Manitoba Committee Hansard — 8 June 1977 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 3, 30th Legislature, 4th Session)

30-4-ir3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba HEARING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Chairman Mr. William Jenkins Constituency of Logan WEDNESDAY, Jun e 8, 1977, 8:00p.m. Printed by P.N. Crosbie -Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 �E: 8:00 p.m. CHAIRMAN: MR. William Jenkins (Logan) MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a quorum, the meeting will come to order. The first bill is Bill No. 26 - An to Amend the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen Qualifications Act. MR. PAULLEY: We have no amendments that I am aware of to propose to the Apprentice Act, ess the Opposition has or any other Member of the Committee, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRM AN: Clause 1- pass; Clause 2-pass; Clause 3-pass; Clause 4-pass;

Preamble is; Title-pass. Bill be reported. Bill No. 45-

An Act to Amend the Vacations With Pay Act. MR. PAULLEY: We have no amendments to propose as far as the government is concerned, Mr. airman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed clause by clause. Clause 1- pass; Clause 2-pass; Clause 3-pass; 1use 4-pass;

Preamble-pass; Title-pass. Bill be reported. Bill No. 47 -

An Act to Amend the Department of Labou r Act. MR. PAULL EY: We have no amendments to propose insofar as the gov ernment is concerned , Mr. airman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1- pass; Clause 2-pass;

Preamble-pass; Title-pass. Bill be reported. Bill No. 50. MR. PAULLEY: We have a couple of amendments to propose, Mr. Chairman, but if we run into any >blems as to propriety or conflict as to the proceedings of the Committee I am prepared to hdraw insofar as the amendment to

Section 16( 3), which is really not in conflict with the general nciple of the bill, dealing with appeals. lt would point out that if a person does not, as I un derstand :tppeal the decision to the board, that the board cannot hear-w ithin the certain time- the board 1not hear the leave to appeal. The other one is dealing with

Section 23 (1), just a change of wording. So we're prepared, if the Committee is prepared, to proceed with these amendments which are, I uld sug gest, would not be in conflict with the general und erstanding reached by the Committee, t if the Committee is of the opinion that this might be in conflict with procedure, I am prepared to t proceed at this particular section. lt's really a clarification rather than a conflict oft he bill that was >posed in the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Chairman, on a point of order, I thought we resolved this problem yesterday, ce and for all dur ing the termination of this that amendments that are brought in that are not ated to the bill, we could take it back and caucus it and give us 24 hours or whatever is required for to review it' and we have had occasion today to receive amendments to the Credit Union Act, 1ich certainly gives us time to deal with those amendments before. I wonder why we should now ange the agreement that we had yesterday? MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'm not suggesting any change of the agreement that we had sterday at all.

All I'm simply saying is that as far as the government is concerned, the amendment ggested is not in conflict with the general principles contained in Bill 50, but if there is any lication or inclination of the Committee not to proceed I'm not going through the rigmarole of 1endments at the report stage. The only other one is a correction of the wording used in the bill. So I n't think, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. McKenzie, I'm in conflict with the general principle. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, we would have no objection to the proposed amendment to 23 (1 ) 1ich deals with what perhaps was a typographical error in the original bill. But I think because the 1les Committee is going to be facing this whole issue, and the Minister is a member of that mmittee, as I am, that it would make it easier for us to be able to approach it on the basis of some nsistency and for that reason we would be distinctly unh appy about proceeding with the earlier 1endment on 16( 3) . MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I'm prepared to withdraw 16 (3) which was to the benefit of a person 10 may be negligent in making an appeal, and I'm sure my honour able friend, the Member for Fort 1rry, is also concerned that because of neg ligence to appeal a decision ... But I'm prepared to thdraw the reference to 16 (3) and make the correction with 23 (1 ) in order to expedite the business the Committee in the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1- pass; Clause 2-pass; Clause 3-pass; Clause 4-pass; Clause 5- ss; Clause 6-pass; Clause 7-pass; Clause 8-pass; Clause 9. Would you move that, Mr. Barrow? MR. BARROWS: Yes. THAT the proposed

section 23 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act as set out in

Section 9 of Bill 50, be 1ended by striking out the word "paid" in the 1s t line thereof, and su bstituting therefor the word 1ade." MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 12( 9) as amended-pass. Clause 10-pass;

Preamble-pass; Title ss; bill be reported- pass. Bill (No. 65) -

An Act to amend The Employment Standards Act. ·69

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 MR. PAULLEY: In respect of Bill 65, Mr. Chairman, there are certain.amendments to be made Bill 65, the content of which I informed members of t he Committee that would be proposed, and th� of cou rse then are knowledgeable of those proposed amendments. They have been looked at ve very closely and, as far as I am concerned as the sponsor of this bill, I do not think that they are conflict with the general decision that was made as to the acceptability or otherwise of the! amendments, and therefore, Mr.

Chairman, I sugg est that we should proceed with the consideratic of Bill 65. MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Clause 1, Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Clause 1, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. MR. PAULLEY: Oh, just a minute. I believe there is an amendment, Mr. Chairman. I don't want take precedence over you. The government, I believe, on Clause 1 has an amendment. Is that n correct? Ju st for clarification now, I did mention, Mr.

Chairman, in the House, and I want this tot established, that I did indicate in the House that there would be certain amendments insofar as 1. � where in a collective agreement the fringe benefits were included to the deg ree of the 1. 75, that tt 1. 5 percent would apply. Mr. Barrow, is that not in the reference to

section 1, or should I ask t1 Legislative Counsel? -(I nterjection)- Yes, and I believe, Mr. Sherman, that you have t1 amendments that the government is proposing in respect of

section 1, and I don' t want to t dictatorial, but I do believe that it is normal that the ar:nendments as proposed by the government tal precedence at this stage in the game. MR. SHERMAN: That's right, Mr. Chairman. I just responded because there hadn't been response from the other side. MR. PAULLEY: Yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that all right then, Mr. Barrow? MR. BARROW: Yes. THAT

section 1 of Bill 65 be struck out and the following

section substituted therefor:

section 29am. 1

Section 29 of The Employment Standards Act , being

chapter E1 10 of the Revised Statutes amended (

a) by adding thereto immediately after clause (

a) thereof, the following clause, (.1 ) "fri nge benefit" with respect to an employee means the value per hour based on reg ular hou of work of the employee of any amount paid either directly or indirectly and either immediately or some futu re date by the e·mployer to or in respect of the employee or his dependants over and abo• reg ular wage rates for or in respect of each hour of reg ular hours to work worked by the employ1 and, without limiting the gen erality of the foreg oing, includes the value per hour of reg ular hours work of an employee of any contribution by the employer (

i) in respect of any pension or superan nuation plan other than the Canada Pension Plan, (ii) in respect of any insurance, mutual bene fit, sick benefit or death benefit plan other than the Canada Pension Plan or the plan administered un der The Workers Compensation Act, and (iii) in respect of any plan to pay benefits during periods of un employment other than the plan administered un der The Unemployment Insur ance Act of Canada, and also inclu des gener al holiday pay, vacation pay or the value per hour of regu lar hours of any period of vacation to which the employee may become entitled and shift premiums, cost of living bonuses, production bonuses and any other premiums or bonuses which are paid to the employee in respect of work done; (

b) By striking out clause (

c) thereof and substituting therefor the following clause: (c) "overtime rates" with respect to an employee means (

i) a rate of wages 1. 75 times as gr eat as the rate of wages ordinarily payable to him for work done, or (ii) where the employer agrees or elects to calculate wages for overtime on the basis of the total of the wages ordinarily payble plus fringe benefits, a �ate of wages 1. 5t imes as great as the total of the rate of wages ordinarily payable to him for work done plus the average fringe benefit for employees of the same employer if that rate is equal to or gr eater than 1. 75 times the rate ofwages ordinarily payable to him for work done. MR. CHAI RMAN: Motion moved. Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, if I may speak, this is I believe, a carrying through of an amendme that 1 made a commitment to the House that would be introduced, where the fringe benefits plus tl normal rate equate 1. 75, then the em ployer under such a co llective agreement would not penalized with the application of 1. 75 as originally it appeared in the Act.

There was no intention the government to double penalize those who were covered und er a collective agreement by the 1. i Where fringe benefits were included in arriving at the base rate to equate 1. 75, then the present 1 would be applicable, and that is the intent of this amendmem. 70

MR. CHAI RMAN: Mr. Sher man. Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 MR. SHERMAN:. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to sug gest to the Minister of Labour that essentially amendment is meaningless in terms of the effects of the bill. The bill in its original form spells out 1. 75 time rate. The Minister has taken a position which might be interpreted by some as a 1cession to businesses faced with the economic constraints of the day, but on examination I uld submit, Sir, that it is no concession and that it doesn't alter the effect of the bill in any way.

We have heard a number of representations before the Committee that emphasized that most 1ge benefits , in most cases in industry and business in this province , are not added into base pay purposes of calculating overtime.

That being the case if one takes any number of sample thematical projections and adds the average, acceptable level of fringe benefits into a base, one nes up in calculation after calculation with a figure which, rated on an overtime basis of 1. 5, would ne within a few cents to the same level as an overtime premium rated at time and three-quarters on ' base pay without the fringe benefits, so that what is happening here is that there may be a few ployers who would derive some benefit from this amendment, but the vast vast majority - and I uld sugge st that it would certainly be in excess of 90 percent -w ill not benefit from it.

