to increase the level of conf rontation and violence at picket lines, then this is certainly the way to go, and I hope it is not. It appears that the only logic to some of the attacks by the business organizations is to make it very clear to workers that, despite the change in government, it is still business which will set the agenda. The Government should not back down on the face of these concerted attacks on relatively minor issues. There is mu ch more that needs to be accom plished in the future.

We think it would have been wiser for the Government to conduct wide-scale hearings on the state of labour relations in Manitoba and the benefits to society from the increasing level of organization of workers. We think that these amendments do little to help workers in any practical sense and provide no rallying point to organi zed support for the Government's initiatives among workers. However, now that this bill has been introduced, it should simply be passed, and we should get on with some of the more important problems in this province. I thank you very mu ch. Mr. Chair person: Thank you very mu ch. Mr.

Floresco. Ms. Mihych uk: I ju st wanted to thank the presenter for coming out and providing his perspective and that of his union, and open the floor for questions. Mr. Loewen : Mr. Floresco, an interesting presentation, and cert ainly illuminating to me. I mean, I was always under the impression that The Labour Act was in place to cr eate a relatively level playing field for both the employers and the employees.

Under that scenario, if there were a group of employees that wanted to form a union and voted to do so. they would have the right to do that; and, if there was a group of employees that did not want a union.

Au gust 15 , 2000 LE GISLA TIVE AS SEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 13 7 then they would have the right to vote and do that as well. Cer tainly, and I quote from your report, that it is obvious that you and your cohorts see The Labour Act as being an enco uragement for workers to join unions so that they can be represented thr ough collective bargaining. There is no doubt that you are sincere in that belief, and that gives me a better understanding of why you and your associates are here arguing for the clauses that you are.

Just by way of fa ct I think it is a little bit ludicrous for anyone to come to this co mmittee and suggest that is only employers that interfere with the rights of people to organize collectively. I think for anybody to say that there is never a case where th ere is intimidation by unions is extremely naive. I think we should all agree that from time to time there are unions that go over the bounds, as there are employers that go over the bounds. In all cases there are laws in place, and hopef ully those laws will be applied.

In fact, for factual context you state that there has never been a drive that signed up more than 65 percent that lost a secret vote. We heard from the Minister in the House today that, yes, in fact in the last few years there have been five. We have a letter on record tonight from an Ilene Lecker, who is indicating a situation where 60 percent of the union cards were signed. In fact, on the vote only 56, or less than 30 percent of the people, I believe, probably less than 20 percent of the people, actually voted for the union in a secret ballot.

Her contention is that there was intimidation but there are laws to take place of that. Anyway, ju st so you know in future that factually you are wrong. I do not really have a question by way of a statement. If you actually believe that there is a large contingent of employers out there that are demanding the right to starve out their workers and crush unions, welcome to the year 2000. Mr. Floresco: On the last comment, I believe there are certain representatives in the business com mu nity who are taking a very hard line.

I certainly am not saying that all employers are out there to starve their workers, but I believe that they are taking a hard line. The quote used in ther e perhaps is a quote to hig hlight the issue, but I really believe that we need to move forward and look at workers' rights and work in the com munity to enhance some of the rights, because there are some workers, especially in the lower paying jobs and unorganized workplaces, who have a really rough time of it. When they do lose th eir job they do not have recourse, with the exceptions I mentioned, to contest it.

Going through the cour ts to decide what your severance pay is, well, that is tough too. I think there has to be more looked at than simply the amendments that you are considering under Bill 44. On the issue of coerc ion, I think the far largest number of problems come from the employers' side. While I am going to recognize that in some cases, too, there may be some overzealous union organizers, but those issues will be dealt with. So I will leave it at that. Mr. Sale: I have a question and a comment. I wonder, Mr.

Floresco, if you would agree that Ilene Lecker's letter, which I would be glad to share with you, is actually a letter about the intimidation of workers by the employer. I ju st read what she said, that if over 60 percent of union cards were signed from approximately 220 employees and only 56 people voted for the union in a secret ballot, then 76 people were obviously scared and intimidated from management at the time of the vote. She is talking about a company called Marusa Marketing, which is a phone centre.

She makes the point that 30 to 49 people were temporarily laid off days before the certification vote because of lack of work. They were told to come back and vote. When they returned to vote they were told by management they could only vote during certain hours and so forth. Would you agree that that seems to be in fact a letter about intimidation and not a letter about what the Member for Fort Whyte (Mr . Loewen) was implying? Mr. Floresco: Obviously, I have not seen the letter.

I appreciate a copy later, but it sounds to me like it is one of the classic examples of intimidation by employers or trying to deal with the way voting is done. I really believe that in

138 LEGI SLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA Au gust 15 , 2000 situations where there is a vote that there should not be any attempts at vote rigging. Mr. Cha irperso n: Thank you very much, Mr. Floresco. Time has expired for questions. * (20:30) Mr. Floresco: I need to clarify one statement made by a speaker earlier this morning who claimed he was with Cana da Post at one time. He made reference to the strikes being over 60 days at Canada Post. He was incorrect, and I wanted to bring that up in my presentation. There have never been strikes over 60 days at Canada Post. I think that was a bit inflammatory too.

So thank you very much. Mr. Chair person: Thank you very much, Mr. Floresco. Point of Order Mr. Loewen : I have noticed that three times tonight Mr. Hilliard's phone has gon_e off interrupting these procedures. I wonder 1f y� u would be kind enough to ask everybody who IS in the room if they would have the cour tesy for the Comm ittee and for the presenters to turn off their ce llular phones. If they vibrate that would be fine. If they are ringing if they could turn them off it would be appreciated. Mr. Cha irperso n: Thank you very much, Mr.

