Manitoba Committee Hansard — 5 November 1996 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 5, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-ir5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Industrial Relations Chairperson Mr. Mike Radcliffe Constituency of River Heights Vol. XLVI No.5- 6:30p.m., Tuesday, November 5, 1996

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATH LIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANI TOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY Thirty-Sixth Legi<ilature Members, Constituencies and Political .AfT'iliation Constjtllenc)' Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charles wood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossrnere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River &rt)' N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D P. P.C. NDP N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

265 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Tuesday, November 5, 1996 TIME - 6:30 p.m. LOCATION - Winnip eg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights) VICE-CHAIRPERSON- Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina ) ATTENDANCE- 11 -Q UORUM- 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Ernst, Gillesh amm er, Reimer, Toews Messrs. Dyck, Helwer, Jennissen, Martindale, Radcliffe, Reid, Santos APPEARING: Mr. Gary Doer, MLA for Concordia Mr. Steve Ashton, MLA for Thompson Ms. Shirley Strutt, Legislative Counsel WITNESSES: Bill 17-The Government Essential Services Act Mr.

Dave Tesarski, Canadian Federation of Labour Mr. Rob Hill iard, President, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. John Sinclair, Manitoba Health Organizations Mr. Peter Olfert, President, Manitoba Government Employees' Union Ms.

Catherine Holmes, Tache Family Association, Tache Nursing Centre MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill so-The Remembrance Day Amendment Act Bill 17-The Government Essential Services Act Bill 301-The Native Alcoholism Council of Manitoba Incorporation Amendment Act Bill 302- The Grand Lodge of Manitoba of the Independent Order of Oddfellows Incorporation Amendment Act Bill 26-The Labour Relations Amendment Act *** Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen . The Standing Committee on Industrial Relations will come to order, and I would welcome the new members on commi ttee tonight.

As I had indicated in my previous rema rks, we were partway through consideration of Bill 50, The Remembrance Day Amendment Act, and I believe that we were considering an amendment to Cl ause 8.1. Has discussion concluded on Clause 8.1? Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, prior to the break for the supper hour, the government had tabled before us amendments to The Remembrance Day Amendment Act, and I had referenced at that time that the act itself in the title does not allow for consequential amendm ents.

I believe that these amendments that the government has tabled here, which are quite extensive, some two pages of amendments to the bill which would include provisions that affect Christmas Day or on Good Friday and substituting words like "holiday" do not lend to the act itself and in fact these amendments are out of scope. *

(1840) I know you, Sir, have ruled on this. You say you have received information from Legislative Counsel to lead you to believe. But I am saying and stating here, for the record today, that these amendm ents, in my humble opinion, are out of scope because you cannot amend a piece of legislation that specifically ref ers to one act saying that you are going to incorporate consequential amendments to another act to take place under the act that we are currently discussing.

So what you are doing here today is, you are establishing a precedent for your government and future governments to be able to amend a piece of legislation without clearly having that indication in the title of the bill. At the same time as you are setting this precedent, you, by tabling these amendments here today that are quite substantive, did not give the public the opportunity to come out to the hearings and comment on what your intent was with respect to the legislation to allow for the wide-open retail liquor business to occur on Rememb rance Day after 1 p.m. in the afternoon. So

266 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 while I have already stated that I am opposed to portions of the bill that allow for that wide-open shopping, I am telling you that the public did not have that opportunity to comment and that you are setting I believe a very dangerous precedent that can be used by other governments to circumvent the legi slative process that we have in this province by allowing for consequential amendments to be included under a specific act without referencing that in the title.

So I say to you, Sir, that I am opposed to that, and I will reflect that when this matter comes to a vote. Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you, Mr. Reid. Is there any further discussion on amendment 8.1? On hearing none, the question has been called. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: Those in favour of the amendment, please indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chai rperson: And those against, by nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Formal Vote fafOn a donner ejfot aux amendements adoptes par le Comile. Motion agreed to. Mr. Chai rperson:

Preamble-pas s. Mr. Toews: I move THAT the title be struck out and the following substituted: THE REMEMBR ANCE DAY AMENDMENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDME NTS ACT (French version) II est propose de remplacer le litre du projet de loi par ce qui suit: LOJ MOD/RANT LA LOJ SUR LE JOUR DU SOUVENIR ET APPORT ANT DES MODJRCATJONS CORRELA TJVES Motion presented. Mr. Chai rperson: Any discussion on the motion? Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: Hearing none, those in favour say Mr. Reid: Recorded vote, plea se. yea. A COUNT -OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as Some Honourable Members: Yea. follows: Yeas 6, Nays 4. Mr.

Chair person: Those against say nay. Mr. Chair person: In my opinion, the positive has it; the amendment carries. Clause 8.1-pass; Clause 9-pass. Some Honourable Members: Nay Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I move Mr. Chair person: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all Mr. Reid: On division.

section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee . Mr. Chair person: On division. So noted. (French version) Title as amended- pass. Shall the bill as amended be reported? II est propose que le conseil/er /egislatif soil auto rise a modi fier les numeros d'artic/e et les renvois internes de Some Honourable Members: No.

November 5, 1996 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 267 Some Honourable Members: Agreed. possibility of dealing with, I believe, three relatively minor pieces of legislation that would take a few Voice Vote moments, I believe, to dispose with. I wonder if there is leave of the committee to deal with those matters right Mr. Chairperson: Those in favour of reporting the bill now. as amended, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: Those contrary. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Formal Vote Mr. Reid: Recorded vote, please.

A COUNT -OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 6, Nays 4. Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion the motion carried. The bill shall be reported as amended. I just wanted to see ifyou were listening. Before the committee can proceed with the business before it, it must elect a new Vice-Chair. Are there any nominations? Hon. Jim Ernst (Mini ster of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I nominate Mr. Dyck. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further nominations? On seeing none, Mr. Dyck is elected as the Vice-Chair. All right, we will now proceed to hear presenters on Bill 17. Yes, Mr. Helwer.

Bill17 -The Government Essential Services Act Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, I feel it would be proper that we use the normal time limit for each presenter, which is I 0 minutes for the presentation and five minutes for the questions. Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, I know before the supper hour we had talked about the Mr. Chairperson: What is the will of the committee? Bon. Jim Ernst (Minis ter of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I think we should hear the presentations, Mr. Chairman.

The weather is not great outside, so let us hear the public that have made the effort to come here tonight, and then we will deal with them after. Mr. Chairperson: All right. It is the will of committee then to hear the presenters first and then- Mr. Ernst: Then we will consider which bills we deal with and in what order. Mr. Chair person: -consider the priority of bills after that point. All right. It is customary to hear the out-of towners prior to the regular calling of the list. Is that the will of committee tonight? [agreed] Agreed. Okay.

We have a number of individuals who have registered to speak on Bill 17. I will now read aloud the names of the persons who have preregistered. They are as follows: a spokesperson for The Canadian Union of Public Employees ofManitoba; No. 2, Rob Hilliard; No. 3, Deb Stewart; No. 4, Dave Tesarski; No. 5, John Sinclair and Wayne Byron; No. 6, Rob Lindey; No. 7, Peter Olfert; and No. 8, Catherine Holmes.

If there are any other persons in attendance who wish to speak to the bill whose names do not appear on the list, please register with the Chamber Branch personnel at the table at the back of the room, and all such names will be added to the list. Just as a reminder to those persons wishing to hand out written copies of their briefs to committee members, 15 copies are required. If assistance is needed to duplicate the required number of copies, see the Chamber Branch personnel at the rear of the room or the clerk assistant, and assistance will be offered. We will now proceed with the hearing of the presenters.

The first person who has indicated he is from out of town is Mr. Dave Tesarski. Is Mr. Tesarski in the

268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 audience? Good evening, sir. I see you have some written presentations. While the clerk is proceeding to circulate, I would ask you to commence your presentation, sir. *

(1850) Mr. Dave Tesarski (Canadian Federation of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chai rperson: You have I 0 minutes for the initial presentation-the usual procedure. I am sure you are familiar. Mr. Tesarski: Oh, yes. Mr. Minister, committee members, the Manitoba Council of the Canadian Federation of Labour is a politically nonpartisan labour organization representing local unions, lodges and associations across Manitoba, with approximately I 0, 000 members in communications, construction, health care, manufacturing, mining, utilities and the public sector.

The mandate of the Manitoba Council is to proactively represent our member organizations in a nonpartisan manner to promote labour issues to government, business and workers in our community. In keeping with that statement, the Manitoba Council is committed to strengthening our economy by supporting long-term economic growth and development for all of Manitoba. This, however, must be done in a fair and equitable manner. The labour relations system in Manitoba has, like all other systems, had its successes and problems.

It has functioned through business cycles of the last few decades and should, from time to time, be reviewed so that we can look forward to the future with greater, more progressive stability in labour relations. Changes with existing legislation or the introduction of new legislation must not be detrimental to one party or the other. It must be carefully designed to enhance labour relations as a whole. The Manitoba Council recommendations. The basic assumption of our industrial relations system is the notion of freedom of contract between the bargaining agent and the employer.

There are powerful arguments in favour of that policy of freedom of contract. We are dealing with terms and conditions under which labour will be purchased by employers and will be provided by employees. The immediate parties know best what are the economic circumstances of their relationship, what are their noneconomic priorities and concerns, what trade-offs are likely to be most satisfactory to their respective constituencies.

To honour and enhance industrial relations in Manitoba, the government should encourage the implementation of volun tary and essential services agreements in specific province-owned sectors. To determine these sectors requires a vol untary essential services agreement. A committee should be struck made up of labour and business representatives from those sectors. The government would submit to the committee a list of sectors they feel provides essential services.

Frcxn that list the committee would contact the respective labour and business representatives and they would request they attend an educational forum on voluntary essential services agreements. The committee would in turn request consultation from the respective industry representatives , labour and business, of those specific sectors. From the consultation process the committee would be able to narro w down, if appropriate, the sectors that require essential service agreements.

Once this process has been completed, the committee would contact the sectors deemed essential and provide additional educational sessions to encourage the parties to enter negotiatioos fCI' a voluntary essential services agreement. Once the parties have grasped the concept, negotiations for a voluntary agreement could proceed. Contract negotiations are by far the most dramatic part of the collective bargaining cycle. It would not constitute an unfettered view of which services and how many employees would be required to provide the essential services if strike or lockout action was to occur.

The best time frame to negotiate a volunt ary essential services agreement would be in the interim period of a collective agreement. In the interim, the union-employer relations are usually not in a confrontational mode, thus giving way for a more balanced approach when considering essential services. A recent poll conducted by the Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals, an affiliate of the Manitoba Council, indicated that 75 percent of their membership agreed that voluntary essential service agreements are necessary. MAHCP provides essential services to all their employers, even those who indicate

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 269 they do not want it. See Appendix 2 for that. Many other affiliated unions also have negotiated voluntary essential service agreements in sectors where the union and the employer both agreed upon. My closing statements. The Manitoba Council recommends that Bill 17, The Government Essential Servic es Act, is not required. The government should, however, encourage unions and employers in the sectors that provide essential services to voluntarily negotiate ess ential service agreements.