The amendment will do precisely what the original bill does, levy an additional surcharge, an jitional cost on doing business in Manitoba for the vast majority of employers in this province. lt is 1tamount to saying that from now on, for the purposes of arriving at an employee's overtime pay, an ,ployer might as well for all practical purposes, add the employee's fringe benefits into his or her �e pay before calculating the overtime. MR. PAULLE V: Right, that's right. That's the objective of the bill and that's the ... Oh, I am sorry, . Chairman, I shouldn' t interject; when. my honourable friend is speaking.

Please forgive me for my erjection. MR. SHERMAN: That's all right, Mr. Chairman. But that being the case, I sug gest that the 1endment becomes meaningless, it becomes mere rhetoric. We don't like the provision in the bill, ction 1 of the bill, but for all practical purposes' if that is the result and that is the intent and the nister agrees that it is, then what's the point of the amendment other than pure rhetoric? The 1endment that I wo uld have proposed, Sir, - and I simply say it to add to my remarks at this 1cture, - would have been to delete

Section 1 of Bill 65 and renumber Sections 2 to 9 inclusive :;ordingly. Because we are opposed to

Section 1 we are opposed to the additional overtime rcharge and we feel the amendment levies the same kind of surcharge, only in a different lang uage. we would be opposed to this amendment. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, of all, first with respect to the amendment, I don't think the Minister s ever indicated that the amendment accomplishes a great deal. What he says is that certain 1ployers are now calculating their fringes before they get to their overtime rate, and I will use an ample. The rate of wages is $8.00. Overtime would be, time and-a-half would be $1 2.00.

Some 1ployers in their collective agreements, we are advised, say that time and-a-half means not time d-a-half of $8 but time and-a-half of $8 plus $2, let us $2 being assume, fringes. Therefore, they are ying $15 : $8 plus $2 plus time and-a-half of that is $1 5.00. And if an employer is already paying >re than time and three-quarters by using that form of calculation, we don't intend that he should doubly penalized.

In other words we don't intend that he should pay time and three-quarters of D; he should pay time and three-quarters of $8 or time and-a-half of his present wage rate plus the 1ge benefits plus 50 percent. The Member for Fort Garry says that that is a very rare case. That that may well be. But if we didn't ng in this amendment he would be coming back here and saying that we are charging some people t time and three-quarters but dou ble time. We would not want to do that, and particularly, it is not r with respect to an employer who happens be in that particular position. Now, Mr.

Chairman, with respect to the honourable member's claim generally with regard to time d three-quarters and the deletion of it, I was, previous to the hearings, Mr. Chairman, ofthe opinion it this would not be a very effective section, that time and three-quarters is a rather small premium overtime and that it would not have the effect of discouraging overtime.

The reason for a premium e of time and-a-half, when it was originally enacted, was so that a 40-hour week would mean mething, that there would be a discouragement to an employer working his people over 40 hours, d an incent ive - and the honourable members often speak of it - to work more employees 40 ms rather than less employees 45 and 50 hours. Not only is it not an extra cost, it's a saving.

When the original figure of time and three-quarters was sugge sted to make up for the fact that ertime is now being used, not as a deterrent, but as a means of making more money for a particular 1ployee, I was rather discou raged that it would have this effect because I though t that the premium 1s too small. Since the hearings, I am convinced that this is more than necessary because we get so my employers coming in and saying that this is going to raise their costs so much.

And being an 1ployer and knowing employers, I know that if something is going to raise their costs a gr eat deal, if ";}y consider it that much of a raise, they are going to work out ways of reducing their costs. And this, ·. Chairman, need not cost the employer anything , if he organ izes his labour in such a way as to 71

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 cepted. And inspite of what the Minister of Mines and Natural Resou rces has said, 1 don't see a ge outcry from those people who've had to work dur ing the seasonal period, that somehow or 1er they have been taken advantage of. -(I nterjection)- No, they haven't said that. I haven't seen yone coming forward and I have not seen a public outcry because this has been recog nized. And � employees who work know the nature of the business and kn ow the requirements.

And frankly, I nk many of them are going to be damned mad and angr y to find that they who have particular skills, d they who have been in fact worked in the business will find that they are going to be deprived of >se extra hours by someone coming in less skilled to meet whatever time period is required if that is � nature of the decision that the business will under take. And I am not sure whatthose decisions will . So that I don't think in that sense that we are improving the situation. Now, there's the Department of Ind ustry and Commerce that has approximately a hundr ed 1ployees in this government.

They deal with business in a direct way. They are within the business mmunity, they are meet ing every phase of business activity. I'd like to know what their commendation was to the government with respect to the recommendations that the government s brough t forward here.

I want to know whether they approved, not the Minister who has made the tlitical decision, but i want to know whether the civil servants who have been involved directly in aling with industry have in fact approved this particular proposal, again putting Manitoba in the refront as far as labour costs are concerned, at a time when competition is becoming more severe, 1en the basic industries in our province are having a far gr eater difficulty in competing, when the ukets are closing to them, and when, in effect, sales are diminishing.

And I say that at this particular time I want to know whether that kind of response positively has en given to the government, that there should be a gr een light for this kind of legislation. Because, ·. Chairman, without that then I simply say we are in an election year, this appears to be a very fine oposal for the government to be able to wave as part of the election platform.

But the reality is that it >es not deal with our particular situation, and along with the total economic climate, it essentially is other feature that is a deterrent for the kinds of expansion that have to take place within the small siness of our province, if in fact the job formation that is required in this province will be obtained less we are simply going to accept that the government is going to continually provide make-work ograms month after month and year after year as a solution for the proper job formation in the tvate sector in this province. MR. CHAI RMAN: Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, I am not really surp rised at the contribution that the former Minister In dustry and Commerce made insofar as an approach to the amendments that we have before us. I n't know really, although I do suspect that the bureaucrats in the Department of Ind ustry and ,mmerce, when he happened to be the Minister of that particular department, did plan for him, the nister, what the policy of the government atthat particular day should legislate for.

I do want to say my honour able friend, the Member for River Heights, a change has taken place insofar as the ·ectives of government are concerned, that the bureaucrats in the Department of In dustry and ,mmerce , or any other department of government, do not tell us what our policies should be. And �tell them, based on sound reasoning, what our policy shall be.

And if the honour able, the Member · River Heights, now is at a confession stage, that the conduct of the government of which he was a 1binet Minister was dictated to by the bureaucrats, that has changed, that we of the New 1mocratic Party indicate to the bureaucrats referred to by the Honour able Member for River 1ights as to what our policy should be because we have to go before the people to be elected.

And I nk one of the changes that tool< place in 19 69 was a recognition by the electorate of Manitoba that l political people should dictate the policies and not the bureaucrats in government, and there has en a change. I am proud, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that the Honour able Member for River 'ights has indicated by his oration tonight that the policies of the government that preceded this vernment were not the policies of the politicians but of the bureaucrats, and that has been changed der our regime. this government.

We set the policies of this government and I don't care about a �kson, a John son, or a Warren or a Sherman or even a Wilson, that we decide what the policy shall of this government and not those who may be our advisers or our ill-advisers. We accept the iponsibility for governing the Province of Manitoba and we accept the responsibility that we are swerable to the electorate of Manitoba and not a bunch of ruddy bureaucrats. Now then, the Honour able Member for River Heights tried to infer that we did not give nsid.eration to the facts of life. I want to say to Mr.

Spivak, the Honour able Member for River ights, that in the very areas that he is referring to, namely service industries, that on a 12 -month �rage basis, the service industry has not worked in excess of a 40-hour week on average, in any •nth in the last available statistics. I sugge st to my honour able friend that rather than being critical me as Minister or the government that we haven't taken this point into consideration, that he >uld make available or have one of the bureaucrats make available to him the statistical pattern in :73

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 the Province of Manitoba. I am referring to the service industry and I'm sure my honou rable frh the Member for River Heig hts, is well acquainted with the service industry because of his I involvement. We get down to the field of the manufacturing industry and in 19 76, the last available statistics we have, Mr. Chairman, indicate that at no time in a 12 -month period has the average workVII exceeded 40 hours where pun itive overtime or overtime rates have to be paid.

So I sugge st to my honou rable friend, the Member for River Heig hts, he's all wet and that h trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill as indeed some of his counterparts in the industrial f and the service providing fields in the Province of Manitoba are attempting to do.

I'm prepared at time to accept criticisms because of the lack of consult ation before a proposal is made of the na1 that we are making here, but in all the statistical information that I have been able to receive, arg uments of the Honour able Member for River Heights fall short of reality and that at no stage in last 12 months that statistics are available that on average , the industry that he is connected with, hotel and service industry have worked in excess, I believe the figur e is about 37.5 or 37.9 hours average as weekly. lt is true - and I' ve said this before and I reiterate it right now- it could conceivably be tha certain sectors or segments that some industries or some components in the general field havetl employees work over 40 hours per week but I would sugg est to my honour able friend that rather tl be critical of the approach that we are making, that he talk to his counte rparts in the industry wh excesses of 40 hours are being worked and sug gest that they take on an additional employee or 1 so that they come into the ambit of the average , which is being worked in the Province of Manito So I sugge st to you, Mr.

Chairman, that the Member for River Heights is still going back to the d dark days when we were under the jurisdiction of the party that he represents. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Patrick. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, I made my comments quite clear in the House when I spoke on t and I perhaps can repeat some of the things I said. Unless I'm a slow learner, I don't find that amendment really solves a concern that I raised in the House and for that reason it does concern here as well. The Minister for Mines and Natural Resources, Mr.