Loewen, for drawing that to the attention of co mmittee members and for members of the public who are with us here this _ eveni� g. We would appreciate your indulgence tn tummg off your cell phones, if you will please. A�so, based on the point of order that you ra1sed, Mr. Loewen, while it is a point, it is not a point of order, so we will thank you for bringing that to our attention. * * * Mr. Chair person : The next presenter on our li_st here this evening is Cin dy McCallum or a Dav1d . . ? Condon. Do you have a written presentation, s1r. Mr.

David Condon (Canadian Uni on of Postal Workers, Prairie Region): Yes. I do. Mr. Chair person: You may proceed when you are ready. Mr. Con don: I do not know if I will be referring qu ite as mu ch to my written presentation, because I also represent the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. I am the Education and Organization Officer for the Prairie Regi� n representing approximately 8000 members m Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.

Cert ainly you may well understand that the brief that I am presenting is very similar to George Floresco's. 1 can also assure you that I guess I am every bit as naive as Mr. Floresco in terms of how I view organizing and the intimidation tactics of employers. One of the jobs that I have as an educational officer is conducting education seminars, and one of the seminars that we do is union organizing. I could assure you that we make sure that one of the thin gs we tell our organizers is there cannot be, � rst _of all, �nd� r the law, any bullying and intim1dat1on tact1cs m asking somebody to sign a union card.

Secondly, it would be ridiculous to do so. Why would you want to force somebody int_ o signing a card knowing that what the law says IS that they can go to the Labour Board and ask for that card to be withdrawn, and that you may jeopardize the whole union drive simply �y doing that. The biggest reason we fi� d 111 organizing that people do not want to s1gn a union card is because they are scared they are going to get fired by their boss. That is the No. I reason.

To say that people who have signed a union card then have to go to something in a secret ballot because somehow this is going to restore democracy when they have already cast a ballot and done so in a safe manner I also think is a weird view of democracy. 1 think it is one of the fundamental mistakes, because I am going to reiterate what Mr. Floresco said in that our union also believes that the proposed changes to the Act do not go far enough. I think one of the mistakes that has been made here is perhaps in deciding that you do not want to go too far and make people too �ngry.

I might say that if you cou ld even conceive that

August 15 , 2000 LE GIS LATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 13 9 you would have got a more shrill response from the business community if you had introduced anti-scab legislation, I doubt whether you can conceive that it could have been any louder. I think it was a mis take because now those of us who support organized labour and those of us who are in the labour movement have to listen to people in the business community and people in the Opposition defending free collective bargaining and defending the right to strike and lockout.

It is absurd to me when we should be saying we are the ones who certainly-1 can say that I support that statement by the business community because I also, and our union, support the right to strike and lockout, but you could have fixed the legislation I believe quite easi ly. You do not need the binding arbitration and you do not need the back-to-work protocol.

What you need is anti-scab legislation because that will fix both of those problems, if workers have the right to withdraw their labour and force the empl oyer, without the risk of having scabs take their jobs away, then that will settle both those questions. It has been interesting for me to sit here and listen to some of the things that have been said. Last night, we heard a Mr. Green speak, and he was giving people a lesson, I suppose, in what he said, labour law in his experience. He gave, I think, what was a very libertarian view of how we see things.

It would be great if there was already a level playing field. There is not. Workers have had to scrap throughout his tory to get everything that they have had. They have never been handed anything by government. They have never been handed anything by an employer. You know, it was not that long ago, 13 0 years ago, that it was a seditious conspiracy in this country to belong to a trade union. You could be deported or hanged for belonging to a trade union. Workers joined unions anyway. They knew it was in their best interests, and they fought back, but it was still ille gal to go on strike.

They went on strike anyway. So the Department of Labour was estab lis hed a hundred years ago and any of the laws that have subsequently come into effect have been actually to control workers, to make sure that worker resistance is quelled. I think Mr. Green would do well to remember the great general strike in this city where the Comm ittee of 1000 who basically represent the same people who were screaming at this government about the outrageousness of this bill, it was the business community and the wealthy who brought in the army and had people kil led and a riot ensued.

So we would do well to remember that part of the his tory too. We can go a tittle bit further back. Someb ody referred to the Master and Servant Act and the fact that common law is based on the Master and Servant Act, and it is true. It has been said that while people do have the freedom to seek what employment they will the mi nute they walk through that door they give up any other freedoms that they have. The only thing we can do is, by organizing and bargaining collectively to have the rules of engagement, if you will, in terms of the working relationship set, the workers can gain anything.

One of the particular things is in health and safety laws, and quite frankly everybody knows that the basic emplo yment standards and the basic health and safety laws that are in effect just simply do not go far enough. It is usually one of the reasons that workers want to organize. They want to make sure when they go home··at the end of the day they are not crippled, they are not maimed. I remember listening to Professor Harry Gl asbeek, who was a professor of labour law in this country when he spoke. He is a very staunch defender, I guess, of health and safety legislation and the need for better ones.

This could be applied to many other clauses in a collective agreement, but he says: If you have a health and saf ety clause in your contract, it is not named properly. A health and safety clause should be called diminishment on the right of the boss to maim and kill

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-ir5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf ir5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	23dec46484fa9fafc2f63a57bab1a39ef28537cb

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).