Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature

of the

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba

Standing Committee on Industrial Relations

Chairperson Mr. Mike Radcliffe Constituency of River Heights

Vol. XLVI No.2- 6:30p.m., Tuesday, October 29, 1996 MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature

Members1 Constituencies and Political Affiliation

Name Constltnrnc)' .�!.art)' ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C. - EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon. Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P.

MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. - MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Portage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosano Swan River N.D.P. 85

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Tuesday, October 29, 1996

TIME- 6:30 p.m. Mr. Heinrich Huber,Private Citizen Ms. Caroline Stecher,Private Citizen LOCATION-Winnipeg, Manitoba Ms. Iris Taylor,Private Citizen Mr. RobertZiegler, Private Citizen CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Ms. Carolyn Ryan,Private Citizen Heights) Mr. Mark Saban,Private Citizen Mr. VictorVrsnik, Mani toba Taxpayers Association VICE-CHAIRPERSON -Mr. Marcel Laurendeau Ms. Claudette Chudy,Private Citizen (St. Norbert) Mr. Ken Nickel,Private Citizen Ms. Cindy Garofalo,Private Citizen Mr. Jack Samyn,Private Citizen ATTENDANCE- 11 -QUORUM- 6 Ms. BufiY Burrell,Private Citizen Mr. George Anderson, Public Service Alliance of Members ofthe Committee present: Canada,Union of TaxationEmployees, Local 500 21 Mr. Philippe Trottier,Private Citizen Hon. Messrs. Downey,Toews Ms. Heather Grant,Winnipeg Labour Council Mr. Jorge Maldonado,Private Citizen Messrs. Helwer, Jennissen, Lathlin, Laurendeau, Mr. George Harris,Private Citizen Penner, Radcliffe,Reid, Struthers,Sveinson Mr. Gill Gagne,Private Citizen Mr. BobDesjarlais, United St eelworkers of America, APPEARING: Local6166

Ms. Jean Friesen, MLA for Wolseley WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Mr. John Triplett, Teachers for Excellence in WITNESSES: Education Ms.Yvonne Campbell, Public Service Alliance of Mr. Bryan Walton, Canadian Council of Grocery Canada,Local50021 Distributors- Canada Safeway Mr. Jim Silver,Choices Mr. Eduard Hiebert,Private Citizen Mr. Patrick Martin, United Brotherhood of MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local343 Bill 26 -The Labour Relations Amendment Act Mr. Thomas Henderson,Canadian Auto Workers Mr. Brian Hunt,United Steelworkers of America * * * Mrs. Theresa Ducharme,Private Citizen Mr. Peter Olfert,Manitoba Government Employees' Mr. Chairperson: Goodevening, ladies and gentlemen. Union The Standing Committee on Industrial Relations will Mr. Mario Javier,Private Citizen now come to order. Mr. Cy Gonick, Private Citizen Mr. Kenneth Emberley,Private Citizen This evening the committee will be resuming Mr. Darrell Rankin, Communist Party of Canada ­ considering Bill 26 , The Labour Relations Amendment Manitoba Act. Before the committee can proceed with business Mr. Reg Cumming, Canadian Auto Workers,Local before it,it must elect a new Vice-Chair. Are there any 2224 nominations? 86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October29, 1996

Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): I nominate Mr. Does the committee wish to hear from the out-of­ Laurendeau. province and out-of-town presenters first? What is the will of committee?

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any furthernominations? Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Yes. Hearing none, Mr. Laurendeau is elected as the Vice­ Chair. Mr. Chairperson: All right. Any discussion? All agreed? So ordered. I will now read aloud the names of the persons who preregistered to speak to Bill 26 . Number 1, Brian Did the committee wish to indicate how late it is Walton, 2. Robert Lindey, 3. Dan Lemieux, 4. Eduard willing to sit this evening? I heard some preliminary Hiebert,5. Patrick Martin,6. Thomas Henderson, 7. Jim discussion and perhaps it would be valuable to have a Silver, 8. Brian Hunt, 9. Peter Olfert, 10. Albert Cerilli, consensus on the record. 11. Deb Stewart, 12 . Mario Javier, 13. Cy Gonick, 14 . Yvonne Campbell, 15 . Kenneth Emberley, 16 . Darrell An Honourable Member: Hear them all. Rankin, 17 . Kelly Logan, 18. Barny Haines, 19. Reg Cumming, 20. Peter Magda, 21. Heinrich Huber,22. Mr. Chairperson: The proposal is to hear them all. CarolineStecher, 23. Iris Taylor, 24. RobertZiegler, 25. Carolyn ·Ryan, 26 . Mark Saban, 27 . Victor Vrsnik, 28. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, I think Claudette Chudy,29. Alex Puerto,30 . Ken Nickel, 31. the other night when· this issue was talked about, this Cindy Garofalo, 32. Jack Samyn, 33. Buffy Burrell, 34. committee had agreed that for the sake of the presenters Brian Burchat, 35 . GeQrge Anderson, 36 . Bernie that we have here before us once again this evening that Perreault,37. PhilippeTrottier, 38 . Leagh Blackwell, 39. we would, for the sake of those presenters, reassess at Emile Clune,40 . Anthony Joyce,41. Heather Grant, 42. midnightand that after midnight we would have those so Bernie LeBlanc, 43. Jorge Maldonado, 44. George wishing to remain behind as part of the voluntary Harris, 45 . Gill Gagne, 46. Michelle Deneka, 47. presentations take place and that any other presenters Maureen Jordan, 48. Joanne Daly, 49. Bob Desjarlais, after thatpoint their names would not be struck from the 50. Brenda Portree. listand we wouldhave committeehearings fo llow up the next day, ifnecessary, for any presenters that may be * (1 835 ) remaining. I believethat was the will of the committee at that time, I that should be the will of the and think - Ifthere are any other persons who wish to speak tothe committee here today as well. biD and whose names do not appear on the list and have not been read out, please register with the Chamber Mr. Otairperson: I believe thisis the only day that the Branch personnel at the fa r end of the room. Just as a committee has been called fo r to date, just as a point of reminder to those presenters wishing to hand out a clarification. Are there any further comments? written copy of their briefs to committee members, 15 copies are required. If assistance in making photocopies Mr. Penner: I concur that there are times when we is required, please see the Chamber Branch personnel at should pay a lot of attention to ensuring that people are the rearof the room or the Clerk Assistant. I would also able to present, first of all; secondly, that they are like to remind all present that the time limits of 10 accommodated in a mannerthat is suitable. However, we minutesfo r presentations and fiveminutes fo r questions allknow that the time element is going tobe aconstraint and answers will be used. In addition, the first time that because of agreements thathave occurred previously, and a name is called and the person is not in attendance, the I wouldtheref ore suggest that we give due consideration name is dropped to the bottom of the list. The second to ensuring that everybody that has registered has the time that a name is called and the presenter is not in ability tobe heard, and it is my contention that we should attendance, the name is dropped offthe list. There is a as a committee give due consideration to that and designationthe on list ofpresenters which indicates those therefore accommodate all of those that have indicated names that have already been called once in committee. thatwish they top resent Because this committee has not October29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 87 been scheduled for another day, I would request of you, Mr. Penner: Just a verbal one. Mr. Chairman, that you consider and that this committee consider thatwe allocate adequate time tonight or earlier Mr. Chairperson: I see. All right. tomorrow morning that we hear all of those who have indicated that would wish to present. Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Chairman, many of the things that the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) So I would ask committee members to give due says I agree with. I think what my colleague here from consideration to those that want to be heard and that we Transconahas proposed fitsthe bill for the concerns that allot enough timeand if it need be till tomorrow morning the member for Emerson has put forth. I think it makes that this committee be asked to sit till the time that we perfectsense to canvass the House at twelve midnight. I have heard them all. do not want to see people dropped off after that. If they are voluntarilywilling to make presentations after twelve Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I essentially midnight,I thinkthat is fine. It covers all the complaints, agree with the point raised by Mr. Penner. I would also I think,that the memberfor Emerson has put forth. I just point out, just in respect of the people who have been want to speak in favour of what has been proposed. It addedto thelist since thelast time we sat here, there have wasa deal that seemed to be okay last time, and I do not been people who werenot able to make presentations the see the difference now. last day. They were put off the list. Now I understand that the committeewants to hear people from out of town Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): The point I was going before the people who were registered here first. Now I to make is a problem that we in variably run into think that is just not acceptable. whenever we have these hearings. When legislation is proposed in Manitoba in the Legislature here, it affects * (1 840) all ofMan itoba, and it has always beenour position that for every pieceof majorlegislation that is being proposed I thinkwe should be going in order of the list here and by the government that we put our money where our wego in the order thatthey are whether they are fromout mouths are when we say we want to accommodate of town or not, because that is the fair way to do things. people, butso farin this session here we had Bill 49 and There have been people who ha¥e sat here one entire other major pieces of legislation and we have yet to go eveningalready, and now to put them onto the back of the out into the other parts of Manitoba in order for us to list-and withall due deference to people who have come hear other citizens of Manitoba, other than those who from out of town,they did not sign up the first time; they reside here in Winnipeg and close by. Therefore,I take have signed up subsequently. I agree with Mr. Penner's exceptionto the notionthat we are not going to recognize motion. I think we should also read in order of the out-of-town presenters. appearance here.

Mr. Chairperson: Just as a matter of clarification, I did I do not know ifwe have that many anyway. A lot not record-1 have you recorded, sir, thank you-1 did not more people from out of town would have been here, know, Mr. Penner, that you were making a motion. I wouldhave beenable to appearbefore the committee had thought this was just discussion. wegone out to places like Thompson,Flin Flon and The Pas, so I really do not endorse that notion. I think that Mr. Penner: I would, Mr. Chairman, if it be the will of because we are not able to go out into other parts of the committee, move a motion that we hear all of those Manitoba, even though the legislation affects all of that have indicated today that they wish to present. Manitobans,we should perhaps accommodate the people who come fromout of town. Mr. Chairperson: We have a number of other speakers who wish to speak at this point. Perhaps we will Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson,I need some guidance from continue canvassing them then in light of the fact you the Chair here because I have a motion here that is in have made a motion, or are you making a written-will writing that I think, if I understand correctly, will be the you be presenting a written motion to this effect? rules of thiscomm ittee and this House in that we need to 88 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

and require a written motion to be spoken to or debated Mr. Chairpenon: The question has been called. All and also voted on by members of this committee. those infa vour ofcalling the question.

So I would move, Mr. Chairperson, that this An Honourable Member: We are all in fa vour of committee sit until midnight and reassess at that point to calling the question. allow for volunteer presentations and that no names be struckfrom thelist aftermidnight . Voice Vote

Mr. Chairpenon: Members of the committee,the first Mr. Chairpenon: All those in fa vour of the motion. motion that we have to consider-we have two motions beforethe Chair atthis point, before the committee. The Some Honourable Members: Yea. first motion that reached the Chair was a motion from Mr. Penner, which reads as fo llows: I move that the Mr. Chairpenon: All those against the motion. committeehear from all those present at the meeting who wish to present as presented on the list of presenters. Some Honourable Memben: Nay.

An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Chairpenon: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

* (1845) Formal Vote

An Honourable Member: Recorded vote. Mr. Chairpenon: The question has been called. All those in fa vour of calling the question. Mr. Chairpenon: Recorded vote. Some Honourable Memben: Yea. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as fo llows: Yeas 4, Nays 6. Mr. Chairpenon: The motion is that the committee hear from all those present at the meeting who wish to Mr. Chairpenon: The motion is accordingly defeated. present as presented on the list of presenters.

Just tolet committee members know, we have received Voice Vote a written submission from John Triplett on behalf of the

Mr. Chairpenon: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. We will now proceedwith hearing presentations. The first presenter on the list is Mr. Bryan Walton. Mr. The next motion that is before the committee is that Walton, would you come fo rward, sir. Do you have received from Mr. Reid: I move that this committee sit written submissions? until 12 midnight and reassess to allow volunteer presentation and that no names be struck from the list Mr. Bryan Walton (Canadian Council of Grocery aftermidnight. Any further discussion? Distributors - Canada Safeway): I am afraid I do not haveenough for the committee, Mr. Chairman. Some of An Honourable Member: Question. thepoints I will make, I am SW'C you areall fa miliarwith, October29 ,1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 89 at least the sections I am referring to. If you so desire, I I will just conclude under Section 14 .1,we owe it to canmake a copy available subsequent to the submission. society to conduct labour relations in a nonviolent manner. Union and employees must be accountable for Mr. Chairperson: All right. Thank you, sir. I invite their actions during a labour dispute. you to proceed. On Section40 (1 },Representation vote or dismissal,on Mr. Walton: As you indicated, my name is Bryan 40(1 .1), Board may determine voting constituency, we Walton. I am joinedhere today by Toby Oswald and Lou supportthe true wishes of employees being expressed by Hogan, both of Canadian Safeway. The Canadian means of a board-conducted vote. We also believe that Council of Grocery Distributors is a national trade a board determination of the voting constituency is very association of wholesale and retail grocerycompanies. I important in a democratic society. The occurrence of am about to provide to you our commentary on Bill 26 , seasonal employeescausing a buildup of the bargaining The Labour Relations Amendment Act. unit has tobe a fundamentalconside ration to the question of the true wishes of the employees affected by the In regard to The Labour Relations Amendment Act, outcome of the certification vote. Section 12 (2) entitled Defence,we urge the government to adopt this change. Large and small employers We urge the government to consider the need to equip experience misconduct in the form of unlawful activity the Labour Relations Board with the resources to and violence during a strike or lockout. Violence and administer these changes. Required votes within seven unlawful acts must not be permitted. Legal strikes and days of an application being filed is good if the lockouts should not provide immunity for strike,lockout­ Departmentof Labour can meetthese critical deadlines. related misconduct. On Section 72 .1 (1 ), the minister may require * (1 85 0) ratification vote after strike,lockout, and 72 .1 (2 ), the employer may before or after the commencement of a In a related section,14 .1 , Strike-related misconduct, strikeor lockout require avote ·to be taken,we respect the the unions and employees engaged in misconduct and leadership of the union and the true wishes of the unlawful acts must also be subject to unfair labour membership, and they ought to be recognized as practices, not just employers and employers' appropriate in determining the acceptance or rejectionof organizations, as stated in the current legislation. theemployer's final offer. Where a dispute has continued Furthermore, misconductmust not be allowed during the for 30 days, for example, the true wishes of the collective bargaining process such as a lead-up to the employees may have changed either to be more possible strike or lockout. We believe that we owe it to determinedin therejection of the offeror more amenable society to conduct labour- to accept the offer. There ought to be a means for the employees to express these views,and so we support the Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. Mr. Reid,on a point of proposed legislation after a periodof time that a dispute order. has continued.

Mr. Reid: Yes, I wanted to be recognized for a In regard to Section 111(4 ),Costs of mediator,where question. If it was a point of order, I would so indicate. labour-management relationship at the bargaining table has deteriorated and a mediatoris a last resort, then we Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Excuse me for believethe parties oughtto bearthe costs of the mediator. interrupting. Mr. Reid had just indicated that he wished Therefore, we support and encourage a charge-back to speak at the termination of your presentation. system for mediation costs.

Mr. Walton: Pardon me, it was my understanding I Under Section 18(1) entitled dealing with an amend­ have 10 minutes and there is five minutes for questions. ment of subsection 13 0(1), Referral of grievance to In the interests of the business you have just conducted, board, we offer a suggestion that either party, the I will try and adhere to my time limit. employer or the union, irrespective of who brings the 90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

grievance fo rward, may refer to the expedited process, union's total administration, and, if they are dissatisfied, and on grievances not covered by limitations of oursuggestion is the members or the membership ought dismissals and suspension of 30 days or more, the tobe better inf ormed oftheir right to choose a bargaining governmentmay consider an administration fee to be paid agent to represent them. by either the union or the employer seeking mediation assistance of the department. We support the referral, By way of conclusion, we would like to stress that reference 130(3), be made in a prompt manner and unionsmembers and who exercise their democratic rights suggest that the 14-day limit in the proposed legislation, tostrike must accept accountability fo r their actions, the i.e., from the day on which the grievance was fr rst union's actions and the actions of their members. brought to the attention of either party, be amended to Violence and misconduct must not be condoned in the "14 days aftecthe unioo and the employer have discussed interest of enhancing peace and civility in the workplace. the grievance." The objective of the prompt filing fo r expedited mediation and arbitration ought not to remove Mr. Chairman, that is mypresentation. Mr. Hogan and the parties' obligation to make an effort to resolve the Ms. Oswald will join me fo r questions. difference. Confirmation of a discussion by letter from either the union or the employer advising that the Mr. Chairpenon: Thankyou, Mr. Walton. grievance was reviewed should be the point from which the 14-day time limit should be counted. It is very Mr. Reid: Thankyou very much fo r your presentation important that the period of 14 days does not result or this evening. I have a couple of questions because you preclude theparties' involvement to attempt to resolve the have raised these issues in your presentation here this grievance expeditiously. evening.

Now, in regard to the existing Labour Relations Act, I The first question is that, when you say that you suggest that there is an additional area in the legislation support the legislation where the employer will have the that we believe required review. One example, we ability to terminate employment fo r an employee that is, suggest, is the deletion of Section 15, Effect ofrefusal to in the employer's viewat least, fo und to be guilty, in your facilitate a struck employer. This section of the act view, of somemisconduct oo the strike line or the lockout encourages the spread of disruption to other employers line, do you think that it is fa ir fo r a company to be able and other segments of the economy. There is no similar to bring in replacement workers during the course of a provision, to my knowledge, similar to this in any other strike a lockoutthat would have the opportunity to incite labour legislation in Canada. those employees that are on the lockout or picket line, knowing full well that the employer would be immune * (1855) from any action under The Labour Relations Act and would not in any way be subject to any of the penalties Finally, we have some general comments. CCGD where the employee in that case would lose their agrees with the proposal which would direct unions to livelihood? Do you think that it is fa ir that employees consult with members on political donations. Unions would be treated in that fa shion? should give members the choice on the use of their union dues. Such choice of donations to a charitable Mr. Walton: Mr. Chairman, because we were not organization, we suggest, ought to be limited to the talkingabout replacement workers in the amendment act, charitable initiatives already sponsored by the union. we did not refer to it. The point of view on replacement Thatmay ease the administration of the donations on the workers is that is one option that an employer has, behalf of the union and their members. counter to the suggestion that you have made that the employees have no options. CCGD appreciates that the internal financial affairs of the union requires the confidentiality necessary and I believe that it is important that in a labour dispute appropriate to the union's proper administration. We where you have misconduct and it is proven to the also believe in a democratic society that it is the Labour Relations Board, that in such casesthat, afterthe individual members who ought to be satisfied with the dispute is settled, to have those individuals back in the October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 91

workplace when there has been misconduct and it has fa ir that under this piece of legislation that the minister beenproven thatit is anunf air labour practice, we do not hastabled here that those dues-that a member of a union fe el thatit is conducive to harmony in the workplace, and canrequest that theirdues be diverted to a charity oftheir that is one of the reasons we made this point. choice instead of back into the internal operations of a union to assist them to pay fo r the costs that may be Mr. Toews: I am certain that Mr. Reid inadvertently involved under this legislation dealing with mediation fa iled to draw your attention to the proposal at 14.1 of the services fo r which the parties are now going to have to legislation, which indicates: "Every employer, pay a one-third share? employers' organization, union or employee and every person acting on behalf of an employer, employers' * (1900) organization, union or employee and every other person or organization who or which engages in a strike-related Mr. Walton: A fa ir comment and a fa ir point. misconduct commits an unfair labour practice." You would agree that any party to a labour dispute that Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Walton. engages in strike-related misconduct should be accountable fo r their action whether they are a union, Mr. Walton: Pardon me fo r moving in ahead of you whether they are an employer, or whether they are an there. With regards to the comments on the ability ofthe employee. individual to make a decision as to where his dues go, we kept that in the general section of the commentary An Honourable Member: Okay, $2,000 versus becauseit is a little bit further removed from our day-to­ $35,000. day operation Fundamentally, I do not think anyone can disagree with the ability of an individual to be consulted Mr. Toews: I think the question was directed at the on how their dues are being spent. In regard to the witness. charitable donation, I believe that what the act says is that the individual can make a choice of having those Mr. Walton: Thank you fo r the point, Mr .Chairman. fundsdiverted to acharity of his choice and that donation I believe this is one of the effects that this amendment act would go each year thereafter. The point we made here has done, that it basically has made it fa ir fo r all. is the union may already be involved in charitable organizations, whether it is the United Way or a handful Mr. Reid: To the presenter, because the minister has of these organizations, and those donations from the fa iled to represent all of the fa cts by his comments here, charitable side from the individual could be directed to do you think that it is fa ir that an employer would pay a one of thosesix, as opposed to what could be a multitude fine of $2,000 fo r an unfair labour practice where an of charities. employee would lose their livelihood? Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Walton. That Mr. Walton: The aspect of financial versus the actual concludes the time allotted fo r the questions, and I thank livelihood issue, I think, is mixing two issues, frankly. you very much, sir, fo r your presentation tonight and What we are talking about here is the ability to deal with thankyour colleagues fo r appearing before us. a labour dispute in a fa ir and reasonable manner, and I thinkthese , on balance, what this amendment act speaks Thenext presenter tonight is Robert Lindey. Is Robert to, is openness and transparency and basically allowing Lindey present this evening? Calling Robert Lindey fo r the democratic process to operate. the second time. Robert Lindey has already been called onceand was not present. We are calling Robert Lindey Mr. Reid: You have also referenced in your presentation for the second time, and his name will be struck offthe here this evening with respect to the issue of dues, union list. I am hearing no response. Robert Lindey's name is members' dues being used fo r purposes, political struckoff the list. purposes in this case, fo r which the Supreme Court of Canada has already said that union members and union The nextpresenter is Dan Lemieux. Is Mr. Lemieux in organizations have a right to do. Do you think that it is the audience tonight? Mr. Lemieux has also been called 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