Better relations are made when respective parties are able to freely negotiate an agreement that best pertains to their situation. The Manit oba Council affiliates that have experience with voluntary essential service agreements would be willing to be active participants in the educational sessions and act as intermediaries where there seems to be difficulties between parties arriving at an agreement. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Tesarski. Honourable Minister. Any questions of our presenter? Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr.

Tesarski, do you think this legislation facilitates or hinders voluntary essential services agreements? Mr. Tesarski: It would hinder it in a way that it is forcing parties to do it. What should be done is that there should be encouragement for them to do it on a voluntary basis. Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Mr.

Tesarski, we have received correspondence from the Manitoba Health Organizations, and I anticipate them making a representation here tonight as well, essentially indicating that voluntary essential services in the health care sector have generally not worked for a number of reasons inc luding different

interpretations of what is and is not essential health care and the hesitancy of some unions to partic ipate in voluntary agreements. Would you not consider it prudent for the government to pass essential services legislation but allowing unions and the employers to enter into voluntary agreements, failing that, to have the legislation apply? Mr. Tesarski: Yes, we would agree with that. Mr. Santos: Under

Section 6, Mr. Tesarski, it says that "If, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, a service not listed in the

Schedule is an essential service as defined in this Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, declare the service to be an essent ial service." Do you accept this provision as reasonable? Mr. Tesarski: I did not catch that all. Can you read that again? Mr. Santos:

Section 6 states, "If, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council," meaning the cabinet, "a service not listed in the

Schedule is an essential service as defined in this Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, declare the service to be an essential service." Mr. Tesarski: No, the way we have it in our position paper is we would rather have a committee struck to determine which province-owned sectors would be deemed essential or not. Mr. Santos: What is wrong then with

Section 6 giving the authority to the cabinet to declare anything they like as essential services? Mr. Tesarski: They should not have that authority. Mr. Santos: Should or should not have that authority? Mr. Tesarski: Should not. Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): Mr. Tesarski, in your conclusion to your brief, you state that Bill 17, The Government Essential Services Act, is not required, yet obviously the act is before us. Would you give us a short assessment of why you think the government feels it is necessary to bring such

an act forward? Mr. Tesarski: I think it has to do much in part of what happened this past summ er with some strikes that went on with the home care workers, with casino workers and so forth. Mr. Jennissen: So you see, sort of, a punitive edge to this or a getting even edge? Mr. Tesarski: It could be. Mr. Chair person: Any further questions of this witness? Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your presentation this evening. The next presenter tonight will

270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 be Rob Lindey. Mr. Lindey. On hearing no response, Mr. Lindey will go to the foot of the list and presumably be called later. I will now go to the head of the list and inquire if there is a representative spokesperson for the Canadian Union ofPublic Employees of Manitoba. Is there a person here who is speaking on behalf of the Canadian Union of Public Employees of Manitoba? There appearing to be no response, this registration will go to the foot of the list. Mr. Hilliard, I see you in the assembly this evening, sir. Welcome.

You have some presentations for us tonight the clerk will circulate? Thank you very much. While they are being circulated, I would ask you to commence your presentation. Mr. Rob Hilliard (President, Manitoba Federation of Labour ): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to advise the committee that I am here to speak my own words tonight. I do not rely on other people's words to make my presentations. The Manitoba Federation of Labour has the duty and obligation to speak out in the defence of the rights of workers.

These rights include the right to organize, the right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike. While the right to organize is recognized in the Charter of Rights, the rights to free collective bargaining and to strike are recognized by international labour conventions, by federal and provincial legislation, by jurisprudence and by long-standing pmctice. These rights were won by working men and women over many decades of hard fought battles, confrontations and political action. They were paid for with dedication, sacrifice and, in too many cases, with blood and lives.

It is these rights that are the foundation of the union movement. These are the things that have enabled working people to ooax and lever justice and fairness in the workplace from their employers. *

(1900) Governments of all political stripes and levels have often been cautioned that when they contemplate limiting the rights of those whom they govern, they must take great care and err on the side of democracy. Because of the vulnerable position that working people have occupied in our society, this rule is of extreme importance when legislation affecting them is being considered. The balance of justice and fairness in the workplace has always been fragile, and, once disrupted, it is difficult and time consuming to restore.

Historically in Canada, business and commerce have been the focus of governm ent efforts to develop and maintain our economy. Our legal framework has become one that sometimes encourages their development at the expense of other considerations. It has taken a great many years to put in place even the most basic pro tections for workers' safety and health, minimum wages, employment standards, workers compensation, pension benefits and collective bargaining. In spite of these advances, the hold that workers have on them remains tenuous.

In the last decade, workers in Canada have been affected by governm ent legislation that tends to weaken their ability to form unions or to be effective in their relations with their employers. The purpose of this legisla tion has been to react to corpomte guidance in order to make Canada a more friendly place for business activity. Manitoba has not been an exception. Examples of this kind of legislation include the repeal of progressive dispute resolution labour legislation that puts tangible power in the hands of shop floor workers.

Other legislation has increased the standards that workers must meet before obtaining certification from labour boards. Others have made it more difficult for injured workers to have financial security between the time they are injured and the time they return to work. Other legislation suspended public sector workers' bargaining rights while freezing or rolling back their wages. ln 1996, the trend continues. More pending legislation will further erode the rights of public sector workers.

A fundamental aspect of the economic strategy adopted by many governments in Canada is to reduce taxes through reduced public program spending, even though much of it is designed to maintain an acceptable standard of living for the most vulnerable members of our society. Caught in this strategy are public sector workers. Under this philosophical light, public sector workers are viewed as a principal cause of public spending. They deliver services which cost money.

The fact that they are important services which benefit the needy and the destitute, as well as providing essential infrastructure and assistance to the business community, is quietly ignored.

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 271 The last thing this government strategy can withstand is an effective union. This is the instrument that public sector workers use to give voice to their objections to what is happening to their jobs, the social safety net and their future. It is through their union they are able to fight back against this agenda. Bill 17 was drafted during a period of public sector strikes and because of that it contains provisions that may not otherwise exist with sober second thought. Now is the time for that to occur.

Bill 17 has the effect of limiting the right to strike in the provincial public service, and it will make future strikes ineffective, thereby denying them an effective method of redressing workplace injustices. Its main impact is not focused on the preservation of essential services. It is not about any of the reasons that are being put forward by the government, high-minded though they might be on the surface. Bill 17 will be a dangerous law if it is enacted.

It is an action that takes away from a certain number of workers one of their most fundamental rights: the ability to withdraw their services if their employer refuses their demands for a just and fair collective agreement. It creates two classes of provincial public sector workers: one group that remains in possession of their rights and another that does not. The only difference between the two groups is the fact that their jobs appear on different lists. These lists are compiled by the government as employer, but in this case, these lists also carry the weight of law unlike any other employer.

This creates an irreconcilable conflict of interest. The government is creating a favourable labour relations situation for itself as an employer. It is doing so at the expense of its employees. The importance of a vibrant and effective union structure in society is widely recognized. Internationally respected economist John Kenneth Galbraith described it this way: The rules that regulate pay, seniority, other benefits, and conditions of promotion are voluminous. Any unilateral application of such rules by management, however meticulous, would seem arbitrary and unjust.

By helping to frame the rules, the union serves invaluably to mitigate the feeling that such systems are unjust. It is a measure of the importance of this union function that, where a union does not exist, good management practice calls for the development of some substitute. Limiting the ability of government employees to carry on an effective strike, that is the effect of Bill l7. If the concern of the government is about preserving essential services during unusual circumstances, such as a strike, then surely this should be the subject of negotiation.

Public sector workers have a great deal of concern about the impact of a strike on their clients. In fact, there is evidence that a majority of public sector workers would support a negotiated essential services agreement that meets the basic needs of their clients while enabling them to conduct an effective strike. Such an agreement has been a reality for many years in the health care sector.

For more than two decades, most of the members of the Manitoba Health Organization have been part of an agreement with health care unions that guarantees that certain jobs will be filled for the duration of a strike in order to meet the basic needs of patients. Gra nted, negotiating such an agreement requires commitment to the process and the objective if it is to succeed. It is not a time for posturing and maneuvering for objectives other than arriving at an essential services agreement, but the point is, it is a tested process, one that arrives at a workable agreement.

We have the proof in the health care sector. It is an agreement that has been tested in a number of health care sector strikes over the past two decades, and it has worked. The Manitoba Federation of Labour urges the government to reconsider the unilateral imposition of essential services provisions and to withdraw Bill 17.

The objective of preserving essential services during a strike or a lockout in the public sector is one that is shared by the government as employer and the men and women who deliver them, but it is a goal that is best met through the parties being in agreement and having a sense of ownership of the solution. It is counterproductive for either party to unilaterally impose their own vision on an essential services plan. Coercion does not lead to co operation. What suggestions do we have?

There are a number that have emerged in the labour relations field over the years, processes that we have found that will lead to consensus and commitment. The common characteristic is that they are the product of consensus, that is, mutual agreement on the elements of the pact. In our experience, this is arrived at through the structuring of a committee

272 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 com prised of representatives of the employees and the employer under the guidance of co-chairs who have equal authority. This process should be completed prior to any negot iations for a new collective agreement. In this particular application, the committee could represent individual government departments with the employee representatives elected through their respective union's demo cratic processes in the proportions that they are represented in the workplace. The committee would elect their co-chairs.

Alternatively, a committee could be struck at the public service-wide level with representation from the Civil Service Commission in equal numbers to employee representatives elected in proportionate numbers through their unions. Again, it is important that the committee have co-chairs with equal responsibility. It may even be viewed as produc tive to have co-chairs appointed by the Chair of the Manitoba Labour Board, individuals who curr ently serve as labour and employer vice-chairs at the Labour Board.

Whatever model is chosen, it is key that emp loyers and workers be represented in equal numbers from the co-chairs on down. It is equally important that the com mittee be expected to put forward consensus based recomm endations that support the objective of an essential services agreement. In this way both parties have contributed to the process and both parties have a sense of ownership of the agreement with an interest in it functioning effectively.

At the end of the day, if this process is followed, there will be an essential services agreement in place that reflects the agree d-upon needs of the people of Manitoba during work stoppages. It will be an agreement that is both designed and supported by both parties. It will be an agreement that does not remove the rights of workers through the unilateral imposition of legislation. We urge the government to withdraw Bill 1 7 and negotiate an essential services agreement with its employees unions. Mr. Chair person: Thank you, sir, very much for your presentation. Are there any questions of the presenter? Mr.

Reid: Thank you, Mr. Hilliard, for your prese ntation. I want to ask you one question because I was intrigued by the minister's comments just a short time ago to the previous presenter. Do you think, Mr. Hilliard, that the minister may be prepared to allow time for the negotiation of a voluntary essential services agreeme nt with the various labour organizations and the provincial government representatives? Do you think the minister is prepared to allow for that? Has he made any comment to you or other members of the labour community? Mr.

