Manitoba Committee Hansard — 8 May 2017 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 5, 41st Legislature, 2nd Session)

41-2-la5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session – Forty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Chairperson Mrs. Sarah Guillemard Constituency of Fort Richmond Vol. LXX No. 5 - 6 p.m., Monday, May 8, 2017 ISSN 1708-668X

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-First Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLUM, James Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP BINDLE, Kelly Thompson PC CLARKE, Eileen, Hon. Agassiz PC COX, Cathy, Hon. River East PC CULLEN, Cliff, Hon. Spruce Woods PC CURRY, Nic Kildonan PC DRIEDGER, Myrna, Hon. Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph, Hon. Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FIELDING, Scott, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC FLETCHER, Steven, Hon. Assiniboia PC FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib.

GOERTZEN, Kelvin, Hon. Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Clifford Emerson PC GUILLEMARD, Sarah Fort Richmond PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC ISLEIFSON, Len Brandon East PC JOHNSON, Derek Interlake PC JOHNSTON, Scott St. James PC KINEW, Wab Fort Rouge NDP KLASSEN, Judy Kewatinook Lib. LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAGIMODIERE, Alan Selkirk PC LAMOUREUX, Cindy Burrows Lib. LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas NDP LINDSEY, Tom Flin Flon NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MARTIN, Shannon Morris PC MAYER, Colleen St. Vital PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew, Hon.

Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine, Hon. Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Arthur-Virden PC REYES, Jon St. Norbert PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples Ind. SCHULER, Ron, Hon. St. Paul PC SELINGER, Greg St. Boniface NDP SMITH, Andrew Southdale PC SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC SWAN, Andrew Minto NDP TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WHARTON, Jeff Gimli PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian, Hon.

Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC YAKIMOSKI, Blair Transcona PC Vacant Point Douglas

53 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Monday, May 8, 2017 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mrs. Sarah Guillemard (Fort Richmond) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Kelly Bindle (Thompson) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Gerrard, Goertzen, Schuler, Hon. Ms. Squires Mr. Bindle, Mrs. Guillemard, Mr. Lagimodiere, Ms. Marcelino, Messrs. Marcelino, Michaleski, Wiebe APPEARING: Ms. Cindy Lamoureux, MLA for Burrows PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Ms. Sandi Mowat, Manitoba Nurses Union Mr. Kev in Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Ms.

Beatrice Bruske, United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 Ms. Michelle Gawronsky, Manitoba Government and General Employees Union Mr. Lee McLeod, C anadian Union of Public Employees Manitoba Mr. Phil Kraychuk, private citizen Mr. Paul Moist, private citizen Ms. Marianne Hladun, Public Service Alliance of Canada Ms. Michelle McHale, private citizen Ms. Sonia Taylor, private citizen Ms. Loreto Gutierrez, private citizen Mr. Bob Moroz, Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals Mr. Bill Sumerlus, Operating Engineers , Local 987 Mr. Frederick Jackson, private citizen Mr. Trevor Yuriy, private citizen Mr.

Ross Owens, private citizen Mr. Michael Alberg, private citizen Ms. Sharon Grehan, private citizen Ms. Nellie Minville, private citizen Mr. Paul Carr, private citizen Mr. Mike Kerr, private citizen Mr. Sudhir Sandhu, Manitoba Building Trades and Allied Hydro Council Mr. Jim Want, private citizen Ms. Carmela Abraham, private citizen Mr. Geoff Bergen, private citizen Mr. Brian Hodgert, Health Care Equipment and Facilities Technologists of Manitoba Mr. Rock Spencer, private citizen Mr.

Bruce Ulrich, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Paul McKie, Unifor Curtis Huzarewich, private citizen Carlos Wiebe, private citizen George Heinrichs, private citizen Cory Martens, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 29–The Health Sector Bargaining Unit Review Act * * * Madam Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order. Our first item of business is the election of a chair–Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Alan Lagimodiere (Selkirk): I'd like to nominate the MLA for Thompson, Mr. Kelly Bindle. Madam Chairperson: Mr.

Bindle has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Bindle is elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider Bill 29, The Health Sector Bargaining Unit Review Act. I would like to remind that, if necessary, the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet again tomorrow, May the 9th, 2017, 6 o'clock p.m., to continue consideration of Bill 29.

54 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 We have a number of presenters registered to speak tonight, as noted on the list of presenters before you. I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment. A standing committee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause by clause of a bill except by unanimous consent of the committee.

On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we have out -of-town presenters in attendance marked with an asterisk on the list, and we have presenters registered to speak on both Bill 29 and Bill 28 –or currently considered by the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development.

It has been recommended by the House leaders that , for organizational purposes and in an attempt to co -ordinate between the two standing committees meeting concurrently this evening, we wil l hear from individuals registered to speak in front of –I'll just take this opportunity to remind visitors as well as members to turn off the sound on your phone. Thank you. So it has been–oh, we will hear from individuals registered to speak in front of both committees first, followed by out -of-town presenters and the remaining registered individuals.

Is that agreed? [Agreed] We will therefore start with individuals registered to speak on both Bill 29 and Bill 28. Once you are done presenting in front of this committee, please go to room 255 where the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will later hear from you on Bill 28. Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee members: Paul McKie, U nifor; Curtis Huzarewich, Carlos Wiebe, George Heinrichs, Cory Martens.

Does the committee agree to receive these documents and have them appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with staff at the entrance of the room. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies.

If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff. As wel l, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allotted for questions from committee members. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee.

The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with the public presentations. Bill 29–The Health Sector Bargaining Unit Review Act Madam Chairperson: So we will call the first presenter that i s going to present on both bills, and that is Ms. Sandi Mowat, with Manitoba Nurses Union. And do you have any written materials to submit? Ms.

Sandi Mowat (Manitoba Nurses Union) : I do not, no. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Mowat: Thank you. Good evening, Chairperson and honourable members. My name is Sandi Mowat, and I'm the president of the Manitoba Nurses Union. MNU represents more than 12,000 nurses across Manitoba. Our member s work in a variety of health -care settings, ranging from acute care and community health to home care and long- term care. I'm here today to voice our opposition to Bill 29, the health sector bargaining review act.

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 55 * (18:10) This bill has the potential to cause significant disruption in our health- care system. The steps proposed in the bill to reduce the number of bargaining units is unnecessary. The current bargaining system works well. We bargain centrally. The resulting agreement covers the vast major ity of our members. Most of the language across our agreements is the same. During every round of bargaining, we strive to harmonize our agreements across the regions. Differences between agreements are often a result of unique features in different facilities.

Through collective bargaining, we are able to work toward consistency, but also address the unique challenges in each facility. If the government is determined to reduce the number of collective agreements in the health sector, we can certainly hel p you with that. We know the system; we've put forth ideas with other health -care unions that we believe would work. Union bargaining councils could be established for the purposes of bargaining. Individuals' unions would continue to represent and service their respective members as usual. This process would address the government's stated goals.

Unfortunately, Bill 29 forces representation votes on all health -care workers, including nurses. These votes would be disruptive, time -consuming and costly. At a time when our health- care system is facing cuts and restructuring, we simply don't need an additional distraction. Nurses are already stretched thin. Many are already seeing serious disruption at work. We met with government and offered reasonable and thoughtful alternatives. Regrettably, there was no response on our proposal. We've been effectively ignored and given no reason for that. We're still committed to working with government.

We're prepared to discuss alternatives, but we are opposed to this bill in its current form, and we request the government withdraw it immediately. Should the government insist on moving ahead with Bill 29, I hope this committee would at least consider the following amendment. MNU currently represents 97 per cent of the unionized nursing workforce. Nurses have already chosen MNU to represent their interests in the vast majority of instances. Forcing nurses into representation votes is simply unnecessary and counterproductive.

As such, we would like to see the legislation reflect the long-standing Labour Board rule of 80- 20 for determining the necessity of a runoff vote. Where a union represents more than 80 per cent of the workers in a given bargaining unit, the legislation should stipulate that the commissioner would forgo representation votes and award that union representation rights. I would like to add a final point to my presentation. I am concerned that some discussion related to reducing the number of bargaining units in health care has implied that collective agreements are a barrier to quality patient care.

This statement is completely false, and I must say I am both offended and disappointed to hear government question nurses' commitment to save patient care. As nurses, our first priority is always our patients. Every time we go to the bargaining table, we push for improvements that would make things better for our patients. The first line in the

preamble of all our collective agreements clearly states: It is the desire of both parties to this agreement to recognize a mutual obligation to provide the best possible quality of health care through successful operation of health-care organization. Misleading statements like these are unhelpful and, quite frankly, diminishes all the hard work and improvements th at MNU and the employers have been able to achieve by working together. The Manitoba Nurses Union has always been committed to working with government. Our priorities have not changed. We want what's best for our patients.

We want a strong, sustainable public health-care system. Bill 29 will only place added burden on our health- care system and the professionals who provide care. Please rescind this bill. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you for what all–you and all the nurses do for health care in this province, because it's a big contribution. Now, you mentioned that there would be a way to reduce the number of bargaining units. You said – say, using union bargaining councils.

Perhaps you could tell us a little bit more about how that would work. [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Ms. Mowat.

56 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 Ms. Mowat: Oh, sorry. I forgot, I apologize. The plan would–what we proposed was that the bargaining units –the current unions that represent members of a sector –would form a part of a bargaining council, and that bargaining council would go to the bargaining table together. So we would have proposals together and we would move forward as that together. And that they– actually, Nova Scotia is doing that as we speak, that method. Mr. Ted Marcelino (Tyndall Park): Do you feel that this bill will provoke a union versus union conflict within the bargaining unit? Ms.

Mowat: I think it–certainly think it will be disruptive and unnecessary. We've agreed, as unions, to come together and offer a solution. We are willing to work together and we believe that that will be the best thing for health care. Mr. Marcelino : Yes, have you seen this happen before, the amalgamation of bargaining units? Ms. Mowat: As recently as when they amalgamated down to five health -care regions, we did have situations across the province where there were run-off votes. Manitoba Nurses Union wasn't involved in those run -off votes, but certainly there were run-off votes at that time. Hon.

Kelvin Goertzen (Minister of Health , Seniors and Active Living ): Thank you, Ms. Mowat, for coming tonight and making your presentation, appreciate that, and for all the work that you do throughout the province and for your members. Thank you very much. Mr. Marcelino : So, you have seen this before, during the amalgamation of the RHAs, and did it cost any money on the part of the unions? Ms. Mowat: I probably shouldn't speak directly to that. I can surmise that it would have cost a lot of money to make sure that–because what it causes you to do is campaign. It's –and certainly it can be very costly, absolutely.