once. This is the second call for Mr. Lemieux. On has been. Certainly, when I was younger, I took on the hearing no response, his name is struck off the list. view of the people around me, and I certainly believed that each one of us could make do on our own. There The next presenter is Eduard Hiebert. Is Mr. Hiebert was no need for unions. It was kind of an unnecessary in the audience. I heard a response. Ah, Mr. Hiebert. evil, so to say. By the time I was in high school or Thankyou, Mr. Hiebert, I see your presentation is being university, I do not remember exactly where, I had circulated, and I would invite you to commence your already come to recognize that unions to some extent, presentation. especially in companies, they had them if they deserved them. In other words, there was a relationship. Mr. Eduard Hiebert (Private Citizen): I recognize a few people, or Ithinkperhaps a few would recognize me. If companies were a particular style and they were For those who do not, I am part of a third-generation dracooian, etcetera, I saw the arise of the need for unions family farm, and I want to make it clear that I am in was something in a sense as a response to that, so, very opposition to this bill. I would also like to have you easily andquickly and to the point, it was just simply one understand as to how I have come to that, because, by thatcompanies deserved them. Since then, I have I think and large farmers, are notorious-! think Mr. Penner over wandered further on this path in recognizing where we here can support that quite handsomely-that farmers at are. I believe fundamentally as I have grown older that least during my lifetime are notoriously against unions, democracy and the right to assemble with people is believing that each one of us should simply work it as a fundamentally important. It is one of the major tenets in free enterprise and our own behalf, so to say. our society. I also recognize, for the work that I have done as far as lobbying on a number of things-and Mr. At the same time I cancertainly vouch that I have never Toews certainly knows the kind of lobbying of or been part of a union, nor have I ever been a member of presentation I gave before him as far as what has the National FarmersUnion. However, I would like to in happened inthe inappropriateness in another sector with a sense related to this- The Municipal Act howand the board there is really a bit of a kangaroocourt and I have not had any response-but Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Laurendeau, on a point of order? I certainly recognize that it takes a significant amount of effort, for example, for union people to organize. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): It is okay. I have it. It is just- There is some reason why people would go ahead and doall kinds of organizational work instead of just fooling Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Hiebert, for aroundand enjoying their life, et cetera, to go against the interrupting. grain. I think that is part of the essence as to why we needto reco gnizefurther what is going on because clearly Mr. Laurendeau: I did not mean to interrupt. theyhave to do much mae w

the practicality of our day's age, it is absolutely The reason I say that, just now at the same time today fundamental that people have to get together in a larger for the very first time, Bill 67 is being heard in a group in order to have their rights, et cetera, known. This committeestage. It hasnot been passed, and yet a broker is really not an issue that is really that foreign to this called another person tonight saying that within I 0 days government because that is exactly the kind of thinking after it is passed that is the absolute length of time in that this government thinks about, for example, when which Manitobans have the priority of chance of buying they encourage the relationship with the U.S. through the it andafter that it will be opened up. That letter and this NAFTA and other trading blocs. It is the aspect that we letter say one and the same thing. To a certain extent, are betterif we work together in larger groups so that, for you are simply walking through the motions. I would example, workingtogether in NAFTA, we are stronger as much appreciate that you take it at hand because a nation in order not to get wiped out by the competition fundamentally at the end of the day if all you are doing is from, say, any of the other larger global centres. So it is walking through the motions, I believe a court action really not an argument that is all that foreign. It is just a could strike down what is happening here today. question as to who is doing the organizational work and who is pooling together and for what purpose. I would like to maybe just close off on one little other part where I can give you a bit of word of advice, and I I would, however, also want to bring forward a say this gently. For example, when it happened-and you reservation as to what I believe to some extent and I fear knowwhere I am comingfrom, atleast some of you know what may be going on here, and that is-and I make where I am coming from politically-however, I certainly reference to the first two pages that you were handed thinkit was a very bad day for us when we had that rout out-it is a letter to Mr. Newman. It is in response to an a few years ago at the federal level where there are only earlier committee hearing that I was on and Mr. Penner two Conservatives left. I think that was an absolute wasthere as well. Very quickly to just simply bring it to travesty what happened. I also believe, to some extent, a point, I had made my presentation in response to what two points related to this; Felix Holtmann, for example, I heard in the media. I came; I left. Someone who liked during that election the first time around, no one could my presentation walked out with me. We had a chat. have been able to challenge him amongst the Someone from that particular committee then came out, Conservatives. However, now that he tried to run made an offensive remark to that person, and then again-hewas out one term-henow lost his nomination to attacked me basically and said, now I know basically someone. Although I live in that riding, I had never where you are coming from, that is all I need to know, heard of that person before. and wrote offmy entire presentation, was not willing to entertainany discussion whatsoever, and then went on to The point I ammaking, maybe many of you really have say that I was part of some kind of a big gang plan to totoe the line in order not to get thrown out of cabinet or come here-and that was on Bill 49-and I had come on have to toe the line in a certain sense to have Mr. Filmon my own volition. give you whatever you think is necessary. However, remember at the end of the day you need to focus on at I bring this forward. It is apropos to this particular leasttwo things: one is the things that you are supposed proceeding, because I think-andhaving been before court to do here, but many of you-and I believe, Mr. Penner, proceedings-it is absolutely fundamental that the people the way you got turfed out before fo r saying some of the such as yourselves making decisions mustmake decisions things that you felt perhaps you ought to be, but the in a balanced way. Mr. Chairman, the person to your left Premier did not-I think that is an example of the kind of having been someone in the Justice department, he clearly intimidation that is spoken about in the next letter. knows what I am talkingabout here. It is not just simply that you can go ahead and march through your process In the bottom right-hand paragraph, it certainly and act as if you are doing the things that ought to be says-andthis is the nice way of putting it: "Premier Gary done and then making a decision that you made up your Filmon plans to conduct a major Cabinet shuffle soon mind beforehand. afterthe session ends in early November. Any Minister who underperforms" -that is a beautiful way of putting * (1910) it-"underperforms during the current session will likely 94 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

be warming a Government back-bench seat." I suggest law will not have been passed properly. Therefore, I that is a type of a threat. However, despite the threat, I think the legal term is that it would be not passed wantto point out-[interjection]-one minute, okay, thank properly and thereby struck down. you. Despite the threat that is implicit there, I really encourage those of you who, through the goodness of Mr. Penner: I want to first of all indicate, Mr. yourheart, believe thatyou have something to contribute, Chairman, that Mr. Hiebert and I have known each other that you also need to recognize that perhaps it may be many years and in a previous lifetime had some very better for youto, inthe short term, take a little bit of pain significant debates and discussions on many of the and look at the long term because Felix's history agricultural issues that confronted us during the day. I personally is gone, I think. I certainly would not want thinkit is some 16, 17 years ago that we started into the you people who have and believe in the good discussion on agricultural issues. fundamentals of democracyto exercise it in that way. I encourage you to take that longer term view-is also very I want to indicate to Mr. Hiebert that this committee muchpart of what is present here today, and I encourage processis not just going through the motions. We made you to look at that. Thank you for my opportunity to some60-sone amendments toThe Municipal Act not too makethis presentation. I am certainly more thanwilling many days ago based on what we heard, based on to answer questions. presentations that were made before this committee, and based on many of the things that were brought to our Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Hiebert, for your attention as members of the Legislature during the presentation. The first member of the committee is Mr. summer months when all of the bills were before the Reid. The Chair recognizes Mr. Reid. public. This is the firsttime, I think, in the history of this province, ifiremember correctiy, that all bills have been Mr. Reid: Thankyou, Mr. Hiebert, for your interesting prepared for publicconsmnption early in the spring of the presentation. I wantto ask you one question because you yearand left all summerfor public consideration. So this referenced the fact that there is a potential or some is not just an exercise in futility or consideration. likelihood of a court challenge as a result of this legislation, which inyour view would do serious political damage to the party which I take it that you support, However, I want to indicate clearly that in the five which is thegove rnment members here. Do you or would yearsthat I was the head of the farm organization in this you support the government referring this piece of province, we as an organization made many, many legislation to the United Nations International Labour proposals and presentations to committees such as this Organization to let that body, which is an independent during that term of that government of the day, and Mr. body, review this legislation to find out whether it does Hieberthas probablyrun for that party that was in power or does not conform to the code to which Canada is a atthat time. Notooce I can remember that an amendment signatory, andwhether or not this legislation contravenes was made to the bill based on a presentation that we that particular code? made before a committee of this Legislature. So I think wehave set somesignificant very precedent, Mr. Hiebert, Mr. Hiebert: Perhaps two things. First of all, the in reflecting the true concerns that Manitobans have assumption-Mr. Penner could certainly correct it. I expressed onvarious pieces of legislation, and that is the myself have runas a New Democrat. However, as to the will of this government: to ensure, No. I, that pieces of legal question that you are asking, I do not want to get-I legislation will be before the public for due public mean, I really do think that we need to deal responsibly consideration; andthat they will be able to appear before in terms of international law, but I am really not up to this committee, or will be able to appear before their speedon thatpartirular one except to say this process,as elected representatives and make their views known to the letter indicates-to which I have not received a those elected representatives so that those elected response from Mr. Newman, not even acknowledgment­ representatives can bring those views back to the means that, if the process does not runthrough properly ministersand the ministers can then consider that advice from A to Z here in Manitoba itself, the laws can in the preparation of the fmal bills, either through challenge, or I believe it is possible to indicate that this amendments or other adjustments. October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 95

SoI want toask Mr. Hiebert, during the course of time * (1920) that he hasspent in agriculture and on agricultural issues, Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hiebert, you are over the time in his presentations before committee in the previous limit, but I will exercise the prerogative of the Chair at government and in this government, has there been a thispoint You may be responsive to Mr. Penner, if you difference, in your view, in how we have respected the so choose,but you are not obliged to respond and I leave views of the public in regard to the presentation on the initiative in your hands, sir. legislation?

Mr. ffiebert: I donot have the official word of how you Point of Order have people in cabinet-youcannot buck the party line, so Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I think it is important that, to say. I am not really restrictedin that way. I would be while Mr. Penner does have the right to ask questions as happy to answer the question from a number of a member of this committee, Mr. Penner should confine perspectives. the questioning that he asks specifically to Bill 26 or in On the aspect that you have tabled the information in some way how it would be relatedto Bill 26 and how this the springtime, I think that is an excellent improvement. is going to impact on the people. That is something you mentioned the last time around, and I think that is an excellent improvement. However, It is my understanding, listening to the comments and as I already mentioned in relationship to that, for questions that were made by Mr. Penner, that they are example,with the MTS one, even though the bill has not more applicable to the fieldof agriculture and that, in this passed, to go aheadand have all these things put in place sense, have little to do with Bill 26 or the provisions in as if you are doing it already, that, I think, is the clauses thatare contained within that bill. So I would inappropriate. ask you to call Mr. Penner to order and confine his questioning of the questioner, if that is his option to do To answer theother part of the question, as far as what so, toBiD 26 andnot to the field of agriculture, for which happened in the earlier sessions, I only availed myself is not a topic that we are talking about here today. once of the opportunity to appear before that, and that Mr. Toews: On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, I happenedto be for the infamous legislation whereby you listenedvery carefully to Mr. Hiebert's presentation, and ended up becoming president of KAP for remuneration there was clearly an indication that he felt some concern afterwards, and I must agree with you. I think it was about the specific process that was occurring here in inappropriate at that time as to the kind of process that respect of Bill 26. So I think Mr. Penner very, very was going on, but I am also willing to say that whether clearly stated his position and the concerns that were they did it wrong and that you are now doing the same expressed by Mr. Hiebert, and it is essentially asking thing doesnot justifY it. I brought it forward at that time him,and I believe it has a direct bearing on the hearings internally to the party that it was wrong. I say to it now that are going on with respect to Bill 26. again that it was wrong, and, in a sense, to add to the credibility of what I am talking about-and here, Mr. So the point of order, I think, is not a valid point of Penner, youcan certainly vouch for this-during the early order, given that the question relates exactly to the '80s, before KAP, I came forward and brought to many validity of this process that Mr. Hiebert, for the reasons farmers'atten tion that there was a tremendous amount of he has outlined, feels is in question. I think, he having abuse in the purple fuel, the pricing of it. You are raised the issues of the validity of the process, Mr. affirming that. Penner, in asking for certain clarifications on that process, is quite within the scope of the presentation that I tried to bring that forward publicly. I did it Mr. Hiebert gave. appropriately, andafter much time of stalling, in a certain sense, I fmally at some point in time, not because it was Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Reid, thank you very much for my wish but simply because the government of the day your point of order. The Chair finds that this is a dispute was notlistening, I ended up then publicly embarrassing on the fact, and that it is not a point of order. Mr. Schroeder into acting on what he should have been * * * acting a long time ago. 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

It is also that same sense that, becausethe government waschartered in Manitoba in 1887. Since that time, our has changed afterwards, I have not taken as loud a local has theset industry standard fo r wages and working profile because I thinkit ismore appropriate that our own conditions fo r people working in the craft trade of peoplespeak toourselves as far as the difficult lines, and carpentry. Whether theyever choose to become members that is also the same reason why I mentioned before that of our union or not, our union has always been of the I think many of you people are at risk for not being able belief that what we want fo r ourselves we wish fo r all to continue as a good elected MLA because you are workers, and to that end we work to represent the taking too strong a step. I am encouraging you to listen interests of carpenters and related trades everywhere. to your own peoplemore clearly because I think there is a tremendous risk that you are going too fa r. We are proud of the achievements we have made over a 109years in thisprovince. We have made ourindustry For example, a simple way of putting it as far as this a better place to work and a good career choice fo r the particular bill that is before us, unions are a democratic youngpeople who choose a career in the craft trades. In process. Large corporations are not partof a democratic this,we have andooe excellent job. It is no small task to process, yet you are suggesting through this bill that represent atransient workforce with no fixed workplace, unions do not have the right to go ahead and­ and it took many years to negotiate standard collective [interjection] Yes, I will finish the point. I am rambling agreementsand portable benefit plans fo r carpenters that on, but I will just finishthe point, and that is under this maywork fo r many different companies within the course bill unions, though theyhave a democratic position held, of one year. they may not or shall not continue to express their views, The building trades unions provide a necessary service andyet corporations, which are not a democratic process, tothe industryas awho le, as well as to the members that but arejust simply a function of who has the most money we represent. As a result, the organized sector of our making a decision, will continue to be able to. industry is more productive, it is more efficient, it is more highly skilled, and it provides a better value fo r the It is this kind of stuff that I think is so blatant that construction dollar invested than the nonunion sector needs to berecognized, but, again, thankyou very much. does. I hope that I have answered your question, and I would bemore thanhappy tomove on as you so wish me at this In our industry, a high degree of unionization is a point in time. Thank you very much fo r the cordiality of desirable thing. In ouropinion, the many aspectsof Bill this evening. 26 are designed to hamper the ability of unions to fu nction effectively and will almost certainly reduce the Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou, sir. degree of unionization for our sector. Union carpenters The nextpresenter is Patrick Martin. Is Mr. Martin in in the commercial, institutional and industrial sectors of the assembly? Good evening, Mr. Martin. Your thisprovince arethe most productive carpenters in North presentation is being circulated. I would ask that you America. Local 343, in partnership with our unionized commence with your presentation. contractors, has played an important role in this fa ct by keeping thestandards high in terms of skill development, Mr. Patrick Martin (United Brotherhood of training, safety, wages and working conditions. We Carpenters andJoiners of America, Local 343): I am could set these standards only because we represented a making the presentation on behalf of Local 343 of the significantof amount the industry, of the market. Bill 26 carpenters' union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, will undoubtedly change that. Our ability to keep the and it seems to me that a great deal of Bill 26 is based standards high is linked to the degree of unionization. either onnaivete about what unions are and what they do Bill 26, by its verydesign, will reduce the percentage of or some overt malice. If you are knowledgeable about the unionized construction market. unions, someofthe aspects of Bill 26 are so damaging to unions that you cannot help but question the motives. In terms of organizing, the mandatory vote provisions ofBill 26 have the effectof making employees votetwi ce By way of introduction, I want to tell you something on whether they wish to have a union represent them or about our union and the way that it operates. Local 343 not. It gives the employer an advantage by letting them October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 97

have one more crack at convincing them to vote against * (1930) the union, even though they have already indicated their support for the union by signing a union card. This is Mr. Martin: Financial statements of the union. The unfairand it gives yet another advantage to the employer requirement to file financial audited statements with the who has an interest in keeping the union out. Labour Boardis one of the most offensive aspects of Bill 26. This provision is obviously designed to harass and Firstof all, there is a historical imbalance in the power to inconvenience a local union, to tie them up with relationship between the employee and the employer, and administrative nonsense and additional costs so that they this should be recognized and steps should be taken to will have less resources availableto serve the interests of preclude the abuse of this power. Bill 26 only their membership. At best, it is cheap and petty. At compounds the roomfor abuse. The mandatory vote, and worst, it is malicious and an abuse of power. the timein betweenthe application and the vote, provides a further opportunity to the employer to coerce and to The declaration of our assets does not bother me intimidate employees. The union has nothing to use to personally at all, and I would like to tell you a bit about coerce the employees. The employer holds the ultimate how ourlocal union runs so that you will be aware that is threat, the ultimate power, the economic hammer of certainlynothing untoward here. I thinkwe are typical of losing your job. the 14 building trades unions when I say that our local is bound by our constitution to read the complete financial Employees have already indicated their support for the statements out loud and infull at a general union meeting union by signing a union card. They usually will only do every quarter, four times a year. This includes all assets thisin anonymity for fear of reprisals from the employer, in all funds and accounts, all investments, all expenses, and it takes courage to sign a union card. I personally all salaries, benefits, et cetera, as audited by our trustees. have sat at the kitchen table of many employees and Each month all bills are read and a motion must be made listened to their fears of being fired or punished for to pay the bills if found correct, and often a member will signing a card, even though they wanted a union and the question why the phone bill was so high or why the benefits that it could bring to them and their family. business manager may have ·submitted a lunch bill for Making themgo through it all again in a supervised vote, Rae and Jerry's. We are accountable to the whole often on the employer's premises and in front of Labour membership every month, and we would never get away Board officials andscrutineers from the company, is very, with stunts like the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources very difficult for an employee. Some will inevitably lose and his recent hospitalitybudget. their courage and change their vote. It puts them in a double-jeopardy situation. In our local union, every expense over a hundred dollars must be made by a notice of motion. The notice The automatic certification at 65 percent at least is served at one monthly general meeting. A written recognized some of these concerns. Even at that, we notice is sent out to all members to inform them of the argue that a simple majority of union cards signed should proposal to spend money, and the motion is then result in certification. If the intention is to determine the seconded and debated andeither passed or defeated at the actual wishes of the employees, then the only amendment next monthly general meeting. This gives members a full that should be made would be to recognize the union if month to lobby for or against and to get people out to the over 50 percent of the employees indicate a support by meeting to either pass or defeat the motion, and most signing cards. The proposed amendments are, therefore, local unions that I know of operate the same way. So unfair. natural justice is a major tenet of the labour movement, and in that way we are probably the most democratic Are you worried about losing a quorum here as people organizations in the world. leave, Mr. Chairman? No. An annual audit is completed for our local by the Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou for your concern, sir. No, charteredaccountant fmn of Hemenway, Silver each year, I do not believe so, but it is very solicitous of you to and it is read to the membership in the first quarter of inquire. each new fiscal year. Our members already know the 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October29, 1996