Hi lliard: I have not heard any comments to that effect, nor am I aware of others who have. Mr. Jenni ssen: Mr. Hilliard, when I hear you present the brief, I cane to the conclusion that basically what you are saying is that there is a way to have a win-win situation where you could have an environment which is friendly to business but at the same time does not have to be negative to unions. This government seems to believe that there has to be a winner and a loser, and we are saying if it was properly done there could be winners on both sides. Am I correc t in that, and would you comment on it? Mr.

Hilliard: I would agree with that assessment. It appears to me that after spending a few weeks in this building talking to different bills that there is a fairly common theme throughout and that is that there is a desire of this government to control decision making centrally with their own group and to exclude, to a large degree, other elements of society, particularly those who may not agree with their position. I do find this disturbing. Mr. Santos: Mr. Hilliard, it seems that there are two roles the government is playing here, the government as government and the government as employer.

Do you perceive any difference between the role that the government should be playing, depending on the role it is playing and it should not be playing the role of government when it is acting as an employer? Mr.

Hilliard: Yes, I think there is an inevitable conflict here and it appears to the MFL at least that the desires the government has as employer are interfering with the desires it may have in terms of passing legislation for the greater good, and it appears that the self-interest of this particular governmen t is woven throughout this bill right now and that that self-interest is to place a greater control on their own workforce.

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 273 Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Hilliard, can you tell me approximately how many existing Manitoba government unions have essential services agreements in place now? Mr. Hilliard: I do not know the number off the top of my head, but it is essentially all of the unions in the health care sector. Mr.

Martindale: It seems to me that during a work stoppage quite often members of the public and unions try to find examples of the public good suffering or individual suffering and bring those to the attention of the media, but during last summer's strikes do you think there were very many examples of where either the public good suffered or individuals suffered greatly? The reason I ask is that-well, I will just let you answer the question. Mr. Hilli ard: I think there is a tendency in the public and in the media, and certainly with employers, to confuse essential services with those that may cause inconven ience.

Frankly, if a strike cannot cause inconvenience, there is hardly any point to having one. At the minimum, that must be necessary. What employers often do, in particular employers, is confuse inconvenience with what they would determine to be essential. However, relating back to your question, I think that there was a fair bit of inconvenience over the course of the summ er, particularly in the home care strike and particularly with personal care homes, for example, but that I have seen nothing to indicate that there was anything there that risked life and limb and that caused any real dire consequences.

Inconvenience, yes, essential service, no. Mr. Chairperson: Any further questions? Mr. Santos: Having made a distinction between government as government and government as employer, when the government steps down from its sovereign status and becomes an employer, do you think it should assume all the obligations of an employer, including the right to negotiate and find common agreement with its own employees? Mr.

Hilliard: Yes, I do, and I certainly think that government ought to resist the urge to resort to legislation with all its vigour, and it ought only to do that in the demonstrable situation where there is a public crisis at hand. Otherwise it ought to lay off using legislation as frankly a weapon for the employer. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Hilliard. That would conclude the time allotted for questions tonight, and thank you for corning before the committee. Mr. Hilliard: Thank you. Mr. Chair person: The next presenter tonight is Deb Stewart. Is Ms. Stewart in the assembly?

On hearing no response, her name will go to the foot of the list. The next presenter is John Sinclair and Wayne Byron. Good evening, Mr. Sinclair. Mr. John Sinclair (Manitoba Health Organizations): Good evening, Mr. Chairperson. Nice to see you in this setting. Mr. Chair person: As ever, sir. An Honourable Member: Knock it off, you guys. An Honourable Member: It must be two lawyers. Mr. Sinclair: It beats the bus stop at six in the morning, does it not? Mr. Chairperson: That is right, by a long shot. I see your brief is being circulated. I would invite you to commence your presentation, sir. *

(1920) Mr. Sinclair: Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee, I am asked by the board of the Manitoba Health Organizations to make this presentation, which has been distributed to you now. As you know, MHO repres ents 160 health care agency members across Manitoba, and we have 30,000 members. In this presentation there are some key messages that I wish to precis myself to you and just highlight those matters. According to statistics obtained from Manitoba Labour there were 40 work stoppages in Manitoba in the 1 0-year period from '86 to '95. Of these, none were in the

274 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 government sector. If I refer you to page 3 of our presentation, there are some interesting statistics there. Out of a total of239,000-some-odd lost person days for all Manitoba industries over this 1 0-year period, well over half, 151,000 lost person days, were in the health care sector. Then the chart sort of breaks that down for you to show the distribution by year and the person days lost.

Such extensive work interruptions inhibit health care emplo yers' ability to provide care and as such have an impact on life, health and safety of patients, that is, the residents of Manitoba. What I am saying here is, they are holding the sick hostage. Seven of the work stoppages during that I 0-year period were in the health care sector accounting for 63 percent of aU person days lost. Work interruptions in the health care sector inhibit health care employers' ability, as I said, to provide care, and no use repeating that. Voluntary essential services in the health care sector have gen erally not worked.

So this is apropos the last presenter. They generally have not worked well for reasons of differing

interpretation of what is and what is not essential health care and the hesitancy of some unions to participate in voluntary agreements prior to the work stoppages. It is correc t that in the early '80s health care unions and employers developed an umbrella, a memorandum of agreement for the maintenance of services that are essential during work stoppages in health care facilities.

Since that time this agreement has been signed on a voluntary basis by individual bargaining agents and employers who agree that in the eventuality of a strike, designated employees will continue to perform designated essential work functions. The success of this voluntary agreement depends on its being in place prior to a work stoppage situation and also on the willingness of signators to proceed to the next step, that is, the designation agreement.

So while we have quite a large number that have signed the memorandum of agreement that I earlier referred to you, not as many, in fact very few, really, have really signed that specific agency-, facility-specific designation agreement prior to the expiry of collective agreements. Unfortunately the outcome has frequently been less than satis factory, as I say, because of the different inte rpretations of essential services. So it leaves us so vulnerable really. That is the point.

An MHO survey of its members in 1991 revealed that 81 percent of respondents felt essential services should be regulated for the health care sector. That was taken sub sequent to the five-week nursing strike in 1991. In November of '91 recommendations emanated from this survey were approved by the MHO Board at that time and forwarded to the ministers of Health and Labour. Today we are not aware of any action that has been taken by the government on those recommendations.

At least one province, British Columbia, has included the health sector in an essential service legislation and another province, Alberta, has removed the right of the public health sector to strike, so with minor changes the proposed Bill 17 could be adjusted to incorporate the health care sector. Just on the final page of the presentation from MHO, we want to stress that many health care employees would advocate for the removal of health care workers' right to strike and the introduction of some form of dispute resolution mechanism.

However, an acceptable approach would be to include health care services as essential services under Bill 17. In Bill l7 , essential services are defmed in part, quote: services that are necessary to enable the employer to prevent danger to life, health or safety. As such, the inclusion of health care services would not be changing the intent of the act and could be achieved with minimal amendments. On this basis, we recommend that the definition of employer be expanded to include all facilities, agencies and organizations providing health care to Manitobans and funded by the Manitoba government.

The name of the act could be changed to the essential services act. Additional fine-tuning of individ ual articles may be necessary but we feel confident that changes would be few, and MHO would be willing to assist in such a review. In conclusion, the health care sector experiences recurrent work stoppages that impact the life and safety of Mani tobans. For this reason, MHO feels that a minimum health care service should be declared essential services under Bill 17. MHO would be pleased to work

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 275 with a government in wording any necessary amendments, as I say, to ensure the legislation meets the operational requirements of our industry. We feel confident that this approach, in combination with an effective dispute resolution mechanism, will provide for a fair resolution of labour disputes without negatively affecting Manitobans in need of health service. Throughout the entire reform process we have seen that the government has cited on many occasions the importance and value of input from the key stakeholders in health.

We appreciate this partnership approach as we see it, and we believe that the government will seriously consider our concerns, comments and recommendations in this area. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Sinclair. Mr. Toews: Thank you, Mr. Sinclair. I think, in view of the obvious failure of voluntary essential services agreements as demonstrated this summer, I have quite a bit of sympathy for your position. I do have a particular problem, and that is that the type of amendments that you are proposing may be outside of the scope.

However, I would certainly be prepared to move an amendment here tonight to include your sector to be-include personal care homes and hospitals in order that they too receive the benefit of that legislation.

One of the things though that I would like to see in return, and perhaps I would have your comments on that, is that there be an opportunity for the unions and the health care sector to try to work out a voluntary agreement beforehand but failing that, there would be recourse to the legislation so that the vulnerable, the sick, and not just to people who are dying, as the union wanted this summer, are the only beneficiaries of this type of legislation. I mean, government is different. Yes, government is the employer.

Yes, government is government, but we are government because there are certain essential services that we as government must take care of. I am wondering, generally speaking, what your feelings would be to having that recourse to legislation if there were a failure of the achievement of a voluntary agreement? Mr. Sinclair: I think that is well spoken, Mr. Minister.

Certain ly, at MHO and in all our committees, and we work with the unions, consensus is what we try to achieve and we often do achieve it and it is generally, as a matter of fact, so I think that I can ascribe to that approach, and I think it would work. Mr. Santos: Mr. Sinclair, the experiences of the past enable us to deal with the problems of the present and to plan intelligently for the contingencies of the future. You have cited the statistics that in the past 40 years, in the past how many years from '86 to '95- Mr. Sinclair: Ten years. Mr.

Santos: -there have been 40 work stoppages but none of them in the government sector. Does it seem to you that there is no need for this legislation, given the statistics you have cited? Mr. Sinclair: No, no, it does not mean that. I do not see that that follows, actually. Mr. Santos: If I say to you that, given my favourite and preferred solution, I can always create a problematic crisis or situation so that I can justifY my preferred solution, what would you say? Mr. Sinclair: I would say I did not understand what you said, I am sorry. I am sorry I just missed that. I did not follow it. Mr.

Santos: If I say to you, given my favourite and preferred solution to a problem, I can always, if I were the governm ent, create a problematic crisis or situation so that I can justifY my favourite solution. Mr. Sinclair: Uh huh. Mr. Santos: I am saying that given the past 10 years that there have been no work stoppages, it occurred to me that maybe the last experience in the last summ er about the S<Kall ed nonworkability of a voluntary agreement in the health care sector will not protect the public interest, maybe that was concocted so that they can put this legislation into the forum. Mr. Sinclair: Thank you.

I understand what you are saying now, but I cannot agree with you, Mr. Santos. Really, the way that we viewed it over in the work that we did was that, as I said earlier, it looked like the sick were being held hostage this summer.

276 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 Mr. Chair person: Are there any further questions? Mr. Martindale: Mr. Sinclair, you point out in your brief that 63 percent of all person-days lost were in the health care sector and in 19-well, I am not sure of the year here-but out of a total of 239,000 lost person days for all Manitoba industries over this 1 0-year period, 151,000 lost- person days were in the health care sector. Your main concern , I guess, because you represent MHO, is the health sector, but you support the entire bill.