Green, says that the reason, after listen in� the delegations, he is convinced that the $1 .50 or 1- 1h times is not working, therefore he would likE see 1- % because he doesn't like to see overtime. That was his point just a minute ago. Well if that's the case, H the Minister is really concerned that there is too much overtime, and h concerned for a deterrent, then why doesn't the government just rule out any overtime complet and have no overtime at all allowed? That's the points that the Minister of Mines raised.

He says not working because all these people were concerned and the cost to the industry for overtime' cost them less and let's not have any overtime so let's go to 1- %. So if that's his feeling, then I wo1 say let's do away with the overtime completely. That's what the Minister said.

Now the Minister of Labour is indicating to us that if anybody wants overtime, they should wo but most of the delegations that appeared before the Committee indicated that their workweek VI 37 hours, 38 hours, 39 hours and in fact I don't remember if anybody said 40 hours but every sin! one indicated, because of a lot of absenteeism, they had to make up their orders or they had to m a up their time. If somebody didn't show up, somebody else had to work overtime and as a result, ev though they averaged out at 37 hours a week, it still meant that there was a considerable amount overtime.

Now, every single one indicated to us here the other day and the aerospace industries WE gr eatly concerned and said their cost was something -o ne company alone and it was confirm today in a letter- they indicated the cost was a large amount and they said it would make it that mu more difficult if they had to go to 1- %. The second point, somebody says well there is 7 percent unemployment. Well I think if you ma it very difficult for some of the industries in this province, you will have 10 percent unemployme qu ite quickly. I'll indicate to yo u, Mr.

Ralph King appeared here, who represented four sm companies in rural Manitoba who perhaps employ over 200, 300, or 4QO people, I believe it was. I said his overtime amounted to something like $1 40,000 and ifthis went through it would be a lot ma and he said at the present time it is a very delicate position if he can sustain that operation. But I says, "You add another $40,000 or $50,000, there's no way I can." There's another point he made.

He said as well, a large industry was su pposed to start- a plasti industry at Morden - that would employ a large number of people somewhere in the neighbou rhoc of over 100, and he said, "I can't see that this industry would come to Manitoba with such condition! MR. PAULLEY: I know Ralph very well. MR. PATRICK: Well, I thought he made a very sensible and reasonable presentation and he did1 object to one part oft he bill at all, except he objected to the 1-%.

He pointed out what the cost wou be, the reasons why, and he said to the government, "You had better watch what you are doin� Now the Minister says we've got 7 percent unemployment. The Campbell Soup Company sai 74

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 ook, if the cost is too high we will have to import the product from Ontario," and the end result will that you have a larger un employment instead of 7 percent. I don't know if the Minister is aware of not, but Co-op Implements in the province are in a very rious position right now. You may have hundr eds unemployed in a very short time. - 1terjection)- Well, also an uncompetitive position. Versatile In dustries appeared here - Versatile mufactu ring - what did they say? The same thing, that's right.

And they' ll be adding more people their plant across the line; they have a plant in Fargo and bringing the product to Manitoba. So the thing is, I believe that we have to be concerned about exactly what is taking place. Only a N years ago, again the Minister in my opinion would have to communicate -(l nterjection)- 1at's that? A MEMBER : Lower the minimum wage. MR. PATRICK: Nobody's talking about minimum wage when most of these people are getting id $6.00 and $7.00.

Again the Minister of Mun icipal Affairs has been lost for awhile or hasn't been Jund the House, perhaps he was on his ranch somewhere, but to say "lo wer the minimum wage," u know, that's senseless when people are making $9.00 and $1 0.00 an hour to say "lower the nimum wage. " That's got no sign ificance in this debate at all. All I am bringing to the attention of the government, where we had a small manufacturer of erhead doors, where the door that was manufactured here and the one across the line were latively the same price, almost no change. In fact, the one that was here was less.

Today, that same �n ufacturer is in a competition where that same door is $50.00 cheaper when you go to Beaver 1mber or Winnipeg Supply, that's manufactured just about 15 0 miles from here and it's probably �de as well, maybe better. So that's what we are concerned about and that's the problems that we ve. The government will have to decide two things: to say, "L ook, we believe that there should be no ertime," then outlaw it completely. But what I'm saying to the Minister, you have to be reasonable, 't to put the industries in this province in a non-competitive position.

If you do, don't say that you � going to create employment by this measure. I think it will have the reverse effect. My other concern is, the great problem that nobody asked for it. I think it's strictly a government 'I icy. The Manitoba Federation of Labour appeared here to say that they weren't against it. I talked Mr. Thibault on the phone and I discussed it with him. He said, "Look, I would be crazy to oppose �t; it's a measure for my employees. I'll be for it." But he said there was no request for it by anybody his organ ization and he said there was no request at all. There was no pressure by anybody.

He id, "What's . the reason? Maybe they feel that they can create more employment. MR. PAULLEY: We're not dictated to by the MFL or anybody else. MR. PATRICK: I' ve had over the years a considerable amount of people in the labour �anizations calling me on various things. This time, when I was getting calls, it wasn't because they 1nted 1- %, they were calling because they may not have any overtime, and that was their biggest ncern, from the employees. That was their concern. MR. GREEN: Aha, so they are going to stop overtime. MR.

PATRIC K: If it stops the overtime -(I nterjection)- You may not stop the overtime .. . MR. CHAIRM AN: Order please. MR. PATRIC K: What the Minister of Mines and Natural Resou rces perhaps will do, we'll have200 so at Versatile laid off and the 600 at Co-op Indu stries and this will continue to have a chain �ction. You will have not 7 percent but much larger unemployment. Because you cannot put the justries in this province ... MR. PAULLEY: That's your hope. MR. PATRICK: No, that's not my hope; that's my concern because that's the concern that I pressed in the House and I'm expressing it here.

I feel that some of the representations that were fore the Committee certainly made some good points, where the Minister kept saying, well, there's overtime, none, from his statistics. But everyone said, well ou r workweek is 39, 37, 38, or 40, but � point is, we have to pay overtime in case somebody doesn't show up, somebody is sick and there always overtime. They presented it to the Minister not in hundr eds but in thousands of dollars, 1ich amounted to large overtime.

So again, if the measure or the proposal that the Minister proposes in respect to 1- % is no different m we had before, if it will still be the same cost to the industry, I can't say that I can support it- I n't. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Wilson. MR.

WILSON : I have listened to quite a few of the presentations and I really thought maybe the nister and certainly some of the members opposite would listen. l have been out there and whether 1 in a coffee shop or a locker room, people are just saying that this is incredible and I'm very pleased see that you have put your cards on the table where you say you are really intending to stop ertime and when I talked to the working guy, he says, well here all the provinces are, they are ntrolling industry. They have got a fou r-day workweek, a 37-hour week, and now we've got this 75

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 government going to control the workers by saying no more overtime. lt seems the workers by, large·never asked for this bill and it's really government policy without consul ting the work people.

We've got to compete and when you getout there and you1�see a $2 billion deficit in tou ri where the airlines are taking everybody out of the country; where you have the needle trade mov down to Montreal because that's where the people are and if they've got to compete and they eo produce it a little bit cheaper here and all of a sudden you've got the freight rate and on top of i1 you've got time and three-quarters, I sugge st that there is going to be a further exodus.

I am very concerned because at one time the signs used to read all around, certainly in garment industry and others, "Help Wanted." I think the sign s are going to read in the newspape "Companies Wanted," and certainly "T our ists Wanted." Talking to a meeting the other day, it was noted that tourist dollars, American dollars, h dropped some 20 percent between Eaton's, The Bay, and Simpsons-Sears. The Americans just arE coming here despite the 95-cent dollar and part of it has to be attributed to the lack of will.

A lotof 1 people just haven't got the get-up-and-go. it's almost like they are lacking the desire and tl certainly isn't helping. This bill, in my opinion, is very very regressive. The Minister of Mines says wants dou ble time; he wants a deterrent to stop overtime: the premiums are too small; he wo1 favour double time. When the First Minister talked about 2-lh times and I thought he was talking abc wages, it's obvious that he's talking about the end result of what they are going to aim for wher comes to overtime, it's going to be 2-lh times. · MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Chairman, I am quite concerned about the statement the Minister of Laba made a few moments ago when he said that the Department of Labour and the Department In dustry and Commerce are in fu ll support of this legislation. I am looking forward to the ... MR. PAULLEY: ... the bureaucrats in the In dustry and Commerce or the bureaucrats in t whole of the government are not dictating our policy. I want, Mr.

Chairman, on a point of privilegE want a withdrawal of the remarks of the honour able member that I did not say anything that can 1 construed as indicating supp ort for the remarks that he has made. -(I nterjection)- Never mi1 about some of the bills. I am telling you I did not say that and I want a retraction from my honourat friend that indicates accordingly. We are governed by government policy and not by bureaucra MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the Honour able Labour Minister, who makes 1 the Department of Labour?

That's what I am speaking of, the Department of Labour and tl Department of In dustry and Commerce, that is the complete department, including the Ministe MR. PAULLEY: That is not what you said. MR. McKENZIE: That's what I am referring to then. If I didn't say it that way, I'm saying it no• MR. PAULLEY: You retract what the hell you did say. MR.

McKENZIE: I would say that I don't see how it is possible in any government, and especial this government, for the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Ind ustry and Commerce, to stand l and tell us in this province that they both agree to this type of legislation today in this province. I give you several reasons, Mr. Chairman.