salaries of their staff and officers because we make the mean political lobbying or campaigning. If any same wage and benefit that they do. Whatever wage we individual does not like it, they can get active in their negotiateon behalf of thecarpenters in the field is exactly union, and they can gamer support fr om the other the same pay that the staffofficers of the union make. workers,and they canhave the practice stopped. Unions The only difference is that our members outside get paid should take part in political lobbying on behalf of their at overtime rates for anything over eight hours a day, and members. Given the neoconservative political agenda wedo not get paid fo r that time at all. Having to file this being fo isted on working people, it would be negligent info with the Labour Board is an infringement on our fo r unionsto take workers' money in the fo rm of dues and rights toprivacy, but is no big change in the way that we not try and stop this or any other assault on trade union conduct our affairs. rights and freedoms. Ourthought is that perhaps some sortof penalty should be applied to unions which fa il to What is offensiveto me and to most Manitobans is the criticize and condemn thisTory government. That would consequence fo r fa iling to comply properly with the new be more to the point. rules. The suspension of the compulsory checkoff is in no way a fitting penalty fo r some administrative A freeand democratic tradeunion movement is one of oversight. Now most of us already have the checkoffin the basic elements of a just society, and one of the things our collective bargaining agreement, so, again, it is not to be curtailed first in a corrupt and fa scist regime. It is going to change the way that we do business, but if it our obligation to working people to fight those who were, it would be the employers in our industry who would deny free trade unions and who would limit their would be most disadvantaged in that the business agent ability to move society fo rward. If that means spending fo r the carpenters' union, which would be me, would have dues money to raise public awareness fo r our concerns, to go to every job site all ·throughout the province and then that is what we will do. collect union dues from each member and make sure that each carpenter working was in good standing on the job. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Martin. It would be a disruption in productivity, and if, in fa ct, That concludes the time that we have allotted fo r the we fo und a memberwas not in good standing, they would presentation. Mr. Reid, do you have a question of the be removed from the job just like the old days. It goes presenter? back 40 years to the way our industry used to run, and I do not think that the contractors would appreciate it any Mr. Reid: I do, Mr. Chairperson. I have a couple of more now than they did then. We would know who to questions. I would like to thank Mr. Martin fo r his blame fo r the interruption. We would give them the presentation, and I will read the remainder of your Minister of Labour's phone number. comments and take them into consideration. But I want to ask Mr. Martin-because I believe he referenced the The use of union dues fo r political purposes. The fa ctthat he has quite an extensive way of communicating courts have consistently upheld the rights of unions to use with his members in his organization and that through dues revenue as they see fit in the best interests of the this Bill 26, once again, as we saw with Bill 70 a fe w union as a whole. Because unions are democratic years back where this government interfered with organizations, union members who disagreewith the use contracts that were freely negotiated between employers of union funds have ample internal remedies to make and the various union organizations throughout the their concerns known andto argue fo r a change in policy. province-what are your thoughts, Mr. Martin, with It is not practical to consult with each member of the respect to this government's once again interfering with bargaining unit on every decision around this type of those freely negotiated contracts whereby you may have, cost, nor is it practical to allow any individual to opt out through your negotiations with your employers, of the decisions of the union. negotiatedthe Rand Formula into your contracts and that this government is now intent on interfering with those It is basic democracy that the wishes of the majority contracts that had been negotiated? should prevail. Unions have a right and a obligation to do what they can to represent the interests of their Mr. Martin: My fee ling is government should butt out members and others in the bargaining unit, and this may of the collective bargaining process and only put their October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 99

noses in when asked to come in fo r a conciliation or a Mr. Henderson: We present this briefhere tonight on mediation sort of role to play. They certainly have no behalfofnot only the 10,000 members of the Canadian role to play in interfering with the contractual agreements Auto Workers union in Manitoba but also the 200,000- made between employers and employees through the free plus members across this country, because benchmark collective bargaining process. It opens the door. It is a legislation like Bill 26 can spread through the provinces thin edge of the wedge to all kinds of interference and like anepidemic. These proposed changes to The Labour limitingthe rights of the free trade union movement to do Relations Act areunprecedented in Canada. Not even the exactly what they were cut out to do, which is move the right-wing governments of Harris and Klein have role of working people fo rward in our society. So I see introduced these types of changes to the face of labour it as a major intrusion, and certainly we would speak relations in this country, although it is clear that Bi11 26 against it. shows a startling resemblance to Ontario's Bill 7.

Mr. Reid: Since the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) Manitoba changes are intended to do more than just has indicated in questioning in the House last week that balance a piece oflegislation. They are another step he has consulted with a dozen or so people, organizations towards making Manitoba a right-to-work province. around the province about Bill 26 prior to bringing it Right-wing groups have pursued someof these issues as forward, I want to ask you, Mr. Martin, had youor any far as the Supreme Court of Canada with no success. members of your union, to the best of your knowledge, Now, the Conservative Party of Manitoba, urged on by ever been consulted by this Minister of Labour prior to antilabour organizations, are proposing legislative his introduction ofBill 26? changes which are tantamount to union busting.

Mr. Martin: To the best of my knowledge, no member A small group of promanagement union members has of mine, no member of building trades unions has been stokedthe fires and given tothe Tory government and the consulted by the Minister of Labour. communityof business the public excuse to propose and • (1940) promote Bill 26. The Manitoba government should be saying to these disgruntled persons, whoever they are, Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Martin, that they should be expressing their views within their fo r your presentation tonight, sir .. unions because most of Bill 26 deals with the internal operations ofunions. The nextpresenter tonight isThomas Henderson. Good evening, Mr. Henderson, you have some copies of your The changes contemplated in Bill 26 are not reflective brief to circulate? of good labourrelations in the province of Manitoba and are contrary to the styleand mood ofgovernm ent, which Mr. Thomas Henderson (Canadian Auto Workers): wein Manitoba areaccus tomed to. It is both unfortunate I do. and unhealthy fo r the labour relations in this province that the Filmon government chose not to accept the Mr. Chairperson: While the brief is being circulated, recommendations of the Manitoba Labour Management ladies andgentlemen, I would remind the members of the Review Committee, a body truly representative of both audience that thecustom in the Legislature is to make no labour and management inManitoba. With the exception acknowledgment of the presenters' briefs, either pro or of a few changes to a vote-based system in regard to the con, andin fact we have fo und that, when there has been certification of a union, all other proposals were rejected· response or clapping from the audience, it in fact on the grounds they were not needed and would do interferes with the running time of the presenter and only nothing to enhance labour-management relations in serves todetract from their present ations. So I would ask Manitoba. It is a sad commentary on our government fo r everybody's co-operation and consideration in this that the minority view of the committee was adopted. matter. The preamble to The Manitoba Labour Relations Act Mr. Henderson, I would ask you to proceedwith your states: It is in interests of the province of Manitoba "to presentation. Good evening, sir. further harmonious relations between employers and 100 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

employees by encouraging the practice and procedure of workers in the workplace and the ever-present dismissals collective bargaining between employers and unions as that characteristically result during a certification the freely designated representatives of employees." campaign. Harmonious relations between the parties necessarily requires both labour and management to be on an equal Thepresent legislation was an obvious declaration of footing. If passed in its present fo rm, this labour TheManitoba Labour Relations Act's intent to recognize legislation will seriously weaken the union's ability to and protect the human rights and social dignity in the organize, weaken the union's ability to take political workplace. It accomplished this by providing the action and weaken the union's ability to survive a strike. opportunity to minimize animosity in the expeditious Progressive labour legislation makes fo r good labour manner of a certification. relations. When the rights of both parties are respected, the workplace is a better place. The amendments proposed relative to the representation-certification vote will only serve to The amendment substitutions for subsections 12(2) and prolong and ultimately magnify the animosity between 14(3) concerning strike-related employee misconduct at workers and employers. Removing the automatic firstglance appears to be a step towards the maintenance certification of over 65 in fa vour will delay the process of a peaceful, democratic society. However, realism is and unnecessarily tax the already limitedresource of the that picket lines are naturally confrontational places. board. Strikes, lockouts and picket lines are not, will never be and have never-and been will never be business as usual. Althoughthe government will undoubtedly allege these The striking employees can be confronted with any amendments are an expansion of democracy, it is in fa ct number ofvolatile instances: riot police, as we saw at an expansion of an employer's opportunity to harass Boeing this summer, employee-paid security enforcers, workers. surveillance equipment, replacement workers, company vehicles, just to namea fe w, all initiated by the employer. The CAW has grave concerns regarding the proposed additions to subsection 12. 1 which give the minister the The existingsubsection entitled Defe nce is actually the right to decide when an employer's offer is good enough calming breeze in a stormy gale. Its design was to for the bargaining unit to vote on. This decision can be prevent the extreme possibility of picket line cruelty made before or after a strike or lockout begins but will initiated with extreme prejudice. If the Manitoba certainlybe after the employer has threatened all manner government is sincere in furthering the intent of the of retribution ifthe employer's terms are not met. subsection, it would serve itself fa r better to drop the proposed amendment or add measure to the amendment This is nothing less than alarming fo r the labour such as replacement worker legislation, which would movement considering our present Labour minister reduce the chancesof picket line brutality. Neither union defines the proposed amendments to the act as making nor employer wants to go back to a labour relations The Labour Relations Act consistent with Conservative climate when fe ar and frustration drove individuals to Party values. The amendment will greatly restrict the acts of violence and lawlessness. union bargaining committee's ability to achieve the best possibleagr eement Thisis not in the best interests of the The proposed amendments to the bargaining unit membership. It undermines the collective bargaining certification processare in the CAW's opinion indicative process and removes from the union the ability to of the true fe elings of the present government's total exercise its collective wisdom regarding tactics and disregard fo r the human dignity of its working timing. constituents. Previous legislation had been adopted to prevent the animosity routinely experienced during the We allknow, unions, government and employers, that certification process. The present language was designed the union bargaining committee is less likely to blink to avoid the immediate and, in most circumstances, than the membership. We can only surmise that outrighthu miliation of procertification employees by the ultimately every employer will design a bargaining employer, as well as the intimidation and coercion of the strategy to ensure a strike or lockout, expecting the October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 101

Labour minister to call a vote at the most opportune time. the inherent costs on smaller unions. Restrictions We all must consider this chilling proposal to be in direct imposed, financially or otherwise, would only serve to contravention of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act deteriorate labour relations in the province. preamble that I referred to previously concerning harmonious relations between employees and employers * (1950) and encouraging the practice and procedure of collective The CAW notonly opposes the addition of Part VII.1, bargaining between employers and unions. Disclosure of information by Unions, but is shocked by the government's blatant arrogance in presenting such a The CAW strongly opposesthe additions to subsection proposal. The proposal was not even endorsed by their 76.1 that democratic principle of majority does not own Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee. appear to apply in the political conscience of the author The CAW is an ardent subscriber of financial disclosure of this obviously prejudiced proposal. to its membership with semiannual audits being a requirement in accordance with our constitution. Some We fully anticipated Gary Filmon's portrayal of this localunions go even furtherand provide the membership amendment as his crusade for the rights of individual with quarterly or monthly reports at membership union members to a measure of accountability. It is meetings. Wages and salaries of officers are specified nothing less than spite over the blistering criticism within the constitution and readily available for the Filmon and his bottom-feeding Tory hacks took over the membership. union-sponsored media campaignraising questions about the wisdom of Tory government policy on health care. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Henderson. That concludes the time available for the There is absolutely no relationship to the labour presentation. relations of Manitoba within this amendment. The sole motivation of this atrocity was Gary Filmon's spite Mr. Reid, with a question. against trade unionsfor questioning his policies resulting in this attempt to keep the labour movement out of the ' Mr. Reid: Thank you very much, Mr. Henderson, for political arena and to shut up all the unions. your presentation this evening. I will read the remainder of your comments. Neither The Manitoba Labour Relations Act nor our society can tolerate dubious minds that lend themselves But I want to ask you a question with respect to Bill to spiteful acts. I urge the government to see this 26, and there are many questions that I could ask, but, of amendment for what it really is. Portrayed as a measure course, we arelimited by this government'sintent to limit of accountability, it is really a measure of hate. Similar questioning to just five minutes, even though you may measures have been tested up to the Supreme Court and have noticed that there seems to be a lack of interest on appropriately judged for what they really were. the side of government members here.

The CAW research concluded the process presently in I want toask you, sir, have you or any member of your place in subsection 1.11 was a procedure that was organization- equally accessible to parties of employer/employee regardless of the demographics of the party. Reviewing Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. the proposed changes canlead only to the conclusion that the implementation of the additions to subsection 1.11 Point of Order would result in prohibitive accessibility to groups involved in labour disputes. Mr. Toews: On a point of order. I just do want to indicate clearly for the record that I paid the appropriate Based on the cost of mediation, the opportunity for attention that the presentation was worth. smaller unions to utilize the mediation process would be nonexistent. Theconcerns of the perceived possibility of Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I know we are not allowed abuse by a hostile governmentcould also be forecast by to reference that the minister was out of the room for 20 102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

minutes and I will not putthat on the record, but I wanted because I knowthe minister is sensitive to the comments to askthe presenter here this evening that since there are he madein respect to questioning from the Leader of the governmentmembers who like to move in and out of this Opposition(Mr. Doer) last week, but I will let the record committee at will andputting, I think, some undervaluing of Hansard speak very clearly fo r itself. of thepresentations thatare made here, I want to ask you, sir, have you or any member of your organization- Mr. Chairperson: Fine, then I would find then that there is not a point of order. Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, I think then Mr. Reid, if you will not be addressing pointthe of order, I will make * * * a finding on the point of order and then I will start the clock again and allow you to address the question to the Mr. Chairperson: I would invite you then if you are presenter. about to put anotherquestion to the presenter, to proceed with your question, Mr. Reid. I find that there was not a point of order; there was a dispute on the fa cts. I would let the record know that while we were discussingthe point ofader, I had stopped the clock, and * * * so I am letting the clock rerun.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Reid, I would invite you to Mr. Reid: Through you, Mr. Chairperson, to the proceed with your question, sir. presenter, Mr. Henderson. Since theminister said quite clearly in response to questioning in the House last week Mr. Reid: I may be interrupted again on this, and I that he had consulted a dozen or so people in the apologize for it because the minister has been sensitive province of Manitoba with respect to Bill 26, I would when other presenters have come before committee, but like to ask you, sir, were you or any members of the in the House last week the minister referenced the fa ct CAW consulted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) that he consulted with a dozen or so people or with respect to Bill 26 prior to its being tabled in the organizations with respect to- Legislature?

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Mr. Henderson: Not to my knowledge.

Point of Order Mr. Reid: Canyou tellme, Mr. Henderson, because this government plans through its legislation to allow Mr. Toews: On a point of order, I think it is clearthat individual members ofa union to divertany monies that the member is again misleading the witnesses, and, in a particular organization may be choosing to use for fa ct, those were not my statements. We have made this political action, which you referenced in your very clear. It is not so much,Mr. Chair, the statements or presentation here, perhaps you can share with me your the inability of the member to fo llow appropriate thoughts onwhether or not it is fa ir fo r the government to parliamentary rules but, in fa ct, is his insistence that the take the steps to fm ancially penalize a union by saying process be subverted for his own ends. that a union member, or a member of a company fo r which there is a union, would be allowedto diverttheir Now, that may well be good, but as long as the record dues to charity opposed to that money being used fo r provided-that in fa ct indicates the errors of Mr. Reid's political activities, advertising, et cetera, for the benefit very fa ulty memory. If your Chairmanship rules that of all your members instead of having that money turned there is no point of order, I will abide by that. back into the internal operations of the union to be utilized fo r mediation or conciliation processes in the Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. future which would be to the benefit of your members?

Mr. Reid: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Henderson: The government should keep their That is why I referenced my comments to the presenter nose out of the business of our unions. Ourunions are October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 103

dealt-the business is run at membership meetings The next proposer is Mr. Brian Hunt. Is Mr. Hunt in monthly and the decisions are made whether we give the audience? money to charities, political parties, at those meetings. The discussionis donethere at the meetings. The vote is * (2000) taken. Some cases, we send money to political parties. In many other cases, we choose not to. Mr. Brian Hunt (United Steelworkers of America): lam. Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, sir- Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, Mr. Hunt. As your An Honourable Member: It is $108,000 to the NDP. presentation is being circulated, I would ask you to commence with your remarks. Mr. Reid: Mr. Penner references a certain figure. I am not certain if he was referring to the fa ct that Westfair Mr. Hunt: Mr. Chairperson, I am the area supervisor Foodsdonated $40,000 to his party's political campaign for the United Steelworkers of America, and in that since 1988. I am not sure ifthat was the figurehe was capacity I am also a member of the Manitoba Labour referencing for the record or not, and that is why his Board. I sit as a member as well of the Labour Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) will not appoint a Management Review Committee of this province. mediator to deal with that strikecurrent ly. The United Steelworkers of America represents I want to go back to the presenter here and ask him if members in every geographical area of the province, in it is fa ir, in your mind, for this government to bring offices,schools, in hospitals, mines, steel mills, foundries fo rward legislation that would allow a company to andmanufacturing operations. The governmenthas said dismiss an employee fo r strike-relatedmisconduct in the that it wishes to democratizeunions and that with the employer's mind when there are no sanctions available very changes contained in Bill 26 will do just that. other than a $2,000 fine that would be applied fo r an Nothing could be further from the truth. Firstly, they unfair labour practice. What are your thoughts that the would set the tone by having workers vote twice before employee wouldlose his job and that the employer found becomingentitled to be represented by the union of their in contravention of the act would only pay a $2,000 fine? choice. This scenario presents some interesting and puzzling circumstances. We have been told that Mr. Henderson: Clearly, our union does not condone management wishes this change to occur. If, asthe law violence on the picket line, but the way the legislation is now stands, 65 percent is the threshold fo r an automatic worded, if you were caught spitting on the sidewalk, the certification,what is reallybeing said here? I believe that employer could fire you. If you were caught throwing managements want time to coerce and intimidate their away a paper cup, the employer could fireyou. So it is employees to such an extent that the employee will vote clearly not fa ir. The alternative to that is replacement not to be unionized or, at the very least, have had the workerlegislation. Ifyou do not want violence on picket opportunity to weaken the initial support the union had, lines, then donot let scabs go in there and steal our jobs. all to the benefitof whom? Management.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Henderson. That I have encounteredabuses in thepast whereby lawyers concludes the time allotted fo r presentation and would seek time to respond to applications for questions. I thank you, sir, very much fo r appearing certification and be granted such additional time, only to before the committee tonight. then findout, as the new date to fileapproached, that the very same lawyer now had a conflict and needed more The next presenter is a Mr. Jim Silver. Mr. Jim Silver time to locate another lawyer who had no conflict. has indicated that heis unable to attend in person tonight Another incident occurred at a plant and serves to and has submitted a written proposal. This is now being heighten my concerns as it relates to the unionizing of photocopied as we speak. Is it the will of the committee minorities. A young aboriginal woman was fired during to receive the proposal and receive it as if read into the anapplication fo r certification period. The reason? She record of Hansard? [agreed) had asked fo r her chair back from a supervisor who did 104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

not like her tone. She was subsequently reinstated with final-final, and you should also be aware that the final­ compensation, but although she had been a keen final position was not the last position that was organizer at the onset, soon stepped aside from the union recommended toand acce pted by the membership. Under and ultimately left her job. The message had got across. your proposed legislation an agenda set by the The government inspector of the day told me that he membership fo r goals it wishes to gain in negotiation can expected she would quit as she had told him she had be manipulated by management such that the best never expected such a blatant attack on her rights, possible settlement will seldom if ever be achieved. especially after that same supervisor had told her what a good worker she was and how pleased he was that she Whose purpose will be served by limiting access to had decided to stay with the company only two weeks expeditedarbitratioo? I think neither party to a collective prior. agreement benefits. Expeditedarbitration has a fe ature thatallow the parties to use the Conciliation department Only on Tuesday of last week, we read about the need of the Labour department prior to the actual arbitration for more immigrant workers in the province. With this case going fo rward. This often resulted in settlements typeof change toThe Labour Relations Act, we can only thatboth sidescould livewith and meant that neither side expect that newly arrived citizens will ponder if in fa ct could claim victory, thus avoiding an 1-told-you-so they have betteredthemselves by a move to this province. mentality which does little to keep the harmonious The government says that their proposed changes will relationship present at a workplace that The Labour give workers more say in how their unions spend their Relations Act presently contemplates it will create. duesdollars. In my capacity, I cannot move a motion to spend money; I cannot seconda motion to spend money. There are other proposals contained in this bill which The members of a local at their local union meeting make our silence on at this time should not be taken as in these determinations. agreement with. Infact, we do not agree with them. You have heard and will hear more from other labour Often I am asked if they are correct in doing certain organizations on these sections and, through our things, and I answer. An example of this occurred associations with these organizations and our affiliation Wednesday evening last, where the local wished to with theFederation Labour, of know that you have heard update their local union by-laws as it relates to per diems what labour and the Steelworkers fe el about these paid to members who do work on behalf of the local. I proposed changes. pointed outthat ourconstitution requires such changes to be in the fo rm of a notice of motion and that after being I wantspeak to now with respect to a book that I have moved and seconded, debated and passed, must be read read, and the editcn ofthe book. which is entitled Unions out atthe next three meetings and posted in the plant that and Economic Competitiveness, Lawrence Mitchell, the changes had been proposed and are to be finally voted research director of the Economic Policy Institute, and on at a third meeting. This certainly gives the Paula B. Voos, an associateprof essor of economics and membership ample opportunity to make an informed industrial relations at the University of Wisconsin in decision on the subject. Our membership has no Madison, have drawn upon a number of highly respected problems with the system they have chosen. If they did, contributing authcn to address the issue which is the very they could change it. They tell me the government does title of the book. not have any fo undation fo r concern in this area as it relates to the democratic process used by the I want to now read to you the conclusion they drew: Steelworkers. We increasingly see evidence that a system based on collective bargaining and a strong independent voice fo r You should also know that in the area of collective workers is not only important to our democratic bargaining, you are proposing changes that mean the institutions but also may make a positive contribution to company can have the upper hand in the negotiating our economic future. We have a choice, we can continue process by requiring votes to be held on any and every toby to compete based on mass production at ever lower offer management puts fo rward. I can show you wages, but that is not the industrial or the industrial­ management positions numbered one, two, final and relations system that is most appealing to us or to most October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA lOS