Given your statistics about the amount of work stoppages in health care, why do you think it is needed for all government sectors? Mr. Sinclair: You are correct that I have sort of a narrow view of things because I am representing the MHO's point of view, but it appears to me that just generally from my own experience that we need this type of legislation in Manitoba at this time. Mr� Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Sinclair, very much. That would conclude the time limit allotted for questions tonight. Thank you for your presentation. The next person on the list is Peter Olfert. Good evening, Mr. Olfert.

I see you have a number of presen tations tonight. The clerk will circulate those. While they are being circulated, I would invite you to commence your procee dings, sir. Mr. Peter Olfert (President, Manitoba Government Emp loyees' Union): Mr. Chair, members of the committee, again, I appreciate the opportunity to come out here and make a presentation on behalf of our union. The Manitoba Government Employees' Union is an organization that represents about 25,000 Manitobans employed by the government of Manitoba and by other public sector employers.

We are here today because Bill I 7 will have a direct impact on a significant number of our members employed in the civil service. The government has described this bill as an effort to protect and ensure that vital services within the civil service continue to be delivered to Manitobans during labour disputes. We are disappointed in the minister's press release announcing the introduction of The Essent ial Services Act without negotiating with the Manitoba Government Employees' Union. It was our opinion then and still is that essential services should be negotiated and not legislated. *

(1930) With a negotiated agreement both parties also feel some ownership of the process, as opposed to a legislated one. The rights of workers to organize, the right to free collective bargaining and the right to strike are corners tones that have long been recognized by federal and provincial legislation. Governments of all political stripes have often been cautioned that when they contemplate limiting the rights of those they govern, and in this case, those they employ, they must take care and err on the side of democracy. Bill 17 was obviously drafted during a period of public sector strikes and strike votes.

This bill contains elements that are totally unacceptable to the Manitoba Government Employees' Union and a sober second thought is required. We would like to point out several sections of Bill 17 and make some comments on them. Now,

Section 1 of the act defines temporary terms and conditions of employees perfonn ing essential services. We believe that the wages and working conditions of employees required to work during a strike should be consistent with the terms and conditions in effect prior to that strike.

Section 5, it refers to a

schedule that declares the ser vices which are essential. The

schedule refers to specific classifications of employees and, in many instances, names workplaces, as an example the Selkirk Mental Health Centre, as opposed to job functions. Clearly there is work performed by some classifications, and in certain places that is not essential even by the broad definitioo of essential services set out in

Section 1. Essent ial services ought to be determined by work function first. Only after determining the functions that are required can you then determine the classifications, the workplaces and the number of staff necessary to ensure the provision of those essential services.

Section 6 allows for additional services to be declared essential. Neither

Section 5 nor

Section 6 is appealable. The only area of appeal allowed under

Section 8.1 is the number of employees required as provided under

Section

Section 8 allows for an appeal to the Labour Board for a variation on the number of employees in each

November 5, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 277 classif ication as provided in

Section 7. The union believes that the designation of essential services should also be appealable and also notes that the Labour Board has 14 days to render a decision. When deter mining a matter of essential service, time is of the essence as either party can be compromised by a delay in a de cision. We would suggest that some form of quick ad judication of disputes within 24 hours or 48 hours be provided for in the act.

Section 12 states that no essential services employees shall participate in a work stoppage against the employer. Again, it is unclear what is intended by this section. If the intention is to prohibit an essential services employee from participating in picketing on their own time or other wise participate in the work stoppage or support the union even though they are fulfilling their obligation to provide essential services , we would take strong exception to that provision. We would like to make a number of recommenda tions.

First of all, the MGEU would urge the government to reconsider the unilateral position of essential services provisions and withdraw Bill 17 .

Number 2, the MGEU would urge the government to continue with the process that has started and negotiate an esse ntial services agreement with the union, (3) that the MGEU would urge the government to negotiate an essential services agreement patterned after the one that already exists in the health care sector, (4) the MGEU would urge the government to amend the bill so that any negotiated agreement would supersede the legislation, and (5) that the MGEU would recommend to the government an all party agreement to delay this legislation until the spring session.

In conclusion, the MGEU supports the notion of a negotiated essential services agreement as opposed to a legislated one. If this is allowed to happen, there will be an essential services agreement that reflects the needs of Manitobans during a work stoppage. It would not be an agreement to remove workers' rights through legislation but rather a negotiated one designed and supported by both parties. We again urge the government to withdraw Bill 17 and negotiate an essential services agreement with the union. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir, very much for your presentation. Are there any questions of the presenter?

Mr. Santos: Mr. Olfert, the honourable minister offered the spokesperson of the Manitoba Health Organizations that in the area of health care or in the respective field they will first be offered the first opportunity to negotiate an agreement and only if the agreement voluntarily done fails will they apply this legislation. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Do you think that should also be done with the rest of the government service? Mr.

Olfert: Well, I think we have a point in No. 4 where we talk about the fact that we think a negotiated agreem ent should supersede the legislation, so in fact that if you had a negotiated agreement the legislation would not be applied. Mr. Santos: I would grant that because if there is already a negotiated agreement, there is no need for imposition, but in case of a failure of a negotiated agreem ent is it reasonab le or is it not reasonable that this legislation be applied? Mr.

Olfert: In the case of-and you are speaking of the health care sector now or the government sector, because it appears that the government is now going to amend the legislation to cover the health care sector, as well. While I list ened with some intere st about the fact that there appears to be some problem in terms of the umbrella agreement and the desi gnated agreements in health care, I sit on a subcommittee, a working committee, chaired by Wally Fox-Decent who deals with these issues on an ongoing basis.

The other thing I think we need to be aware of is that the nurses have ju st ratified a three-year agreement, CUPE has ratified a three-year agreement, and most of our contracts in the health care sector are settled for the next two years . So, I do not know what the rush would be to now, at the 11 th hour sort of thing, throw in the personal care homes and every other sector that might be out there . Mr. Toews: Mr.

Olfert, I certainly would be willing to extend the same offer to you as to the health care sector, if failing voluntary essential services agreements in the mainstream government departments that the legis lation apply. That offer would certainly be open to government as well. I would be prepared to move that amendment along with the health care sectors as well this evening.

278 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 19 96 Just one particular question, in respect of the personal care homes which your union has organized, how many essential services agreements are there? Mr. Olfert: We are signatories to the umbrella agreem ent. Unfortunat ely, what has occurred in this last year, is strike votes were taken and strike action commenced well bef ore any-there was basically no request from the employers to enter into designated agreeme nts.

Once you get that close to-N o, only moments bef ore the strike star ts, I mean that is not the time to start talking about designatio ns. lbat is the prob lem we had in the home care, and in other sectors as well. That is not the time to do that. The time to do it for the government services to do it now, between now and .March of next year, when the civil service agreement expues. Mr. Toews: Fine. We would be prepared to sit down and, in fact, I know my department has sent you letters throughout this last six months or seven months asking for essential service agreements, even prior to that time.

If you are prepared to agree to the legislation, we are certainly prepared to sit down and try to hammer out a �ol�� essential service agreement with your mstttubons, where your workers are organized and in the health care sector as well. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Olfert, that, I do not think, was in the form of a question, but if you wish to be respons ive, we certainly would welcome your comments . Mr. Olfert: I appreciate that offer, and certainly that is work that has been begun inf or mally, and the minister is probably aware of that, that there have been some discussions in terms of the civil service . Mr.

Santos: I heard your objection to designating esse ntial services by place of work, by facilities, rather than by nature of the function being perf orm ed. In this day of privatization, government divestment of services contr acting out of services to private groups and privat � organizations, would you agree with me that the nature of the service itself should be the dec iding criteria whether a service is essential or not and not the place where it is being done? * (1 940) Mr.

Olfert: Yes, I believe that work functions have to be looked at as opposed to designating the Selkirk Mental Health Centre, the entire building, as essential. lbat is why we say that the

definitions, or the act is too broad . Certainly, I do not think anybody from the governm ent side would argue that the groundskeeper, as an example, would be an essential service that would need to be employed during that or would not be allowed to be able to go out on strike during a work stoppage . This

schedule here basically says that everybody wor king in that facility could be designated essential. Mr. Cha irpen on: Thank you very much, Mr. Olfert . lbat concludes the time available for questions this evening. Thank you for coming bef ore us with your presentation. The next person on the list is Catherine Holmes. Good evening, Ms. Holmes, and welcome to the committee tonight. Do you have a written presentation? Ms. Catherine Holmes (Tache Family Association, Tache Nuning Centre): I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair penon: The clerk will circulate .

While copies of your presentation are being circulated, I would invite you to begin. Ms. Holmes: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, 1 speak today as a representative of the Tache Nursing Centr e Family Association. This ad hoc group was formed in June 19 96 to meet the needs of our family members and relatives who were victims of a strike. On June 18 , 19 96, all employees except administration and prof essional nurses walked out, ending normal services at the Tache Nursing Home. This strike lasted 71 days. It caused substantial, even life -threaten ing disruption in some cases.

Our association mars halled its forces to protect our loved ones . It was thus in a position to observe and document the frantic atmosphere and irregular, sometimes nonexistent, services during those nine weeks. We have 80 care reports to substantiate our monitoring of the situation. Now a care report, and I have many examples here, was a form filled out by a worker, a family member, a visitor, on some service that was sadly

November 5, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 279 deficient. It was not a question of not having proper flowers in their room, I assure you. It was a question of having proper food, proper positioning in a chair, which can be a lif e-threatening situation depending on the person's handicap. We have 80 of those; they were sent to the government. We are credible and well-i nformed witnesses to the serious negative impact of last summ er's strike.

We are now much heartened to hear that steps are to be taken to ensure those vital services that the people of Manitoba have a right to expect, and I quote the minister, will always be there regardless if there is a strike. I quote the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) introducing The Essential Services Act, or Bill 17 , which we are discussing tonight. While the intentions of our legis lators have our complete support, we are distressed to read on page 8, under the heading "Schedule," that two institutions only are listed, name ly, Brandon and Selkirk. Yet the Minister ofLabour speaks of all Manitobans.

He shows concern for the health of families and other caregivers. His legis lation will ensure that people will not be put in jeopardy because of a labour dispute. We must respectfully point out that, as drafted, Biii 17 does not provide for essential services in private and public health institutions, such as hospitals, nursing homes, and convalescent homes. We are here today to request and to urge that such institutions be included in the scope of essential services legislation.

Minister Toews gives us hope that this can be achieved when he states that there is a mechanism for designating additional services, if a significant need arises. We have just heard him mention the intention of proposing an amendment, and we are very much heartened to hear that. Our experience last summ er is proof that a significant need arises in the case of nursing homes. We do not want ever to have to face a repeat performance of the summ er of 19 96. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Holmes. Mr. Toews: Thank you very much for your presentation.