When you read through the Speech from the Throne that the First Minister gave us, and I refer· Page 3 where he said, "In preparing our Estimates for the 19 77-78 Fiscal Year, my Ministers ha1 imposed restraint guid elines on all departments and agencies which have been even more stringe 1 than those applied in previous years. " Now if the Minister of Labour can show me where he is abidir by that directive of the First Minister in this legislation, I am waiting for his.answer. MR. PAULLEY: You' ll hear it. MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Chairman, I am also most concerned about this brief that came across rr desk yesterday from Mr. Holmes, the labour relations officer from the Labour Relations Council wh brought out the fact that it appears the Minister of Labour and the government have not contacted th Anti-Inflation Board re this leg islation. And I suspect, if you read Mr. Holmes letter, and I am sure th Minister has got it, that we are going to be in conflict, not only the department, but an awful lot of th workers in this province with the contracts that they have. Because, if you read the letter he goes o there, Mr.

Holmes says, "This could result in a reduction of negotiated wage rate for th approximately 4,000 tradesmen which are covered by collective agreements negotiated with th Labour Relations Counci l." I un derstand that those have been negotiated in the recent past." Now I would like the Minister to tell me what meetings he has had with the Anti-Infla tion Board Has he met with the Vice-Chairman, Mrs. Menzies, on this matter?

Can he give us some indicatio that we are working in conjunction with the Federal Government on this legislation, we are work in together, and we are providing the restraint to the people of this province which the First Minister sai in his Speech from the Throne that those gu idelines would be followed? I can't see it - (lnterjections)- MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. McKENZIE: The more I read through it and the more I hear the Labour Minister speak on thi matter -(I nterjections)- 76

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. One at a time. MR. McKENZIE: - Mr. Chairman, I become more and more concerned that we are not getting all e truth from the Minister. He is withholding a lot of informtion, and un til we get more information I m't see how we can proceed with this legislation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULL EY: Mr. Chairman, the honour able member asked a question of me insofar as the test epistle from Holmes. I want to say to my honourable friend it is a bunch of ruddy nonsense, that r.

Holmes is not the beginn ing and the end of what is involved insofar as AIB is conce rned , that ere is a provision in the regulations or the legislation in respect of AIB that extraneous or extra work not included in the setting of percentage increases. I am aware of that, and I would imagine an dividual of the presumed intellect of Mr. Holmes should be equally aware, as I am, as to the ·ovisions contained in the AIB in respect of overtime.

Apparently he did not take the time out to ;certain the impact insofar as wages are concerned as to the incident of overtime to an individual, 1d it is not applied as a general, overall benefit under the gu idelines of the AI B. And I would sug gest . at my honour able friend, Mr. McKenzie, the Member for Roblin, should go back to Mr. Holmes and ;k him to clarify his position as to whether he was just spouting off, or whether he was 1owledgeable of what the hell he was talking about. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I believe that the honour able members can't have it both ways, they m't argue that this is going to result, as Mr. Spivak said, in people being replaced because they on't be given overtime hours, and costs going up, because once that occurs costs will comedown, ey will not go up, and therefore how anybody from an Anti-Inflation Board can say that this ·ovision will increase costs is beyond me. How does the man from the Anti-I nflation Board know at the employer is going to keep the same number of people on overtime so that his wages go up, ther than hiring additional people so that the wages go down?

And if he presumes to make that kind judg ment, even if this were not exempted, which I un derstand it is, then I say that he presumes far o much, that there is no way in which he can make that type of judgment. Mr. Chairman, let us look at what is being said here. You know people have to, in order to tionalize in their own minds, they have to attribute thing s to us which we have not said. The Member r Roblin says the Minister of Labour said that the Department of In dustry and his department are in 11 accord with the leg islation.

I heard him say almost the opposite, that he didn't care what the Jreaucrats in industry said, as I know that the bureaucrats in industry used to fight tooth and nail ith the bureaucrats in Agr iculture un der the previous administration. And did the Minister of In dustry say that we should find out what the civil servants are saying 1out the agricultural program? Is that how he would govern? Because he didn't govern that way 1en he was in power and he governed badly eno ugh. I don't think he would go from bad to worse. 1at is not the way in which governmental decisions are made.

When they were arguing between dustry and Agricultur e about marketing boards, etc., did we have the officials come out and tell us 1at they didn' t like about the agricultural policy and vice versa? Or is he saying there were no gu ments, which is ridiculous? Of course there are people in the Department of In dustry who will say thatthis is a problem for us 1d that it could be a high er cost. I wouldn't deny that. But, Mr.

Chairman, neither would I deny it nor , I believe it, because we have figured it out, and if a man employs a person for one hour overtime 1r week, I think he increases less than one half of one percent in wages. Less than one half of one 1rcent. If he employs a person for two overtime hours a week, it is less than one percent. And if my 1ures are wrong, they are not wildly out. I am looking behind me to the people who have calculated em; they say they are not out. So I never said, and the Member for Wolseley, who I am sorry that I am paying any attention to, ys that I said that this is meantto ban overtime. Mr.

Chairman, my remarks are on the record. I won't :le from them. I said this is done to deter overtime, to discourage overtime, to have a disincentive to ·ertime, because we did not believe that this industrial society could stand a ban on overtime. That what the representative from the labour union said. And we can't follow what the representatives >m the labour unions said. So we said no, we will not ban it.

But on the other hand we see problems th regard to overtime, and we see those problems that have come out of what was a terrible :lustrial dispute- and we didn't lean to either side in that industrial dispute. We said that the real oblem here is that employers are making too much use of overtime, and that is whatthe employers me to this Committee and said, "We are making so much use of overtime that this is going to cost us ortune." And once they said that, Mr.

Chairman, they confirmed my fears that if they are making at much use of overtime, then the original discouragement, which was enacted, not by this ministration but by one of the Liberal or Conservative administrations which preceded us, and for actly that reason, to discourage the use of overtime, no longer has that effect. And if it no lonqer s that effect, then I don't mind being the leader in changing it. And if this discou rages a small 10unt of overtime, Mr. Chairman, it will not result in any indu strial cost to the Province of Manitoba. 77

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 Nobody is required to pay time-and-three-quarters. If it discou rages - and I can't give yo1 mental calculation without a computer - but I am sure that if it discour aged one-tenth of 1 overtime that is now being worked, that it would result in very little increase in costs to the employ< in the Province of Manitoba. So let's not start talking about increases in cost. Let's talk about what· think a working man should be working. What should be his position in the market? Should he have compete ... ? Well, Mr.

Chairman, the Honour able Member for Sou ris-Ki llarney says what he agrees to. I can 1 you that there were times when people ag reed to work 80 hours a week, when they agreed to we unti l they were exhausted. So if the honour able member wants to use the gauge "as much as they v agree to" .... -(I nterjection)- Mr. Chairman, it is the honour able member who is going back Marx. Let's have it on the record. The Member for Sou ris-Killarney says that the gauge as to h< much a man should work is how much he will agree to work.

Well, I can tell you that a man unc du ress will agree to work 24 hours a day until he drops. And you know, if the honour able memt uses that as his gauge, that's what he will use, and all of the other honour able members who ha spoken have spoken in that light. He says we go back to Marx. You don't have to go back to Marx. V know the employers of the people who worked in the mines where they employed children elev and .twelve and thirteen years of age were not Marxists, they were capitalists.

That's right. � Chairman, I am trying to live in 19 77, but the Memberf or Sour is-Killarney keeps dragg ing me back his time, the Dark Ages. · And the fact is that the members on that side who spoke spoke in exactly the same argu ments, a1 I have read them, they could have taken them out verbatim of what was said when minimum wag were enacted, when minimum ? hours were enacted, when child .... Mr. Chairman, yes, t honour able member says it wasn't the bloody socialists. I agree it was the bloody capitalists. And tt is what I am trying to say, Mr.

Chairman, that this type of legislation which is now being opposed h to be enacted by bloody capitalists because they saw themselves being even bloodier if they did - enact it. The same argu ments that have now been advanced by the Neanderthal Member 1 Wolseley, the Member for Roblin, have been -a nd you can take them out of the textbooks - th said that if you take away our child labourers we will not be able to stay fn business. We willleavetl province. We will destroy jobs. If you take away our 60 hour weeks we will not be able to be business. If you will impose minimumwageswewill not be ableto stayin business.

Each one of tho things was said. Mr. Chairman, I repeat, the honour able member keeps dragg ing me back, tl honour able member and his compatriots keep dragg ing me back into the Dark Ages from which th have not emerged, and we know it from their words, that the working week should be as long as a m; is willing to work, that we will lose our industry, we will lose our industry if we try to make huma1 working conditions. And what are we talking about? Yes, what are we talking about? Let's get to the bill. Let's get to tl bill -(l nterjections)- MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order please. ORD ER! One at a time.

Order please. Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: The procedure that my honour able friend, the Member for Souris-Killarney. adopting in merely trying to interrupt and interject and hu rl insults at what I am saying is a prin indication that they do not have an intelligent position that they can argue against this bill. I thoug that my honou rable friend emerged from 19 66 when the only answer he had for any position tha took was that it was doctrinaire socialism. He now indicates that time-and-a-half for overtime is n doctrinaire socialism, it was enacted by capitalists, and I agree.

Time-and-three-quarters is tl fu rthest thing away from doctrinaire socialism. lt has nothing to do with socialism. lt has to do wi our society, a largely free enterprise society, overwhelmingly free enterprise society. lt is being del with on the same basis as it was dealt with by Liberal and Conservative administrations when it w. first enacted, but it is being opposed, Mr. Speaker, it is being opposed by those argu ments whi< were used in every debate where there was an attempt to ameliorate working cond itions. We have n en acted this as a piece of election machinery as has been sug gested.