Americans. Apparently, we can try to enhance almost extreme democratic nature in which the productivity through more investment in highly skilled organizations function where the body itself, the union and motivated labour, people who are willing to be bodyitself, bends overbackwards to make sure that their utilized flexibly by their employers because they are members have every opportunity to see the finances of economically secure and have an independent voice in their organization and to participate, through the their future. However, this more appealing scenario democratic process, by voting on the issues that are requires that American employers stop fighting collective affecting the various labour organizations, and it causes bargaining and instead work with unions to make me towonder whythe minister has brought fo rward such productive choices that will enable this country to a regressive piece of legislation. compete in a world market without lowering living standards. But I want to ask you, sir, with respect to the LMRC, Labour Management Review Committee, which you Unions andother mechanisms,to empower and involve indicated in your opening comments that you are a part workers, need to be enhanced rather than hindered. As of, do you see that, with the knowledge that is available the MIT commission in 1989 recommended, business to you, the LMRC, or the Labour Board, I should say, leaders should support the fusion of co-operative has the resources necessary to conduct the votes, the industrial relations by accepting labour representatives as secret ballot votes that this government is going to legitimate andvalued partners in the innovation process. demand within the seven-day period that this minister is American managers must recognize that unions are a saying. Are the resources available at the Labour valued institution in any democratic society. Resources Relations Board to deal with a vote within seven days, traditionally devoted to avoiding unionization need to be and has the board itself in any way indicated to the reallocated towards promoting and sustaining union­ Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) that there may or may management co-operation. The challenge is to construct not be resources available? an economic future that ensures both a high and rising standard of living and a high quality of working life * (2010) through workplace participation and simultaneous economic representation through collective bargaining. Mr. Hunt: Yes, as a matter of fa ct, the minister in a This is possible through an economic strategy that meeting that I attended at the request of the chairperson stresses high quality, high value-added production, by a of the Labour Board, where there were three members flexibly skilled workforce. The future can be high waged representing the employees and three members and it can be union. Indeed, the two go together. representing employers, the minister, his assistant, the chairperson, some vice-chairs-I do not think all-and It is those changes to The Manitoba Labour Relations believe it wasin late April, probably April 26, because it Act that would serve to stifle the organization of got moved from its original date. At that onset, he had nonunion workers, weaken the collective-bargaining indicated that the chairperson of the board had in fact process andultimately make fo r weaker unions that I ask been doing a goodjob in lobbying him to ensure that the government to rescind the proposed legislation, and therewere funds in place, and I gathered from his words the stand firm that the current system really is more of a that in fact there may not be funds in place to have the level playing field than they first envisioned. speedy vote done. He had indicated that that had been conveyed tohim by thechairperson and that the members Inclosing, let me say,there is a saying that an injuryto present should know that he was looking into that. one is an injury to all, and the Conservative government proposal of Bill 26 is viewed by our members as an Mr. Reid: Canyou tell me, Mr. Hunt, that as a member injury to their rights. Thankyou. and a representative of one of the major unions in Manitoba, the Steelworkers, how is it that-and can you Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Hunt, for your presentation convey to this committee the thoughts of your members this evening. One of the things that struck me by the that after the hard work that labour put into the Labour various labour organizations that have come before this Management Review Committee to review their committee last Thursday and again this evening is the recommendations for Bill 26 that were sent to that 106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 committee and that the committee held the hearings and forum that you talked about, but I can tell you at that made recommendations back to the minister which this point in time,I and believe it to be prior to the legislation ministernot has accep ted, whatare the thoughts of labour being tabled, and we sat on a Saturday afternoon and now that those recommendations have been rejected by listened to management complain and whine with respect this Minister of Labour? to the changes that went forward. They seemed to have some knowledge of it, Mr. Minister. Mr. Hunt: We are saddened by the fact that a process Now, I stand tobe corrected,that is a long time ago, that has been around for a number of years before my but I can check diaries and seejust when that was. I time, that has been used by all parties, I believe, and has think theyhad some knowledge. It may not have been shown a lot of flexibility and a lot of innovative done in the same public forum that you are suggesting approach, is just not listened to. It saddened me to be that you have done, but I believe they had it. I can tell here at the previous committee meetings when a you that I sat today with the member from the Fashion representative of the chamberrose and said that his side Institute who was on that committee and we were had not supported the amendments that the Labour reminiscing about the fact that I was going to be here Management Review Committeehad been able to come tonightand that he was becausenot he is now retired, but forward with because his group, the Chamber of he indicated at that time that he recalled that 1985 Commercewas not a dissenterto that. They supported it. meeting. So perhaps ourmemories arenot exactly the I questioned him after about it, so it does sadden our same. members to think that-I have used my time where it could be spent assisting them to be involved in this Mr. Chairpenon: Thankyou very much, Mr. Hunt, processto fm d out that they are not listenedto. that would now conclude the time for presentations and questions on your presentation. Thankyou very much, Mr. Toews: I assume that, Mr. Hunt, you were around sir, for coming before us tonight. when the NDP wasdrafting the massive amendments to The LabourRelalioos Actin 1985 when I was counsel to Mr. Hunt: Thankyou. the Department of Labour, when all of the amendments in fa ct were kept under wraps even though they were in Mr. Chairpenon: Colleagues of the committee, we many hands of the government people, were kept under have a presenter whohas come in at the last minute, � wraps, not presentedto anyone in business, andtwo da s � individual by the name of Theresa Ducharme who as before these massive changes in 1985 were presented m requestingadded tobe to the foot of thelist. What is the the House, it was given to LMRC, and that was the will of thecommittee as to whether this presenter should extent of the public involvement on those massive, be allowed to present? May I have the will of the massive changesthat changed The Labour Relations Act. committee on this issue? (agreed) I think you will recall the numerous court cases that I would instruct the Clerk to put Mrs . Ducharme's had to be brought to tryto release thatinf ormation, and name on the list. the government steadfastly said no. I recall I was the lawyer who defended the government's right to say no at Mr. Reid, do you have a recommendation to make on that time, but you will recall that the government chose this issue? not to consult with the employers, with employees, and you will recall that I had been consulting in respect f � Mr. Reid: No, I donot. Mr. Chairperson. I do notwant every single oneof my amendments over the past year m to inconvenience any other members of the public but respect of any organization who have said that they have knowing somewhat ofMrs . Ducharme's plight, perhaps wanted to listen. it would be in the best interests ifwe could afford the <:f<> opportunity to Mrs. Ducharme to present, and I n� Mr. Hunt: I was lliOlUld in1985 and I was a member of mean to inconvenience other presenters but I think m a committee that sat down with business and labour fairness to her and the conditions that it would be in the leaders. I would be erroneous if I said it was that same best interests of this committee to hear herat this time. October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 107

Mr. Chairperson: I think, colleagues, that Mrs. board they said if we do not hear them tonight, we will Ducharme may have some impediments with regard to move them, we will bump them to the last, we will do transportation and so therefore, if it is the will of the this, we will do that. Thank God I fo und this public committee, Mrs. Ducharme, I would welcome you tonight hearing for Bill 26, because the Conservatives have done before the committee. everything behind closed doors and with less than 24 hours notice, they are going to pass and push everything Mrs. Theresa Ducharme (Private Citizen): Thank throughbecause they are in a majority. My problem with you, Mr. Chair, minister and all those present. thatis constipationbecause I cannot be everywhere at the same time, and at least ifyou do not give any notice to My name is Theresa Ducharme. I am here as a private anybody to be any place at any time, you can make the citizen aswell as a representative and president of People decision yourself and carry on. That is exactly the pain Equal Participation, Inc. We are very pleased to see in that I have right now, because I have to pay $60 just to that amendments are being made, but we are very cometo theutilities and I said, well, I will kill two birds displeased to see that they are being made without much with one stone even if I am not there fo r the right public input and also private citizen input and the fact purpose. that Bill 26 does not include those such as myself, severelydisabled, who wish to be employed, who wish to * (2020) be part of the employment category and the labour fo rce in the fa shion that all institutionalized and people who Sothey said, takeit to thelabour, they are changing the wish to be taken care of under the Home Care program bill. I said, well, we cannot wait to hear the answer and cannotbe taken careof orcannot offer their services such the responsebecause everything is being taken away from as myself in being employed under The Labour Act us andI hold shares in Manitoba. Under the MTS act, I becausewe cannothave employment fo r nurses that must hold shares, and I have every bill and every purpose and offer us a little bit of assistance in the place of ifthat is privatized or even this labour relationship or all employment, so that the medical services do come in. these-rightnow consumers such as myself do not have a union. We arenot smartenough to have a union, I guess, I amnot sure ifthis is where it is going, but everybody or we do nothave the finances to have a union. So we all said it is not the Minister of Health, it is the Minister of have to takewhat is given to us on a daily basis and if Labour. you go to the Ministerof Health, he tells you So nothing is given to us, that is exactly what we receive. one thing; you come to the Minister of Labour's office, But a unionis the strong voice that makes the foundation the labour relations, and they say, go back to the Health fo r a purposeful, profitable, productiveworkf orce so that department. people can have a good place to serve their family and Now I hope I am under Bill 26 where they have not also offer to the community. included home care to expand their services under The Labour Act to community care services. If you need a So Mrs. Ducharme is here fo r you to concentrate nurse or if you need an attendant, if you need an orderly, openly and with your hearts, not only your heads, and if you need anything under the union act or under The remember, I carne here with a very contagious illness LabourRelations Act, they should be taking care of all of calledlove. I love to live and I live to love and I want to us becausewe havea right to be here and we are citizens continue to do that to the best of my ability. So of Manitoba. Now, I would like to know where I go and remember there is no cure for me, honey, and you are what we have to do because at the same time, everything stuck with me now. So you vote the wrong way, my is becoming privatized, everything is being washed away wheelchair is not covered with Autopac so I can run it from us and removed from us without asking or even over anybody and use it as a weapon. So watch out for offering us a chance of reality, that we are here for the me. purpose of employment and to be taken care of and also so that we can offerour abilityto the best of our mobility. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mrs. Ducharme. Now I would like to ask under Bill 26 that the short notice of everybody coming out-even at the utilities Mrs. Ducharme: I am here to sell each one of you a- 108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

An Honourable Member: I knew that was happening. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mrs. Ducharme.

Mn. Ducharme: Yes, I am here to sell a ballpointpen Mn. Ducharme: I am asking you that question. to everybody fo r $3, no tax, and if not, you have to take me home. I will be your roommate, and your wife will Mr. Toews: Mrs. Ducharme, it certainly is the product ask questions. of the thought of many people, many efforts here, including members from theopposition. Legislation is An Honourable Member: How about chocolates? certainly more than a piece of paper; it is the rules by which we govern our society. I know that you realize Mn. Ducharme: No, chocolates are fa ttening, sir. You that, and I appreciate your concern. areright on with the pen. Are there any questions, dear? You can have my vital statistics. Come on, gentlemen. Mrs. Ducharme: We helped in thestrikes at the nursing home, and it was wonderful to be there co-operatively Mr. Chairperson: No, thank you, Mrs. Ducharme. working with everybody, but strikes are very hurting and Thank you very much fo r coming out. damaging, so before they hurt the health care of all our people, and you will be in that position one day, Mrs. Ducharme: Are you going to change the name of Sunshine, because you cannot be without me, because I home care tocomm unity care so we can have care within will outlive every one of you, so you better be ready fo r the community and have the labour relations move from no more strikes and negotiations and compromise with institutions out to the community? We have to change common sense. See? That is where it goes. home care to community care. Mr. Toews: Thank you. Mr. Toews: Thank you very much fo r your comments, Mrs. Ducharme. I know that you are a very active, very Mn. Ducharme: Ballpoint pens, $3 each. concerned Manitoban. We are proud to have you as a Manitoban, and I appreciate every time you come by and Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mrs. giveus advice, because I truly believe that every time you Ducharme. come by, you give us advice and you give it with a genuineness that we in government appreciate. Thank Mn. Ducharme: Mr. Minister, have you got any you very much. ballpoint pens?

Mn. Ducharme: Mr. Minister, I have one last question. Mr. Toews: I have one in my office with the red maple We held a private meeting with the noble honourable leaf that you sold me a fe w weeks ago, yes. MinisterJames McCrae, andthere was a private meeting. He said no media, please, and I said, okay, no media. Mn. Ducharme: Well, this is a new day, a new start. Thefirst question was myfiom loving husband who said, Mr. Minister, could you tell me if home care is like all Mr. Chairperson: Our next presenter tonight will be other contracts from banks, mortgages or anyone that if Mr. Peter Olfert. Is Mr. Peter Olfert in the-yes, I see Mr. they want to come in and close up shop, take your Olfert. Goodevening, Mr.Olfert. I see your presentation account or anything, they havethe right to do that. James is being circulated. I would ask you to proceed with your McCrae, the honourable minister, in the company of all remarks. theprivate citizens that werethere and political peopleas well, he said yes, home care is like any other contract. It Mr. Peter Olfert(Manitoba Government Employees' is not worththe paper it is written on. I was shocked out Union): Mr. Chainnan, committee members, thank you of heck. That is why the NDP are moving close to me. again fo r the opportunity to be here tonight. Atthe same time, Sunshine, we will have to conserve our energy, because no hairwill grow on top. So I am asking The labour relations being considered by this you, is the labour relationship act the same as that, that it government represents a significant and dangerous break is not worth the paper it is written on? with tradition in Manitoba's labour relations. Instead of October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 109

attempting to establish a level playing field on which union applies fo r certification. This is the second time labour and management can engage in meaningful the government has amended this section. Originally, collective bargaining, this government is tilting the field unions were granted certification if they had signed up in fa vour of management. The objective of this over 55 percent of the members. This government legislation aims to create fe wer unions, weaker unions, changed that to 65 percent. But unions were still quieter unions. There is no balance in the government's winning too many certifications, so the government is approach. moving the goalline again. There will be no certification without a vote, which means there will be a lengthier Secondly, these amendments represent a significant and periodof time in whichemployers will have the ability to completely unwarranted extension of government's intimidate and even fire union supporters. intervention into internal union activities. To a significant degree, it will no longer be the delegates to While such workers may get their jobs back, the union conventions or the union members who attend damage will have been done. It should be noted that union meetings who give direction to Manitoba unions. while the government is providing employers with more The Manitoba government apparently believes it knows opportunities to commit unfair labour practices, it is not how unionsshould be run. It will determine when unions increasing the fm es fo r committing such practices. are to vote on contract proposals, it will determine what information unions will provide to nonmembers, and it 3. Increase employers' ability to control negotiating will allow nonmembers to dictate how union officials process. Section 72(1) will allow the employer to request spend much of their time. This is big government contract mtification votes and allow the minister to order invading the territory of democratic institutions. It is such votes. This cuts at the basic principle of collective interesting tonote thatthis same government would never bargaining. The employer is supposedto negotiate with contemplate placing similar restrictions on private the bargaining agent selected by the workers, the union. enterprise. The workers elect the union bargaining team, and that team determines the union's bargaining strategy, I will nowturn to some of the major changes in the act including when a ratification vote is to be held. and make some comments on those. Firstly, increase Employers, particularly government employers, have employer's power to fire. Section 12(2) increases the been through some tough negotiations in the past year. employer's ability to fire workers if they are convicted fo r They want to by-pass the union bargaining team and strike-related activities. What is the point of this change? placetheir offer before the members on a table on a take Is there a widespread problem with picket line violence it or leave it basis. in Manitoba? We just went through a near record year fo r strike activity, yet there was only one major outbreak * (2030) of picket line conflict, and it was when the police attacked workers with pepper spray. So what is the The present system allows fo r plenty of membership problem that the government is trying to solve? The input and plenty ofopportunities fo r members to give answer, it is simple. It is trying to frighten workers who direction to their bargaining team. This measure will are thinking of taking strike action. The government create unnecessary votes. It will encourage employers to believes that workers are going to think twice before mount expensive campaigns to attempt to alienate voting fo r a strike if they know they are at risk ofbeing workers fromtheir unions, and in the end it will prove to pepper sprayed, charged with resisting arrest after they be an expensive waste of time because the government have been sprayed and then fired. This is an attempt to will discover that union bargaining teams are doing what undennineunion bargaining power and place workers in their members want. double jeopardy. Workers who break the law should be punished by the courts, not by their employers. 4. Reduce workers' ability to be heard on important public issues. Section 76(1) requires unions to consult in 2. Increase employers' ability to intimidate advance with every union member prior to using union unorganized workers. Section 40 of the act is being dues fo r political purposes. It should be noted that the amended to require that there be a vote held every time a amendments do not provide a definition of political 110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

purposes, although it would include nonpartisan In the United States these provisions have allowed advertising during an election campaign. This open­ nonunion members to bombard unions with an endless ended definition would appear to include much of the series of frivolous and vexatious requests fo r detailed ongoing activities of a union such as ours. Taking out breakdowns on fma ncial matters. Instead of servicing advertisements opposing thecoo tracting out of home care membership needs, unionstaff are required to spend their is a political activity. Even appearing at a legislative time responding to these requests. Nor is there any committeeheari ng such as this one is a political activity. fa irness in this amendment. Employers are not required tofile financialformati in onwith the Labour Board. They This law would mean we are committing an unfair are not being required to answer an endless series of labour practice every time we engaged in such activities unlimitedfinancial inquiries. Many Manitoba companies withoutfirst consulting all of our members. This would receive subsidies, loans and other benefits from the make it impossible fo r us to act on political issues in a Manitoba government. Why does the government not timely fa shion. Members have the ability to determine require them to submit audited financial reports and the political policies of this union through convention. allow taxpayers to request any fma ncial information they Thismeasure strips the union officers theof ability to act want to from these firms? Labour is being singled out. on those policies in an effective manner. Workers are the only ones who are having these restrictions placed on their organizations. There is no fairn ess in this bill. It does not require employers to consult with workers, customers or Incmclusion, I wouldthe urge government to abandon shareholders prior to their undertaking political action. these amendments. They are unfair and ill conceived. They will simply serve to drive down wages, reduce 5. Reduce workers'acces s to speedy arbitration. The workplace democracy and increase anxiety throughout amendmentsto Section 130(1)strip workers of their right our society. The government should recommit itself to toexpedited arbitration unless they have been dismissed the principles outlined in the fm t sentence of The Labour or suspended for a period of more than 30 days. This is Relations Act, namely that it is in the public interest of eliminating a worker's right to a speedy resolution of a theProvince ofManitoba to further harmonious relations grievance. It means that hundreds of Manitoba workers between employers and employees by encouraging the will now see their grievances dragged out fo r months or practice and procedure of collective bargaining between years. Justice delayed is justice denied. With this employers and unionsas freelydesignated representatives amendment, justice is being denied. This amendment of those employees. The amendments under also strengthens the employer's position since under our consideration today have turned those fine words into a system of workplace law a worker is considered guilty hollow joke. Thank you for your time. until proven innocent and must live with the discipline imposed by the employer until the grievance is settled. Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you, Mr. Olfert.