Mr. Matt Wiebe (Concordia): So I know our time is short for any more questions, so I just –maybe I'll just take this opportunity to thank you for coming this evening to present to this committee and for the work that nurses do, day in and day out. And what struck me most about your presentation was, you know, your union probably is one of the bigger players, so to speak, in this, and yet you're still willing to come to fight for all workers with–that are in the bargaining units and to work together for a positive solution that will cause the least disruption.

So, very much appreciate your take on that and your stance. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: So, thank you for your presentation. I will now call upon Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour. Mr. Rebeck, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Kevin Rebeck (Manitoba Federation of Labour): Yes, I do. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Rebeck: Great. I'm Kevin Rebeck, president for the Manitoba Federation of Labour.

The MFL is Manitoba's central labour body, chartered by the Canadian Labour Congress to represent the interests of more than 100,000 unionized workers in our province, from all regions and all sectors, including Manitoba's health-care sector. The MFL works to promote high-quality public services, good jobs, fair wages and benefits, safe working conditions, as well as greater equality and social and environmental justice.

The following submission outlines our reasons for opposing Bill 29, the health sector bargaining review act, and the reasons why we're calling on government to put this bill aside and instead come to the table and work with the public sector unions that represent Manitoba's exceptionally hardworking and caring health-care professionals on a model that will work for everyone. We believe that providing the best possible patient care and supporting those who provide that care should be the overriding focus of health- care reform in Manitoba, including with respect to bargaining.

And nobody cares more and invests more blood, sweat, and tears into providing the best possible patient care than the 40,000- plus hardworking women and men who are the backbone of Manitoba's heal th-care system: the nurses, orderlies, building maintenance staff, health- care aides, physicians, nurse practitioners, paramedics, dietary staff, lab techs, clerical and finance staff, trades workers and many others.

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 57 Working together, health- care unions have put forward an alternative to Bill 29, which we have presented to government, and are still awaiting feedback. Our alternative would have the following key benefits:

(1) It could be implemented more quickly than Bill 29;

(2) It would avoid the uncer tainty, disruption and distraction of new union representation votes, which would also undermine the democratic decisions already made by health-care workers about their current union representation; and * (18:20)

(3) It would still achieve the government's objective of reducing the number of collective agreements. We urge the government to hit the stop button or, at a minimum, the pause button, on Bill 29, and allow us some time to work with Manitoba Health on a better way forward. When Premier Palli ster first started expressing concern last fall about the number of collective agreements in health care, suggesting that they were somehow cumbersome to the system, the unions that represent health -care workers were surprised and a bit puzzled.

While it 's true that there are many different collective agreements covering the large number of different occupations and workplaces that exist in our $6- billion public health -care system, major bargaining issues like wages and benefits are collectively bargained at a single, streamlined central bargaining table.

And, when we were contacted by government and asked to co-ordinate a group of health-care union leaders to start meeting with government staff to talk about potentially restructuring of health- care bargaining, we made it clear that we believe the current model works well, but we were prepared–and we remain prepared –to work constructively with government on bargaining reform in light of their–on bargaining reform in light of their insistence on reducing the number of collective agreements.

We've maintained throughout the three principles that should guide any bargaining reform efforts: first, protecting and improving patient care; second, supporting and respecting health- care professionals in their demanding and challenging work; and, third, respecting the democratic decisions already made by health -care workers about their current union representation.

With these principles in mind, we've put forward a simple and practical alternative to Bill 29 w hich we believe will work better for all parties involved while still achieving the government's objective of reducing the number of collective agreements. Our alternative proposal would leave existing bargaining agents in place, thereby avoiding the time , cost and disturbance of representation votes. Instead, we propose the establishment of union bargaining councils, which would correspond to, and bargain with, the employer bargaining councils proposed in Bill 29.

Under our alternative, employer council s and union councils would take over responsibility for bargaining. That would follow the same model that Bill 29 sets out for the establishment of employer bargaining councils. We've proposed a union bargaining council be established for each region, by sector, of the unions representing workers in those sectors. Unions certified to represent employees would continue to perform all the usual functions of a certified bargaining agent, except for collective bargaining.

In this way, health- care workers would continue to receive the same support and servicing from their existing, familiar union representatives. The motive behind Bill 29 was described to us as enabling legislation, a hammer, if you will, in the event that a workable solution could not be reached co-operatively with health-care unions. However, we haven't yet had a good opportunity to sit down with government and work out an alternative. Currently, government staff are unclear as to whether they have any mandate or authority to work with us on a n alternative to Bill 29.

Bill 29 is far more prescriptive than expected, including with respect to sector

definitions, which we believe should recognize maintenance and trades as a distinct sector. We're here tonight representing Manitoba's health-care workers to affirm that an alternative to Bill 29 is not only doable, it's preferable. Health-care unions are willing and ready to work co -operatively together and to work with government to make this happen. If employer bargaining councils are going to be established, it only makes sense that union bargaining councils be established as their counterpart. No one benefits from the disruption, cost and uncertainty that comes from forced

58 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 representation votes –not patients, not workers and not the system. We urge government to halt Bill 29. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: I want to thank you for [inaudible] this evening, and I think presenting very concisely your position and some of the items that you've put on the table. You mentioned in your presentation the –that this–that you believe that this would be a fairly quick process to establish and to implement these bargaining units.

I'm wondering if you could just talk us through that. If the go- ahead was given, how efficiently could those be established –could be worked out? And could we hit the ground running and start finding more efficiencies in the system? Mr. Rebeck: Yes. We believe that this could move forward rapidly. Unions could get together and work out the parameters of how a union bargaining council would work. We have some templates and models from other jurisdictions that we've been looking at.

We can do that much more quickly than appointing a commissioner, going through all the steps of having those votes and causing the disruption and uncertainty that those votes could cause. We have some strong language to work from, we believe, and there's a strong will from every union in the health-care sector that this is a preferred model, a way that we could move forward. The commitment is there. There's some precedent and examples there that we can draw on and we could move through that in a very efficient and quick model. So we think that's the best way to move forward to preserve patient care. Mr.

Gerrard: One of the things that you mentioned in your presentation was that you thought it was – would be smart to recognize maintenance and tra des as a distinct sector. Now, from your position, can you elaborate a little bit more on why that makes sense? Mr. Rebeck: Yes, maintenance and trades jobs are very distinct and different from the health -care aides that they're being currently kind of lumped in with under the Bill 29 proposal.

We think that those jobs, the type of work they do, are not interchangeable in any way, shape or form with their counterparts that are being put together in the community or in the health-services sector that's prescribed under the bill, so it makes sense to have them as a separate and distinct sector. There are different market conditions, different competition for their work. Tradespeople are in demand in a variety of areas and having them in a separate and distinct bargaining unit or separate and distinct sector makes a lot of sense. Mr. Goertzen : Thank you, Mr. Rebeck.

You've brought forward in an articulate way, as you always do, your concerns and your suggestions and thank you for that. Madam Chairperson: I wi ll now call on Beatrice Bruske, United Food and Commercial Workers , Local 832. Ms. Bruske, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Ms. Beatrice Bruske (United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832): I do not. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Bruske: Good evening.

I'm Beatrice Bruske, and I'm speaking on behalf of UFCW , Local 832, representing health-care workers in Winnipeg and in the northern regional health authority. For UFCW, that includes Thompson, Gillam, Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake. We represent support workers, health- care aides, housekeeping, laundry, porters, clerks of all types, numerous other classifications as well as professional-technical health -care workers, such as social workers, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and pharmacists in the city of Winnipeg. We are strongly opposed to this bill.

It is our contention that while government wishes to streamline the collective bargaining process, we believe that s treamlining can be accomplished without this onerous legislation. It is our understanding that the primary issue government is trying to address is the fact that there are too many CBAs, collective agreements, in the health -care sector in this province. T he intent is to reduce the collective agreements to one bargaining unit sector in each regional health authority. While UFCW represents 2,000 health- care workers, we currently negotiate and enforce seven

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 59 collective agreements. Of those seven, three govern the professional-technical group that we deal with at the Grace Hospital. They are virtually identical in nature, other than the wage grid in the back of the collective agreement. The St. Boniface Hospital support collective agreement is identical to the St. Boniface Hospital Diagnostic Services Manitoba collective agreement with the only exception being the wage grid in the back of that collective agreement.

That leaves the northern regional health authority collective agreement and a Winnipeg Regional He alth Authority laundry collective agreement that's separate. I would like to note that the employers chose to carve out the Diagnostic Services Manitoba and the pharmacy–Winnipeg Regional Health Authority pharmacy program as separate collective agreements a number of years ago. Those were contained within the existing collective agreements before that.

I want to also point out that the majority of our members, the collective agreements that govern their workplaces are already 90 per cent identical to similar employee groups represented within that same region. The parties have been working very hard over the last number of rounds of bargaining at standardizing language so that it's similar, if not identical, throughout the different areas. The remaining differences account primarily for regional or historic differences within that particular health-care facility or within that region.

The financial portions of the collective agreements are substantially the same and the parties negotiating are always aware of the fact that we are not reinventing the wheel when it comes to our own set of bargaining. There's an established pattern that happens and the parties fall into line with that established pattern. At all times in the past–or, at some times in t he past, unions in the support sector specifically have bargained jointly together the economics at one joint table with multiple unions sitting at that table.

That has happened, and we already have a system that works and we believe that it achieves the g oals that you're trying to implement through this bill. * (18:30) What concerns us the most is that this bill appears to simply be a way to pit unions against one another. That means that time is going to have to be spent and additional resources are going to have to be focused –and energies on dealing with this particular process. Hospitals are a very stressful place for our members to work.

This bill and the resulting amalgamation votes will be a distraction for our members, quite frankly , that ar e providing excellent health-care services to Manitobans. While the process will take this time away, our health-care members will continue to work without a collective agreement in the support sector. Their collective agreement expired on March 31st of this particular year.

Now other important issues that need to be dealt with at the bargaining table, that need to be addressed in terms of issues that are happening within the facilities, and ways to streamline processes and deal with workplace-related issues that assist our members and the public, are not going to get addressed until such time as bargaining can begin once this lengthy process is likely to be finished. What we wonder is: Why does this bill provide a provision to establish employer counc ils? You heard the last two speakers speak to potentially union councils being established.