You can't have it both ways, fv Chairman, you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand say, as the Member for Assiniba said, that the worker is going to be annoyed at us, and also say that this is an election gimmick. Ne which is it? I say to you that it is an attempt, no, .... -(l nterjectiori)- Mr. Chairman, you know if you want to go to the honourable member who talks about tl ideological seventeen percent socialists, they would probably be the most opposed to this type legislation.

But I go back to what we are talking about, we are talking about saying that if a ml employs people for one hour a week overtime he will have a one-half percent increase in that persor wage - one half of one percent. If he employs him two hours a week, he will have less than or percent increase in wages. That is already employing a man for 100 overtime hours a year. Are we saying, are we right in saying - and that's the real question -t hat before a man go< beyond a reasonable amount of overtime, he will figur e out the cost and he will try to

schedule it! that the 40 hour week is not merely what many people un derstand it wrongly to be, that every man w work eight hours a day for five days a week, and that he will be entitled to sleep one-th ird of his tim 78

Industrial Relations Wednesday; June 8, 1977 'rk one-third of his time, and eat and be with his family the balance of the third? Is that too much to ( for in our society, plus weekends, because that is what we are saying? And we are saying we ::>uld discourage the alternative. Now I don't think, Mr.

Chairman, that that is too high an ideal for our society, that man in this ciety should sleep eight hours, work eight hours, and have the balance of the day for eating and ing with his family, and that he wi 11 enact a law which will try and encour age that and which will not n a different procedure, but will try and encourage it. And that is the basis upon which we have ssed it.

I hope it will commend itself to the people, but if somebody says that it is an election nmick, and in the same breath says that the worker who is going to lose those hours, and I ag ree th him, there are people who, if you let them, will work 80 hours a week, at the expense of somebody 1e working 40, and that is what we are attempting to discourage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister of Mines and Resou rces has said let's take a look at 1at has been said here, and I would like to take a lookatsomeo ft het hings thatthe Minister of Mines d Resou rces has said. · He said we don't intend that an employer be doubly penalized. Well, that separates the socialists >m the Conservatives right at the outset, because the Minister of Mines and Resou rces and his 1lleagues don't intend that an employer be doubly penalized, and we don't intend that an employer 1 singl y penalized. MR. GREEN: Why did you have time-and-a-half legislation? MR.

SHERMAN: That was in response to the conditions of the day that have been referred to in 1ur previous argument that fitted those particular conditions of the day. -(I nterjection)- This easure that you are proposing here does not fit the conditions of the day in the Province of anitoba, and anybody with half an eye for the state of the economy in this province and the desire of �ople to get ahead, to work longer hours if they wish to, to make extra money, as was testified before is Committee, would be able to see that. Mr.

Chairman, the Minister has talked about the one half percent increase in costs or the one lrcent increase if a man works We cou ld just as easily say that the measure being enacted here is >ing to inflict a 50 percent surcharge in terms of overtime work costs on an employer because that's ·ecisely what it's doing. A MEMBER: You can say it but it's a ... MR. SHERMAN: The premium is half-time over the regular time and it's going to three-quarters ne, so that's a 50 percent -( In terjection)- ...

Well it comes out to a gr eat deal in the instance of nployers such as those that have been mentioned who are already paying $1 40,000 a year in tertime charges. lt comes to exactly $70,000 more, that's what it comes to. So let's not try to put this ·gument on the base of a statistical comparison of the type that the Minister has injected here, �cause there are just as many arguments that could be advanced on the other side as there are on s side. The fact of the matter is, that we have had the testimony of delegation after delegation.

The inister has just as many letters and representations as I do, and I'm sure all members of the ommittee have, from all sides of the economic spectrum in this province who have said that they will 1d this an oppressive and a pun itive measure that will hurt business, hurt industry and hurt the nployment situation. The Minister says to me that if they didn't move an amendment of this kind, hich I repeat is a meaning less amendment, that I would be coming back here and arguin g and that )me employers would be paying double time. A MEMBER: Right. MR. SHERMAN: Well, I want to assure you, Mr.

Chairman, that I'd be coming back here and 'g uing something before that and that is, I would be arguing that the measure shouldn't be 1troduced at all. That's the starting point, that we don't need either double time or three-quarters of ouble time or double penalty or half of double penalty imposed on any employers in this economic ::>mmunity. We are at time and a half.

We are competing with eleven other jurisdictions in Canada, probably 49 r 50 jurisdictions in the Un ited States, on a highly competitive continent at time and a half; and why 1is Minister and his colleagues seem to think that is such a wellspring of economic prosperity, this rovince this little island in that sea of 250 million North Americans, that we can afford, otwithstanding our competition against North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and the Canadian rovinces, that we can afford to go to this kind of an additional cost of doing business and an dditional penalty against job creation is beyond any sane man's thinking.

That's our point. Mr. :hairnian. Now Mr. Green talks about his figur es with respect to business and industry and he can explain· 1ow the workweek in most cases is under 40 hours, and he can explain how the additional cost based m overtime will only be a few cents; but what he steadfastly ignores is the psychological impact of he measure before us. If he can go from one end of this continent or one end of this countr y to 79

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 19 77 another and explain the mathematics that he is putting before this Committee, then all well and go then every businessman, every enterpriser, every employer the length and breadth of North Amer will be able to say, "i t's all okay. lt doesn't matter because Sid Green has told us it's okay and un derstand what he's talking about." But I sug gest, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister will not be able to do that.

That to the competit against whom we stand in the economic sphere on this continent all that is visible is the fact that th• is an additional cost of doing business in Manitoba and that psychological impact, as was a testified to here before this Committee, is going to drive business away from Manitoba. it's goin� suffocate some businesses in Manitoba and it's going to drive those who would intend on comin� away from the province and direct them somewhere else. That's all we're saying. Now, the Minister, Mr.

Chairman, has talked about the overtime deterrent, the need for overtime deterrent - in heaven's name what do you need an overtime deterrent for? A MEMBER: That's right. MR. SHERMAN: Employers don't go around looking for opportunities to impose overtin Employers don't go around looking for opportunities to impose overtime and to pay overtime. W needs a deterrent for overtime? Overtime now costs you money. Who wants to get into an overtir situation if they don't have to?

If the Minister would be prepared to listen to reason, he woL appreciate what has been said here by the delegations appearing before him and through the briE that have been presented to him, that you'd go into overtime when you have to go into overtime, n because you are looking for something to do in yo ur spare time. Nobody needs a deterrent 1 overtime. There's a sufficient deterrent in the cost that is already involved there. Mr. Green, also, Mr.

Chairman, said that he got the impression from those who appeared beta the Committee that employers are making -o r he interpreted their position as admitting that th• are making too much use of overtime. Well that may be Mr. Green's

interpretation. I didn' t he anybody here say that they were making too much use of overtime. They make what necessa limited use of overtime they have to do to compete in a stagnating province, in economic terrr against the other provinces and states adjacent to us. -(I nterjection)- That is what they u: overtime for, to stay in business and make a buck. I wouldn' t expect the Member for St. Matthe"" fresh from his classroom and his ivory tower, to un derstand it. He's never worked anywhere but in classroom in his life. He simply doesn't under stand it, Mr.

Chairman, and I don't want to be divertE by him because it's not worth arguing the point with him. He doesn't un derstand the mechanics of tt marketplace. He doesn't ·und erstand competition and he's dead-set philosophically against it, se won't bother arguing the point with him. But the fact of the matter, Sir, is that nobody appearing before this Committee, any hearings th I' ve been at, said that as an employer he was making too much use of overtime. That may be M Green's

interpretation. They make what limited use of it they have to make of it. Now another area of the Minister's attention - and by the Minister I mean the Minister of MinE and Resou rces, Mr. Chairman - he argues that this measure will he I p employment, it wi 11 encou ra£ employees to hire more people.

Well, I would ask him what evidence again -a nd we're dealing her with a bill that has been addressed by people in the economic sector who are concerned with it what evidence was presented before this Committee that the bill and the amendment that is no• before us will do what the Minister says it will do? -(I nterjection)- Most, if not all - the Manitob Federation of Labour perhaps didn't take this precise attack, but most, if not all, stipulated ver clearly that on the basis of their operations and on the basis of the tight requirements an un predictable requ irements un der which they have to get into an overtime situation, that it will ne lead to additional employment; it will not encou rage them or persuade them to get into a broadE employment operation because it is neither worth it nor is it practical for them to take people on an train them and using them on a sporadic part-time basis.

So, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Mines and Resou rces talks about looking at what's bee• said here, I sugge st we do look at some of those things that he said and examine those comments c his in the light of the testimony we've heard before this Committee. I fail to see where he can su ppor any of those contentions of his against that kind of testimony. I think there are two questions tha have been asked here that deserves some answer from the Minister of Labour. One, with respect t1 the Minister of Ind ustry and Commerce and where he stands on this leg islation.

We've heard noth in! from the Minister of Ind ustry and Commerce in this session but protestations in defence of th1 government's Special Employment Program. employment program ... MR. GREEN: Ask for a standing vote and you'll find out how he stands. MR. SHERMAN: ... and the question that was raised by the Member for Assiniboia as to who, i anybody of sign ificant number, ever asked for this increased overtime rate. I think those questionl are deserving of the Minister's response du ring this examination.