6. Disclosure. There is a new section to the act. Mr. Reid: Thankyou, Mr. Olfert, fo r your presentation. Section 132 deals with the disclosure of union It hasdawned on me ,here and admitI to being somewhat information. First of all, I want to make it clear that my slow in grasping some of these issues, but this Minister union provides all delegates to our annual convention of Labour (Mr. Toews) and this government have been with annual financial statements. We provided such very reluctant, as members of the public and perhaps information this past weekend. Copies of these members of the audience here this evening know, the statementsare available to any member who wants them; minister has been reluctant in appointing mediators to however, we do object to the way this amendment opens deal with disputes, whether they be strike or lockout in the door to allow nonunion members to conduct the province. unrestricted fishingexpeditions . How, in your mind, Mr. Olfert, do you see this Under the amendment, unions will lose the right to government reacting as both an employer and a Minister automatic dues checkoff if they do not provide of Labour who is responsible fo r the appoinbnent of satisfactory answers to requests for further information. mediation under this legislation Bill 26, wherein the October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 111

Minister of Labour will detennine when the employer's Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, Mr. Olfert, have you or any last offer will be placed to the employees, knowing full members of your union, to the best of your knowledge, well that the Minister of Labour has the final beenconsulted aboutthe pro visions ofBill 26 prior to its detennination of deciding when that vote will take place being tabled, given that the minister said that he has and also acting as the negotiator on behalf of the consulted with a dozen or so people or organizations in government since the minister is responsible fo r the Civil the province of Manitoba prior to it being tabled? To the Service Commission? best of your knowledge, have any of your members, or have you, sir, yourself been consulted with about this legislation prior to its tabling? Mr. Olfert: It is going to be a problem, and that is why we made mention of it in our report. The fa ct that at any Mr. Olfert: To thebest of my knowledge, the Manitoba point in time-1 mean, the membership puts proposals Government Employees' Union, nor any of our members, fo rward fo r collective bargaining at local meetings. have been consulted in the process. Those proposals are put together, and there is also an elected bargaining committee shuck from the appropriate * (2040) bargaining unit. Those people are charged and those Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou very much, Mr. Olfert. I members arecharged with and entrusted by the rest of the do not think there appear to be any more questions membership to go tothe bargaining table and get the best tonight. I would thank you very much fo r your time for deal possible. We see the ability of the minister to call coming before us this evening. votes on offers during the collective bargaining process as a real interferencein the collective bargaining process, The next presenteris AlbertCeril li. Is Albert Cerilli in because it is really up to the bargaining committee and the crowd? I would call Albert Cerilli's name for the the bargaining team who have been elected to go out and second time. Albert Cerilli. Onhearing no response, Mr. achieve what they are able to achieve at the bargaining Cerilli's name will be shuck from thelist. table on behalf of the members, not to be frustrated and time spent on voting on offers that indeed may not be The next person presenting on the list is Deb Stewart. finaloff ers at all. When is an offer a fm al offer? I think Is Deb Stewart in the Assembly? Deb Stewart, for the that is the concern that we would have in tenns of that second time. On hearing no response, Deb Stewart's voting process. name is shuck from the list.

Mr. Reid: Then you see there is a possibility of the The next name on the list is Mario Javier. Is Mr. minister being both theperson who will decide when the Javier in the room. Aha. Good evening, sir. Good employer's offer will be sent to the employees fo r a vote evening, Mr. Javier. Do you have-yes, I seeyou have over top of the heads of the union negotiators so that the some copies ofyour presentation being circulated. While minister, in this situation, as both the employer or the these arebeing circulated, I would ask you to commence officer representative of the employer fo r the public your remarks, sir. sector, can be in a conflict of interest situation in detennining when that offer would go to the employer, Mr. MarioJavier (Private Citizen): The note that you since he is ultimately the employer in cases of have there actually is just part of my presentation. I negotiations involving the government. would notbe repeating it word by word, but my talk will be revolving around it and Bill 26. If you fe el that I am Mr. Olfert: WeD, that presents certainly a perception of veryfo reignhere or very alien lookingit is because I am a conflict of interest fo r our membership in a number of alienated in the waythis government is going ahead with bargaining units. Some of our bargaining units are not all thebills that aregoing on, because this is not just Bill directly tied to government but those that are, certainly 26, this is a group of all the bills that are now being thatdoes present a concern when the minister is also able passed in the Legislature. to ask fo r a vote to be conducted and, at the same time, a member of government, a cabinet minister, who is at the I am not going to go on Bill 26 article and paragraph same time negotiating on behalf of the government. becauseit will sound very redundant. I will just go ahead 112 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

and I will talk about how this labour amendment will conference, labour seems to be agreeing with the affectus. As a private citizen I can only consider myself government andthe business communities, except for one as a worker, and Bill 26 actually is a labour amendment, thing: the wage and price control. So after that, Mr. and anything that pertains to labour should affect Trudeau just became frustrated. He asked then-Secretary workers. All of us are workers. As elected officials, Cartier, I think, to have a study to see why Japan seems whenever you touchthe labour bill you should be looking to be shooting up in its economy and Canada is lagging afterworkers the . Bill 26, actually, if you will look at it, behind, andMr. Coonaghanwas commissioned to do this just look and foc us itself on the union. The union is an study. Whatyou have now with you is the last chapter of organization workers.of Soactually this bill is not really his book "The Japanese Way." working fo r this organization of workers, although the amendment is supposed to be fo r workers . You see it is very hard to implement some of those fa ctors, The Japanese Way and the Japanese' labour I probablywould call now the minister that I think this relations and West Germany's labour relations to be bill is unnecessary and to the extent I think it might be appliedhere in Canada. Theyhave a different culture and dangerous. It might be very brutal or very pessimistic, a differenthistoocal background. In West Germany, it is but then I will try to prove my point. If the government the ownership of the corporation being allowed. The now thinks this bill will change the way the union is employees are being allowed to own part of the behaving, I do not think so. It will only infuriate them. corporation. It gives them an incentive. In Japan, there You see, the union fo r the past fe w years, as I know, has is another thing. It is the personal importance that they been a little bit misunderstood, but the inner function of get every six months. They have the bonus system. We it is truly democratic, and I am a living proofto it. never have that here in Canada. So it was recommended during that time thatCanadashould have labour relations Maybe two or three years ago I was calling the chair, ofits own, run by the fed eral government. One problem since he is in my riding, about my union. I cannot get about that is thathere in Canada you will have 11 labour any help then. Now I run my union, and that is how it relations because allthe other provinces seem to be going works. If everybody in the union will know and will be independently with each other. It does not really have a advisedon what is happening, they will soon realize and, real boss. as Mr. Hilliard was talking here before, if you want to have a career in the union you have to work fo r your * (2050) members and fo r theworkers. Otherwise your career will be too short. Since thattime, thereno is real labour relationship here in Canada. TheCooservative government normally goes Now, what I gave you here tonight is actually aloog with business. TheLiberals sometimes lean a little something that was a study during the Trudeau regime. bit towards the left of the workers. The NDP You see, after the oil glut of 1973, there were three government, who have never had a chance in fe deral nations that seemed to fa re well enough in their economy politics, is the only one that really moves on the side of but, during the time around 1977-78, Mr. Trudeau the worker. Now going back to Manitoba, over here in seemed to wonder why Canada does not seem to go along this province, we only have the Conservative and the with West Germany and Japan and the growth of the NDP, and the NDP, of course, will have to go on labour economy when his country actually has more resources and the Conservatives will go on business. Now we are than the other two. So he called fo r a tripartite in an economic crisis. conference. He called the labour organization, called the business community and the government, and they had a This is an aftershock actually of what happened to us talk. This talk is supposed to be what we may call now in the early 1980s. While Trudeau was hoping that this an industrial labour relation. During that time the study be implemented here in Canada, at least partof it, Canadian Labour Congress actually walked out of this the Canadian people have a different idea. They elected meeting, and if you should excuse me-perhaps you will a Conservative government after him, and while they jump on me as to why the Canadian Labour Congress wereso enchanted by thebaritone voice of Mr. Mulroney, walked out of this meeting. You see, during that they fe U asleep, you know, and while they were sleeping, October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 113

Mr. Mulroney signedNAFT A, and when the Canadians countiy here in the world, and NAFTA actually includes woke up, he still had another gift fo r them, you got the Mexico. The United States, in the middle, will have to GST. Now the labour relations were fo rgotten, balance it out. Actually, the United States will continue everything will have to depend on our rich neighbour in in their business. They will just go to Mexico because the south, and everything that our neighbour in the south the wages there are very low, but technology is much wants is business from us. better here in Canada, so the United States will have to bring in here fo r quality. Now the Manitoba government, in conjunction and to go fo r the NAFTA agreement, will have to have some Now, since our wage is veryhigh, we have to adopt a tools. Bill 26 is one of them; Bill 49 is one of them; and system in which we can lower our wages. I can see it in most of the bills that are being passed now are actually Bill 26; I can see it in Bill 49. It is all hidden between part of the package. the lines.

What I can call now here in Manitoba, afteryou guys Mr. Reid: Sothen you see that Bill 26, as the first step, reviewall these suggestions and these papers that I gave will be alower ing of thewages fo r working people in our you, is that you probably can throw away this bill; this is province, and that, I take it, as a result of the lowering of dangerous. If you can really create a true business and those wages, you see in the future that there will be a labour relation here run by the government, then we can lowering of the standard of living conditions fo r the move fo rward and have our economy moving because, if people of this province as a result of this Bill 26. Am I you guys tiyto put the burden on all the working people, correct in that assumption? which is the fo undation of this province-and this province is fo unded by labour and not by the Hudson's Mr. Javier: This is also the reason why I call this bill Bay investment-we canmove fo rward. We probably can dangerous. You see,you lower thewages of Manitobans, still do it if Mr. Toews here will only drop this bill. I and we can acceptas that we areaccep ting now. Just last think we can call fo r the labour and business weekwe signed atentative agreement to lower our wage communities, together with the government, to find the by at least 3.2 percent. The problem is I can lower my proportion to move fo rward. wage downup to $8 anhour, but I want to make sure that you lower the Autopac to the minimum of at least 30 Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Javier. percent, your water bills, your telephone bills. It just has That concludes the time for presentation tonight. Mr. to go on proportion. IfI amgoi ng to lower my salary, fo r Reid, with a question. crying out loud, lower my bills.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Javier, fo r your presentation Mr. Reid: Mr. Javier, as a member of the public, as a here this evening. I am intrigued by your comments, and private citizen, have you been consulted by the Minister the thoughts that you shared with us that Bill 26 is but ofLabour(Mr. Toews) or anyone in his department with the first step fo r this government in allowing it to operate respect to the minister's tabling of this bill? Have you more freely, I take it from your words, under the North been consulted prior to him bringing forward these American Free Trade Agreement. amendments? Can you describe fo r this committee, sir, the impact I had a brief conversation with the Chair that you see this bill will have on working people in the Mr. Javier: once, and we discussed Bill 26, and we were both province of Manitoba vis-a-vis or with respect to the unaware ofit then I had not seen the paper yet when we working people in both the United States and Mexico? . talked. As fa r as I know, no one in my union has been What do you see on the horizon fo r Manitoba working consulted about this bill. people once this bill-if it is passed, what will the impact be? Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Javier, I was wondering, as the Mr. Javier: Thedesign, the wayNAFT A is made is like head of your union, have you had a chance to bring this this: Canada, we are considered to be a very highly paid legislation before the people you represent? 114 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

Mr. Javier: I did, and I actually explained what will be but so was the procedure that had been in place in the aftereffects of this bill. Since this is actually in Manitoba and most ofthe restof Canada over the last 50 conjunction with other bills, I know that this bill, if we years. This procedure required that a large majority of have toremove the labour fa ctor on Bill 49, this bill will eligible employees sign union membership cards. Only compensate the loss of it. where less than a maj ority sign cards or where the majority is slim or questionable would a vote be held. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Javier. That will conclude the timefo r presentation and questions tonight, What was wrong with this procedure? Is there and I thank you very much fo r coming before the evidenceof systematic orfrequent abuse, fa lsification and committee. manipulation? Asidefrom occas ional anecdotes, no such evidence has been submitted in Manitoba or anywhere The next individual named on the list is Mr. Cy else in Canada. Gonick. Is Mr. Gonick in the assembly? Goodeveni ng, sir. Do you have written copies of your presentation fo r What will be the effect of the new, so-called more the committee? democratic procedure? Employers will now have an opportunity to intervene in all campaigns to intimidate While your presentation is being circulated, Mr. employees into voting against certification. How do we Gonick, I would invite you to proceed with your verbal know this? Because it has already happened in Ontario presentation. which brought in a similar procedure last year.

* (2 1 00) In the first instance, the number of certification applicatioos received in Ontario fe ll by 43 percent in the Mr. Cy Gonick (Private Citizen): My name is Cy period fo llowing adoption of Bill 7, a period of Gonick. J am an instructor in economics. My specialty expanding employment which should otherwise have is industrial relations. I am also co-ordinator of the resulted in a rise of certification applications. Second, Labourand Workplace Studies program at the University the percentage of applications in which unions were of Manitoba, and so I speak to the amendments to The certifiedfe U froot 77percent in 1994 to 60 percent in the Labour Relations Act in that capacity. Some of you period fo llowing adoption of Bill 7. Thirdly, might know that about 25 years ago I was a member of applications fo r decertification increased by 91 percent this committee debating amendments to The Labour over the same time frame and the rate of terminations Relations Act, but that was a long time ago, and I am in granted increased by 48 percent. a different capacity today. Assuming this patternprev ails over the next few years, According to government spokespersons, these the impact on trade union representation in Ontario will amendments toThe Labour Relations Act are required to be nothing less than catastrophic, and there is no reason make trade unions more accountable to their members to think that the same result would not occur in and to ensure that they are more fully representative and Manitoba. Instead of a third of the workforce having responsible in the way they function. These are goals unionrepresentation as at present, only 12 percent to 15 whichnobody is going to quarrel with, yet they presume percent will have a collective voice that union that unions in this province currently violate these representation provides workers. This is already the principles of democracy and responsibility and therefore situation in the U.S.A., whose certification procedure is must be regulated and restrained. What is the evidence now the basis of Ontario law and the proposed fo r this presumption? amendment to Manitoba law.

There are six amendments in Bill 26. For lack of time, Industrial relations experts in both countries have I will only comment on three of them. examined why unions in the U.S. now account fo r only 12 percent of all workers compared to 33 percent in A secret ballot will now be required in all applications Canada. There is widespread agreement, rare indeed fo r certification. Thissounds reasonable and democratic, within the economics profession, that the difference in October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 115

certification procedure has been a maj or cause in the A third proposed amendment requires that, to spend union density gap that exists between the two countries. dues money on political and social causes they support, The voting system gives employers fa r more opportunity unions must obtain permission from eachemplo yee they to use their acknowledged power to blocking represent. Employees who refuse permission will be unionization than the card system which, until now, has allowed todirect unions to donate the equivalent portion prevailed in Canada. Granted, Manitoba's amendment of their dues to a registered charity. This, again, is put requires a quick vote, within seven days fo llowing fo rward as a measure to make unions more accountable application, but such is also the case in Ontario. The to those they represent. combination of delayed votes and very limited resources available to the Manitoba Labour Relations Board will On first reading it might sound reasonable. On provide employers with all the time and opportunity they reflection, however, this amendment challenges the very need to defeat unionization drives. notion of social unionism, which is the tradition in Canada, while fa vouring the business unionism that is A second amendment requires the Minister of Labour morewidely practised in the United States . Recent court to conductvotes onthe latest offers of an employer when decisions in the U.S., fo r example, distinguish between the vote is so requested by the employer. The assumption core union services like collective bargaining and underlying this amendment is that union leaders are strike grievances and all other union activities. By allowing prone and therefore deliberately withhold information union members to opt out of paying fo r these specifically from their members so as to produce the strikes they are sociopolitical activities, the amendments are saying in so determined to hatch. If their members had an effect that supporting a political movement or social opportunity to vote on the employer's last offer, so it is cause is not a legitimate, or at least not a regular, part of presumed, they would vote to accept and therefore the what a union does. It would be the equivalent of number of strikes would be dramatically reduced. allowing taxpayers the option of not paying fo r say, healthcare or subsidized daycare because it is not held to Where is the evidence that Manitoba labour leaders be a core activity of government. The biased nature of mislead their members to promote or prolong strikes? thisrevision is easily evidenced by the lack of equivalent Where is the evidence that Manitoba labour leaders are measures preventing shareholders of corporations to strike crazy? The government can offer no evidence, divertto say, the NDP, or the Green Party or the CLC or because Manitoba is fa mous in this country fo r the theNational Action Committee on the Status of Women moderation of its leaders. Manitoba's strike incidence theirportion of corporate donations currently given to the has always been among the lowest in the country. It is Liberal or Conservative Party. true that this pattern was upset this past six months, but this has more to do with the altered workplace These are only three of six amendments being environment, largely a product of government fiscal considered. By taking them all together, they have the austerity, thanit hasto do with the sudden transformation effect of significantly altering the industrial relations oflabour leaders, responsible and moderate one day and landscape. They are presented on the basis that unions irresponsible and militant the next. are undemocratic, unaccountable and irresponsible and therefore need to be controlled and constrained by Moreover, the proposed amendment amounts to a government. substantive interference with the collective bargaining process. The very first clause of most collective These charges are not new so it will be of no surprise agreements asserts that the union is the sole thatthey have been thoroughlyresearched in both Canada representative and voice of the workers. Inserting and the United States. The most highly regarded such government into the picture, acting in response to study was conducted by Harvard University professors requests from the employer, is a direct violation of this RichardFreeman and James Medoff. On the basis of the relationship. It smacks of the kind of paternalism that most extensive research ever performed evaluating the rulers have historically imposed on their subordinates, behaviour of unions, they say that, quote, the picture of presuming they cannot be trusted to act in a rational and unions as nondemocratic institutions run by corrupt responsible way. labour bosses is a myth. Most unions are highly 116 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

democraticwith membershaving access to union decision * (2 110) making, especially at the local level, end of quote. Mr. Reid: Thankyou, Mr. Gonick, for your presentation h':'"e this evening and fo r your comments with respect to Afterlooking at every indicatorfrom wages to benefits Bdl 26. Knowing somewhat of your history, sir, and in to productivity and to the impact of unions on non­ your conunents here,you have dealt with labour relations unionized workers and the general public, these authors fhman instructional point of view for a number of years. nclude that, quote, on balance, unionization appears to � I want to ask you, sir, do you see as a result of Bill Improve, rather than harm, the social and economic 26-and you reference that there is going to be a s!stem, end of quote. Which is not to say that unions, weakening of unions and their voice in the province, do hke every other social institution, could not be more you see, sir, that this legislation that this government has democratic and more inclusive. brought forward in any way, that you may be familiar The results of this research, confirmed by most other with, would be contrary to the international labour studies done by industrial relations experts, are well organizatimwhich is a body of the United Nations? Do known to our Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews). Yet, his you see, as a result of this legislation, the possibility of amendments are being driven from premises that are not anycourt challenges arising that may be in contravention supported by, and in fa ct contradict, these fm dings. of any code?