I am glad you heard some of my earlier comments, that there may be a concern about the scope of this particular bill to include health care facilities such as yours. Clearly, it is my intention tonight, if we can proceed that far, to introduce amendments that include, first of all, provision for voluntarily coming to an agreement, but in the end, that people are protected by the same provisions of The Government Essential Services Act. I consider that important.

We will have to wait to hear what the Legislative Council says in respect to the scope of these amendments, and even if it is beyond the scope, all my colleagues here, if they unanimously decide to agree to those, then we can bring those amendments here tonight. I can indicate to you that this government is committed to bringing those amendments if we cannot achieve some kind of voluntary agreement. Hopefully that will satisfY you, perhaps not immediately, but as soon as we possibly can. Mr. Chairperson: Ms.

Holmes, I know these remarks were not framed in the point of a question, but you may be responsive, if you so wish, to the honourable minister. Ms. Holmes: Well, I am a bit worried about the time element of having a negotiated procedure, a process which is engaged in negotiation to come to some sort of agreement on essential services. This might go on for six weeks while other people are on strike. So I am a bit worried about the time element. Could you have your negotiation before the strike starts, and then perhaps the essential services would be assured.

This is the element that so worries me in this gesture on your part of compromise, of wanting to come to some sort of negotiated agreement rather than impose the essential services. I understand that that is more acceptable to the unions, but speaking from the point of view or a relative of a nursing home resident, I wonder if we are really much ahead in that. That is why I will come back to what we are requesting, that the nursing homes of Manitoba be included in the

schedule and some time element would come in where the law would be in force. Mr. Toews: I agree with your comments exactly. I think that if there is a time for negotiations, that time would be before a strike, but should it ever occur, that a strike occur, that the provisions of that act would automatically kick in regardless of whether an essential services agreement has been reached or not. Would you agree with that? Ms. Holmes: Yes. Mr. Chairperson: And your answer, madam? Ms. Holmes: Yes, I think that that would be satisfactory, yes.

280 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 19 96 Mr. Jennissen: Ms. Holmes, I am wondering, your organization obviously talks about the negative effects of strike or lockout and some of the painful consequences. As you realize, strikes are there in order to create a bit of hardship, otherwise what is the sense of having them. But we do not want to do them in the sense of holding sick people or disabled people hostage, obviously. Now, we have talked about the negative things about strikes and lockou ts. What would you or your organization say to binding arbitration? What is your view on that? Ms.

Holmes: Well, we certainly suggested in our correspondence with the Minister of Labour, (Mr. Toews) during the summer , we did suggest that, because we were living through a very painful experience. We felt that because of that situation, of people being handicapped, unable to help themselves, writing these care reports, some of the residents wrote themselves that they did not want to eat any more, that they were just fed up with the whole business. We felt that binding arbitration would be a very good solution. We had suggested that to the minister in correspondence.

I think I would pref er the solution that we are presenting tonight. Mr. Jennissen: And the response from the minister to that suggestion was? Ms. Holmes: Well, at first, as you know, if you have read the papers during the summ er, the situation was a stalemate for a very long time until fmally there was a gesture taken by the minister to bring the people to negotiation and to appoint an arbitrator, mediator. I do not know if it was an arbitrator or a mediator. Someone was appointed to settle the issue. * (1 950) Mr. Chaill)erson: Thank you very much, Ms. Holmes.

That would appear to conclude the questions tonight. Thank you for coming before us this evening. I will now pass through the list again. The first person to be deferred was Rob Lindey. Is Rob Lindey in the assembly? On there being no response, Mr. Lindey's name will be struck off the list. I will now go to the head of the list and inquire, is there a representative from the Canadian Union of Public Employees of Manitoba? On there appearing to be no response, this entrant will be struck off the list. The next person is Deb Stewart. On there being no respoose, Ms. Stewart's name is struck off the list.

That would appear to be them all. I will now canvass the room once more to see if there are any other persons in attendance who wish to speak to this bill this evening. On their appearing to be no response, is it the wish of the committee to proceed clause by clause? [agreed] I would seek direction from the committee at this point as to which bill should be considered at this time. Any suggestions? An Honourable Member: Essential Services. Mr. Chai rperson: Essential Services? Mr.

Toews: Just in respect to that, I have no problem with dealing with the two short ones frrst, provided that all government business will also be dealt with tonight. An Honou rable Member: I think you want to do the Essential Services clause by clause now and then do the two short bills and then come back to the government bill. Mr. Toews: All right, we will do that, provided that all governm ent business will be dealt with tonight. I do not see any problem with that. Mr. Chairperson: All right, the agreement, as I hear it, colleagues, is that we will proceed with Bill I 7 clause by clause at this point.

We will then proceed with adopting the two independent bills and then fmish up with Bill 26. The committee will sit this evening until all work has been completed. Does that properly represent the understanding? (agreed] The frrst bill, then, that we will consider will be Bill 1 7, The Government Essential Services Act. Did the minister responsible have an opening statement? Mr. Toews: No. I believe that the statements that I have made, I have already made in the House, and I have made them here tonight as well. Mr.

Chai rperson: Thank you, Honourable Minister Does the critic of the official opposition have an opening statement?

November 5, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 28 1 Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I will be very brief In li stening to the presentations that were made here this evening, it appears that there are some changes since this bill was introduced and that based on the presentations as well that there are obviously some concerns that need to be addressed, I believe, through and by way of amendment. I have several amendments that I would like to propose, but I would also like to hear the minister's comments with respect to his intentions to allow negotiations to take place, hypothetically, after passage of this bill.

What type of a process is he prepared to allow to take place? What type of a time frame does he have in mind to allow this negotiation to take place so that those that are involved in the negotiations as one of the stakeholders will have some idea on what the minister has in mind and whether or not there is going to be a reasonableness that is built into the process? So I would like to have some understanding of that. Mr.

Toews: Essentially, what I would propose is that in view of the submissions made here tonight from the Manitoba Health Organizations and from the representative from Tache, essentially what I would prefer to see is that the bill be extended to include health care facilities such as personal care homes and hospitals and regional health authorities when those come into operation in the province.

I think the point is made here that the health care sector is in fact one of the greatest areas of strike and controversy, and given that in fact in most of those areas, as the Health Organizations has indicated, the present voluntary system has not been working very well. Yes, there is an umbrella agreement, but individual agreements seem to be hard to find, and clearly in the case of, and I am just pointing out the St. Amant Centre, there was no such agreement.

The types of agreements that were proposed this summ er were essentially agreements where people were essentially dying, and that was not satisfactory to the government.

So in those kinds of situations where we have a collective agreement between a union and an employer in the health care sector as well, essentially what the government would be proposing, what I would be moving, is that where there is no essential services agreement under the act, the employer and the union 90 days before the expiration of their collective agreement would commence negotiations with a view to concluding an essential services agreement. Now, this would not preclude the two parties from entering into a voluntary essential services agreement at any time.

In fact, the amendments that I would propose would in fact foresee that if there is no essential agreement-so clearly they could embark at any time to enter into an essential services agreement. But clearly they would be put under the gun at 90 days before the expiration to get that voluntary agreement, and there would be a process by which the employer would advise the union of that negotiating process, and then the two parties would in filet negotiate.

So, essentially, there is a process, I would foresee, of 90 days in advance of the expiration of the collective agreement going ahead, and the concerns that were raised here tonight by the unions that the act is so broad, frankly I think there are many valid rebuttals of that argument. In fact, what we could in fact do is make this entire act irrelevant by encouraging through a mandatory bargaining process the essential services agreement. Ultimately, though, if the essential services agreement is not voluntarily entered into, the act would in fact apply. So it would perform a backstop agreement.

Now, the reason I like a voluntary essential services agreement is because the parties to that agreement could work out the nuances of that agreement that would be particular to their institution. So I would suggest we proceed in that direction and include the health care sector, including personal care homes, but in view of the very real concerns that the union has, that there should be some bargaining proces s. We should in fact enter into an essential services agreement wherever possible before the operation of the act commences. Mr. Reid: The minister referenced a 90-day window.

I want to ask the minister-because he as the Minister of Labour is responsible for the Civil Service Commission which does the negotiations on behalf of the government for various sectors-if he and his department and the Department of Health, for example, are prepared now to sit down and start negotiating an essential services agreement so that we do not have to go through this process here which I expect may be out of scope with respect to the legislation itself We have already dealt with that matter once here tonight on another bill. I hope

282 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 19 96 that the minister is not referring to this, him bringing forward another out-of-scope amendment as the previous minister had done. So I draw your attention to that, Mr. Chairperson, that that may be the case, and at that time, we will debate that. I want to know if the minister is prepared to negotiate now, on behalf of the government, an essential services agreem ent with the various labour organizations that are involved as stakeholders in this process as wel l. Mr. Toews: We gave that commitment to Mr.

Peter Olfert sometime in April or May of last year, that an essential services agreement be entered into, and frankly negotiations went nowhere. We sent letter after letter to him asking him to enter into an essential services agreement. He did not even show up at the table to negotiate. Now, we are in fact recom mencing that negotiating process. We do want to see a voluntary essential services agreement entered into with MGEU in respect of this matter, but, make no mistake about it, if we cannot achieve an essential services agreement, we intend to rely upon the provisions of this act. *

(2000) In respect of the health care sector, we will have to listen to Legislative Counsel to see whether or not that is out of scope. Again, as I have indicated on the record, this government is committed to seeing essential services agreem ents bargained with the employers and the unions in that sector, and failing that-as we saw this summer where the unions refused to enter into agreements with the employers in that case despite numerous attempts by those employers to enter into appropriate agreements.

Yes, the MGEU is a signer of the umbr ella agreement, but not one agreement, not one agreement in respect of personal care homes was signed. So, cleady, it indicates to us that legislation is essential as a backstop. I think if we agree here to adding the health care sector and have very definite provisions in respect of the negotiations of voluntaJy essential services agreem ents, we will be going a long step.

I am prepared to move that motion in respect of the government of Manitoba, too, that it sits down prior to the expiration of a collective agreement and attempts to hammer out a voluntary essential services agreement. We have in our bill, 90 days, but ifyou want to do it to 12 0 days, I have no problem with that. Mr. Reid: This is not an option, as my colleague has referenced here, about the number of days that are involved- Point of Order Mr. Toews: On a point of order, I was simply referring to what I saw as hand signals from the member for Transcona, bringing his hands closer and farther apart.

I thought he was referring to whether I was flexible on that time period. I am flexible. I am sorry I gave the impressi on that anyone would have thought that I was dealing with an auction when I am deal ing with essential services. Mr. Chai rperson: Obviously a mistake on the facts, and I would recognize Mr. Doer, if you were to speak to the point of order. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yes. Is there a copy of the thought process the minister has in terms of an amendment to this committee? We are now dealing in thoughts, in hands, in arms, in legs, blinks, whatever else from the minister.