Our position at this point -a t leas my position, I can't speak for my caucus - but my position, Sir, is neither to vote for nor against thil amendment because I am against the bill. -(I nterjection)- Well, if you'd permit me to explain. Or this particular amendment ... 80

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 A MEMZER: We' ll give you another half hour . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. SHERMAN: . . . is to vote neither for nor against this amendment until I get a ruling from the lairman as to whether, if this amendment were defeated, it would be possible unde r the Rule s to )Ve the original amendment that we were going to move. lt may not be possible to do that. If it isn't, :m I will vote against the amendment.

If it is then I would move my original amendment, which >uld be for deletion of Clause 1 because that's the point at which we start that if the clause and the ovision are not acceptable the amendment merely muddies the waters by appearing to be a nces sion. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, if I may, on a point of order. May I sugge st for the procedural sake, at the way of accomplishing what you . want, depen ding how you feel about the amendment, is vote r the amendment and then against the total clause as amended. Or would you prefer it without the 1endment?

I mean that's something that I really shouldn't be arguing about. But you can vote for e amendment and then against the total clause as amended. MR. SHERMAN: Well, in any event as long as the Chair permits us to move the type of amendment at we intended to move, even though the clause is already amended then I ... A MEMBER: it's not already amended, we haven't voted on it. MR. SHERMAN: .. . even if the clause is already amended then I can proceed on that basis.

But, r, otherwise because it is meaningless and because it would affect the kind of amendment we mted to move, I would have to regard it as something that I could not take a specific position on. As ay the bill in its original form presents us with a clear-cut approach that is rejectable the way it is >rded. That is the position that I would like to take. Sir, finally on the particular su bject in front of us I would only ask that the Minister and the Minister Mines and Resou rces consider the question of the volition of individual workers.

There has been nsiderable emphasis placed on the fact that an employer (?) will work, in Mr. Green's opinion, 80 1urs a week if that's the request. I dispute that. I sugge st to you that we've also heard before this >mmittee that in many areas on many projects in this province, workers won't go on the job site 1less they get 70 hours work gu aranteed to them and that is a volition . That is a volu ntary oposition.

Since when did the govern ment, through legislation, feel that they had the right to nper in the volition of a person to work up to a reasonable amount of time? lt's not a question of posing limitations on people. it's not a question of a man's or a woman's not wanting to do it and �ing forced to do it, it's a question in many many instances of people wanting to do it to make the ditional income that would accrue from that. That is an argument that has been emphasized here d that is steadfastly ignored in the legislation in front of us and that's one of t he basic reasons why l find it unacceptable. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Before I get the next ques tion, the honour able member asked me a qu estion and 1 going to give him his answer. Now he can do one of two thing s: He can vote for this motion that is fore House or vote against it which again accomplishes what he requires. Then if the motion as 1ended is defeated, he then has the option of voting for the motion or, if it's passed, he has the 'tion then of voting against it. But he can accomplish the same thing by not having to move a motion just voting against the motion as amended because you'll just have a motion that is really �aningless. The Honour able Mr. Paulley.

MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman after listening to the Honour able Member for Fort Garry - I'm sorry idn't hear. . . I believe there was a contribution from the Leader of the Opposition - I'm wondering �lly whether we're attacking the proposition the wrong way, that rather than considering a one and ·ea-quarters time for overtime that in order to bring about a proper deterrent for the working of ertime we would sugge st that only the minimum wage should be paid for overtime and that would lve the whole ruddy proposition because nobody would then work.

Maybe this is an approach that 3 Honour able Member for River Heights in his industry would like to achieve so that time and a half time and three-quarters, whatever it is, is reduced to the bare minimum wage as a requirement in Jislation. I think that would be the best method of achieving the desire of industry, some portions of justry, and the desire of the government to eliminate overtime. I wo uld sug gest that that would be conceived as being almost as ridiculous as the arg uments 3sented by the Official Opposition.

But it might be something that the ongoing New Democratic vernment after the next election might consider as opposed to the propositions of the present nister of Labour of having fringe benefits included in arriving at the base rate for computing ertime because my honourable friend, the member for Fort Garry made reference to the legations that appear before us. 1 wonder if he recalls the evidence that was given to us or the presentation given to us by one !orge Akins, the Personnel Manager, or whatever the dickens his title happens to be, of the Labour ,lations Counci l which deals primarily with the construction industry when I asked him whether or t some of the collective agreements were based, insofar as computing overtime, were based on the 81

Industrial Relations Wednesday, Ju ne 8, 1977 inclusion of fringe benefits and his answer to my question was, "Yes." So the objective of the legislation is that where those fringe benefits are included in the rate tc considered for the application of punitive overtime, are within the one and three-quarters then t only are required to pay one and a half as they are at the present time, but it was because of differences in applying the base for computing overtime as between time and a half inclusivE otherwise of fringe benefits that this proposition is before us.

The Honourable Member for Fort Garry talks about the outflow of the workforce in Manito Again, may I refer to statistics, to indicate that the total number of employed in the ProvincE Manitoba is at the highest record that it ever was and that there has been no outflow insofar as tc numbers of employed in Man itoba, which refutes completely the arguments of the spokesmar labour matters for the Official Opposition . lt just isn't so.

I presented evidence to this CommitteE indicate that on average the incident of hours, weekly hours worked every industry, with exception of highway eng ineering and construction, were less than the 40-hour workweek in Province of Manitoba that I am proud that this government enacted over the opposition of · Conservative Party of the Province of Manitoba. So I say there's no validityat all in the argume presented by the Member for Fort Garry. The Honou rable Member for Roblin raised a question of a letter, a copy of which he received fn some lawyer by the name of Holmes.

Holmes, indicating the effect of the increase of one and-a-h to one and three-quarters even if we didn' t take into consideration the pu rpose of the amendme and the effect insofar as the AI B is concerned. And I stated that I didn' t think Mr. Hol mes knew wl he was talking about. I want to refer, Mr. Chairman, to the latest anti-inflation regualtions that I have before me, deali with the changes in labour standards legislation.

"Section 67(1) Sub ject to su bsection (2) where employer in a guideline year, incu rs increased compensation expenditu res as a result of changes applicable labour standards legislation"- and that's what we're dealing with, Mr. Chairman- "su increase may be excluded when calculating increases in gr oup compensation." Now is not that t answer to Mr. Holmes who appeared before us? And I believe that's dated as of March or April of t1 year. ow where is the validity ofthe position of Mr. Holmes, supported by the Honourable Member1 Roblin?

I suggest to the Commit tee, we've heard all of the arguments -and I am not trying to curt debate - we've heard all of the arguments of the Honourable, the Member for Fort Garry, i repetitive, it has no substance, there is no validity in it and I think that in the Interest of the conduct the Comm ittee, that we should consider as being read the remarks of my honourable friends to tl extreme right wing in the Province of Manitoba and get down to serious consideration of Bill 6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johannson. MR. JOHANNSON: Mr. Chairman, I' d like to also respond to some things said by the Meerf or Fe Garry.

He has a strange concept of responsible government. At one point he states that he does n speak for his caucus. So we don't know what in the hell they stand for. He doesn't speak for � caucus and yet he is raising hell in Committee. We would like a position laid before the people Manitoba so that they can make a judgment. We have a position. The Minister of Labour has statE very clearly, we are not asking civil servants to make our policy, we make the policy. We lay it befo the electorate of the people of this province. We stand responsible for it and we're willing to t judged .

Now, I want the Conservative Party also to spell out its policy clearly. The Honour able Member f1 Roblin sounds like he wants straight time for overtime. He doesn't want time and a half. He doesr want time and three-quarters. He wants straight time. -(I nterjection)- Yes, he wants free labou The Member for Fort Garry at times sounds as if he doesn't believe that there should be any limitatic on hours of work. I' d like their policy spelled out. The member talks about a stagnating economy and then accuses me of living in an ivory towe Now that is just such arrant nonsense and so stupid that it is unb elievable.

The budge t of th province was laid before the House a short while ago and the Bud get tables showed very clearly th; not only is the province not stagnating but it is gr owing. The economy of this province is gr owing, it flourishing at a far greater rate now than it did in the days of the Tory government. The figu res. eve for private investment, show that private investment is increasing rapidly in the province. Thes aren't old figu res they're recent figur es.

Almost every economic indicator that the Department < Finance has shows that the economy of this province is in good shape. lt's not stagnatinq it expanding and growing rapidly, far more rapidly than it did when honourable friends opposite wer the government.

Ju st recently there was a study released by Statistics Canada which was done in co-operatio with the provinces which showed that the gr owth rate of the gr oss domestic product for province from 19 61 to 19 69 in Manitoba was 8.1 percent, the slowest gr owth rate of all ten provinces whe members opposite were the government, 8.1 percent, the slowest gr owth rate of all provinces. BL from 19 70 to 19 74 the rate increased to 12 .5 percent, Manitoba ranking fou rth. So the gr owth rate wa comparatively much better and in absolute terms much better when we became the govern menl 82

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 at includes the period after we brought in our new labour code. And I can recall, Mr. Chairman, the bates that took place in this Committee when we were passing the labour code, the same bloody )uments were used, that we were goin g to chase industry out of this province, that companies 1uld close down, that they would move to North Dakota, the same argu ments. I can recall the same �u ments being used when we introduced, in 19 69, a measure to cut Medicare premiums in half and :rease the In come Tax. The same arguments were used. What do we have today?