Mr. Gonick: I think there is certainly the possibilityof The ministercan say that the amendments he proposes a court challenge on the basis of requiring unions to could go much further. Some are challenging the Rand consult with each and every member of the union with Formula, which is one ofthekey elements of the carefully respect to the expenditure of monies as this I believe balanced compromise that our post World War II contravenes the Supreme Court of Canada decision. I industrial relations system was fo unded on. would not be surprised ifthere couldnot be a challenge on that basis. But theseamendmen ts, and I have only commented on three of them, will defmitely result in a situation where Mr. Reid: Do you see, Mr. Gonick, because this even fewer workers will have the benefit of trade union govenunent likes totalk about being democrat ic in giving representation. Existing labour law makes it extremely unionmembers the opportuni ty to vote on internal affairs difficultfo r unions to gain certification in small service of their union, do you think it would be in the best workplaces where most workers are employed, receive interests of working people of this province-and I am extremely low wages and fe w, if any, benefits, and talking here specifically about the nonunionized experience poor working conditions. The current workforce of the province-to give those people of this amendments under consideration by the Manitoba province the opportunity to vote perhaps once a year on Legislaturewould make it that much more difficult. Nor whether ornot they too would like to become members of will theseamendments improve the lives that much of the a union organization? Do you think that that should small minority that may still be served by collective occur perhaps on an annual basis, to seek out the agreements. On the contrary, they will weaken their opinions of the nonunionized workforce? bargaining strength and weaken the capacity of their unions to voice their concerns and represent their Mr. Gonick: Well, I think that is a splendid idea, quite interests. novel I amnot sure that that exists anywhere, but as the ministerseems tobe wanting to be apioneer in industrial These amendments may well improve the ability of relations efforts, he might want to give consideration to Manitoba business to compete in the global economy. that suggestion. Surely this government could find ways to achieve this goal without damaging working conditions and reducing Mr. Reid: With your extensive experience in labour workplace demoaacywhich will clearly result from these relations, Mr. Gonick, has this government, has the amendments. Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) consulted you prior to Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Gonick, fo r your the tabling of Bill 26 and the provisions contained remarks tonight. therein? October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 117

Mr. Gonick: Not myself, nor any of my colleagues that relations, absolutelydiff erent from all the social countries I am aware of in western Europe, Japan and Canada. The companies started out being used to slavery until 1850, and then, Mr. Reid: What would be your recommendation to this after a brief six months or so after the Civil War, they minister with respect to Bill 26, Mr. Gonick? reinstituted 90 percent of slavery up until Martin Luther King led his revolution in 1960. At that time women Mr. Gonick: Well, my recommendation is that the were getting pretty vociferous and environmentalists were minister should withdraw the legislation and should getting pretty vociferous and they were demanding all consider the suggestion that you have made as an kinds of rights. The Trilateral Commission had a major alternative. conference, Nelson Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission, and they said, democracy is getting completely out of Mr. Chairperson: There appearing to be no other control. questions, I would thank you very much fo r your time tonight, Mr. Gonick. The Alex Carey manuscripts, which I will give you a copy of tomorrow when I deliver all my papers, which I The next presenter was Yvonne Campbell who has delivered previously on three occasions in this House and submitted a written submission as indicated earlier, so we all across hearings across Canada, the Alex Carey will proceed on with the calling of the list. The next manuscriptdet ails 80 years of efforts, organized activities individual on the list is Kenneth Emberley. Is Mr. by the National Association of Manufacturers in the Emberley in the assembly tonight? Good evening, sir. U.S.A, andthey created Chambers of Commerce to help Your presentation is being circulated or your written them. They started in 1880 getting worried about the remarks are being circulated. I would invite you to power of business to control government when proceed with your verbal address. governments were giving the vote, and they concluded that we can give people the vote as long as the power to Mr. Kenneth Emberley (Private Citizen): Did you control policy is in the hands of business. say fo r me to wait? There has been an 80-year war, and that 53-page Mr. Chairperson: No, would you please proceed, sir. manuscript describes it in detail, and the 250-page book of Susan Fuludi of Patricia Cayo Saxton, the War on Mr. Emberley: I have toomuch material, but I will try Labor and the Left, details it completely. They were and summarize it, so do not try and fo llow the written spending a billion dollars in hate propaganda against part, please. You will just be mixed up. unions by the time the 1970s were drawing to a close. Theycreated the Business Round Table in the U.S.A. in Until workers canjoin a union as simply and easily as 1972 and asked them, how long will it take to elect our a middle-class man canjoin the Chamber of Commerce kind of government? or as an affluent man can join the Business Council on National Issues or a wealthy person can join the They put our kind of government in power for two association of chemical manufacturing industries or join terms in 1980. They created the Business Council on the U.S. business industry and the steel industry National Issues of Tom D'Aquino in 1976, and that manufacturing association and take part in their lobbying group of 150 mostly United States transnational efforts, wedo not have a democracy. This legislation that corporations in Canadaelected Mulroney in 1984 fo r two is in place in Manitoba is a part way towards having a terms, and in 1988 businesses contributed $56 million to democracyand giving some balance fo r unions and some elect Brian Mulroney and put in free trade, and the balance fo r the power of business. businesses were refunded their $56 million that were spent by legislation of Brian Mulroney. The 100 citizen One of the main papers I want to talk to you about is groups that opposed and fo ught fo r an independent Alex Carey's manuscript and Susan Hart Falundi's book, democratic Canada with their own constitution and their War on Labor and the Left. She starts out by describing own empowerment to run their own country, the money that North America has a unique history of labour they spent was not allowed to be tax deductible. 118 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

You people are proposing legislation to control the timehave prevented it, absolutely prevented it. Then they unions' intervention, which possiblyamounts to one-third dreamed up the communist word, which is the religious or one-half or one-quarter of a percent of what business hate word. It describes anybody that is a social activist, spends every year in hate propaganda against unions. a nuna a churchminister that is helping people fo rm co­ operatives and credit unions. In fa ct, the United States * (2 1 20) got so angry when Nelson Rockefeller published, took Now, the literature is in here. It is written down. I badeto Nixon an 80-page report of what they were doing have givenyou excerpts from the ksboo and I have given in SouthAmerica. It ispublic information. I have copies you the full manuscript. It is not an imaginary story, but of the document He said, in South America the nuns and it is all secret. It is all secret because our mass media priests are even teaching them not only about credit own-there is a Black man in Toronto, I think, owns the unions and co-operatives, but they are talking about newspaper, big Black man, Conrad, and ifthere is any unions. That makes them an enemy of the United States timeI had racethat hatred was it. I have never had it any government. othertime, but themass media-l have studied Chomsky's When in eight years the Guatemalan government were book. I have studied 40 books on mass media, on 60 percent born-again Christians, the whole country and propaganda, and thereis a darling little quote that I have a CIA-inspired fa natic dictatorship took over Guatemala fo r you in here, and it mentions the fa ct that, in the Alex and within five years the Pope had to sue fo r peace and Carey manuscript on page 32, it describes the many cancel liberation theology. Now, with that kind of fo rce, business-funded think tanks which promote the why arethese terr ible �on people a threat to democracy neoconservative agenda. They spend billions yearly in my country? They are the only possible force that can without shareholder vote of approval and it quotes this balance the power of wealthy men, of which we have a Alex Carey, an Australian friend of Helen Caldicott, and ghastly surplus, and of corporations, and we need some he died before his book was published. I got the balancing. manuscript from the United States and I published and distributed 180 copies in Canada with my friend David. You know, when Ronnie Reagan took power, there It says, political preferences are simply plugged into the were 800,000 millionaires in the States. It took 200 system by leaders of business and other organizations in years. He created 700,000 more in eight years and 12 order to extract what they want from the system. When billionaires in one year alone. Canada has created theydo a plebiscite and poll after six months or a year of 30,000 new millionaires in the last 15 years, a thousand hate propaganda and misleading information, then the of them in Manitoba, and the unions get in their way model of plebiscitary democracy is substantially because the only way a very rich man can keep getting equivalent to themodel of totalitarian rule, whatever that richer regularly is ifhe has 5, 000 or I 0, 000 or 15,000 or means. 20,000 people all over theworld not being poor, but their poawages cut in half and living in poverty. That is the 1be grassroots democracy of the Reform Party type in only way the rich people can get enough to get richer Canada is basically what we have had since 1980. So every single year. So that is why they cut the workers' how can the state-in Alex Carey's manuscript, he says, wages in half during the last 15 years. how can the state prevent the corporations from doing things with the shareholder's money that are not the This Legislature would not raise the minimum wage of business of the corporation? Now, how about that fo r a workers, would not raise the social allowances. The piece of legislation to put in before you pass the union minimum wage should be $1 1 an hour right now today legislation restricting their right to have a little tiny bit of and the poor people are revolting and mad because they the money spent? know the rich people are stealing $8,000 or $10,000 a year from each poor working person in every little You see, in the United States they made a decision I 00 restaurant and shopping centre. years ago that they would not allow a social democratic party. They will not allow it, and the hate campaign of Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you very much, Mr. Senator McCarthy and the massive hate campaigns Emberley, fo r those remarks. That now concludes the operated by the news media and the corporations over time allotted fo r the principal presentation. October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 119

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Emberley, fo r your The next presenter tonight is Darrell Rankin. Good presentation, sir. You referenced a ghastly surplus of evening, Mr. Rankin. While your remarks are being wealthy people in this province. I am intrigued by that circulated, Mr. Rankin, I would invite you to proceed comment. Perhaps I misquoted you there, and I with your verbal presentation. apologize ifI did, ifit was not just the province you were referring to, but perhaps you, sir, can describe fo r us your Mr. Darrell Rankin (Communist Party of Canada - thoughts on why you think it is that this Minister of Manitoba): Thank you. On behalf of the Communist Labour (Mr. Toews) and this government have brought Party of Canada - Manitoba, I would like to thank the in Bill 26. What do you think the end result will be as a Standing Committee on Industrial Relations fo r the result of their tabling ofBill 26? opportunity to present our views on Bill 26, The Labour Relations Amendment Act.

Mr. Emberley: I thinkJohn Ralston Saul in the Massey I represent theC ommunist Party which fo r 75 years has Lectures answeredthat questionvery correctly, sir. In his been in the struggle fo r jobs, unemployment insurance book The Unconscious Civilization, $15, he described and other social programs, collective bargaining rights, what he calls a century of corporatism, and the best peace and disarmament, a democratic solution to the example was Mussolini's Italy and Salazar's Portugal. national question in Canada, Canadian sovereignty and The whole system of government and business is socialism. concentrated in transnational corporations. Hardly any little businesses have any power. The transnational The Conservative government, with its proposed corporation is an authoritarian structure from top to amendments in Bill 26 to The Labour Relations Act is bottom, particularly in North America. That is a reason single-handedly responsible fo r uniting the labour theycannot compete with Japanese and Germanindustry, movement in Manitoba. That is something we have been because they have a more democratic structure, and trying to do for decades, and we must give the Europe has a more happy, peaceful workforce, and they Conservative government credit fo r uniting the labour outproduce the United States right, leftand centre. movement against it.

One of the quotes I will give you from the War on Bill 26 will weaken the trade union movement Labor and the Left shows that in one year when the politically, organizationally and financially. The United States raisedtheir standard of living by 4 percent, Communist Party is opposed to the restriction of the Japanese raised their standard of living 16 percent, democratic rights fo r labour, finds the proposals in Bill because their businessmen are more honest and more 26 to be unacceptable and calls fo r their withdrawal. unselfish and pay higher taxes and treat their workers better in the fa ctories, and they produce better. Bill 26 represents the main effort this fa ll by the Conservative government to create the conditions fo r Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, sir. That more privatization and fo r the further erosion of public would appear to conclude the questions tonight, and I services, health care, social programs and job security. thankyou very much fo r taking your time, sir, to present Since this bill was introduced in the spring, it has done to the committee this evening. little to hinder strikes involving thousands of workers. The labour movement is ready and able to strike against Mr. Emberley: Thank you, Sir. I just wish the public concession demands in the private and public sector. had been allowed to see this on cable television. It is such a shame, thesecrecy of these back-room meetings at Clearly, the labour movement is trying to findways to the back of the Legislature. The public is excluded. oppose the relentless drive by corporations and their Twenty yearsof cable television, and you people will not governments to demand wage-and-benefit concessions allow this discussion to get outside this House where and to boost corporate profits, but the bill has still people might find out what is going on. created a chill in collective bargaining and would, if passed, severely limit economic bargaining and other Mr. Chairperson: Goodevening, sir. rights. On the other hand, the bill has compelled the 120 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October29, 1996

labour movementto unite, andbecause of that the bill has social crises of capitalism continue and grow deeper, the alreadybackfired against the Conservatives to an extent. political domination of the capitalist class will be challenged by labour in the years ahead, and no law will * (2 130) hinder that strugglefo r long.

Manyof theamendments in Bill 26 are antidemocratic The Communist Party would, however, like to and restrict therights of labourand union security. These congratulate the Conservative government fo r trying to unacceptable amendments include: fo rced financial demoaatize thewt:dplace as astated intention of Bill 26 disclosure including the names of individuals receiving but, because the Communist Party cannot finda single compensation from a union and other small details democratic effect of this bill, here are some helpful designed to involve trade unions in endless bureaucratic alternatives to create real workplace democracy: ban exercises at the expense of their ability to defend their scabs or replacement workers during strikes; strengthen members' interests; creation of a penalty of loss of and guarantee the right to organize and bargain automatic dues checkofl: orthe Rand Formula, which has collectively; promote equality for women and people of operated since 1945, a serious attack on union security; colour; strengthen pay and job equity laws; strong plant a ban on political expenses on behalf of any union closurelaws to savejobs at the expense of corporations; memberwho disagrees; an end to automaticcertification; the right to strike during the life of a contract over what amounts to a zero tolerance policy for stKalled noncontract issues; strengthen and enforce health and strike related misconduct, for conduct which can be safety laws; raise the minimum wage to two-thirds of the perfectly legal but can cause severe penalties including average industrial wage; the provincial government the loss of a striker's job or the jobs of certain strike should demand that the fed eral government restore Ul leaders; for cedvotes on anemployers' so-<:alled last offer, benefit access and duration to the 1987 standards which opens the door to trickery and threats from immediately; raise benefits to 90 percent of former management behind the back of a democratically elected wages; expand Ul to cover everyone seeking work; stop union bargaining committee. looting the UI fund for privatized training programs; a legislated32-hour work withweek no loss in pay as a key Bill 26 intends to keep the trade union movementboth way toaeate jobs; a massive publicly funded job creation shackled and docile. This bill aims to cripple labour's program; and, finally, curb thepower of transnational abilityto defend and improve its conditions of life and to corpooltims, demandfed the eral government to scrap the put the huge profitsof the biggest Manitoba corporations free trade deals and defend Canadian sovereignty. beyond the reach oflabour. All of which is respectfully submitted. Clearly, theseamendments shackle not only the labour movement generally but aim specifically against the Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you verymuch, Mr. Rankin. labour movement's only ability to influence employers Are there anyquestions of the presenter? economically, namelyits ability to withdraw its members' labour power. The legal restrictions in this bill on the Mr. GerardJennissen (Fiin Floo): Thank you fo r your right to strike fa vour the employer exclusively. presentation, Mr. Rankin. With regard to your suggestions about creating some alternatives, some real The bill also intends to keep labourfrom entering the workplace democracy, one of thesuggestions was to raise political arena now dominated by procorporate parties the minimum wageto tw

done that, but I would imagine it would be significantly workshop floor through a democratic process within their higher than the current minimum wage . union.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade A fr iend once told me that the first step to a fa scist and Tourism): Just one question, Mr. Rankin. Would state is the devastation of the labour movement. I you beprepared to disclose how many members you have checked this out and this proved to be true historically. in the Communist Party of Canada and also those Inthe past eight years, you as the government of the day members in Manitoba? have worked toward this goal. The Minister of Labour confides to the press that he is being branded a Mr. Rankin: I am prepared to do that. I have already communist because he does not speed up this process. spoken to the media about this. In Manitoba, it is Asa worker, I canattest to speedup in a workplace where approximately 50. more and moreworkers are injureddue to lean and mean production. Why does the Minister of Labour not truly Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Rankin, speak fo r the workers of this province and rectify the fo r your presentation tonight. That would conclude the physical carnage being promoted against workers? As presentation. I thank you fo r taking the time to come organized workers, we do not need any government before us. telling us how to conduct our business democratically. Ten years ago, when we only had an association instead The ne:Xt presenter tonight is Kelly Logan. Is Kelly of a union at my workplace, we had to settle for crumbs Logan in the assembly? Calling the name Kelly Logan from our company such as a cent-and-a-half an hour fo r the second time; the name Kelly Logan will be struck raise, which works out to 60 cents a week, instead of a off the list as there is no response. The next presenter is dental plan. No wonder we became unionized. Barny Haines. Is Barny Hainesin theassembly? Calling Barny Haines' name fo r the second time and there is no We do not have any full- or part-time staffpaid by our response, the name Barny Haines will be struck off the local. Most of our work is done after hours. Everyone list. The next presenter is Reg Cumming. Reg who represents us is democratically elected. Just because Cumming, are you in the assembly? Are you Mr. the public is beginning to understand your trueagenda, Cumming, sir? [interjection] Great. Good evening, sir, you figureall you have to do is change the rules. It does and welcome. not work like that. All you are doing is lighting fr res. How dare you say that there will be votes on contracts whenthe pub lic interest is deemed to be at stake. This is Mr. Reg Cumming (Canadian Auto Workers, Local brought fo rward by the same Minister of Labour who 2224): Good evening. To all honourable members of says he believes in collective bargaining. This is very this Manitoba legislative committee who really think that contradictory. We already have a democratic process in this bill in any way, shape or fo rm will advance place in our local where every memberhas a vote whether democratic representation in my workplace, I salute you. or not to accept the company's proposals. We in our To the rest of the committee, I say shame on you on local recognize your changes fo r what they really are, behalf of all workers. more ways toweaken the collective voice and strength of organized workers. Bill 26 undercuts the representative These changes that are being proposed to further our type of democracy of our union and local. The results collective voice are a sham. I stand before you wiD beweakened unions, not more democracy, but that is representing theworkers of my CAW local and apologize the truenature of the bill, is it not? This is not the norm if l seem nervous. Obviously, the end results ofBill 26 in our great country. What happened? are geared up to make all organized workers nervous. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) claims that a large In conclusion, I am optimistic that no matter how, numberof workers haveapproached him asking fo r these when or where you attempt to stifle our collective voice, particular changes. I would suggest most of these wewill not be silenced. The main agenda at our local is workers are wannabe management people who fa iled at education oriented. Perhaps because of these draconian that endeavour and were allowed to return to the changes that are being proposed, we should foc us more 122 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

on being more politically active. The more you tell respect to negotiated items, because as you are aware, workers how to conduct their affairs, the more Bill 26 will allow the minister to cause votes to be held confrontational and adversarial we shall become. onthe employer's fm al offer, whether it is the final, final or the fm al, fm al, fm al offer is something to be yet * (2 140) determined? Can you tell me the process that you go Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Cumming. through. describe for us hopefully the democratic nature of your organization in arriving at positions with respect Mr. Reid: Thank you Mr., Cumming, fo r your to negotiations? presentation. I want to ask you, sir, some questions with respect to the CAW which you have indicated that you Mr. Cumming: The collective agreements reached at are a member of. Because the minister is leaving the mywor kplace arereached on a tripartiteagreement with impression or trying to leave the impression with the national and the local, which are elected members of thepublic thatunion organizations do not act representatives of thelocal and companythe fo r which we in a free, open and democratic way, canyou describe fo r work. When one talks about the collective process I methe process thatyou have within the CAW, of which cannot help but wonder how the government is going to I believeyou are a member, dealing with issues that you know when to call for a vote. Obviously, if the may encounter, whether it be financial matters or issues companies are so to speak in their back pocket, they will regardingcontmct negotiations? Can you describe fo r us know when to do it. They are going to be crying fo r it. your operations, please? Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, Mr. Cumming, does the Mr. Cumming: I am not sure which issues you are CAW negotiate with private sector employers, and if so regarding to, but if you are regarding to, like, financial how do you and perhaps your members fee l about the issues, our local has a meeting every month. Any penny government's intention to involve themselves in the that is spent on behalf of our local is voted on by the internal affairs of a union by forcing the employer to members. There is nothing hidden, no hidden agenda. withhold the Rand Formula dues that would beowing to Everything is discussed. theunioo as aresult of fa ilure to file fm ancial statement? How do you fee l about the government's involvement in Mr. Reid: Can you describe fo r the members of the those affairs? committee the process that CAW fo llows, as you may be fa miliar with it, dealing- Mr. Cumming: The CAW negotiates with private and public sector organizations. As fa r as withdrawing the Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Cumming. RandFormula, I am totmderstand it went to the Supreme Court and they said it was okay the way it was being Mr. Cumming: He did not finish. done. If there are more challenges coming, let them come. I mean, how many times can you go to the Mr. Chairperson: I beg your pardon. Mr. Reid. Supreme Court? They talk about fiscal responsibility. Let us get straight here. Whydo you keep dragging this Mr. Reid: I know it is getting late, Mr. Chairperson, but thing through the courts? If they said it once again, why I still have my statement to make first. would they change their minds?