I want to speak to this when we see a copy, because there are no nurses at this committee meeting, I would daresay, tonight. There are no health care workers at this committee tonight. It is never the intent of this Legislature to move an amendment in a bill that actually is a new bill. I would suggest very strongly to the minister, he may not have liked the way that things went this summer. We certainly did not like the way he acted this summer as the Minister of Labour. That does not mean to say that he can take- Mr. Chair person: Excuse me, Mr. Doer. Mr. Doer: I am speaking to the point of order. Mr.

Chairperson: A point of order has been raised, an additional point of order. An Honourable Member: No, no, let him fm ish his point of order. Mr. Chai rperson: I apologize, Mr. Doer. I invite you to finish. Mr. Doer: Thank you. It is not the reality oflegis lation that you can just move an amendment based on inexperience that takes place after you have moved

November 5, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 283 legislation in this Legislature. We have had another minister of the Crown, the other day, moving an amendment that was ruled out of order, out of scope, in the university section. It is not the intent of the opposition to subvert the public hearing process by moving amendments that substantively change the collective bargaining relationship in the health care sector without any public presentations at all. Now, if the Minister of Labour is moving in this kind of amendment, I think the public is entitled to be consulted about it.

The Minister of Labour may think he is a power unto himself, but we do not. We do not believe any one of us are. If he did not think of this issue before he brought in essential services in the proper time frame, or did not contemplate it, I think that that is regrettable if that was his intent.

I would suggest to him that it has been past ministers of Labour that have dealt with this issue quite adequately, whether it is Minister MacMaster, Minister Schroeder, Minister Dolin, Minister Maclding-I am just going through my memory of who the previous ministers -Minister Hamm ond, who has, I believe, a celebration night tonight in this very same building-Minister Praznik, and now we see this minister, in a ham-handed way, I would suggest, coming in with amendments that are, quite frankly, subverting the public hearing process.

The reason why bills come to this committee is so that the public can have a chance to speak on them. It is not the fly by the seat of your proverbial trousers with moving amendments, based on what happened this summer. I would suggest strongly, I am very disappointed in the days lost to strike and lockout in this last year. I am very disappointed in what has happened in the health care sector. I am very disappointed, quite frankly, in the Minister of Labour's pe rformance. I listened to him talk about these very same disputes as if he was a third party-the parties are far apart. He is a member of the cabinet.

It disturbs me greatly that Manitoba has lost its reputation in terms of days lost to strike and lockout, particularly in the public sector. When I listen to people, one of their angers was about all of us, all ofus as MLAs who took a rate increase this year when they did not. Maybe we should start with legislation to deal with ourselves, so that we can be leading from in front rather than these haphazard amendments. I suggest to the minister, this is out of scope. It is absolutely undemocratic and it is not the way this Legislature should be proceeding.

If he did not have the foresight to deal with this issue, and we have had people with quite good credentials in the past deal with this issue, like Cam MacLean who came up with a voluntary agreement with nurses and health care workers. I respect Cam MacLean greatly. I think he worked on the original agreement with Joyce Gleason [phonetic], and other people. For this minister just to come in tonight and indicate with his arms how long or short this thing is going to be, I think is quite absurd. I am very disappointed. It should be ruled out of order. It should not even be before us, quite frankly. Mr.

Chairperson: Just for a point of clarification, the minister did not have a point of order, and I ruled on that. I was in error by encouraging Mr. Doer to proceed to debate the issue. So I just wanted to make sure that in fact the record is correct, that there was no initial point of order, and, in fact, we were descending to debate on the particular issue. Point of Order Mr. Ernst: On a new point of order, it is regrettable that Mr.

Doer was not here during the presentations, because I think he might be pretty embarrassed right now, after having made the statements that he made as a result of the public hearing process. During the public hearings, which is why we have public hearings in this building, we had the Manitoba Health Organizations come forward to suggest that their institution should be included, all of them. We had a suggestion made by the minister or a question actually asked of Mr. Olfert, the president of the MGEU-would he be interested in some sort of an arrangement such as the minister was floating.

This is not a situation where he came in by the seat of his pants. He was genuinely responding to two people who had come here to talk about this particular bill and the issues surrounding it. To accuse the minister of somehow trying to subvert the public hearing process, it is quite the opposite. The minister, in fact, was trying to respond to the public hearing process when a suggestion was made as to how to improve the bill, how to improve relations and

284 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 how to perhaps deal with the situation, rather than making it mandatory to use it as a backstop to a voluntary settlement , which is in the interests of everyone. If two parties can get together and decide on a voluntary arrangement between them, that is highly pref erable to any legisla tive imposition. The fact of the matter is certain essential services need to be protect ed. So, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Doer was quite unfair in dealing with the suggestion of the minister.

He is simply trying to respond to situations raised during the public hearing process. Now, I suppose the whole question is academic if it is ruled out of scope, but, nonet heless, I think fairness needs to be brought in here, rather than jumping to conclusions, and to be fair also, Mr. Doer was not here to hear those presentations so he would not have known that. However, other members of his caucus were present and did not draw that to his atte ntion. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Ernst. I would rule that this is not a point of order.

It is a debate on the facts, and-[interjection] Yes, I would advise honourable colleagues tonight that we do not have to raise points of order in order to debate the issue. I am quite happy to recognize individual members . Mr. Ashton, I had noted that you were wishing to speak . Will you def er to Mr. Doer? Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I will def er to Mr. Doer, but I do have some comments also. Mr. Chai rperson: All right, thank you. * (20 10) Mr.

Doer: Well, I would point out to members of this committee, that in essential services and in legis lation dealing with management and employe es, there are emp loyees that would be impacted by changes. Now, I happen to believe that the nurses , for example, who negotiated with Mr. MacLean, if past history is correct, and other organizations negotiated a voluntary essential services agreement that has been superior in terms of its resul ts to, say, the legisla tive process that has been used in the past in, say, Alberta .

Now I would think that the minister would want to study the-of course, in Alberta, ever ything was ill egal in terms of the withdrawal of services in the health care field for a period of time, so then what resulted were very difficult situations in that province,

whereas in Manitoba when we look back over the strike-1 believe it took place in '9 1 -there was an essential services agreement in place that was negotiated by Joyce Gleason [phoneti c], I think, carried on by Irene Giesbrecht . I am merely stating that I persona lly bel ieve that there should be a negotiated framework for life and limb services in the health care field; I believe that strongly. I do not believe that you draw up legisla tion li ke this quickly and in haste. You do it with great care, and you do it in coosultation.

You were talking about health care ; you do it in consultation with nurses , support staff, volunteers and community boards. We have already got criticism of this government on look at Bill 49. MHO condemned the government in terms of its abhorrent and undemocratic measures in the bill. The faith-based institutions have criticized the bill and are still concerned about the bill. I just do not think that is the way we develq> legislation in this Chamber for the long run.

So, if there is a point raised by MHO that is worthy of deliberations, I would recommend strongly that the minister take that under advisement and go back and WOJk with the various employee groups in health care and be prepared to come back. The MacLean agreement of the past is, in his opinion, no looger workable. That is what I am suggesting, there are a lot of people impacted by this. They are not all in this committee room tonight. I suggest there should be the spirit of legisl ation in second read ing, public hearings, is to at least have peop le directly impacted have a right to have a say on it. Mr.

Chai rperson: Mr. Ashton, if you are going to be spea king to the issue of proposed amendme nts, perhaps the honourable minister has received some advice. He might be able to make some reflections now that might forestall any comments . I do not want to in any way curtail you, and if you would wish to make your remarks first, I would certainly reco gnize you to proceed . Mr. Ashton: If the minister wishes to respond, I will then respond to his comments . Mr. Toews: I have heard those commen ts. I have essentially been advised that the proposal that I was floating here would be out of scope in that it brings a

November 5, 1996 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 285 health care sector into it. Accordingly, without leave of this committee, I would not be able to bring those amendments. So, if there is no leave, I am unable to, as much as I would like to, bring those amendments to this committee. Mr. Ashton: One of the difficulties I would point out again is, as the government House leader would have it, the minister was responding to a brief Now, does he have a draft of this available? Has he given a draft copy to any of the opposition critics? Was this raised at the outset of the committee hearings?

I would raise those questions because we have seen ministers, for example, who have, with in-scope amendments, raised at the beginning of committee hearings that this is being contemplated, that is being contemplated. The Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), as I said, in Bill 49, the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) both did that.

What is particularly concerning here is not only the out-of-scope question-because I think if we do not say that it is out of scope, there is a whole process question here that has to be dealt with, not just as us, we are just the representatives of the people in this particular case-but there are obviously different people who would make a presentation depending on the scope of the bill. One of the reasons we have protection under our rules for the ability of people to only bring in-scope amendments is-there is a reason for these committee hearings-to make sure everybody is aware of that particular content.

I appreciate the fact the MHO included this in its brief, but there may be others, I am sure a lot of others, who are more than willing to comment on that. So I want to raise that question. It is not a question of leave in the sense of some minor courtesy. You cannot make legislation, I think properly, unless you have proper notice. That is why we have second reading; that is why we have committee hearings; that is why we have third reading.

The other thing I wanted to indicate, too-and this is something that we should give serious consideration to with all amendments, the one thing I regret in the current rules we have adopted is that there is not a notice period between the hearings, the tabling of amendments and the time which amendments are considered because that is something that would help deal with some of the other problems that we run into in this committee. It can work both ways.

I have sat in committees in a minority government situation where the opposition brought in amendments which were passed by the committee with no ability for the government to consider amendments. It also, however, works the other way, particularly in the case where you have a majority government where you have amendments, even if they are in-scope, unless they are brought in with some advance notice, leave the opposition members in a very difficult situation, not being able to consider them, not being able to discuss these items with our caucus.

I would note in this particular case that has not happened, those amendments have not been distributed in advance on this. Once again, whether this is in scope or not in scope, it raises very serious questions about the ability with which we have to deal with it. Now, if the minister is now acknowledging that the matter is out of scope, I really think that is the end of the discussion on that particular motion. I did want to put those remarks on the record. I do not mean this as any personal criticism to the minister, but I do think that what the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and the Minister of Education (Mrs.

Mcintosh) did in this particular case and I am not always this praiseworthy of them. I disagree with them on issues. Please do not tell the Minister of Education I said this, because she will get suspicious [interjection]-or Jean Friesen, but I mean the one thing they did do- Mr. Chair person: Your confidences are safe with us, Mr. Ashton. Mr. Ashton: Exactly. Because I do remember Ms. Chivers [phonetic] being in a committee where I agreed the Minister of Labour, previous Minister of Labour and I agreed on an amendment, and she got very suspicious.