The Tory party now accepts the fact that we should have Medicare 3miums paid out of the Consol idated Fund. They've done a flip-flop that is unb elievable, but they're 11 using the same hackneyed arguments, when we introdu ced this measure. Not only will this lasure pass but it won't affect the economy of this province. This is an agg ressive govern ment, an pansionist government and when you have an expansionist government, an expanding economy, siness will do well and this measure won't in any way harm business. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dillen. MR.

DILLEN: Well, I want to follow up somewhat on some of the things that were said by the lmber for Fort Garry, the Member for Wolseley and the insu lts that were thrown back and forth by � Leader of the Opp osition . You know the Member for Fort Garry and the Leader of the Opposition ike some very convincing arguments.

They will argue that there is a stagnating economy that is a >Uit of the socialists runnin g this province, that they are dragg ing it down, and then you will have :tt argument, not destroyed by the members of the government, by the members on this side, but u'll have that very argument destroyed by the Member for Wolseley. So these guys have got to get 3ir act together. You know you cannot keep destroying the argument of your Leader and the labour tic on your side forever without going to get some scars for it. Now let me tell you how you did it.

You know when they are both talking about the terriblecur se of cialism on the province for the past eight years and to have the Member for Fort Garry saythatthe onomy is stagnating and people are going to leave and so on, you have the Member for Wolseley ling us that there are planeloads of tou rists going out of the province every day -(l nterjection) meloads of people going for tou rist trips to Hawaii, to Bahamas, to Cuba, to Las Vegas and that's t a sign of a stagnant economy.

So get together with your Leader of the Opposition, get together th him and the Member for Fort Garry, and tell them that in you r opinion when people are able to t into an airplane -y ou know it wasn't very many years ago if there was one airplane leaving mitoba going somewhere, for a winter vacation somewhere , that was an un usual occasion. Jus t nk back. They didn' t leave because they didn't have shoes to wear. And those were in the good old ys of su ccessive Liberal and Tory administrations.

I can remember those days, it was a greatthing for me in about 19 58 or 19 59, when I was living 16 5 les from Winnipeg, to come to Winnipeg maybe once a year. You might go to Brandon, 30 miles •ay maybe once a month, and now we have the Member for Wolesley telling us that there are jet me loads of people leaving the province for winter vacations. Well, tell the Member for Wolesley d the the Leader of the Opposition that when people are able to leave a province on winter vacation it that is not a sign of a stagnant economy. A MEMBER: it's a sign of Chargex. MR.

DIL LEN: I just want to repeat that I think you can go back in the history books and you can nost read word for word everything, every argument that's being used by members of the )position. lt draws me back you know when they say that nobody asked for this legislation. I think it when we're moving in the direction that we're moving that we will reach a point as we're )g ressing where people will accept the principle that it is only necessary to have a sufficient 1ount of earnings in an eight hour period to meet all of the requirements of life. Let me give you an example just to refresh your memory a little bit.

About 19 70 or 19 71 , I'm sorry m 19 68 to about 19 70-71 in Thompson you could work every hour of overtime that you could ssibley work. And there were people who were bleary-eyed zombies, just barely able to move but lY were working the overtime. Then a terrible thing happened. I' ll tell you why, there was a shift in onomic conditions.

Somebody may correct me, but I believe what happened was that the Russians eased a gr eat deal of nickel onto the world market and at the same time the military stockpile of the lited States of nickel and copper was also released onto the world market and In ternational Nickel .s forced into the position of purchasing that product in order to maintain the world price levels. d as a result of that they had a massive stockpile and were forced into a position where they had to nost stop operations completely.

As attrition took place and people left and you cou ldn' t work one ur of overtime and people wondered what are we going to do? lt was really a terrible shock to the 10ie town. What were the merchants going to do without that extra overtime money that they had en so accustomed to, freewheeling money that would buy all of the things that they had for sale )ardless of what the prices were. They had to, for the first time in their life, had to become mpetitive and they had to pay attention to the customers who come into the store and start treating lm with a little bit of dign ity and start to become more helpful.

There was a noticeable change in attitude almost immediately. People started to watch their 83

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 money a little bit carefully. And this went on for a couple of years - there was an absolute ban overtime. We didn't have to pass a law to ban overtime. lt was done through economic conditions. There 1 absolutely no overtime. So, when the world economic condition improved slightly there was mayt need for a little bit of improvement, some improvement in plant equipment, some maintena1 overtime and so on. When the time came for the company to ask somebody to work overtime nobc would work. They said "I 've got enoug h.

Eight hours is enough." Negotiations took place, wa! were increased and people just weren't that enth used about working extra hours. They'd got otl activities. They started going fishing. They've got skidoos, they were going skidooing. They w' icefishing. There were other activities that they became involved in, other community activities an made for a better community.

So, I be lieve that if you can cu rtail, eliminate, reduce or use whatever measures is possible to li1 the amount of overtime worked, not only will you have a healthier society but you will have a me happy and contented society, and I believe that that is an objective that we should continue to me toward. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Spivak. MR.

SPIV All<: Well, I gu ess ... in listening to the last remarks and in trying to un derstand what J'1 been said, is to determine whether this really is a prog ressive measure or not, but whether really i been introduced because of one particular situation and the response which is more political nature than prog ressive in it's thrust. Mr. Chairman, it becomes important because what I want unde rstand, and I haven't been able to un derstand, is the process of policy decision making that t government has gone through.

The Minister indicates that there has got to be a reliance on the bureaucrats, that is to say, they c not to furnish information to him upon which judgment should be m�de. -(I nterjection)- WE basically he said policy is made by the govern ment. Nobody ever questioned that policy was made the government but, Mr. Chairman, there is a need, Mr.

Chairman, for consu ltation with the sectors the economy that are affected directly by the actions of government and as it happens the indus1 and department person nel happen to be involved in one sector of the community and they happen be involved on a day to day basis, and they have lines of communication, and the question at tt point is, has there been some communication? And the Minister has essentially said- (lnterjectio -Y eah, I'll keep going for more than four minutes. No communication, but that we will make polic But, what's their policy based on? Is it facts? Facts or myth? Facts or myth?

Now that really becom -(Int erjection)- Now, we'll come to poppycock and balderdash and all the other stuff later. But tl fact is, Mr. Chairman, where are the facts? Where is the support of evidence to justify the actions t the government that what they are proposing will, in fact be a disincentive to overtime. Because tha1 their objective. Mr. Chairman, the reason I don't believe that that's their objective is in the bill itse The bill that was first introduced said that the Act would come into force insofar as those sectior relating to the one and three-quarters, which was a disincentive, by September 1s t.

The amend me says December 1s t ... MR. PAULLEY: That's right. MR. SPIVAK: . so if the government was really concerned about a disincentive for overtime. thE would have introduced it immediately. A MEMBER: Retroactive. MR. SPIVAK: They would have done it retroactively or they would have done it the day of tt announc ement that the bill was introduced in the House which has been their policy. So I think thi there is sufficient evidence, Mr. Chairman, to indicate that the presentation, the presentation, M Chairman, that in effect this is a motivation. The motivation can be seriously qu estioned.

Now, there has been no evidence supportive of the position of the govern ment that this, in fac will accomplish the objective. As a matter of fact the discussions have taken place that somehow c other there may be new employees employed as a result of it. The Minister of Labour has said thl tonight and his postiion essentially is that in effect if overtime is not available, and industry mw continue, they will have to hire new employees and ... A MEMBER: Demand more money. MR. SPIVAK: Well, I think that's the case. I think that that is true.

I think that there will beademan for overtime and well, and if the Member for Thompson sugge sts it, then we simply say if there i going to be a demand for more money, it simply means that costs will go up and in effect it will b passed on. -(l nterjection)-W ell, I wonder.

The problem we face is very simple. lt sounds like th proposal is prog ressive and it soun ds as if what the government is introducing is something that, i1 effect, will realistically be both a disincentive and, to those who have to wtrk overtime, will be of a1 additional benefit and I have no doubt that when the election literature is published and the electio1 comes forward and the campaign literature is produced that the government will annou nce that w1 have brought in a progressive measure which will simply mean, not a disincentive to overtime but tha you are going to get more money for overtime and the effect will be that for those who in fact hav1 84

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 MR. SHERMAN: I wish to move, Mr. Chairman, that sub-clause 1 of clause (

c) of new

section 1 Bill 65 ... MR. PAULLEY: That's this one here. MR. SHERMAN: . .. which is found on lines three and four of Page 2, that sub-clause 2 of cla L (

c) of new

section 1 of Bill 65 be amended by deleting all the words after the word "work" in t second line thereof and substituting therefore the words, "done after the employee has complet the standard 40 hour work week of or". MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the member wants to speak to amendment before . MR. CHAIRMA N:. Mr. Sher man. MR. SHERMAN: Well, all I ... MR. GREEN: I gather, Mr. Chairman, that what the honour able member wants to do is to have t 1. 75 apply after 40 and one and a half up to 40.

And if he wants to do that, it requires many me amendments. lt would require many more amendments to the Act, therefore it -(I nterjection) that's right. You'd have to have a whole

section up to 40 hours and a whole

section after but I think 1 could accommodate the member by indicating that that would have to take place and he can speak it at this time and if he gets it passed, which I doubt, then we would have to go through the whole /J to start amending. We under stand what the honour able member said because I raised it as a qu estil the other day and I'm gla d the honour able member perceived the qu estion. -(I nterjection)- 1\ well, if this is defeated, then you won't have to go through the whole Act. We did consider this MR. SHERMAN: Well, in speaking to the amendment, Mr.