That is something that UFCW is also in favour of and is willing to participate. It is my understanding that all unions representing health-care workers have endors ed this particular plan and are willing to work together to ensure that these processes can happen as a council and can happen quickly. We see this no different than different HR departments within the various different RHAs managing health care from the employee perspective on the management side. We see health -care councils working the same way for employees on the union side.

We know that there are other issues that we are concerned about is the issues of the amount of power that are–that is going to be potentially granted to a commissioner that is yet to be named. The concern that we have is: Why is the Manitoba Labour Board not overseeing this particular process, as the Labour Board has in the past? We're concerned that the commissioner will have wid e-ranging powers that will trump the Manitoba labour relations act. That is a concern for us. He or she will be able to unilaterally amend Labour Board certificates and make changes.

He or she will also have the right to redefine the employee seniority rights under collective agreements. That is a concern. Those are things that have been bargained over long periods of time. And the commissioner is,

60 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 quite frankly, only accountable to government, not to the actual employees working in that particular location. We feel that that is not democratic. Finally, over the many years in the past, members have decided which union they wanted to join. They've organized; they've amalgamated various different unions. We think that it's wrong to force employees yet to choose, again, which union is going to represent them. Union members have a comfort with the union that they are with.

They know what the process is within that union in terms of dealing with issues that come up and, as well, as what the bargaining process is for that particular labour organization. We are disappointed and frustrated that, when given the opportunity to work together to achieve better results, that government is looking to set a mandate and set this legislation. We're asking you to reconsider this particular piece of legislation. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Yes, I wanted to thank you, Ms. Bruske, for coming down.

This was a very informative presentation, particularly when you talked about the steps that you've taken to streamline the process going forward and, sort of, make sure that it all jives and that everybody's on the same page. I'm just wondering, given that you've shown this willingness to work towards this and to be accommodating and work with the employer – I'm wondering, have you–has your local, I guess, or yourself, had any formal conversation with government?

Have you been asked a bout ways that you think you could help further streamline the process or be constructive in working with government to make sure that there's as little disruption as possible? Ms. Bruske: Yes, thank you for that question. And, yes, we have been part o f a consulting group dealing with this particular issue. We have been giving our recommendations and our advice, and the unions have jointly provided a proposal in terms of how we see union bargaining councils work. Hon.

Ron Schuler (Minister of Crown Services): I wanted to take this opportunity to thank you to come to committee, and everybody else who's here tonight. I have sat in on a lot of these, and I know there's probably things you probably would like to do– maybe go home and spend some time with fam ily– yet you feel it's very important to be here, and we appreciate that. And we, as a government, are listening and appreciate that everybody's coming out and giving their time, and appreciate your presentation. Thank you for doing this. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation.

Just to give us a little bit more understanding of how the union bargaining councils would work, tell us a little bit about how it would work with the bargaining that you're involved with from your union's perspective. [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Ms. Bruske. Ms. Bruske: Sorry. In the past, in a more unofficial capacity, the various different support unions have gotten together to kind of identify what the priorities are that our members have been raising for us, a nd we've bargained that jointly at the same table.

We see that process in the future working no differently if we were to form a bargaining council where each union would be sending a representative to sit on that committee. That particular grouping would then go and bargain with the employer and have the right to make determinations to accept proposals or to make changes to amend proposals and bring that back to the various different bodies and then ratify that collective agreement. Mr. Gerrard: Would that be any different from what you're doing now or it would just–it would be a little bit simpler? Ms.

Bruske: It would be a bit of a –more of an official process than what it is currently. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. I will now call on Michelle Gawronsky, MGEU. Do you have any written materi als for distribution to the committee? Ms. Michelle Gawronsky (Manitoba Government and General Employees Union): I do. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Gawronsky: Good evening, Chairperson, honourable members and Minister Goertzen. As said, my name is Michelle Gawronsky and I'm president of the Government and

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 61 General Employees Union, the MGEU. Of the over 40,000 members across Manitoba, the MGEU represents over 16,000 members working in health care, including people who work in personal -care homes, hospitals, home care, paramedics and others who work in labs and perform diagnostic tests. Just over one year ago, Manitobans elected a new government on a promise to protect public services and the people who provide the m.

In the past few months, the government has backed away from this commitment, and we feel this legislation takes the government another step backward away from the election promise. Our members take great pride in providing quality public services; howe ver, resources are stretched thin, and people are already being asked to do more with less. Rather than investing in these important public services, Bill 29 forces all of us to squander scarce resources on a reshuffling process rather than focusing on improvement to patient care.

We have seen the cancelling of personal -care homes and other health capital projects, plans to privatize air ambulance services and close ERs. Meanwhile, the demand for services increases, putting further stress on an already ove rburdened health-care system. We would prefer to see investments to alleviate the stress rather than focus on reorganizing the bargaining process. The reality is that health -care bargaining is already streamlined and has been for many years. There are already central and multi-union bargaining tables.

Big issues like wages and benefits are often dealt with at a single table with other unions, while local issues, specific to a particular workplace, are worked out by the workers and the employer actually from that workplace. We believe this model has many benefits and has worked well for many years. We are prepared to discuss ways to streamline the process. I have personally been at this central table and multi-union bargaining tables, and I know first -hand how well they work. I've been doing it for well over 30 years. However, it's pretty clear that the government isn't interested in the status quo.

Unions representing health -care workers have collaboratively proposed union bargaining councils that woul d negotiate with the employer bargaining councils to be established by this very legislation and feel this arrangement would be more constructive and far less disruptive. I have been through three rounds of representation votes, and I know first -hand just how disruptive they are. To claim they are necessary to improve patient care ignores this reality. Under this model, patient care would be protected.

Our members would feel respected, and workers could maintain the representation by the unions they currently belong to. Such an approach has worked in BC for more than 20 years and in Nova Scotia as well now. We recommend that this committee amend the legislation to reflect this model. Bill 29 is heavy -handed. Going forward, we would prefer to sit down and actually have some dialogue around the issues government may have with the current arrangement and work towards a collaborative solution that represents patient care and those who very proudly deliver those services.

Thank you. * (18:40) Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Schuler : Thank you very much, Ms. Gawronsky, for your presentation for being here tonight and representing your members as well as you do. And the committee is struck; it's a very unique process in Manitoba where individuals get to come and have a say at the committee and we appreciate that you came and made your presentation, and certainly, if you notice, we're all listening intently. So, thank you for being here. Mr. Wiebe: I wanted to thank you for being here this evening.

It's great to see you here to represent your employees and to stand up to express their concerns and, you know, I've heard the word now over and over again about being stressed or, you know, disruption and I think that's coming through loud and clear in terms of some of the issues that we're hearing. What I wanted to ask you about though when you mentioned about amendments to this particular legislation.

Is it your belief that this legislation can be amended in a way that would be suitable to your members, or do you think that legislation is needed at all, or could it–could the ends that we're sort of all in agreement about –could they be achieved without legislation?

62 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 Ms. Gawronsky: Thank you for the question. I appreciate it. I believe that should the government wish to go forward with legislation it definitely should be about–around bargaining councils. We know from other provinces that it works. It works very, ve ry well, and it is a way to be able to streamline and make sure that collective agreements are recognized with, you know, for the members that they represent, as well as fit the needs of the employer. So, if your legislation is going to come forward in a ny way, then, please, let it be through the bargaining councils.

Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for coming and presenting. Just help me understand a little bit more when you're talking about using the bargaining councils to streamline things compared with what is happening now, tell me what the difference will be. Ms. Gawronsky: Thank you for this opportunity as well. As I've said, I've been at the bargaining table for many, many years with health -care support service workers within MGEU.

We have streamlined already through–when we achieved wage standardization in 1986, we actually developed within our own to be able to make sure that we maintain standard wages throughout the province. And all five unions right now that actually represent all health -care support workers in the province sit down at one table, and we bargain for benefits and for wages, and for any very major proposals that come forward.

So that has ensured that we maintain standardization through the province, make sure that all unions that repres ent all the workers and all members that work –that represent –that work under these unions are all being treated fairly and with respect, and they all have the standard wages. So we know first -hand; been doing it for many, many years, done it for many rounds of bargaining, and we know that the bargaining council process will work.

It respects both entities, and it also ensures that members are at work, they're doing their work, they're looking after their patients, which is the work that they want to do. They're very proud to do it. And it doesn't cause them to have any stress or anxiety in the workplace about who's going to be representing them and how long it's going to take t o get to the bargaining table. They have full confidence that the bargaining stream that we've got already works. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. I will now call on Lee McLeod, CUPE Manitoba. Mr.

McLeod, do you–okay, so, Lee McLeod is presenting on behalf of Kelly Moist. And do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Lee McLeod (C anadian Union of Public Employees Manitoba): I do. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. McLeod: Good evening, my name is Lee McLeod. I'm the r egional director for the Canadian Union of Public Employees here in Manitoba, and what follows is CUPE's presentation to the Manitoba Legislative Standing Committee on Bill 29, the health sector bargaining review act.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, CUPE, is Canada's largest union wit h over 643,000 members across Canada and 26,000 members in Manitoba from across the broader public sector. Amongst our membership are 12,000 health-care workers from across Manitoba, from Flin Flon in the north to Emerson in the south.

While most CUPE health -care members in Manitoba work in facility support, holding positions like health-care aides, maintenance workers, dietary aides, clerical workers and others, CUPE represents Manitoba health -care workers across the entire health-care spectr um, including dietitians, social workers, lab techs and other professional technical workers, as well as nurses, midwives and doctors. CUPE members play a vital role in our province, delivering high -quality health care that all Manitobans depend upon.

While we believe that the existing system of bargaining has served Manitobans and health- care workers well, whereby major issues of compensation and benefits are negotiated at a multi -employer, multi-union table, while leaving site -specific issues to local bargaining tables, we have been, from the very beginning, open and willing to discuss with this government potential bargaining restructuring. We remain committed to doing so. We've been consistent in our message to government, that any reforms should be followed by–guided by the following principles: protecting

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 63 and improving patient care; supporting and respecting health -care workers who perform challenging work and make significant personal sacrifices to provide excellent health care to Manitobans; resp ecting the democratic decisions already made by health -care workers about their current union representation. We do not believe that Bill 29, the health sector bargaining union review act , respects these principles.

Further, we believe that collaboration between health -care unions and this government could produce a far superior collective bargaining model that works better for government and health-care workers alike. As an alternative to Bill 29, CUPE, along with the Manitoba Federation of Labour and other health-care unions, have presented to government a simple and practical alternative vision for health-care bargaining. The alternative vision includes the creation of union bargaining councils which would serve as a bargaining partner to the employer bargaining councils which are proposed in Bill 29.