Mr. Chairperson: I heard a pause, and I thought that Mr. Reid: I do not want to put words in your mouth, was the termination of your question, Mr. Reid, and I Mr. Cumming, but perhaps it is to create financial would invite you to continue and complete the question. difficulties fo r the unions, trying to drag this through the courts, but I will leave that fo r you and your members to Mr. Reid: The Chairpersonapologized. We will accept decide. I want to ask you, sir, have you or any members that. Thank you. of your organization, since the minister said he has consulted with adozen or so people in the province, been I would like to ask you, Mr. Cumming, can you one of those 12 peoplethat the Minister of Labour (Mr. describe fo r us the process that the CAW fo llows with Toews) has consulted prior to his tabling ofBill 26? October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 123

Mr. Cumming: Definitely not. Not out of my local, and student loans. I owe this entirely to the fa ct that none that I am aware of The only one that I saw was a during the summer I was able to gain employment in a CAW person from Boeing, and it is a real joke because unionized company. I consider myself very fo rtunate. If everybody knows, like I said in my presentation, he is a I had chosen to stay in Winnipegand if I had fo und work, person that tried to be management, could not make it at I could have expected little more than the provincial management. He was lucky enough to be in a unionized minimum wage of$5.40 an hour. What kind of incentive workplace where he wasallowed back on the floor. A lot is that? of them would not even do that. * (2 150) Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Cumming. That would conclude the time allotted fo r the I, like most youngpeople I know, associate unions and questions tonight, and I thank you very much fo r your the tradeunion movement with high wages, safe working presentation. conditions and secure, full-time employment. It is a fr ustration to me and many young people that good The next name on the list is Peter Magda. Is Mr. unionized jobs like mine are so scarce. The proposed Magda in the audience tonight? Mr. Magda, fo r the changes will make it even harder for young Manitobans second time. There being no response, Peter Magda will to gain collective representation and the privileges and be struck off the list. The next presenter is Heinrich benefits that come with collectivebargai ning. Huber. Is Mr. Huber in the audience? Good evening, Mr. Huber. Do you have a written presentation? The maj ority of young people are currently working in the service sector or in small workplaces, both of which Mr. Heinrich Huber (Private Citizen): Yes. are verydifficult to organize. Thework patterns of young people further hamper the ability to organize younger Mr. Chairperson: While the Clerk is circulating your workers, high unemployment, a large turnover, low presentation, I would invite you to proceed, sir, with your wages and mostly temporary or part-time work. Youth verbal presentation. and the lack ofexperience often result in no employment in these periods of high unemployment. Mr. Huber: As a concerned young Manitoban, I would like to urge the minister to drop the amendments to The The bill does not solve any of the problems but instead Manitoba Labour Relations Act proposed in Bill 26. I assaultsthe collective rights of workers. Wages will not fe el they threaten our futureand, in particular, the future rise and working conditions will not become fairer if job prospects of young Manitobans. Bill 26 is just one unionized workplaces become a harder task to of the proposed bills that I fee l is detrimental to the future accomplish. Bill 26 will assure that these problems will of young people in the province of Manitoba. It will continue to plague young Manitobans. increase not curb the exodus of young people from this province. Companies should inevitably get the unions they deserve. Bill 26 ensures the opposite. It makes I am currently a student at the University of Manitoba organizing harder and will make it easier for the studying economics in the labour studies program. Like unscrupulous employers out there to dismantle union most students, I must find employment during the drives. In the workplace, the employer dictates most of summerto afford to continue my education. For the past the terms of employment. The fo rmation of a union two summers I have beenemployed in northern Manitoba imposes limits to the powers by seeking an end to the planting trees. The company I was employed by, arbitrary treatment of workers. Thus, a union is hardly Waugh's Woods, is unionized by the IWA and I received ever a welcome addition to an employer's workplace. considerably higher wages than I had when I worked in Employees who striveto organize a union take large risks a nonunionized company doing the same job. Therefore, and gamble with their future in order to attain benefits this year I can support myself financially and attend that come from collective bargaining. I think these school while many of my fe llow students are forced to benefits can pass as unch allenged. Under the current supplement their summer earnings with part-time jobs Manitoba Labour Relations Act, Section 40(l )(a) gives 124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

organizers the ability to act autonomously both fromthe privileges ofthe mem�hi p, and it also fo rces unions to government and their employer. Certification of a union discloseprivate fmancial information to a public board or making an application becomes mandatory when 65 fa ce removal of the Rand Formula. percent of the bargaining unit has signed a card. Mandatory certification allows the union campaign more None of theseamendments do anything to improve the timeto go undetected by the employer and thus decreases situation of young people in this province. You will the risk of discharge from employment of the organizers. simply divide workers. The amendments of Bill 26 implement changes to the way unions conduct their The quick vote system, on the other hand, will be a businesses. The ideology behind the bill is that unions more stressful process fo r the employee. It gives the do not represent their workers and therefore must be employer more time to apologize, attempt to woo, coerce strictly regulated and monitored. I believe the orimportune thebargain ing unit and change the outcome amendments of Bill 26 were intentionally designed to withtheir sizable influence. Forming a union often goes weaken the position of working people. The long-term directly against the wishes of employers. This places a effects of Bill 26 will be to encourage more young considerable pressure on employees to conform to their Manitobans to leave this province in search of a better boss's appeals. future.

Bill 26 will also infringeupon the ways unions allocate Mr. Minister, I hope you will consider reviewing Bill their dues, in particular on the way they are spent on 26 as the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) has political activities. I believe workers and their done with Bill 72. Thank you, Mr. Minister. organizations should have the right to work toward the social goals by aiding the election of politicians who Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou , Mr. Huber. represent their best interests.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Huber, in my previous life I was a If a union's constitution, which has been voted on by schoolteacher and school principal and I dealt a lot with delegates selected by the membership, gives elected young people. My ears perked up at the end when you representatives a mandate, a union should be allowed to were making your comments about the future of young spend the dues accordingly. While individuals have a people. right to voice their opinions and are consulted at local meetings on how dues are spent, their dues are currently I would like fo r you to expand on that, knowing that if spent according to the wishes of the majority. Under Bill this legislation goes through and this government's 26, individuals will be able to affect the majority's agenda is fo llowed, we would end up with a very low­ decisionon how dues are spent. Consulting individuals wage, low-benefit type of economy. Being a rural MLA, in an organization brings accountability to a level which I have a lot of young fo lks who cannot get education is not yet present in other parts of society. Why must because of monetary reasons. I have a lot of young unions be more accountable than others? The people who cannot find a lot of jobs because this implementation of this clause will be a bureaucratic government has not been providing them. I would like nightmare fo r unions and will undoubtedly impede their you to be a little more specificin what future you see fo r ability to function efficiently. This, I assume, is the yourself and fo r other young people around in a low­ minister's goal. wage, low-benefit economy that this government is trying to set up. I have touched on but two ofthe amendments proposed by Bill 26. For the record, I would like to add that I also disapprove ofthe bill because it interferes with the rights Mr. Huber: Well, I think that question pretty much of workers to determine their own bargaining strategy. It answers itself. I plan to continue on with my education, interferes with access to an expedited grievance system. and that probably means leaving this province as soon as It gives employers the power to discharge employees fo r possible. picket line infractions, substitutes the term "union members" with "employees" entitling nonmembers the Mr. Chairperson: I believe Mr. Jennissen is next. October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 125

Mr. Jennissen: Mr. Huber, I was very interested when protect theinterests of all people in this province. All the you said that you worked fo r a unionized-or you were evidence that I have seen has been to the contrary. The unionized this last summer so you could make enough only interests that are being protected and advanced are money to carry on with your education, something that those of the elite in business and in government. I am other students were not as fo rtunate at achieving. truly disillusioned by all of the malevolence that I have been witness to with regard to the attacks on the I amwondering, could you give me a rough estimate of institutions of higher learning and the assault on trade the number of students, the percentage, that would have union freedom. unionized jobs and thus could afford to pay fo r their education fo r the year? * (2200)

Mr. Huber: I am not exactly sure if I am qualified to This entire legislative package is being brought in answer that question, but I know not a lot of my friends under the guise of empowering the people and have unionizedjobs and a lot of them are supporting their strengthening democracy, but I cannot help but find that education with student loans. ironic as it is being unilaterally imposed without discussion, without debate, as has been demonstrated Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Huber, through the selective silence of the minister and his fo r coming before us tonight and taking your time. That colleagues throughout these committee hearings. would conclude your presentation. Thank you very much. The actionsof this government and the package that it The next name on the list is Caroline Stecher. Is Ms. is attempting to sell are nothing more than an onslaught Stecher in the audience? Good evening, Ms. Stecher. directed at silencing opposing ideologies. In its attacks Have you a written presentation fo r circulation? on education, this legislation is attempting to proscribe theagenda in institutions of higher learning, which exist Ms. Caroline Stecher (Private Citizen): No, I do not to promote independent thought. It is in essence actually. I am a university student, and it was a choice forbidding the harvest of the ·youth of tomorrow and in between a written presentation fo r the people on the doing so extinguishes the opposing fo rces who believe in committee or lunch today, and ·lunch won, so, my working fo r the common good and not fo r the corporate apologies. agenda.

Mr. Chairperson: A commendable decision, and I In the assault on trade union freedom the government would invite you to proceed. is preaching democracy and practising dictatorship. It hasbeen prof essed that Bill 26 is geared to empower the Ms. Stecher: Thank you. rights of individual workers, yet in the climate that this neoconservative agenda has created, the individual As a Manitoban, as a member of the labour fo rce and worker has no rights. I know this because I have lived also as a student of workplace and labour studies, I fe lt this. Theonly impact that this legislation will have is the compelled andobliga ted tobe here to voice my dismay at creation and advancement of a tyranny in the workplace the impending legislative changes that are currently being where not only my worker rights but my rights as a pursued. human being will be stripped away. Bill 26's only accomplishment will be the silencing and weakening of Evenas a young person, I fa il to comprehend the logic the collectivepower the workers have when they unite. and legitimacy behind any of the bills being passed fo r this session. My only deduction as to why the The labourmovement has fo ught a long, hard, endless government is pursuing such an agenda is misguided struggle fo r the rights of workers not only in unions but vengeance and purely fo r self-interest. in society as a whole, life in the workplace, life at home and life in society. This legislation is directed at Correct me if I am wrong, but I have been led to violating all that has been won and, in doing so, not one believe that this government is presumed to advance and person in this province will escape unscathed. 126 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

The corporate agenda currently being pursued is where I am employed-I unfortunately am not unionized consistent with those in practice in the south, brought on at this point in time, but I know the union that does by the legacy of conservative ideologues. This country is organize people in the service sector where I am the best in the world and. frankly, I do not think employed does have that option. They give every single fo llowing the U.S. example is anything to be proud of. person in their membership the option of opting out in contributing to political activity. The consequences of inequality, poverty and despair I am sorry, what wasyour first question? wiDbe the legacy that this government will leave for me and for the children of Manitoba. I find it appalling that Mr. Downey: I was asking, what right was being in the light of all the ramifications this legislation will strippedaway from you by this legislation? have on the future ofManitobans, it is still vehemently beingpmsued. The motivation behind the push appears Ms. Stecher: Almost my right to join a union, because to be without integrity and without scruples, and this the way it is being brought out-sorry. government has not displayed anything to dispute my own observations. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, Iwould like to ask Ms. The silence of this government on this committee Stecher to articulate fo r me, in this act the section that makes me question whether the fight is all in vain. but I would prevent her from obtaining a job in the knowthat the peopleof this province will not soon fo rget marketplace- the damage that you have done and the people of this Ms. Stecher: From obtaininga job-pardon me. province will make sure that you never fo rget it either.

Mr. Penner: Whatof section this act would prevent you Mr. Chairperson: Tiuink you, Ms. Stecher. Mr. from not being able to find a job? You indicated a Struthers, with a question. woman could notfind a job. Mr. Struthers: First of all, I want to commendyou on FloorComment: A goodjob. your presentation and your grasp of realitydealing with this provincial government. Could you be specificagain Ms. Stecher: Thank you. onexactly what youthink the devastation is going to be? What will this province look like once this low-wage, Mr. Penner: Whatof section thisact would prevent you low-benefit type of economy is in place fo r any period of from doing it? time?

Ms. Stecher: Like I saidin my presentation here, I think Ms.Stecher: What section of that act? That entire bill, what this corporate agenda is leading to is a province of what that does is it weakens the collective right. It inequality and a province of poverty, and especially, weakensevery single right that a worker has. Without a beinga student, being a woman, that is specifically being union, what rights do workers have? You have the geared at me. That is where I amgoing to end up. I am employment standards, you have workplace health and goingto endup pooror in a job where I am penalized fo r safety. Those things are not enforceable. You know it; beinga woman. Withoutunioos, I do not stand a chance. everyooeelse knows it. Without unions, I do not stand a chance. Mr. Downey: Ms. Stecher, two questions: One, first of all, what right do you fee l is being stripped away from Mr. Struthen: Ms. Stecher, ifit was the Conservative you bythis legislation, and secondly, if a union of which Party kicking you around fo r the last three years, why you were a member were to donate to the Progressive would you want your fee s to go toward the Tory party? Conservative Party for there-election of that party, would you want to have your monies go to that purpose? Ms. Stecher: Hear, hear, Mr. Struthers. Hear,hear.

Ms. Stecher: For the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Jennissen: Further to that point, though. Ms. no. But I do believe that most, especiallywhere I work, Stecher, in all seriousness, ifthe Conservative Party truly October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 127

represented whatworkers wanted and was willing to fight management the most. My firstwork experience was at andwork fo r workers as some political parties do, would Eaton's in 1971, which was not unionized and I believe you then want yourunion dues to go to the Conservative it still is not unionized. There, as an employee, you Party? would have to work full time for five years before you would receive any sick pay. No one was paid the same Ms. Stecher: I amso rry, could you repeat the question? rate of pay. Often there was a matter of five cents differencean hour in salary between some workers-God, Mr. Jennissen: If the Conservative Party truly I am nervous-and we were told by management not to represented the worker, would you then be in favour of discuss our salaries with other employees. I guess that yourunion dues possibly going in support of that party? employer did not believe in full disclosure. In most cases, women werepaid the lowest salaries and the least Ms. Stecher: Absolutely. rewarding jobs. The pension plan was very meagre.

* (2210) Mr. Penner: I am still interested in what section of this act would prevent you from joining a union or anybody AsI wasinterested in finding a more meaningful career fromunio nizing. What section of this act prevents that? withadvancement, I shoppedaround work ing at Safeway, Greater Winnipeg Gas Company and fm ally finding my Ms. Stecher: Again, the entire bill weakens the present employer, theManitoba Telephone System. I am collective right. It weakens- in the bargaining unit fo r the clerical workers, which is represented by the Communications, Energy and Mr. Penner: Tell me where. Paperworkers Union of Canada. Operator Services also fa lls into that bargaining unit. Together there are 2,200 Ms. Stecher: The bill. You are holding it in your workers under the CEP. We have at least 10 monthly hands. meetings a year and at least five executive meetings and one national convention every two years. At every Mr. Chairperson: I think I will intervene at this point. meeting,whether at a nationalor local level, we have full I believe that the presenter has made her case, and I knowledge of the fm ancial transactions taking place in would thank you, Ms. Stecher, very,very much. the union.

Thenext nameon the list is Iris Taylor. Goodevening, Elections are held more often than the provincial Ms. Taylor. Do you have a written presentation? government. I recentlyhad to runfo r my position of vice­ president of Local 7. Those elections for table officers, Ms. Iris Taylor (Private Citizen): I do. stewards, even the national president of our union, are held every two years. Voting is done by secret ballot Mr. Chairperson: Good. Thankyou very much. While through mail out of the entire membership. The your retnaiks arebeing circulated, could you proceed with governing body of any union is the local membership, as your verbal presentation, madam. Tom Stefanson fo und out. CEP is now bargaining with MTS, soMr. Stefanson thought he would hop a plane to Ms. Taylor: I would like to make a correction. On my Ottawa and make a deal with our president, Fred second page, I called Mr. Stefanson the Minister for the Pomeroy. Much to Mr. Stefanson's dismay, he fe lt the Telephones, so if you just sort of think of him as Mr. true sting of democracy when our president, Fred Stefanson in that place. Okay. Pomeroy, told him that he could not cut a deal, that Mr. Stefa nson would have to negotiate with the bargaining Anyway, greetings. My name is Iris Taylor. I reside in committee the local membership had elected to represent the city ofWinnipeg, and I am employed at the Manitoba them,and it was the local membership of 2,200 workers Telephone System. I am a single parent of one daughter that would decide ifhis offer was satisfactory. age 14 years. Having both worked in ununionized workplaces and unionized, I believe as a worker I can Thatis what unions are about,people working together judge bestas towhich environment benefits workers and for the common good of all, finding solutions through 128 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 negotiating and reason, rather than dictatorship of the programs such as unemployment insurance, pensions, corporate bosses whoseonly thought is to the bottom line worker'scompen sation, et cetera. The labour movement and not the human beings who work fo r them. The alsoplays anactive role in the community, such as being people of Manitoba might notice the similarities as to involved in the United Way. how the Conservatives managed this province as to how the corporations manage their workplaces. The Why does this government want to cripple us? Why government of Manitoba must remember that they are doesit want to make us dysfunctional? Are we working elected to serve and govern the people ofthis province, too hard, too smart? What do you fe ar? not tomanage them. They are elected to do their best for the people of this province. I guess the Filmon Listen up, Conservatives. Ifyou are doing your job, government lacked ideas as to how to increasejobs for the peopleof this province would have little to complain Manitobans or how to build the life of Manitobans, so about. they set out to destroy what has taken years to build. Unions arefa ir. Equalityand fa irness are what unions My mother was born on a farm 15 miles west of are about. I ask you this, Conservatives: Are you Portage Ia Prairie in a strong Conservative fa mily. treating the workers of this province fa irly whether they Politics were discussed daily around the kitchen table. are organized or not organized? Times werehard duringthe '30s and my mother managed to help my grandparents hold on to the fa rm. Mom was And I want you to note, my mother is 82 years old. a teacher and her salary was $60 a month and that kept She has been a staunch Conservative fo r all her years. the fa mily going. She does not think you look anything like John Diefenbaker, Roblin or Sterling Lyon. My mother, I am Later Mom moved to Winnipeg and taught for the proud to say, voted fo r the party that best represents Winnipeg School Division. When I was in elementary working people in thisprovince of Manitoba. My mother school my mother became the sole breadwinner of our votedfor theNew Democratic Party in the last provincial fa mily. With the responsibilityof fo ur children to raise, election. my mother went before the Winnipeg School Board and requested to be paid the same salary as her male Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Taylor. Mr. counterpart. At that time, even though women would Struthers, with a question. have achieved the same level of education and experience, their salaries were less than a male teacher, Mr. Struthen: Thank you. Good presentation, Ms. andI will neverfo rget that day. My mother returned very Taylor. One of the biggest myths that the Minister of sad, as theworld had not been fa ir to my fa mily that day. Labour (Mr. Toews) today is trying to put forth out there We met the face of discrimination. fo r Manitobans to try to choke on is the fa ct that he says that unions are not democratic and that it takes him to Later, through the collective action of the Manitoba come in andintroduce democracythe to union movement. Teachers' Society, this wrong was corrected and the What is the best example that we can give back to the teachers received pay equity, equal pay for equal work. minister to prove that he is wrong? It wouldbe years later that governments would enact the same policies that unions and other organizations Ms. Taylor: WeU, say, how conductwe a local meeting. negotiatedwith their employers to provide a fa ir and just Any expenditure thattakes placeof the dues that the local workplace fo r workers. Unions, through their work with collects fromthe members , all those expenditures have to employers, have improved the health and safety of many be passed and ratified through the local meeting. They workers. This not only benefits the worker but also the have to be, the executive, we are all accountable. employer, who has a healthy workforce at his disposal. Everything has to be done fa irly and even with our elections like on the national level, local level, whatever, A union is as strong as its membership. Through the you campaign,there isa secret ballot, there is a vote, and collective action of the membership, unions have worked you getinto office and then you are aCCOWttable. Even in to improve workplace conditions, improve social our constitution we have a charges and appeals process October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 129