Chairman, and I will make it brief - i based on the point that was raised in Committee the other day by Mr. Ralph King in which he cited tl example of workers who, for one reason or another, are perhaps absent one day of the week and th1 reach a point later in the week where they are doing work that qualifies for overtime pay but thev si have not attained the 40 hour standard maximum of the workweek. That's the reason for tl amendment. I'm not going to belabour committee members with a rehash of the point that Mr. Ki1 raised. I think they can all recall it. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I raised the question myself as to whether this would be a he and it was g iven some consideration. But it would be a problem, Mr. Chairman, to have two overtin rates. A rate after eight hours and a rate after 40 hours and it really is a matter of small moment in tl entire sphere of things. So, we did consider this, Mr. Chairman, and decided that there shou continue to be one overtime rate, same as there is now. lt would be much easier to administer. bu think the honourable member has a point, an interesting one, and I, myself, though t about it for son time but it is an administrative problem. MR.

SHERMAN: Well, administrative or not, Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose tl amendment to the committee and I would call for the qu estion. MR. PAULLEY: Okay that's fine, as long as you ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. PAULLEY: ... feel it's in order. If we call it, it is not, but I'm prepared to give you a chance go ahead. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. GREEN: Oh he's accepted, he's accepted the amendment. MR. JORGENSON: He's not moving that the question be put. MR. SHERMAN: No, I didn't move that the question be put. MR. PAULLEY: That's qu ite all right my dear friend from Morris. MR.

JORGENSON: He's not invoking a rule. MR. PAULLEY: That's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion on the motion as moved by the Honou rable Memberf1 Fort Garry? All those in favour of the motion. MR. CLERK: MR. CHAIRMAN: All those opposed to the motion. MR. CLERK: Six. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the motion lost. Clause 1 as amended-pass. Clause 2-pass. Clause 3, 31 (1 )(a)- pass; (b)-pass; (c)-pas (d)- pass. Clause 3 in its entirety-pass. Clause 4(a)-pass; (b)-pass; (c)-pass; Clause 4-pas Clause 5-pass. MR. PAULLEY: There's an amendment, Mr. Chairman, I believe on

Section 5. MR. BARROW: THAT

Section 5 of Bill 65 be struck out and the following

section su bstitute therefor: · Su bsec. 33 (1 ) rep. and sub. 5 An Su bsection 33 (1) of the Act is repealed and the following su bsection is su bstituted thereto Over time in emergencies. 33 (1 ) · An employee may be required to work overtime 86

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 (

a) in case of work urgently required to be done to the machinery or plant of the employer whose employees are affected but only to the extent necessary to avoid serious interference with the ordinary work of the plant; or (

b) in the case of an occu rrence beyond human control which affects the life, health or safety of individuals or which interrupts the ordinary provision of an essential service by the government or an agency of the government or a municipality, or a public utility or any employer who provides municipal or health services. 'R. CHAIRMAN: Motion as moved. Mr. Paulley. ,R, PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the motion, if I may, this is to overcome some of the �ulties that were drawn to our attention by the Deputy Mayor of Winnipeg and Mr.

Crewson of the lth Services to make sure that in the case of an occurrence beyond human control which affects ife, health or safety of individuals that the emergency provisions would be such that they would :onsidered. IIR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. IIR. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Those matters raised the other day un der the n Machinery Act, does this cover those employees that must work und er that Act? III R. PAULLEV: The Farm Machinery Act, as far as I am aware, is

an Act that only makes provision :he delivery of farm equipment that is necessary during certain periods of time in order that the 1er may have available to him or her equipment necessary under the Farm Machinery Act of those rices and parts required for the purpose of putting their machinery back into shape so that they tinue their operation. I don't think that this is any conflict with that provision in the Farm �hinery Act, as I un derstand the Act. III R. McKENZIE: I would like the Minister to bring that assurance to us on the Third Reading ofthe . There's two other points been raised to me.

Those that like to moonlight, will this impose any rictions on them; and the other one I was wondering, if in the legislation if the government's now 1nding to put a 40-hour week on the farm communities of the province? MR. PAULLEV: No, Mr. Chairman, this has nothing to do with imposing a 40-hour workweek on farm community.

We have no legislation here and I haven't been able to find any legislation .ically that would permit the moonlighting and I suggest that maybe even the Member for Roblin v be doing so by being a member of the Legislature at the same time, as I und erstand. he's lrating his store out in his community. Now,if my honour able friend can bring forward a proper inition of what he means by moonligh ting , in the dying days of my political career, I would tsider as to whether or not I should bring in legislation to prohibit my honour able friend from ring, in effect, two jobs. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion as moved. MR.

SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, the amendment to this

section is certainly an improvement over

section as it appears in the original draft of the bill but I would submit to the Minister that it still �s not go far enough in our opinion, in terms of broadening the definition of emergency and I uld ask him whether consideration was given to the wording in the Saskatchewan legislation ich seems to be reasonable and was commanded by many who appeared before the Committee. I �ht say, Sir , that I am in the same position on this amendment as I was on the earlier one in that we re going to propose an amendment of our own have defined which would the situation referred to his

section in the following way. "Any sudden or unu sual occurrence or condition that could not, the exercise of reasonable judgment have been foreseen by the employer." And our proposal, our 1endment would have stipulated that the

section state that an employee may be required to work ertime in that kind of situation. I would like to put that to the Minister for his comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Thank you , Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sherman, I think that the purpose or the basis of t he tendment would cover the point raised by my honour able friend by the exercise of reasonable 1g ment have been foreseen by the employer.

We are attacking this proposition, in all due respect to skatchewan, in a different way in this Act where we make provision for the reporting to the Labour 1ard the incident of overtime, and giving the Labour Board an opportunity to compile, and also to <e such action as they may be inclined to take, or recommendations where it appears that there has en an unr easonable judgment of the employers, and a report shall be made so that we have a :>ulation.

I think the same objective is here but the methodology of arriving at that objective is sliqhtly fferent in this legislation than applies in the Province of Saskatchewan. So I would like to sugg est to v honour able friend that we have that provision. Then there is a further amendment to Bill 65 laling with the definition of plant and emergencies that might overcome to a further deg ree the >int raised by my honou rable friend. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I would just ask the Minister whether he views the term "sudden or tusual occurrence or cond ition" as is used in the Saskatchewan legislation as being embraced by 87

Industrial Relations Wednesday, June 8, 1977 the amendment he has proposed here. In his view does that embrace the concept of a sudder un usual occurrence or condition satisfactorily? MR. PAULLEY: I think, Mr.

Chairman, in answer to my honour able friend, it does in the propo! amendment to 33 (1 ) (b) "In the case of an occurrence beyond human control which affects the I health or safety of individuals or which interrupts the ordinary provision of an essential service "-- - -"�th ink_ that's even better than the phraseology used in the Saskatchewan Act which talks ab1 reaso-naole jl.ldgrffe-nt" and- there--atwa�can be-diffe feAt-iflt erpretatiOr'lS- ot what-" the W< "r easonable" means, so I think that we are achieving that in this amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5-33 (1 )(a)-pass; (b)-pass;. 33 (1 )-pass.

Second clause 5-pass. Clause I pass; Clause 7-pass; Clause 8. Mr. Barrow. MR. BARROW: THAT

section 8 of Bill 65 be amended by adding thereto, at the end thereof. 1 following subsection: Meaning of "p lant" 33(5) When applying this

section to an employer or an employee of an employer, "pla nt" with< limiting or diminishing the general meaning of the word, includes any property or facility, where' situated, owned or used by the employer in carrying on the business of the employer and where 1 employer provides facilities or services to the public includes those facilities, wherever situated. a any property, wherever situated, that is required to be maintained by the employer to provide the facilities and services. · MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr.

Chairman, if I may just briefly explain the reason for this additional clausE that there was some question presented to the Committee when we were considering Bill 65 as what happened with a hydro line, say between here and Chur chill or here and Gill am or where-ha' you and there was no clarification or clear-cut definition whether that was part of a plant or not.

T same would apply insofar as the water main services the home of the Minister of Labour Transcona, if that water main happened to break down, whether that was considered in the definiti of a plant and the purpose of this amendment is to make clear that in such situations it is a part a plant for the rendering of services of an emergency nature. MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 8, 33(4)-pass; the new amendment 33(5)-pass. Clause 8 amended-pass. Clause 9. Mr. Barrow. MR. BARROW: THAT

section 9 of Bill 65 be amended by striking out the word "September" in t 2nd line thereof and substituting therefor the word "D ecember". MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Paulley. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, may I explain the reason for this change of dates is because ' realized that there may have been some difficulty administratively·in the corporations with a str adherence to September the 1s t. Our desire in a delay in this is to give the industry an opportunity set up their computers and the likes ofthatso that it comes into effect, that is in the inclusion of frin benefits, etc. rather than September 1s t, December 1s t. MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 9 as amended-pass.

Preamble -pass. Title-pass. Bi ll be reported. � Sherman. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to the motion that the bill be reported and wot like a recorded vote. The Member for St. Matthews asked where we stood on the bill. I think we ma it clear on second reading, because we are opposed to the time-and-three-quarters provision and ' would like a recorded vote as to whether the bill should be reported. MR. CHAIRMAN: All those in favou r shall the bill be reported please raise you r hands. A COUNTED VOTE was taken: Yeas 6; Nays 5. MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the Motion carried. Bill be reported. Committee rise. 88

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-4-ir3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 4th hansardpdf ir3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7a2dda6b2f8d1a7b06189638f00f017774e378a7

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