Under such a scenario, multiple employers and multiple unions could still exist in each health region and for each sector of workers, but the employers council and the union council would have exclusive responsibility for bargaining, ultimately settling on one contract to apply across the whole health authority for each sector of health-care workers. Unions certified to represent employees would continue to perform all the other functions normally reserved for bargaining agents, except for collective bargaining, which would be the purview of the union bargaining council.

In this way, health- care workers would continue to receive the same support and servicing from their existing, familiar and previously certified union representatives. Bargaining councils are not a new concept. In fact, bargaining councils have been the standard form of health -care collective bargaining in British Columbia for many years. In BC, health- care bargaining takes place on a province -wide basis.

Multiple unions are represented by the Facilities Bargaining Association, the Nurses' Bargaining Association, the Health Science Professionals Bargaining Association and the Community Health Bargaining Association. Through this model, the provincial government has obtained collective agreements to apply to all workers in each sector, while unions have maintained their historical relationship with their members. Indeed, very recently, the government of Nova Scotia and health -care unions in that province agreed to adopt a bargaining council model.

In Saskatchewan, health-care unions are proposing the adoption of a bargaining council model in response to the province's decision to move to a single health authority. There are models out there that we can use to help guide us, while of course adopting to suit our needs here in Manitoba. We believe that the bargaining council we've proposed is a superior model to Bill 29, has significant benefits to both health -care workers and government.

And the bargaining council has the following key elements: it would achieve the government's objective in reducing the number of collective agreements in health care; it would achieve the government's objective of uniformity in collective agreements and creat e a process that would allow for the movement of health -care workers between facilities; it would avoid the disruption, distraction and uncertainty of new union representation votes, votes which undermine the democratic decisions that health -care workers h ave already made in choosing their union representation; bargaining councils could be implemented more quickly than Bill 29; the bargaining council model could be adapted to meet the needs of workers and government in the case that this government, or any future government, should choose to decrease or increase the number of health authorities, change the boundaries of existing health authorities, bargain a province-wide agreement that applies to all health authorities. * (18:50) When Bill 29 was introduce d, we were told, along with the rest of health- care unions, that this legislation was just one possible outcome, that the government was interested in collaborating with health-care unions to reach an outcome which could avoid the necessity of this legislation.

We are here today to tell you that we embraced that offer. We brought forward a vision, and we believe it's a vision that's not only practicable but preferable to the one laid out in this legislation. If government was truly honest in wanting to work co-operatively with health-care unions to find a solution, we firmly believe that the government should take the time to sit down with us and enter into meaningful discussions with a view to achieving real solutions.

64 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 We urge this government to scrap Bill 29 and instead work with us to make a better system for workers and patients. No one benefits from disruption, costs, and the uncertainty of forced representation votes –not patients, not workers, and not the health-care system. So, for the good of all Manitobans, we're asking you to reject Bill 29. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Gerrard: You talk, as others have, of the union bargaining councils.

When was t he first time that you proposed this option to the government, and what was their response? Mr. McLeod: It already exists in terms of the multi - sector union bargaining council that already exists, that common table, but it was certainly part of discussions that were had with the –the few meetings where we were able to share information with government. Mr. Wiebe: So I thank you, Mr. McLeod. The presentation was very well laid out and, I think, is very understandable for members of the committee. So it's appreciated, and it sounds like you're working with others towards a common goal here.

So that's important for us to understand, that it sounds like everybody is in lockstep and trying to work towards a more –a proposal that works for everybody, let's just say. My question, though, is you mentioned sort of the scope and the breadth of CUPE in particular and the number of members that you represent, and you talk in your presentation about site -specific issues that may come up and how individual unions could be helpful in those situations. Can you just unpack that a little bit for us?

What sorts of ways could that help ease the disruption in the health -care system by remaining, you know, having one union represent the workers that are or have already chosen that union? Mr. McLeod: So there are substantive issues, issues of compensation and benefits that get decided at a joint table for the mutual benefit of all the workers in the system, and then local issues may exist in a particular area where there are challenges such as distance that need to be taken into account to make sure that patients' needs are first and foremost.

So there are issues that are distinct to particular areas or geographic regions that would be dealt with locally and have been in the past historically and have been dealt with locally to deal with the issues in that particular area. And then the broader issues that need to be addressed can be addressed jointly by the unions, and the unions have done that quite successfully with government over the years. Mr. Goertzen: Thank you very much for coming to presentation tonight.

I have a question for you: So it seems in the presentations so far there is an understanding or at least an acceptance about the possible reduction of bargaining units, and I think you've been, certainly as labour, part of it much longer than I have been. How is it that we became such an outlier in Manitoba where we have over 180 bargaining units? And, as previously mentioned by presenters, there are in the teens in Saskatchewan and less th an 10 in BC. How did we become such an outlier in Manitoba? Mr.

McLeod: It's my general understanding it's the historical way in which it grow up–grew up in Manitoba, how those different organizations came to be. So they might have been represented by a c hurch group in one case or a particular group and then they were formed in and became part of larger groups. So I'm not an expert on that particular point, but certainly there is some–just the historical development of those groups over time in Manitoba and then they're being represented, there's a number of collective agreements.

I know in CUPE we manage a great number of collective agreements from a fairly small number of staff here in Manitoba, so we know that's also possible. But, at the same time, we're certainly willing to work with government to respect its desire to have fewer collective agreements, and we believe we can do that collaboratively through a collaborative process with government. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. I will now call upon Phil Kraychuk, private citizen. Mr. Kraychuk, do you have written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Phil Kraychuk (Private Citizen): No, I don't.

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 65 Madam Chairperson: Okay. Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Kraychuk: Hi. Thanks f or having me today. My name is Phil Kraychuk, and I came today to speak as a private citizen strongly opposing of Bill 29. I'm not going to hide behind the fact that I make my living as a union representative and assist many members in our heath-care area on a daily basis with matters ranging from workers compensation to health and safety to different aspects of negotiations. Health care is vital part of the prosperity of our province.

The services that these talented and hard-working people provide Manitobans every day are services we cannot live without. This current government made an election promise to protect front -line workers and act in Manitobans' best interest. While many of my friends are in another room speaking on Bill 28, I'm here speaking on Bill 29. And let's not kid ourselves, both are attacks on working Manitobans and unionized workers. Bill 29 is simply a distraction. It is an unneeded distraction to workers whom already work in a very fast-paced, difficult occupation.

Removing a worker's right to choose their union representative while closing ERs across the province is adding too much stress to workers whom already work in a difficult occupation. Bill 29 is not going to help fix problems within our health- care system. It is an att ack on union workers. There is no doubt this will cause more problems, and I fail to see how this will fix anything when it comes to better patient care. Workers in the health- care system are not only being legislated to take zeros but are also having their rights to choose their unions removed from them. Again, this does nothing for patient care.

I felt it was very important to come down here today to speak on these destructive bills that our biased government has tabled. I am not sure where Mr. Pallister is today, but one would think if you're planning on taking away workers' rights, you'd be here to listen to the workers. The attack on hard -working Manitobans is unacceptable and not needed. This goes against the very provinces –promises made during t he 2016 campaign. The promise to protect front -line workers seems to have been lost or forgotten. Our current system is working. There is no reason to trigger amalgamation votes.

Leave workers' rights alone, and if you truly want to fix some of the problems in Manitoba, you need to start with the broken legislation that we are talking about today. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Thank you very much, Mr. Kraychuk, for coming in and presenting this evening. We can certainly hear your passion in your presentation, and it certainly is reflected in your words today. So I think that's helpful to give us some context.

To further develop that context, I'm wondering if you can talk about –you mentioned a few times pressures on workers, stresses. I'm wondering if you have any personal experience that you can talk about. Maybe somebody you've heard about or yourself, that's concerned about this, that this maybe is actually impacting their work right now. They're, you know, maybe feeling stressed already because of the uncertainty going forward, and how that might impact–or can you imagine that, at the very least, how that might impact somebody who's trying to provide patient–good patient care in our health -care system? Mr.

Kraychuk: Thank you for the question. So that –I don't have much to say to that other than the fact that any time you create an uncertainty with somebody with their occupation, something they have no contr ol over, it creates problems. The ability to go to work every day, focus on the job you're doing and make sure you're doing the best possible job is deeply affected when somebody else takes your own fate and puts it in their control.

I know first -hand talking to a lot of the workers we represent in the health -care sector that it's already a very fast-paced environment; it's at times could be an understaffed environment. And, more often than not, workers aren't getting breaks; they're not getting proper time to refuel their bodies, to get the proper time they need to rest. You take that and now you remove their right to choose their union. You take that and you give them uncertainty with potential wage increases that could have impacts on their family, different home life.

So all that put on top of a job that's already difficult and already very demanding is something that's not going to lead to the best service for Manitobans, which is better

66 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 patient care. I thought that was the goal for all of this. * (19:00) Mr. Gerrard: Thanks so much for coming in and taking the time to present. Now, we've heard from a number of other presenters about the potential for union bargaining councils to decrease the number of collective agreements, and I wondered if you would comment on that from your perspective. Mr. Kraychuk: Thank you for the question.

I think the previous speakers did a fantastic job of outlining some of labour's positions as to what we could do collectively, collaboratively going forward, rather than having these amalgamation votes. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel, and I'm not going to comment on something that, you know, the previous speakers know a lot more about than myself. I'm a day -to-day grinder with the union. I'm not much involved with the heavy politics up top and not involved with a lot of these discussions that happen. But what I do know is there's some very valiant options out there, and I don't think they've been explored.

So the previous speakers did a fantastic job of outlining that, and I'm going to stand behind them. Mr. Goertzen: Thank you for coming tonight. You started your presentation by offering–or not offering apology for coming and being representative of, and working under, a union. And you shouldn't apologize. This process is made specifically for people like you to come in and provide your input for–as an individual Manitoban. And I'm glad that you did, and I thank you for coming. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. I will now call on Mr. Paul Moist, private citizen. Mr.

Moist, do you have written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Paul Moist (Private Citizen): I do. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Moist: I speak tonight as a private citizen in opposition to Bill 29, which is about health care, but it's also about labour relations. And I note at the outset, over the last year, the Premier's (Mr. Pallister) been very public in commenting on labour relations, and I would say –I would call them shots across the bow. So I begin tonight with some words from our Premier. In April of 2016: I do not believe in a province that's run by CUPE.