As soon as I said I was in favour of it, she wanted to go and reconsider it. So, please, do not communicate that, but I do think that is a good process. I think obviously in this case there must have been some communication to the minister before on this matter, and if the minister had considered this, by putting it out early on, it gives some chance for consideration. In this case, it is a double problem because it is also out of scope, so I appreciate the minister is indicating that now. We will not necessarily have to deal with it. I would just make the suggestion for future bills, and I know we are dealing

286 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 19 96 with some other bills that are coming up fairly soon. They are going to have a significant number of amendments. Any kind of notice, either directly through the critic or in the committee, is very helpful in helping us move through and make clear decisions in this committee. Mr. Chair person: Thank you, Mr. Ashton. Your reflections have been very helpful. We now will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The bill that we are perusing is Bill 17 , The Government Essential Services Amendment Act. The first clause for con sideration is Clause I. Excuse me, during the consideration of the bill, the schedule, the

preamble, and the title are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order by the committee. Clause 1- pass. Shall Clause 2 pass? this discussion further in the bill, but I think it is important, because this ties in with another

section of this bill, that we delete it at this time. I am prepared to move another amen dment later on in the bill that will allow for some way to allow the government to meet its objectives of this bill under the existing collective agreements, hoping that they are prepared to consider such an amendment. An Honourable Member. Question. *

(2020) Mr. Chairperson: The question has been called. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the Mr. Reid: In

Section l, I have an amendment. amendment, please indicate by saying yea. Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave to return to Clause I? Some Honourable Members: Yea. [agreed] Mr. Reid, you have an amendment. Mr. Reid: I move THAT the definition "temporary terms and conditions" in

section I be struck out. (French version] II est propose que Ia definition de "conditions Mr. Chair person: All those contrary, nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Formal Vote temporaires", a /'article 1, soil supprimee. Mr. Reid: A recorded vote. Motion presented. A COUNT -OUT VO TE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 4, Nays 5. Mr. Chai rperson: Any debate on this issue? Mr. Reid: I guess I can debate this a bit further as we get into the bill itself, clause by clause.

This particular defi nition is not in keeping with what has, I believe, been standa rd practice or at least experience that I have had in my life in dealing with strike and lockout situations where we have collective agreements that have expired. While I do not profess to be an expert in these matters, and I am sure there are other members in this room that are, I believe that it would be more appropriate to have the existing collective agreement, even though it has expired, be the guide in dealing with the conditions under which employees are paid.

So that is the reason why I believe that-and I can get more fully into some detail in Mr. Chai rperson: The opinion of the Chair is that the motion has been defeated. Colleagues, at this point, I would canvass the committee to see if there is consensus that all the amendments that will be made tonight will be deemed to have been made in both the English and French languages. Is that correct? [agreed] 1be next clause for consideration is Clause 2. Clause 2-pass; Clause 3-pass; Clause 4-pass. Clause 5. We have an amendment. Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I move

November 5, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 287 THAT

section 5 be stuck out. [French version] II est propose que /'article 5 soit supprime. Mr. Chair person: Is there leave to vote on the amendment, rather than voting against the clause? Is that the will of committee? It is a truce. The clerk is indicating that the customary process- An Honourable Member: Obscure. Mr. Chai rperson: Obscure, yes-is to vote against the clause rather than vote against the motion. What is the will of committee? Does committee wish to deal with the amendment? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Chairperson: Does committee wish to vote on it? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mr.

Chairperson: All right. So that will be the will of committee. Is there any discussion on this amendment? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Chairperson: All right. The question has been called. Voice Vote Mr. Chair person: All those in favour of the amendment, please indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those contrary, nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chai rperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Mr. Reid: On division. Mr. Chair person: On division, so recorded. Clause 5 passed on division. Clause 6. We have an amendment to Clause 6. Mr. Reid: Mr.

Chairperson, I move THAT

section 6 of the Bill be struck out. (French version] II est propose de supprimer /'article 6 du project de /oi. Mr. Chair person: Is there any discussion on this amendment? An Honourable Member: Question. Voice Vote Mr. Chair person: All those in favour of the amendment, please indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: All those contrary, by nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: The Nays have it. Formal Vote Mr. Reid: A recorded vote. A COUNT -OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 4, Nays 5. Mr. Chair person: The motion is defeated. Mr.

Santos: I have a question. Can the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council declare any kind of service essential service even if it does not fall under the categories as defined in

Section 1? Mr. Toews: No, it would be outside the scope of the act. That is how we would have to raise that amendment for the personal care homes and the health care sector. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council cannot raise a-do something that is outside the scope of the statute. In exercising regulatory powers the Lieutenant-Governor-in-

288 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 Council is entitled to do what the regulat ory power allows him or her to do, and the regulatory power, which is essentially what this is, needs to refl ect the other principles of the act. Mr. Santos: Another question . Supposing a particular kind of service satisfies the definition of essential services while it is still being pe rformed by the government and then it is contracted out to some private organization. Does it lose its essential service nature? Mr.

Toews: Well, I mean, I do not want to give you a legal opinion here, but everyth ing that the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council does must be within the scope of the act. If that then-you have to take a look at who the employer is, who the union is, that kind of thing. It could be outside the scope of the act. I do not know. Mr. Santos: This is what I am after. This is a reason why there is a flaw in the definition of essential service s by reason of the place where it is being perf ormed. It is in the nature of the function itself whether or not it is essential for the protection of the public. Mr.

Chai rperson: Clause 6-pass. Mr. Santos: On division. Mr. Chair person: On division, okay, so recorde d. Clause 7( 1) . Mr. Reid: No, Mr. Chairperson, it shall not pass, hope fully. I move THAT

section 7 be struck out and the follo wing substituted : Essential services agreement 7(1) In the event of or in anticipation of a work stoppage, the employer and the union shall attempt to negotiate an essential services agreement as soon as is reasonab ly possible. Employer to advise union 7(2) In the event of or in anticipation of a work stoppage, the employer shall serve a notice on the union setting out (

a) the time and place for the negotiation of an essential services agreement ; (

b) the classifications of employees who in the employer's opinion must work during the work stoppage to maintain essential services ; (

c) the number of employees in each classif ication who in the employer's opinion must work during the work stoppage to maintain essential services. (French version! II est propose que /'article 7 soil remplace par ce qui suit: Accord sur les services essentials 7(1) Si un arret de travail se produit ou est prevu, l'employeur et /e syndical s' efforcent de negocier un accord sur les services essentials des que possible. A vis au syndical 7(2) Si un arret de travail se produit ou est prevu, l'employeur signifie au syndical un avis indiquant: a) /e moment et /e lieu ou doit se derouler Ia negociation d'un accord sur les services essentiels;

b) les classifications des employes qui, se/on lui, sont tenus de travai/ler au cours de /'arret de travail afin d'assurer /es services essentiels; c) /e nombre d'employes de chaque classification qui, selon lui, sont tenus de travai/ler au cours de /'arret de travail afin d'assurer les services essentials. Motion presented. Mr. Ernst: Mr. Toews' suggestion earlier was out of scope. Why is this not out of scope? I mean , this is not dissimilar. The timing may be a little bit different, but it is not terri bly dissimila r to what Mr.

Toews had been suggesting earlier to the comm ittee for which he was, you know, I think unfairly dumped on. Mr. Toews: Maybe I will have to revisit the other issue . Mr. Chair person: An interes ting point, I think that there has been a call for the question on this. *

(2030) November 5, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 289 Mr. Reid: In this provision in this amendment that I am proposing here, Mr.

Chairperson, it changes in the fact that the employer in this case or the government in most of these cases will determine the names of the employees that would be required to work to maintain essential services, and we heard one of the presentations here this evening spelling out very clearly for the government and for the committee members that there should be a removal of the names component, that there was no opposition to deter mining that there are job class ifications that need to be filled, but I think the objection was that the specific names of individuals to do that work, that power was being left in the hands of the government to determine specific people.

I think that was the objection of the presenter here this evening. That is why I have brought forward this amendment, to reflect that particular request that was made by one of the presenters. Mr. Chairperson: All right, there has been a call for the question on Clause 7(1), on the amendment to Clause 7(1). Voice Vote Mr. Chair person: All those in favour of the amendment, please indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those contrary, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Mr. Reid: On division. Mr. Chairperson: On division.

So recorded. Clause 7(1 )-pass. Mr. Reid: On division. Mr. Chairperson: On division. So recorded. Clause 7(2)-pass; Clause 7(3)-pass; Clause 7(4)-pass; Clause 7(5)-pass. Clause 8(1). Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I move THAT subsection 8(1) be struck out and the following substituted: Application to Labour Board 8(1 ) When a work stoppage has commenced, the employer or the union may apply to The Manitoba Labour Board for a variation of the number of employees in each classification who must work during the work stoppage to maintain essential services (

a) if there arises an unforeseen circumstance which affects the number of employees that may be required to work to maintain essential services; and (

b) the matter cannot be resolved by negotiation. [French version) II est propose que /e paragraphe 8(1) soil remplace par ce qui suit: Demande a Ia Commission du travail 8(1) Si un arret de travail a debute, l'employeur ou /e syndical peut demander a Ia Commission du travail du Manitoba de modifier /e nombre d'employes de chaque classification qui sont tenus de travailler au cours de /'arret de travail afin d'assurer /es services essentiels dans le cas suivant:

a) il survient des circonstances imprevues qui touchent /e nombre d'employes qui peuvent etre tenus de travail/er afin d'assurer ces services;

b) Ia question ne peut etre reg/ee par Ia negociation. Motion presented. Mr. Chairperson: Any further discussion on the amendment? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Chairperson: Question. Voice Vote Mr. Chair person: All those in favour of the amendment, please indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea.

290 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 19 96 Mr. Chair person: Those contrary, by nay. An Honourable Member: On division. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: On division, so recorded. Clause 8(4)-pass; Clause 8(5)--p ass. Mr. Reid could you give Mr. Chair person: In my opinion, the Nays have it. us some advice, sir? Mr. Reid: On division. Mr. Reid: Which one? Mr. Chai rperson: On division, so recor ded. Clause Mr. Chairperson: 8(5). 8(1)-pas s. Mr. Reid: On division. Mr. Chai rperson: On division. Clause 8(2)--pas s. Clause 8(3). Mr. Reid: Oh, we are at that one. Mr.

Chair person: Is it the will of the committee to revert to 8(5)? [agreed] Mr. Reid: Thank you, committee members . I was Mr. Reid: I have an amendm ent. I move, Mr. reading the clause at the time and wondering why I had Chairperson not made an amendment, Mr. Chairperson, but I see that I already have one here . I move THAT subsection 8(3) be amended by striking out "14 " and substituting "7". [French version] II est propose que /e paragraphe 8(3) soil amende par substitution, a .. 14 ", de .. 7". Motion presented. Mr. Chair person: Any discussion? Call for the question. Voice Vote Mr.

Chair person: Those in favour of the amendm ent, please indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chai rperson: Contrary, by nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Mr. Reid: On division. Mr. Chair person: On division, so recorded . Clause THAT subsection 8(5) be amended by striking out "14 " and substituting "T '. [French version] II est propose que le paragraphe 8(5) soil amende par substitution, a "14 ", de "7 ". Motion presented. Mr. Chair person: Any further discussion? Question . Voice Vote Mr.

Chai rperson: All those in favour of the amendment, indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chai rperson: And the Nays. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Mr. Reid: On division. 8(3)--pass. Mr. Chai rperson: On division, so recorded .