In December –this past December: Union bosses have to understand this is positive for their members, in commenting about this bill–which wasn't before us in December, but we were told it was coming. Next: The union movement is not its leaders –that's a year -end interview on December 28th, as quoted on CBC. Public sector leaders have had it fairly good for quite a while and have, basically, run the government; and, really, the bargaining table wasn't necessary. It was treated as a buffet table for a long time –March of this year.

And then April 19th, in a speech to the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce: It's not efficient to run a health-care system with a hundred -plus bargaining units nor is it efficient to have a system in which a worker faces a grievance for doing someone else's job by picking up a candy wrapper on the floor. I worked almost 40 years in the public sector in Manitoba, including 32 years as a full -time union official, and I'm retired now, and I'm well experienced with the cut and thrust of partisan politics.

I speak to night as a private citizen and submit that the comments above, and, in fact, the entire content of Bill 29, are the result of ideological partisanship. There is no business case for the proposed forced changes to health- care collective bargaining structures. Health-care bargaining in Manitoba, as you've heard tonight already, is highly centralized when it comes to cost drivers such as wages, benefits and pensions. The system bears no resemblance to that which existed when I started working just over 40 years ago.

The number of bargaining units or the number of collective agreements are, in my view, non-issues, especially when you consider how centralized bargaining already is for wages, benefits, pensions. It was a former -Conservative government who decentralized health care in the 1990s. Now, the notion is that because there are a certain number of collective agreements within health care, this is somehow a huge inefficiency. In my view, this is simply not true or grounded in fact in any way.

If gover nment does not like the number of different bereavement provisions in various health-care collective agreements, then that issue should be brought to the bargaining table.

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 67 The combination of this bill and Bill 28, The Public Services Sustainability Act, will hurt labour relations in the province, which up until now have been both productive and largely harmonious. The comments the Premier (Mr. Pallister) continually tosses out about trade unions in general, and trade-union leaders, are offensive.

The Pr emier's ability to negotiate, as evidenced by his clumsy efforts on key federal -provincial files such as the Canada Pension Plan, climate change and health-care transfers, are evidence of an approach that has been spectacularly unproductive on behalf of the citizens of Manitoba. Perhaps the First Minister should stop the name calling and the insults directed at Manitoba's public sector and focus his attention on preparing himself for federal-provincial negotiations.

Similarly, the option to this bill would be for the government to engage in collective bargaining with public sector workers in a more traditional, less confrontational fashion. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Yes, I wanted to thank you, Mr.

Moist, for coming to the committee tonight and adding your perspective as somebody who, as you mention, has been in the thick of it over the years and now can come to this committee as a private citizen and offer–maybe I could say–an even more distinct view and give your personal views, which is very much appreciated. I think you've laid out very clearly the –some of the inflammatory language that's been used and some of the inflammatory positions that have been take n by this government, and what –I guess what I'm wondering is is your perspective on exactly why this is being undertaken.

You know, it's my thinking that, you know, we've heard over and over again from individuals saying that this will be disruptive, coming in the spirit of co -operation, looking for an alternative, offering, I think, constructive solutions, and yet this is the response that they've seen so far from government. Can you just give us a perspective –your–as an individual private citizen, what is your perspective? Why is this being undertaken by this government? What is the end goal and what is the purpose of being so combative when labour seems to be trying to find a solution? Mr.

Moist: I'm not sure it's the entire government, but I–these aren't my words. I used the words of the First Minister. And I think there's two reasons. It's just my opinion. One, I think he thinks we're low -hanging fruit. It's popular around the world by some right wingers to attack trade unions and organized labour, and people do it all the time. I think that's point No. 1. And secondly, I think it's harder to actually come to a bargaining table and negotiate.

The first round in the 1990s led by Minister Praznik–he was at one time Labour Minister, also Health Minister–it was very disruptive, and we were quite worried about it. We met with him constantly, and we had our disagreements, but there was a heck of a lot of discussion about how things would proceed. I continually read in the daily newspapers about how people want to talk with labour, but they talk at them through the media. And I often take issue with our leading daily newspaper, the Free Press.

I don't agree with them editorially all the time, but they said on Saturday, enough already with this shtick about I'm an old union guy. This is anti -union rhetoric of the highest order, and I think it behooves all of us and all of you as legislators to look for a better way. There hasn't been a single trade union leader has come forward here and used language like tha t with you, and it's not the way to govern Manitoba, in my view. Mr. Goertzen: Thank you, Mr. Moist. We will have some agreement in that we don't always agree with the Free Press.

I don't either, and so we've come to that common–no offenc e to those who mi ght be reporting for the Free Press here tonight. But–and we won't agree with everything in terms of the presentation, but I do respect your presentation and I respect the four decades that you've worked in labour and that you continue to come forward and bring forward your perspective now as a private citizen. That is significant and it is appreciated, so thank you. * (19:10) Mr. Gerrard: Yes, thank you very much. You certainly have had a tremendous amount of experience in negotiating contracts over many, many years.

And I would just ask you for your perspective on the proposal to move to union bargaining councils as a way of streamlining t his process as has been proposed by a number of presenters here.

68 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 Mr. Moist: Yes, as previous speakers have said to you–I will be careful here; I don't hold any elected office, and I have great confidence in the leaders who have come and spoken to you tonight. I will say , when I presided over CUPE as a national organization for 12 years, this model works. It's always driven by reorganization. The only true thing I can say about public service these days is it'll continue to be reorganized, whether it's school boards, municipalities, health care, and there's people involved in that at the end of the day.

And there is a way to go at this where –I watched, in Manitoba, when we equalized hydro rates. Why should rural Manitobans pay more for home hydro than Winnipeggers? And we did that as a society. In health care–and I first raised this with mister – the former minister, Mr. Praznik. Why should a health-care aide giving bedside service in The Pas or Flin Flon or Thompson or Brandon make less money than a health-care aide in Winnipeg? And in the last, well, 35 years, we've equalized those rates. How did we do it? We moved to a centralized structure. So, when the Premier (Mr.

Pallister) talks about there being 33 dozen or four dozen different bereavement provisions, probably correct in 168 collective agreements, there's little tweaks here and there. If we, collectively, as a society, wanted to have one bereavement clause for the public sector in Manitoba, that's an achievable thing. One doesn't need a sledgehammer to do that. People can come to a bargaining table and talk about bereavement leave and come to a common understanding. So, health- care bargaining, when I first started working, was hospital by hospital, facility by facility.

Largely led by Conservatives in the 1990s, it became more centralized. And it was done at bargaining tables, and there has been votes. It's not needed here right now. We can sit down, and we do it in other provinces, and the other leaders who are –they occupy the positions of authority now; they've spoken quite eloquently to that, and I agree with their comments. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. I will now call on Marianne Hladun, Public Service Alliance of Canada. Do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Ms. Marianne Hladun (Public Service Alliance of Canada): Yes, I do.

Madam Chairperson: Okay. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Hladun: My name is Marianne Hladun and I'm the regional executive vice -president for the Public Service Alliance of Canada. We represent more than 180,000 workers in every province and territory in Canada, including nearly 8,000 workers in Manitoba and 500 workers at Deer Lodge Centre, the largest rehabilitation and long- term care facility in Manitoba, focused on providing care to Canada's veterans. The PSAC opposes Bill 29, the health hector bargaining union review act.

It should go without saying that the priority of this government should be to ensure that our veterans receive the best possible care from employees who are focused on their needs and not on unnecessary bargaining union restructure. Our members work day in and day out to ensure that residents at Deer Lodge Centre receive quality health care. They know the residents. They know the residents' families, and they know the needs of both. I spoke with members from Deer Lodge Centre and asked them, because they are referenced as residents, not as patients.

We have residents at Deer Lodge Centre who have been there upwards of 15 years. Our members know them; they know their families. This is not in for a week and surgery and out again. They build relationships. We have a two-year waiting list at Deer Lodge Centre because families of veterans from World War I are now putting themselves on the list because their grandparent was their and they received quality care, and they want to do the same. So we have participated with the other health-care unions to present an alternative to Bill 29 and has –have, as of yet, received no feedback or response.

We are still unclear if the government representatives even have a mandate to work with labour on solutions. We are committed to ensuring that the focus remains on the residents and believe that our alternative could be implemented quicker and with less disruption. It is clear in Bill 29 that the government's objection–objective is to reduce the number of collective agreements. We believe our proposal achieves the government's objectives while still ensuring that our members have the right to continue to be represented by the union they have chosen.

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 69 This year, PSAC –oh, wait a minute –last year, PSAC celebrated 50 years. Our members were part of the Civil Service Association prior to 1966, and as part of Veterans Affairs, when the Public Service Alliance of Canada was created in 1966, they became member s. Even after devolution to the Province, Deer Lodge Centre employees stayed with PSAC. I have seen in other jurisdictions where representation votes are time- consuming, costly and divisive. There is no need for this process to be conducted in Manitoba.

While we do not agree that bargaining unit restructure is necessary to ensure quality patient care, we have and will continue to participate with other health-care unions in Manitoba to come to the table prepared to work with government. We wholeheartedly agree with the Manitoba Federation of Labour that the three principles should guide any bargaining reform: protecting and improving patient care; supporting and respecting health-care professionals in their demanding and challenging work; and respecting the democratic decisions already made by health-care workers about their current union representation.

Bill 29 sets out the establishment of an employer bargaining council. We believe that unions representing health-care workers in Manitoba should have th e same rights. This would allow unions to continue to perform all the functions they currently do, except for the collective bargaining process. We are committed to focusing on the care of residents at Deer Lodge Centre and are just as committed to workin g with other unions to find solutions and not be distracted by any attempt to divide us. If the intention of government is really to reduce the number of collective agreements, our proposal meets that goal.

As we await to hear feedback from Manitoba Health , we urge the government to halt Bill 29, give a mandate to the representatives to continue the discussion and let us work out the details. Our members are so very proud of the work that they do every day. They not only provide health care to our veterans, they do so with respect. Any attempt to distract from that purpose does not honour the sacrifices of the residents of Deer Lodge Centre. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do the members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: I wanted to thank you for the presentation.

Once again, I think it's clear that you're working with others to ensure that a reasonable solution has been put forward and I think some reasonable options that seem common sense. And, hopefully, the message is getting through. What I wanted to ask about, though, in particular, and again, this is –it's great when we have kind of the more personal relationship kind of examples that are given. And to me, that really speaks to the heart of this, and that is the health-care professionals who are on the front lines every day providing that service.

Can you talk about the pressures that they're feeling or the uncertainty that they're potentially experiencing because of this change and others? Are they–are you hearing from members saying that this is, you know, the uncertainty is affecting their ability to deliver the service that they want to deliver? Ms. Hladun: Thank you for the question. You know, I'm a transplant from Saskatchewan into Manitoba a s an elected union officer. And one of the first things I did when I came here was go through the work site with members at Deer Lodge Centre.

And what struck me was–and the feeling that they have that these are their family. Our members know every single person on that floor. They know the names. They know the families. This is not just a job to them. They are there because of the fact that they know that they are, you know, they're helping veterans through some of the toughest days that they can. They're helping them with rehab. These are the homes. This is where veterans will go and they will not leave. So our members hold their hands.

They hold the hands of the family , and, you know, at the end of the day, that's what their concern is. * (19:20) We're very small when –in health -care unions; we have 500 members. This is not about us as a union; this is about why would you take away from the services that they're providing and to distract them? There's absolutely no purpose to it. We are so proud of the work that they do. They are so proud. They have tears in their eyes when they tell me stories.

When, at one point, through whatever process, they were out of money, and they were not given soap, if you can believe it, and I had a member come to me and say, we have to do something; they

70 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 only have soap when they go to have a bath once a week. That's not how someone should live. Now, it was corrected, but that's their immediate priority and their concern. So thank you. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you very much f or coming tonight, and thank you and all those who work as part of your union at Deer Lodge for the great work that they do, because I know there's many really good workers there. Perhaps you can just give us, from your perspective, the change that it wo uld mean going to the union bargaining councils.

How many collective agreements now are you involved in, and would that change after the bargaining councils were used? What sort of changes and– would that be in terms of streamlining the process? Ms. Hladun: So, currently, we have one collective agreement. So we are one out of the bigger picture. There are a lot of things that would need to be considered. Currently, we participate in the multi-union bargaining committee for support employees, and we've worked well with the other unions. There's five unions involved in that, and we've worked well. We've always done that.

When it comes down to the absolute specific details, the reality is we will figure that out, just like the employer bargaining council on the other side is going to have to go in a backroom and figure out how they operate. We are committed to doing the same, and I can tell you right now that all of the unions that currently have c ollective agreements in Manitoba are committed to focusing on getting collective agreements and not dividing ourselves. So, when it comes down to the fine details, what we need at this point is a mandate to actually go and start those discussions. So we' re waiting for that.

In my mind, as we've heard other presenters say, Bill 29 is pre -emptive. We have not had that discussion. We're committed to doing that. So I would urge the government at this point to halt it; let us do what we have to do. If we can't come to an agreement, you have, you know, you have a legislative tool available to you. But at this point we have not been given a mandate or the opportunity to do the work that we believe can be done. Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Marianne. It's always great having someone from Saskatchewan here cheering for the Blue Bombers.

And also appreciate the fact that you came forward and brought your perspective to the table. I know the committee very much appreciates it, and that's what one of the beauties of this Legislative Assembly is that we have this process, and appreciate that you took advantage of it. Thanks for being here. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Okay, our next presenter was Claudia Colocho, but she has indicated that she is not going to be presenting to this bill tonight, so we will then move on to Michelle McHale, private citizen. And, Ms. McHale, do you have any materials for distribution to the committee? Ms.

Michelle McHale (Private Citizen): I do not. Madam Chairperson: Okay, please proceed with your presentation. Ms. McHale: Thank you. My name is Michelle McHale. I am an advocate for environments that are inclusive of all people and families. I'm the Solidarity & Pride vice-president for the Manitoba Federation of Labour, and I advocate for leaders of every kind to act equitably and in accordance with human rights legislation.

Although I now work for the United Food and Commercial Workers union, I spent the last 12 years working in health care: three years as front-line staff and nine years as a supervisor to front-line staff. I, along with many others, have watched this government operate for a year now. Time and time again I have seen a blatant lack of understanding for the importance of equity and equitable repr esentation when making decisions. The rights of working Manitobans repeatedly seem secondary in importance compared to the wishes of the government. This government has taken a paternalistic approach from the beginning.

There is an apparent lack of unde rstanding regarding how these decisions affect people differently, depending on their life circumstances. There is a consistent disregard for people who do not hold the same financial and/or life circumstances of those in this government's party. Today, I will speak to you about Bill 29 from a human rights perspective. Removing employees' right to choose the union that works for them is an affront to women, people of colour, women of colour, gender and sexually diverse workers, people with mental health issues, people who are not able-bodied, those who are visually and/or

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 71 hearing-impaired and to people who challenge employers when they do not provide safe workplaces. Although the following quote speaks to gender and sexually diverse people, we know that the same applies to the people I've just mentioned, as well. Gerald Hunt, author of Laboring for Rights, stated: Organized labour remains one of the most powerful social and political movements. As such, it has the potential to force equity issues onto the agendas of public and private corporations that might otherwise be unreceptive to such concerns.

He goes on to state: Being devalued and discriminated against at work can lead to serious psychological problems, as well as to economic discrepancies. Emp loyment-related issues such as hiring, firing, promotions, benefits, perks, leaves of absence, pensions, allowances, harassment, violence and education initiatives all can be shaped to discriminate against sexual minorities in a way that can be economicall y and psychologically harmful. As I said, we know this can apply to all the people I mentioned.

Unions have been at the forefront of advocating for safer workplaces, ensuring that workers are treated with respect and equity regardless of their identity, orientation, colour of skin, socio- economic status, religious beliefs and political affiliations when employers don't do this on their own. Although many of the things I mentioned are protected characteristics in the Manitoba human rights code, workplace discrimination based on every one of these still occurs. Oftentimes, employers do not have a solid understanding of human rights legislation, nor do they adequately intervene.

The Human Rights Code provides a means of recourse that is often long and dra wn out, leaving employees in toxic workplaces–or even without work–for that period of time before a resolution is reached. It was, and continues to be, unions that ensure the presence of language in collective agreements that protect workers from discrim ination in the workplace. Unions provide support to workers who have independently filed human rights complaints, and unions are the ones who assist workers to battle in courts when legislation enacted by the government is discriminatory.

Given the compl exity of all of these issues, and the varied specialties of individual unions, people need to maintain the right to choose the people and the union that they believe will provide the best service and meet their needs. The presence of language that includes anti-discrimination articles in collective agreements allows these issues to be dealt with more expeditiously. The ability to deal with these matters through the grievance process allows workers to read a –reach a resolution sooner, which can prevent th e psychological and economic discrepancies we know workplace discrimination can cause.

Overriding and/or ignoring the legislated right for workers to choose the union they believe to be the best for them for any reason is disrespectful at best, and discr iminatory at worst. What does it say about a government that needs to paternalistically remove workers' rights to gain more control in bargaining? Especially when you've heard repeatedly this evening that all the unions are willing to work with you in orde r to minimize the impact on health care for Manitobans.

Government, including Manitoba's government, operates as a system that has historically worked hard to control those people who were not white, affluent men.

And, despite the fact that this system has demonstrated itself to be elitist, sexist and racist, this government is proposing legislation that disadvantages those who are not elite or who are on the receiving end of sexism and racism or other kinds of discrimination. * (19:30) Instead of using your positions of incredible privilege to make life better for all Manitobans, this bill gets presented that disregards the voices of those who need you to advocate for them the most.

Working Manitobans should be able to depend on their go vernment to protect citizen rights and, subsequently, should respect citizens' decisions they've made within our laws. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Schuler: Thank you very much, Michelle, for coming out this evening and giving your presentation.

What's important for committee and for legislators is to hear from the public and hear a lot of differing views and we appreciate that you came forward, and if you notice the committee pays attention to every speaker and certainly appreciate that you came out and made that presentation. Thank you for being here.

72 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 Mr. Wiebe: Yes, thank you, Ms. McHale, for coming out and presenting here this evening, and the question I wanted to ask you is in line with a question I've asked now a couple of times, but I think your particular experience, both as a front -line worker and then as a–I think you said a supervisor of front-line workers, and I guess now your work as a labour representativ e, I think would probably give you some examples.

And I can appreciate, obviously, the confidentiality involved in some of the cases that you've seen, but if you could maybe just illustrate your point by talking about maybe one of the examples that you've seen where labour or a person's union was able to help them perform better when they're facing issues like you said, mental health issues or other kinds of discrimination or other issues, ways that the union has been able to help them, you know, really provide that really good quality patient care that they want to provide.

Wondering if you can give any examples without, again, betraying any confidences that I'm sure you wouldn't want to do. Ms. McHale: Thank you. That's a good question, and yes, my background is in mental health, and so given the current stigma that we have around mental health issues, they're often misunderstood by employers and employers often don't know the right questions to ask or they don't know how to interpret certain symptoms or behaviours.

When one is not educated appropriately, it can look like somebody is being obstinate or it might look like somebody is being irresponsible if they're having a relapse with their respective illness. There are things that an employer can do to intervene to support the worker, get them back on track and have them able to do the work that they love or is important to them. Is that –trying to not be too specific, is that helpful? An Honourable Member: That's very helpful. Yes, thank you. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you, Michelle, for coming.

You speak very eloquently about the need to stand up for those who may be being discriminated against for whatever reason. And one of the things that you can help us understand is –we've had a lot of discussion about an alternative to this bill, which would be the union bargaining councils. Do you think they would be effective in addressing and helping to deal with these issues of discrimination? [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Ms. McHale. Ms. McHale: Oh, sorry. Thank you. As I'm here as a private citizen this evening, I would defer to my other colleagues in labour to make those decisions.

They're much more researched on those pieces and I think they would probably be able to provide you with better, more concret e information on that. Sorry. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. I will now call on Ms. Sonia Taylor, private citizen. Ms. Taylor, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Ms. Sonia Taylor (Private Citizen): No, I do not. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Taylor: Good evening. I'm Sonia Taylor and I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill 29.

I believe that patient care and supporting the people who provide the care should be the most important than bargaining unit reviews. The focus on patient care must be priority on government's agenda, not bargaining unit reviews. My understanding is that the health-care units – unions, pardon me, have presented the government with an alternative that would have the results the government is seeking. Bill 29 includes employer bargaining councils, so why does it not include union bargaining councils as well? Why isn't the government trying this alternative?

As it is , in our everyday lives, we can accomplish more working together than apart. I believe if the unions and government work together, it would be beneficial and more productive. If the same results can be achieved, why not try? It takes special people to work in health care and these people should be supported and commended for their dedication and hard work. These people make patient care their priority and the focus should be altered –and should not be altered due to the government's agenda. Why does this bill protect –how does this bill protect and improve patient care? It doesn't.