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 291 Clause 8(5)-passed on division; Clause 8(6)-pas s; Clause 8(7)-pass; Clause 8(8)-pass. Clause 9. Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I move THAT

section 9 be struck out and the following substituted : Pay and benefits 9 The pay and benefits of employees who must work as a result of the operation of this Act shall be in accordance with the last collective agreement . [French version I II est propose que /'article 9 soit remplace par ce qui suit: Traitment et avantages 9 Le traitment et /es avantages des employes qui sont tenus de travail/er du fait de /'application de Ia presente /oi sont conformes aux dispositions de Ia derniere convention collective. Motion presented. Mr. Reid: Mr.

Chairperson, in the legisla tion itself , the Clause 9 that the minister has included with the bill ref erences notwithstanding the last collective agreement, and I am sure we all know what the word "notwithstanding" means in this respect or in our previous experiences with this word in the Canadian relationship .

This will prevent the last collective agreement from taking precedent, and this is the issue that I ref erenced in the opening comments with my attempt to delete the temporary terms and conditions definition at the front of this bill, because what this bill will do, will allow the government to set the temporary terms and conditions , which is pay and benefits, for employees who are required to work under the essential services agreement and does not spell out that it is the provi sions of the last collective agreement that should be in force and in eff ect until such time as it is superseded by another agreement that would be imposed or negotiated.

So that is why my intent here is to show that we need to have some reco gnition that the employees will continue to be paid under the terms of the last collective agreement. Now, I hope that the government members will recognize that there should be some respo nsibilit y on your part to honour that agreement until such time as it is superseded. At least I hope that you would be willing to recognize that . With those comments, Mr. Chairperson, I will allow others to comment on this section, as well. Voice Vote Mr. Chair person: Question? All right.

All those in favour of the amendment, please indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: The contrary, by nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: The Nays have it. Formal Vote Mr. Reid: Recorded vote. A COUNT -OUT VO TE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 4, Nays 6. Mr. Chairperson: The Nays have it. The amendment is def eated . Clause 9-pass; Clause 10-p ass; Clause 11 - pass. Clause 12. Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I move THAT

section 12 be amended by adding "during the period the employee is required to work to maintain the essential service" after "employer" . [French version) II est propose que /'article 12 soit amende par adjonction, apres "employeur", de "au cours de Ia peri ode ou i/s sont tenus de travail/er afin d'assurer ces services ". Motion presented. Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, we heard from the presenters here this evening that this legis lation will, I

292 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 bel ieve, infringe upon the rights of an individual to determ ine whatever actions they wish to participate in on their own free time.

The intent of the legis lation, as it curren tly stands, says in Cla use 12 that no essential services employee shall participate in a work stoppage against the employer, and that, I believe, could be defined in the broad sense where the employee could not participate in any activities , whether it be in going and participating in the strike or lockout picket lin e or involved in other activities in assistance of the union as long as it does not interfere with the provisions of the essentials services agreement.

So what I want to do here by this wording here is just to tighten it up on the intent of what the clause is to make sure that no employee who is required to work under the essential services agreement will be prevented on their own time from participating in any activities of their choosing. I hope that the minister will take the opportunity, if he does not agree with this, to put on the record his intent with respect to that particular clause that he has in the legislation. *

(2040) Mr. Toews: I am advised that the definition of"work stoppage," which means a strike which is defined as is defined in The Labour Relations Act, essentially means that an essential services worker or employee could not participate in strike activities, but there is certainly nothing to stop that individual from exer cising his or her constitutional rights outside the context of that. This deals with strike or lockout. It does not deal with that, if somebody wants to voluntarily participate in a picket line that does not interfere with their duties as essential servan ts. An Honourable Member: Question . Mr.

Chai rperson: The question has bet:n called. Voice Vote Mr. Chair person: All those in favour of the amendment, ple ase indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: Contraries by nay. Some Honourable Members: The Nays have it. Mr. Reid: On division. Mr. Chai rpenon: On division. Formal Vote A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 3, Nays 6. Mr. Chairperson: So recorded. The motion is def eated . Cl ause 12-pass; Cl ause 13 -pass. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chairperson: Clause 13-pass, on division. Clause 14-pass; Clause 15 -pass. Cl ause 16. Mr.

Toews: I have an amendment to add after

Section 16 . Should I move it now? Mr. Chairpenon: No. Maybe we will pass Clause 16 and then make the amendment. Clause 16-pass. Mr. Toews: I move THAT the following be added after

section 16 : Rules of Labour Board 16.1 The Manitoba Labour Board may make any rules of practice and procedure that the board considers necessary to carry out its respons ibilities under this Act. (French venion) II est propose d'ajouter, apres /'article 16, ce qui suit: Regles de Ia Commission du travail 16.1 La Commission du travail du Manitoba peut prendre /es regles de pratique et de procedure qu'elle estime necessaires a l'exercice des attributions qui lui sont con flees en application de Ia presente /oi.

Essentially, this is a mirror image of what the board already has under The Labour Relations Act, but the chair of the board has advised the department that he fee ls that it is necessary in order for the board to exercise its respo nsibil ities under the act that we give that board

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 293 the appropriate degree of independence so that they can THAT

section 17 be struck out. make their decisions in respect of their respo nsibilities. (French version] Motion presented. II est propose que /'article 17 soil supprime. Mr. Chairperson: Any further discussion? Mr. Chair person: All right. Is there leave to revert to An Honourable Member: Question . 17? Mr. Chairperson: Question. All right. Amendment- Some Honourable Members: Leave . pass; Clause 17 . Mr. Chair person: Leave is granted accordingly. Mr. Mr. Toews: Just another related motion. I move Reid has moved that

Section 17 be struck out. Any discussion, question? THAT clause 17(

b) be amended by adding "at the request of The Manitoba Labour Board," be fore "providing". (French version] II est propose que l'a/inea 17

b) soil amende par substitution, a "fournir /es directives dont peut avoir besoin Ia Commission du travail duManitoba", de "a Ia demande de Ia Commission du travail du Manitoba, fournir les directives dont cel/e-ci peut avoir besoin ". So essentially what this does is ensure the indepen dence of the Manitoba Labour Board to ensure that it is the Manitoba Labour Board that makes the request rather than the Lieutenant-Governo r-in-Council directing the Manitoba Labour Board to do certain things. Again, it is a question of independence. Motion presented. Mr. Chair person: Any further discussion on the amendment?

An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Chairperson: Question. All those in favour of the amen dment . Some Honourable Members: Pass. Mr. Chairperson: Pass. All right the amendment shall pass. Clause 17 as amended-p ass. Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I move Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: Those in favour of the amendment, please indicate by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: Contraries, by nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: The Nays have it. Formal Vote Mr. Reid: Recorded vote. Mr. Chairperson: Recorded vote. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 4, Nays 6.

Mr. Chairperson: The motion is accordingly def eated. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chair person: Clause 17 as amended-p ass, on division. So record ed. Mr. Ernst: I would be interested to know about this motion by Mr. Reid that the

section be struck out. Advice was received in the committee yesterday morning that such motions are inappropriate in that by achieving the same goal you simply vote against the clause.

294 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 Al ternatively, the advice came that, if you wanted to introduce a motion, that is, a positive motion from which you want to vote, it required leave . Now I happen to agree that it just ought to be automatic, but we had advice yesterday that it required leave, and that today it does not. Can you explain that? Mr. Chai rperson: lbat issue was dealt with ea rlier, I Mr. Reid: Yes, Mr. Chair. Voice Vote Mr. Chairpenon: All right. All those in favour of repor ting the bill as amended, shall indicate by saying yea. bel ieve, tonight, Mr. Ernst.

On one of the preliminary Some Honourable Members: Yea. motions of a similar nature which Mr. Reid presented, I canvassed the committee and discerned that the will of Mr. Chairpenon: Contrary, by nay. the committee was to proceed by taking a positive step to defeat the motion. lbat is what the clerk was attemp ting Some Honourable Members: Nay. to indicate, and we were both speaking to that issue. Formal Vote Having this matter now being raised again, what is the will of the committee? Mr. Reid: Recorded vote. Some Honourable Members: Carry on.

A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 6, Nays 4. Mr. Chair person: Carry on? All right. Cla use 17 as amended-p ass; Clause 18 ( I )-pass; Clause 18(2}-pass; Cla use 18(3)-pass; Cl ause 19-pass; Clause 20-pass. Mr. Toews: I would move, Mr. Chair, THAT Legisla tive Counsel be authorized to change all

section nwnbers and internal refer ences necessa ry to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee . (French version) II est propose que le conseiller legislatif soil auto rise a modi fier les numeros d'artic/e et les renvois internes de fafon a donner effot aux amendements adoptes par le Comite. Mr. Chai rperson: Agreed? [agreed] Schedule- pass. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Chair person: Schedule- pass, on division. So recorded .

Preamble-pas s; Title- pass. Shall the bill as amended be reported? Mr. Reid, is it your will to have a vote on this? Mr. Cha irperson: The bill shall be reported accordingly. As previously agreed, we will now proceed to consider the two private bills. Biii 301-The Native Alcoholism Council of Manitoba Incorporation Amendment Act Mr. Chair person: Bill 30 I. We will first hear on the report on this bill from Legislative Counsel. Do we have a counsel who is prepared to speak? Ms. Shi rley Strutt (Legislative Counsel): Mr.

Chairperson, as required by Rule 12 3 of the Provisional Rules of the House, I now report that I have examined Bill 30 I, The Native Alcoholism Council of Manitoba Incorporation Amendment Act, and have not noted any exceptional powers sought or any other provision of the bill requiring special considerati on. Mr. Chair person: Thank you very much. Mr. Martindale, do you have an opening statement on behalf of Mr. Robinson on this bill? Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I am pleased to be able to introduce this on behalf of Mr. Robinson who could not be here tonight,

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 295 and also to say that this was requested by the membe rship and the Board of Directors of the Native Alcoholism Council of Manitoba. I have been to their facility and I know some of their staff and I know some of the programs that they offer, and I believe that they are doing a good job with very limited resources . I am sure that they thank you and we thank the government for letting this private mem ber's bill pass. Thank you. *

(2050) Mr. Chairperson: The bill will be considered clause by clause. During the consideration of the bill, the title and

preamble are postponed until all the clauses have been consi dered in the proper order by the committee. Shall Clauses ! through 8-pas s;

Preamble- pass; Title- pass. Bill be report ed. Mr. Martindale: I move THAT this Committee recommends that the fe es paid with respect to Bill (No. 301) - The Native Alcoholism Council of Manitoba Incorporation Amendment Act, be refunded less the cost of printing. [French version] QU E /e Comite recommande que soient rembourses /es droits payes a /'egard du projet de loi no. 301 - Loi modijiant Ia Loi constituant en corporation "The Native Alocoholism Council ofManitoba". Mr. Chairperson: Merci, Monsieur. Is it the will of the committee to-there is a request on the floor to inquire as t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-ir5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf ir5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2a9987fe635ae5ae9b1d694b131ee8791f650794

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