How does this bill support and respect health- care professionals in their job? It doesn't. How does this bill respect the democratic decisions already made by

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 73 health-care workers regarding the current unions? It doesn't. For these reasons, I urge government to work with the alternative that the unions have put forward. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr.

Wiebe: Yes, I just wanted to thank you for your presentation and, again, this sounds like it was passionate and straight from the heart, which, again, while we appreciate all presentations, sometimes those are the ones that make the most impact and speak the most to us as legislators.

Can you maybe just, you know, from your perspective, and I don't expect you to have all the answers or to understand exactly the reasoning behind it, but what do you think the reasoning would be for the government to be so heavy-handed in this– in their approach, when, as you mentioned, there's been some reasonable suggestions here tonight? And it sounds like labour is working together to put patient care first. What do you think would be the motivation for the government to be so heavy-handed in their approach to this process? Ms. Taylor: I don't know. I just think if it's not broke, don't fix it.

And, it's –is working, the unions are working together. If it has to be fixed or tweaked in any way, let's work together and get a solution to it, which the unions have done and are bringing forward. So, I really don't know. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you very much for coming and talking to us this evening and presenting. I appreciate your comments and I appreciate your emphasis on making sure that whatever we do, we're looking at how we improve patient care. Thank you. Mr. Goertzen : I also want to thank you for your presentation tonight. There is some good discussion happening tonight.

I know this is something that actually began back in 2001- 2002 when it existed in legislation; just–it was never acted upon 15 years ago. But–so it's not new and it's not quick, after being contemplated for 15 years, but it is certainly good to have the discussion tonight and I appreciate you being a part of that discussion. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. I wi ll now call upon Mr. Paul Roche, private citizen? [interjection] Oh, Rock? Is it Rock? [interjection] No. 19? Okay, Mr. Roche will be put at the bottom of our list for tonight. The next on our list is Loreto Dutierrez [phonetic]. Ms.

Dutierrez [phonetic] , do you have any written submissions to distribute to the –to committee? Ms. Loreto Gutierrez (Private Citizen) : No, I do not. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Gutierrez: Chair, members of the committee, my name is Loreto Gutierrez and I am a unionized health-care worker, a proud one at that. * (19:40) From a young age, I w as spoken to by labour activists, refugees from Chile, my parents. I have heard the stories of torture and fear. They came to Canada with hope for a bright future for their children.

My father finally became a unionized worker at Health Sciences Centre the year I was born. He was not persecuted. He was not tortured, as he was back home. He was a proud union man. My father, now in a personal care home, would be upset if I shared the news of these bills that are being passed. He would tell me that –he would tell me of how life was before the dictatorship, and he would tell me that these are the first steps of losing a democracy. This government has been very critical of the previous administration's of lack of referendums.

The amalgamation of unions is a method of distraction for health -care professionals and comes during a very disheartening time with the restructu ring of health care. I am happy with my union membership under the United Food and Commercial Workers of the Local 832, and would not want to hold an election with the possibilities of them not being my representation. I, in fact, chose to work at St. Boniface Hospital so that I could be represented by UFCW. The government is taking away our jobs and now is taking away our power as workers.

74 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 Have you asked once of how we felt, and have you held a referendum regarding all these bills that are being passed? Short and sweet–but thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: I wanted to thank you, Ms. Dutierrez [phonetic], for coming in. This is, again, a very passionate presentation.

I know it takes a lot of courage to get up and make a presentation in front of a committee like this, but your words are, I think, helpful to colour the conversation with your own perspective, your family's perspective, and, again, the passion that you bring for the work that you do. And I think that's what's really coming through this evening, is the people who want to provide good quality care in our health -care system. And I appreciate that you're out there doing that work every single day for us, so thank you. Mr.

Marcelino: First of all, I wanted to make sure that we are pronouncing and spelling your name correctly. Is it with a G, or a D? Gutierrez, or Dutierrez? Ms. Gutierrez: It's G-u-t-i-e-r-r-e-z. Mr. Marcelino: Thank you, because I have not met any Dutierrez. But I have met lots of Gutierrez–good Gutierrezes. Anyway, thank you very much for making that presentation, and it's amazing how a front-line worker herself would feel hurt by the –by this bill, which is supposed to help you out.

And I was just wondering if I told you that, in accordance with the bargaining framework that was told, or, that was listed, there will be only nurses and physicians and medical residents and physician assistants an d clinical assistants and professional and technical and paramedical, et cetera, and then facilities support and community support as bargaining units. Where will you fall under? Ms. Gutierrez: I'm a unit clerk at St. Boniface Hospital. Mr. Marcelino: So that would be facilities support? Okay, and– Ms. Gutierrez: Yes. Mr. Marcelino : –thank you.

So, when–right now, you are a health -care professional or –what do you really–where do you really belong? UFCW, isn't it? Ms. Gutierrez: I'm a unionized worker. I'm a unit clerk who–which would fall under clerical. Mr. Goertzen : Thank you very much. It takes a lot of courage to present before a committee. You did tremendously well in terms of presenting with passion your views, and also, you and your family's desire to fight for democracy, which is important.

And this is the democratic seat of Manitoba where we've been here in the past to defend the secret ballot, for example, which is a critical part of democracy. And we appreciate very much that you've come here and spoken tonight. Mr. Marcelino: Yes, thank you very much. I think that says it all. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. I will now call on Mr. Bob Moroz, Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals. Mr. Moroz, do you have any written materials for distribution to committee? Mr. Bob Moroz (Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals): I do not.

Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Moroz: Good evening. My name is Bob Moroz. For the recorder, I would like to point out that my name is spelled incorrectly. It is M-o-r-o-z. So, thank you for that. An Honourable Member: M-o-r-o-z. Mr. Moroz: Correct. I'm here representing the 4,000 Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals members who make up the m ajority of the professional, technical and paramedical sector here in Winnipeg and in the northern regional health authority.

The introduction of Bill 29, The Health Sector Bargaining Unit Review Act, on March 20th came as a great disappointment to MAHCP. It was not a surprise; however, it was a disappointment. In January of this year, public sector unions were invited to meet with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Friesen) and others to discuss their, quote, dire fiscal situation facing Manitoba. This resulte d in the creation of two different working groups. The key

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 75 group for this discussion here this evening is, of course, the health bargaining unit restructuring group. Our understanding was that the initial aim of this group was to examine ways to reduce the number of collective agreements within the system, or perhaps it was to reduce the number of bargaining units. There –these are two somewhat different concepts. In my own view, each and every health -care- related union came to that table with the intentio n of working with government to collaboratively seek solutions to the stated problem.

As a group, MAHCP and its sister unions have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to find a so -called made -in-Manitoba solution. You've heard much this evening about the bargaining councils. MAHCP wholeheartedly supports the concept and will gladly work with our colleagues in labour and government to pursue that alternative solution to a legislated mandate that we feel is unnecessary.

In our own case, in terms of MAHCP, the majority of our membership fall under 16 different collective agreements, mostly throughout the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, DSM, CancerCare Manitoba and the northern regional health authority. We have had numerous discus - sions with government and employee–employer representatives in terms of trying to reduce that number of agreements into what would ideally be one agreement for MAHCP members. We've been willing to do that for at least two rounds of bargaining. It's a very difficult thing to do, but that, ladies and gentlemen, is what a bargaining table is for.

We would come willing to do that. We could take 15 collective agreements off the table at one fell swoop just by doing that at the bargaining table. You know that we've offered to deve lop solutions similar to other jurisdictions as Canada who are faced with similar directives from similar governments in different parts of the country. We've offered those solutions. To date, the only response we've heard back is that those systems have t heir problems.

We, as a group of unions, have asked a number of questions of the employer representatives in the room, and to the best of my knowledge, the questions were taken back to gov ernment. But, once again, we have heard nothing back in terms of feedback for our proposals. * (19:50) When governments plan to enact significant changes to any aspect of the lives of its citizens, they have an obligation to work with those affected to determine solutions that are, at the very least, mutually acceptable. By holding meetings with us as organized labour, my sense has been that it has been an effort in appearance.

If none of our questions are answered, our suggestions are dismissed out of hand. And hearing nothing but silence since Budget Day, I cannot understand how this can be considered collaboration. We've been left with the impression that government wishes that unions will create a plan to address their crisis, as it is so often stated. I will repeat: unions have been presented with a problem from the government's perspective. As unions, we pride ourselves on our willingness and ability work collaboratively with employers to find solutions.

Ladies and gentlemen, we can build a great barbecue, if that's what you want us to build with you, but once we build a barbecue, we found out you wanted a wheelbarrow instead. We've wasted a whole lot of time and resources. We need to know what we're dealing with. We need to work with the committee. We need to know that they have a mandate to actually do what has been said that this committee is to do, and that is to work with us to allow our members to continue to do the work that they trained and they're dedicated to, not worry about what union that is going to happen–are we going to have representation votes?

How much is this going to cost? Never mind the campaigning and the disruption to workplaces across the province. Finally, the appointment of a commissioner to oversee any process related to this legislation –this commissioner would have broad power normally held by the Manitoba Labour Board in situations such as these. The Labour Relations Act will not necessarily apply. To suspend a law in order to accomplish a goal of government is something that all Manitobans should be extremely concerned with. The Premier (Mr.

Pallister) himself has been quoted, in the media, that Manitobans do not react well to being threatened. I feel that this government must apply this same thought process to this bill, and therefore I urge the government to put a hal t to Bill 29. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

76 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Wiebe: Thank you, Mr. Moroz, for your presentation. I think everyone in the committee can hear the frustration in your voice and your disappointment–I guess, I could say, in the lack of communication and receptiveness to some pretty reasonable ideas, I think, that you're putting forward. I'm wondering if you could–you talked about the complexity of the workers that you represent, and I'm–and over the various regions that they work.

I'm just wondering if you could, and maybe this is too ambitious to ask tonight, but I'm wondering if you could talk about if this bill went through–forward as it's been presented today, what would the implementation look like, of that? What would that look like to your members? And maybe could you contrast that if the alternative –if the proposed amendments were put through, what would be the difference in the impact on your members. And, again, I don't want to be too technical, but if you could just give us a sense of the complexity involved. Mr. Moroz: Thank you for the question.

Yes, as an organization, we are very diverse in our membership. We have 160- some-odd different professions represented within MAHCP. Now, the impact of this bill is, as of yet, unknown, because we don't know what a sector will look like. So we don't know if all of the social workers, for example, will be considered professional, technical, paramedical in this new regime –or this new sector system, or will they be moved to a support sector depending on where they work? So, again, it's a very difficult question to understand.

As is, within the city of Winnipeg, MAHCP represents the vast majority of technical professionals in the system. So, you know, we have different agreements, and they've grown out of different bargaining histories as well. So the risk is that something that has been obtained for members in a certain corner of Wi nnipeg, let's say, may be lost, through absolutely no fault of the members of that area, should they be placed, essentially, in a different sector and/or bargaining unit without ever having the chance to bargain that benefit away, if you will.

So those are the impacts that we're looking at in terms of our members. Mr. Goertzen : Thank you for your presentation tonight. Am I understanding correctly that –and it may not be the case, but that your concern is more about the process of implementation but, like other presenters, you don't –you understand perhaps the need to come more into line with other provinces in a lower number of bargaining units. Where we have, in Manitoba, over 180, in BC, they would have less than 10, I believe. Do you feel that there is a good rationale in terms of looking at a lesser number of bargaining units? Mr.

Moroz: I understand the idea of why government is looking to reduce those numbers; I don't necessarily agree with the background. A set of collective agreements, in my view, is no different than a set of laws in a province. You know, there's–there are many, many different laws that I had to obey just coming to this meeting here this evening.

You know, I believe a collective agreement is a collective agreement, and if an employer is able to implement a collective agreement, it's a bit disingenuous to say that simply reducing the number of collective agreements will produce the results that I think this government is looking for. I don't necessarily agree that that's true. However, that is the solution–or, that is the problem that has been presented to us.

Here's the route that we think that government wishes to go, we've offered solutions to make it as easy as possible on our memberships as we view it, again, to keep the disruption to the patient care that our members so desperately want to deliver to an absolute minimum. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. This concludes our list of presenters who are presenting on both Bill 28 and 29. We will now be calling upon those who are coming from out of town. I would like to call upon Mr. Bill Sumerlus, Operating Engineers, Local 987. Mr. Sumerlus, do you have materials for distribution to the committee? Mr.

Bill Sumerlus (Operating Engineers , Local 987): Yes, I do. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation.

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 77 Mr. Sumerlus : Thank you, members of the committee, for allowing us to make this presentation, which we feel is a very important one this evening. I'm here, as noted, on behalf of the International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 987. We're hoping that this committee will make a recommendation that the government recognize the unique position of the maintenance and trades unit in health -care in the province and continue it as a separate bargaining unit in the province. The Premier (Mr.

Pallister) of the province has recognized the importance of skilled trades for a healthy economy in Manitoba. Becoming a tradesperson has been noted to be a viable alternative to getting a university education for a person's future in our province. In Bill 29, the maintenance and trades unit is to be included with the support unit in health care, generally. Including the maintenance and trades unit in the support unit in urban health care diminishes the uniqueness and undermines the significance of this group, as recognized by the Premier.

This is not a knock, obviously, on the importance of the support sector in health care. However, the two groups are really distinct and including the maintenance and trades uni t in the support unit combines, in our opinion, two groups of employees with distinct interests and terms and conditions of employment. The uniqueness of the maintenance and trades sector has always been recognized in urban health care in Manitoba. It's been so for years and years and years. It's always been separated from the other bargaining units in health care.

The labour board, in its last revision of health care in the province, maintained the maintenance and trades unit as a separate bargaining unit in the province. The numbers of members of the maintenance and trades unit in the urban region justify maintaining them as a separate bargaining unit. * (20:00) This separation does not make sense in the rural areas where, in fact, in the last revision in health care, the rural health care units now include the maintenance and trades unit, but only because there's only a very few number in the small –each individual facility in the province.

That separation doesn't make that same sense in the city because as a group, this bargaining unit has–is recognized to the point where in the rural areas, there's a me -too clause in every single collective agreement in the provi nce, where what's bargained in the city automatically applies in the countries, in the rural areas, with respect to the maintenance and trades unit. So, the uniqueness of this bargaining unit is recognized throughout the province in that regard. The empl oyers in the rural communities recognize it as well.

Generally, the way bargaining units are structured are based on a community of interest. And it's our submission that the bargaining unit of the maintenance and trades unit does not share a community of interest with other health -care support workers, which is where they would be placed if Bill 29 isn't amended in that regard. This group of workers is primarily involved in work on systems and equipment as opposed to involvement with patient care. Thei r involvement in direct patient care is negligible, not like the rest of the support unit which generally does work directly with patients.

The accreditation of the skilled trades is governed by provincial legislation, which requires certification, annua l renewal of licences, which doesn't apply to a typical support worker in the support unit in health care, a different community of interests. The maintenance and trades unit also –members have different qualifications, training and skills from other workers and the two groups have different wages, hours of work, working conditions.

They don't share a commonality of supervision and there is little, if any integration in the work functions of other members of the support unit who work directly with the patients. There are virtually no transfers of one from the maintenance and trades unit into the support unit. The –and vice versa. The frequency of contact between the two units is actually quite limited within the facilities. And, as in the urban region, in Manitoba, this distinction has historically been recognized and is, in fact, recognized throughout the entire continent in the United States.

There are only two main providers in training for maintenance and– for the trades, skilled trades in this province and publicly funded community colleges and union- funded training centres. Unions partner with contractors in the private sector and make significant investments in leading- edge training that meets industry's demand. It's that

78 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2017 same–we are saying partnership that can work in health care and the workplace is a tradesperson's classroom. Unions and their partner contractors in the private sector in the community help train the workforce that safely and efficiently builds Manitoba every day. Without this training, Manitoba would not have the skilled workforce required to build essential infrastructure in the future.

It's our submission that including trades in the urban–in a support unit in urban health care ignores this important distinction and essentially water s down the significance of the trades for our province. Employee satisfaction is another consideration we think should be worthwhile and maintaining a separate trades unit in urban health care also satisfied the wishes of the members of the trades who you're going to hear from tonight, I think, and you have heard –you will hear from in terms of their uniqueness and significance for the Manitoba economy, as noted by our Premier (Mr. Pallister).

It's–also satisfies the wishes of the unions who have, as a group, have agreed, there should be a separate trades unit in urban health care. And, finally, it's our submission that the maintenance–that maintaining a separate maintenance and trades unit in health care makes labour relations sense. In the event of labour unrest or a work stoppage by the huge support unit, keeping the maintenance and trades unit separate continues them working while the other group is out and continues the facility and the equipment that they support going.

The uniqueness of the tra des is even recognized on the Winnipeg regional health services website. If you go on to look for a career in the Winnipeg Regional Health Authority right now, on that site, positions available in a maintenance and trades classification are maintained in a separate category from all the other classifications. We submit, therefore, this makes sense from a labour–from an employment perspective and that of collective bargaining as well. Thank you very much. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr.

Wiebe: Yes, I just wanted to thank you for adding your perspective to this discussion and adding another wrinkle to the discussion that we need to understand, I think, a little bit mo re fully, to appreciate the complexity in implementing a bill like this. I'm just wondering if you could speak a little bit to how your position as a unique union within the health-care system in terms of what you –the services that you provide, how that w ould jive with the proposed amendments put forward by the MFL and others with regards to their proposals for amendments. Mr.

Sumerlus: It's our submission that the extension of the number of bargaining units by one more bargaining unit, as recognized by the MFL, would not unduly restrict collective bargaining or expand collecting bargaining, and, in fact, I think, as exemplified in the province, the reality is that the maintenance and trades unit works very closely with the private sector and is –there's a great deal of–quite frankly, our concern is loss to the private sector now, as a result of, you know, what's happening with wages and things like that.

So it's our position that, quite frankly, this is in the best interest of the maintenance of the –of workers' rights in terms of their ability to associate with a union that recognizes their uniqueness and their–really, their separate situation within health care. Mr. Goertzen : Thank you for the presentation. It was–it did add some different context from w hat we've heard tonight, and that's helpful for further consideration. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. I will now call on Mr. Frederick Jackson, private citizen. Mr.

Jackson, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Frederick Jackson (Private Citizen): No, I don't. Madam Chairperson: No? Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the committee for letting me speak. Hi. My name is Frederick Paul [phonet ic] Jackson, and I'm currently employed as a plumber steamfitter at Deer Lodge Centre and I've been there for 12 years.

May 8, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 79 Prior to working for the WRHA, I had worked for 15 years in the construction industry. Through the Manitoba apprenticeship program, I obtained my journeyman plumbing certification. After more work experience, I was able to study and challenge the steamfitters' exam. In my work experience and wide variety of major construction and maintenance shutdowns and equipment replacements, I have worked in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.

After working out of town and being away for extended periods, it made sense to find work of a more stable and close- to-home nature. This was at a time when my wife and I had decided to start a family. My search for work brought me to apply for my current job at Deer Lodge. Manitoba is our home and always will be. It is where we were raised and chose to raise our family. I know it would be difficult for my wife to raise our kids if I was away working in another province. I'm very proud to say that being home every night to see my children grow up is most important to me.

I enjoy being there to watch their hockey games, coach their soccer and make sure their homework is finished properly. While I've been a member of Operating Engineers, Local 987, I have taken advantage of the training, which a union supports and pays for. I have, with union's help, received my backflow prevention tester's licence as well as my plumbing contractor's licence. I use these extra licences regularly at Deer Lodge. * (20:10) We're often called upon to use our skill and experience to problem solve conditions as they arise.

Regular duties are what preventative maintenance is all about, and, from time to time, c atastrophic breakdowns do occur; this calls for a fast reaction with an emergency repair. Patients and residents rely on medical equipment to work properly, the heat to be on in the winter, and cool in the summer. This is only a short list of the many things that we all take for granted. They all must work together and be meticulously maintained. It is of great concern to me that Bill 29 would affect my maintenance and trades co -workers.

For over 40 years, we have been represented by a proud union that puts its members first. We are a small group of skilled and dedicated workers; I believe around 365 members. This plan to have us put together with the support staff would make our voice unheard. If our collective agreement was set aside, how could our working conditions be maintained? It is in my hope that you can see that we are unique and distinct from the support sector. In closing, if it is this committee's intent to pass Bill 29, I am opposed to it in its current form.

I am kindly asking you to make amendments to allow the maintenance and trade sector to remain separate, as it has for the past 40 years. And thank you. M

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-2-la5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 2nd hansardpdf la5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	64c0198c5c2fe4206af3b49168d63736709e7219

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