that if you are not doing your job properly or you draw to your attention that the Minister of Finance was misappropriate funds youcan be brought up on charges. responsible fo r that. But I want to ask you more You have to be accountable fo r everything that you do. specifically with respect to whether or not-because the Minister of Labour has told members of the Legislature Mr. Reid: Thank you fo r your presentation. Your lastweek hethat hasconsulted with a dozen or so people conunents arequite interesting, but as I have said to other in the province with respect to Bill 26 prior to its tabling. presenters here before, there seems to be quite a demonstration here tonight as there was on Thursday of I want to ask you, Ms. Taylor, have you or any the vastness of the democracy that is practised in the members of the company at which you work with, who unionized workplace, something that I find and I hope may have been in discussion about this bill, ever been that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) is paying consulted about the provisions of Bill 26 prior to its attention to, the presentations that have been made here tabling? this evening. That is the intriguing thing about the presentations is the vastness of the democracy that is • (2220) practised and that I cannot find a single reason to this point that would even lend even the slightest amount of Ms. Taylor: Beinga worker at the Manitoba Telephone justification to why this minister is proposing this bill. System, we do not get consulted about much. We usually But I want to ask you with respect to financial disclosure, get told. But specifically answering your question, no, I because as you know Bill 26 does provide penalties am not aware of anyone being consulted. through loss of Rand Formula fo r unions that do not comply with the financial disclosure provision even Mr. Penner: Do you believe in an employee's right to though it is part of freely negotiated private sector knowwhere the employee's money deducted is spent? agreements. Ms. Taylor: I guess I do. I believe that. Are you aware that this government, while they are going to demand financial disclosure from unions, refuses Mr. Chairperson: Thankyau, Ms. Taylor, very much. to disclose the salary that was paid to one Barry That would conclude the time allotted for questions this Shenkarow as an employee of this provincial government evening, and I would thankyou very much fo r taking the through the Jets organization over the last number of time to come before us. years, in fa ct, since 1991? Are you aware that the government refuses to disclose the salary paid to Mr. The next name on our list tonight is Robert Ziegler. Shenkarow? Mr. Ziegler. While your presentations are being circulated, sir, I wouldinvite you to commence with your Ms. Taylor: I am not aware of that. If you go to my verbal presentation. union convention, there are the expenses of all the officers in there, there are salaries, every bit of money that Mr. Robert Ziegler (Private Citizen): Thank you for is given, all the dues, how the dues are divided, whether having the opportunity to address you all this evening. I it is going toorga nizing, whether it is going here or going have a written hando ut. I do not intend to fo llow it there. It is all laid out in a very thick book, and we are exclusively with something unlike the person earlier, very accountable. The members come right up to a mike abouttwo speakers ago. I did give up my lunch to write and they stand there right before the president and say, this out, but it was written only a fe w hours ago. you know, Fred, what gives here. He has to be accountable. It is all there. My name is Robert Ziegler. I have lived my entire life in the province of Manitoba, all 40 years. I started Mr. Reid: I am happy that the Minister of Finance (Mr. working since I was 15. I have worked in various jobs Stefanson) has joined us since he is the one who is ever since then. For the last 16 years, I have worked fo r responsible fo r disclosing ornot disclosing the salary that the United Food and Commercial Workers Union; of he and his government have paid to Barry Shenkarow those, I have workedsix years full time presenting labour since 1991 and covering the losses, and I just want to boards and arbitration cases, and fo r the last fo ur years I 130 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 have lookedafter the finances of Local 832. I am oneof employers I do not like, but I fe lt that was right. I Bernie's boys, as they are known. worked hard on that organization, but I am starting to question those views at this point. The climate that the I want to speak about three issues, because government is creating at this point is not good fo r unfortunatelywe do not have the opportunity to speak on Manitoba. It is not good for Manitoba in the short run, everything because of the time constraints we have. The it is not good fo r Manitoba in the long run, and that threeissues I wanttalk to about are expedited arbitration, concerns me. financialdisclosure and mandatory votes, but before I do that.I reallywant talk to aboutthe labour law changes in Now, I want to move on to the three specific clauses general. lbel'e is one question that has resounded-! was that I want to talk about. hereThursday on tillone o'clock in the morning, I intend tobe here fa- a while yet-and that is the question of why. Expedited arbitration. As I indicated, I presented for Why are these changes here? It is very clear to me the six years full time, and after that I still present some government wants toweaken unions. It has nothing to do arbitrations. The same question comes to me, why are with democracy, never has, never will. you making these changes? Well, one of the things I have heard is abuse. Well, use is not abuse. Ourlocal Thereason fa- that isthe fa ct that unions are one of the unionused has expeditedarbitration more thanany local mostdemoaa tica-ganizations, and that has probably hit union in this province and in some years probablymore home for those peoplewho have been listening over the thanalmost all theother unions put together, and there is last two days. I amooncemed, though, about where these a reason why that happens. That is because it works. changesare taking us as Manitobans. It concerns me not as a union person, it concerns me as a Manitoban as to You do not know what it is like to sit with someone where we aregoing. I have been at Federation of Labour who has been terminated or hada two-week suspension conventions where antiscab legislation was discussed. I or three-week suspension andhave to explain to them, I have been at policy conventions for another political am sorry, I cannot deal withyour casefo r three months, partywhere the issuewas discussed, and it was discussed four months or a year, and I had to do that in the past quite loudly and quite vigorously and there were some before expeditedarbitrati on. I invite all of you to tryand arguments, but there was a realization in the past by explain to saneooeit how is going to be more democratic labour and by that other political party that you do not for someone who has a two-week suspension to wait a want to swing the pendulum too much one way or the year to get that matter resolved. other, because it is going to come back. I hada hearing, anexpedited grievance mediation today Well, unfortunately what Mr. Filmon is doing is witha woman who was denied overtime pay. Clearly in pushing a lot of people and is pushing that pendulum, the contract she had entitlement to overtime pay. In and it is going to swing back. That issue on antiscab, expedited arbitration, we resolved that today at about next year that discussion, or next election that discussion, 3:30 in the afternoon. I could not have done that under therewill be no doubt where it is going to go. But what conventionalarbitratioo forprobably another six or seven Mr. Filmon is doing, he is uniting all Manitobans, months. Is that democracy? whether they are unionized, nonunionized, teachers, government employees, nurses, patients of health care, As I said, though, the reason we use expedited is they are uniting them to get active next time. because it works. Eighty percent of the cases our local refers toexpedited arbitratioo are resolved, and that is the I wantto tell you that I was a member of the executive beauty of it-resolved. It is much better to resolve an of Winnipeg 2000. I worked for a number of years on issuebetween the parties rather than going to arbitration. that organization with some of the most prominent business leaders in this community, trying to benefit Inregard to the issue of, is the process putting a drain Winnipeg and in return trying to benefit Manitoba. I did on the provincial government, I can maybe understand that because I believed it was right. I do not hate that as being a concern and I, like Bernard Christophe, business; I do not hate employers. There may be some the president of our organization, would support a October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 131

reasonable cost if that is the legitimate concern of the the province. That is where our budget is set and government. Justice delayed is justice denied. I touched approved. It is not set by me. I may do the work on this briefly, but it has never been truer. That is the preparing it, but it is approved by our membership. We benefit andthe pure beauty of expedited arbitration. You are democratic. are not going to take away anyone's right to arbitrate by the changes you are doing. What you are going to do is In the by-laws of our organization it says that any let problems sit, youare going to let problems fe ster, and member has access to financial information. As I it is not healthy fo r anyone. Let us get on with it. mentioned earlier, over the 16 years I have been with the union I have been at almost every general membership I heard on Thursday last week a spokesperson on meetingthis local unionhas had. Never once has anyone, behalf of the Chamber of Commerce talk about least member or nonmember, been denied information about popular arbitrators, andthat is what expedited arbitration the union's finances. Never once has someone come to gives you. Well, I wonder what Paul Teskey, Bill the union andasked fo r information and denied it. There Hamilton, Jr., Jack Chapman, Wally Fox-Decent, those is no need for this legislation unless it is fo r what I say it are people who are expedited arbitrators, those are the is. I said the only purpose is to provide employers least popular arbitrators? The people on the expedited information about the fm ances of the local union, and arbitration are agreed to by the LMRC. There is a there is only one reason fo r that, that is to defeat unions representative of management, there is a representative of at negotiations time and to defeat negotiations in labour. It is a good process; it works. I doubt that those organizing drives. That is the only purpose fo r that people are viewed as least popular or incapable. If clause. I ask, I almost challenge the Premier (Mr. parties were concerned about least popular-and I thinkit Filmon) totake a polygraph on that issue to see if that is is another word fo r no good-the parties would not use really the issue. Is it democracy he is after or is it to expedited arbitration. In conclusion, I believe expedited weaken? arbitration benefits everybody. It benefits Manitobans, benefits unions, and it benefits companies. * (2230)

The next heading I have there, I think it is the right Moving on, because I see I am running short of time, one: Financial Disclosure of InfQrmation to Employers Mandatory Votes, and I am talking about mandatory and Antiunion Consultants. That is really what this votes and certification. I have presented a number of portion ofyour amendment is. It has nothing to do with labourboard cases, and it isrecognized all across Canada disclosure to members. Our members get that thatthe key issue indeterm ining the wishes of employees information. You have heard the presentation here, and and certification istheir wishes when they signa card and I wish Mr. Filmon would be more honest about what he when they make an application, and there is a reason for was doing. AsI said, for the last fo ur years I have looked that. It is to stop employers from trying to influence, after the finances of Local 832. Every single Visa bill I coerce and intimidate employees. In fact, petitions are initial. Every single cheque I okay. Over the last five not even accepted unless they allege intimidation, years at every general membership meeting of our local coercion and fraud, and that is proper, because ifa union union-1 may have missed one or two because I was at a did something wrong they should be responsible, that is meeting or something-! have presented the financial correct. statements to our membership. I have gone through line by line-here is what we spend, here is why we spend it. What the changes you are proposing will do is it will I answer questions at those meetings. Aswell, we have encourageemployers to break the law. It will encourage an audit committeewhich is rank-and-file members. It is employers to do those things. I have some more prohibited from having any staffon there. One of them comments on there fo r you. Talk about democracy, that is here in the room-Shirley Lamboo. They look at the a secret ballot vote is the democratic way to deal with it. same thing. They spend days looking at every Visa bill, Well, it is not democratic when employees have to walk every cheque. Theycan ask any question they want, they by the manager of the plant and cast their ballot. The get that information. We have an annual policy manager is right next to the ballot box. I have also seen conference where we have members elected from across what has happened when employees have been fired 132 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

during organizing drives. It affects that employee and I fightfo r what they believedwere right issues, whether it have seenLabour Board hC3ingsup take to fo ur months. beeducation, whether it behealth care, and I think simply You will never get a true expression in that situation of it is retribution fo r that. There is no basis that I can see what the employees' true wishes were. fo r these changes.

Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou very much, Mr. Ziegler. Mr. Reid: Soin a sensewhat you are saying then is that Atthis point I would surrender the floor to our colleague the Ministerof Labour andthe government are punishing Mr. Reid fo r a question. those working people of the province who, through their respective representative bodies, duly elected, decided to Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Ziegler, fo r your takeactions certain in the interests of those members. In presentation. I want to ask you a few questions with a sense you say that the government is punishing those respectto yourexperiences, because one of the things that working people andtheir representatives. is called fo r under this bill under Section 132.2(3) is the disclosureof expenditures out of a strike fund during the Mr. Ziegler: I would not attribute it to the Minister of fiscal year. Canyou indicate for me what impact you see Labour. I would attribute it to the Conservative that clause having on the operations of your union with governmentand the caucus . I do not thinkyou can single respectto the negotiations that would occurfrom time to out Mr. Toews as beingrespons ible. He is the minister time with the various employer organizations? andI wouldwish that hewouldspeak louder on behalf of some issues, but I think it is really Mr. Filmon and the Mr. Ziegler: It is clearlythe same as the other issues of Conservative caucus thatrespoosible is fo r these changes. financial disclosure. It will do nothing fo r our members. Ourmembers can get that information. They know what Mr. Reid: Canyou tell me, sir, what effect, because we our strike pay is. They canhave that information. All it have heard from other presenters that the Labour Board will do is, it will fa cilitate employers to know exactly the is seriously underfundedor underresourced to allow them resources of a union and whether or not they canaff ord a to carry out their current duties, never mind their new strike andhow fa r they can continue a strike. It will just duties that are going to occur as a result of this bill and weaken unions. It will benefit not one Manitoban several other bills before us, what effect and whether or working member. not the Labour Board would be able, to the best of your knowledge, beable tocany out its new requirements with Mr. Reid: The government says that they want to respect to certification votes to be held within seven democratize workplaces and they want to have more days? What do you see happening? information into the hands of members. I stress again that presentation after presentation that we have heard Mr. Ziegler: I do not believe the Labour Board could here tonight and last Thursday as well has shown or carry out those extraduties with the resources they have demonstrated quite clearly the open and true democratic now. I know howlong it takes to get a board hearing. If nature of the various union organizations in the province, I filean unfair labour practice, I will be lucky if I get it to the credit of the unions, I might add. completed within a fe w months. I will be lucky in two months. It is often three to fo ur months. So if they Can you, Mr. Ziegler, share with us your thoughts on cannot handle the current workload with their budget, why it is you think that the minister is taking this step how canthey add anythingmore, because you are looking andwho he may betarg eting as a result of the provisions at voteson certificationand votes on contract. There just that he has in Bill 26? Who do you think that he is are not enough people to do it. There is just no way. targeting since everybody that has come before us to this point hasshown to beopen and democratic organization, Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou very much, Mr. Ziegler. or is it perhaps everybody? Thatwould conclude the time allotted fo r questions, and I thank you fo r your time tonight coming before us. Mr. Ziegler: I think it is clear that the reason fo r these changes are retribution fo r the fa ct that some union Thenext presenter tonight isCarolyn Ryan. Is Carolyn members wantedto speak up during the last election and Ryanin the audience? Goodeve ning, Ms. Ryan. While October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 133

your written presentations are being circulated, I would you wiD. I am a short-order cook. I have been at this job invite you to proceed with your verbal presentation. for more than three years, full time, part time, casual, days, nights, split shifts, weekends, holidays-you name Ms. Carolyn Ryan (Private Citizen): Good evening, it. gentlemen. Before I begin my presentation, there are a couple of things I would like to say. One is, the last time This job, to put it mildly, stinks. After three years, I I saw this many men sitting around a table was my last am making 40 cents an hour more than the minimum job interview. When one of my predecessors was asked wage. Incontrast to some of my co-workers, my wage is about her role as a woman, I would like you to take a in fa ct enviable. In three years, I have called in sick look around the table and answer that question fo r twice. Am I healthier than the average? Unfortunately yourselves. not. But I know that when I call in sick, one of my co­ workers is finding herself, and this is a predominantly The second thing I would like to say is that I have a fe male occupation, called in from a day off, perhaps general meeting of my union on Thursday. If we being spent with her fa mily or doing her homework. attempted to run our general meeting the way this committee has been run, my union executive would be My shifts arechanged on a moment's notice, cancelled, strung up. Take some time to consider that. shortened, lengthened. The job requires few formal skills, except fo r perhaps patience with customers who Anyway, I will begin my presentation. My name is are often condescending and occasionally verbally Carolyn Ryan. I am 24 years old and I am a full-time abusive. My education is meaningless here. My one­ student at the University of Manitoba. Like many year-olddegree is irrelevant in my new economy job and students, I have two part-time jobs. One job is my skills and even my personality are slowly being unionized, one is not. degraded. The working conditions are not to be envied. It is hot, greasy, slippery and, at times, dangerous. There My unionized job pays me well. It gives me a chance is no benefit plan. In sum, this job is simply that, a job. to develop and use my skills. The job respects my It is dehumanizing, degrading and gives me little education and it encourages and provides opportunity fo r opportunity to be a contributing citizen. continued learning. In the event of a disagreement I between myself and my employer, there is an easy and * (2240) sure grievance process which I am able to make use of with the full support of my union executive. In my studies of changing labour conditions in Manitoba, two processes have become apparent to me as My collective agreement provides fo r protection from to how I could improve the conditions of my job as a racial and sexual harassment. I have the opportunity to cook. The first would be to hope fo r and encourage the participate in committees, the health and safety government of Manitoba to improve employment committee, women's issues and the steward's committee. standards. Historically, the driving fo rce behind I can become a steward or I can be elected to the improvements to employment standards have been leadership of my local union. My union has bargained unions-minimum wages, health and safety, paid sick decent wages, a benefits package and an EAP program. leave, vacations and soon. I am sure the committee is as All this fo r part-timework ers, no less. All in all, this job aware of this as I am. provides me with an opportunity to participate in a progressive organization where I have a voice, a chance BiD 26 will harm the ability of unions in this province to make a diff erence in my workplace and in my to fightfor these things. I say fight because it is a battle. communityand in the Manitoba economy with my union Business and now government have done and are doing wages. everything in their power to prevent further improvements. Bill 26 continues to upset the balance. As I mentioned before, I have a second job. This is indicative of what has been termed the postindustrial Secondly, I could take the lessons I have learned from economy, our own little slice of the new world order, if one job and apply it to the other. I could try and fo rm a 134 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 union. I can get in touch with the United Food and almost$30, 000in student loans-$30,000, that is a lot of Commercial Workers or the Service Employees money. My parents bought their first house for $30,000. International Union and tryto organize. What a task. I Where is this going to leave me in five years with little can imagine how my employer might respond. More chance for improvement? Staying in Manitoba, it is an importantly, I can imagine how my co-workers would option. My fa mily is here. I grew up here, I would like respond. We would be scared; we would be intimidated. to stay here. I do not thinkthat thatwould be feasible, You are asking a group of people who are reluctant to given the education and employment opportunities the call in sick or, heaven forbid, ask for the July long Conservative government is forwarding. weekend off, andyou would have me say to them, hey, let us form a union. Mr. Struthers: Are there others that you knowof who are in the same predicament that you are in? Do not make it any harder. Changes to The Labour Relations Act that require compulsory votes before Ms. Ryan: Yes. I have colleagues, friends, who have certification make it immeasurably harder for people like spoken before you already. They are in similar me to get ahead to get a union. I ask that you be a predicaments. My student loan tally is maybe slightly government that invests in the young, the disadvantaged above average. I know people with more, believe it or and thewor king poorby doing what you can to keep the not As tuitioo rates increase, more and more peoplewill balance fa ir. Repeal Bill 26. Let unions run their own bein the same situation. As the cliche goes,the rich get affitirslet and unions continue to fightfo r the interests of richer, the poorg�t poorer. all working people without the shackles of big government. Mr. Penner: I ambit surprisedat someof the comments made, especially when one has a job. I have two Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou, Ms. Ryan. grandsons,both they tried findingwork in B.C. which, by the way, is run by an NDP government; they could not Mr. Struthers, with a question. findwork there. They came to Manitoba to work during the summer months. They were paid better than $10 an Mr. Struthers: Ms. Ryan, I congratulateyou on a very hourin Manitoba. One of them went back to B.C., he is well-done job. now workingfor $6.45 an hour in an NDP-run province. What I am interested in knowing is what is going to I ask you, where would you go if you leave this becomeof you andpeople your age who are tryingto put province to work, to fm d work? themselves through university andcolleges and juggle a couple of jobs at the same time. Are you going to stick around in the province once you get your educationand Ms. Ryan: Where would I go? That is an issue of whatdo you look forward to landing once you get out of exploration. I am not fa miliar with conditions in other university? provinces. Ms. Ryan: Thank you for that question; it is a good An Honourable Member: I am. question. IfI wereto continue my education, the education I got, Ms. Ryan: Well, then, I will be sure to consult you I amcurrently enrolled in my second degree. IfI were to before I head off. If I could continue fo r a second, I workon aMastel's degree from my B.A., it would require have always liked to see the East Coast. Maybe I will me going out of province. The education cutbacks that head thatway. are being proposed in some of the other bills and education amendments would only serve to make that Mr. Lathlin: I empathize with you when you say the more difficult. last time you saw so many men was when you went to your last job interview. As a young person, a native Also, as a student, I have nowaccumulated at last total, person. I used to fee l the same way. As a man I usedto let me see, the money just showed up the other day, besitting in frontof allwhite men being interviewed, and October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 135

I think I canempathize with what you are saying. I also rnaj ority ofpeople, not just a tiny handful ofthe rich and want to make an observation or maybe ask you a fa mous. question, whether you fe el intimidated by the nature of questioning that you are receiving from government Let me give you an example, Mr. Toews, of how we members because I notice that the government members, meet the duties thatwe were electedand sworn in to carry when young women come up, they pounce on them, and out. yet they will oot ask questions of Peter Olfert and others. Thank you. * (2250)

Our bargaining committee consists of five union Ms. Ryan: That pattern seems apparent and what is members, all of whom are fe llow workers and one union even more interesting thatthis committee should consider representative who is our chief negotiator and is not only how young women are treated before this spokesperson. Right from the start of this bargaining committee, but how many young women have come to process,we wumimouslydecided that we would keepour present to this committee. members as well informed as possible after each and every meeting session with negotiation updates. This Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Ryan. That would was not something we had to do. I certainly do not get conclude the time allotted fo r questions this evening. I paid any extra wages to have spentmy free time at the would like to point out to the Assembly tonight, and I computer and on the phone to my committee members have cautioned you earlier, that when you clap afteran puttingthese updates together. We go the extradi stance answerthe clock isrunn ing and all you are succeeding in because we are on the front lines fightingfo r the people doing is diminishing the allotted time fo r the presenter's who have worked by our sides for more than a decade. questions. Ifthat is the will of the Assembly, well, then, We are brothers and sisters who are equal. Hidden so be it, but I just would like to point this out to you. agendas do not exist, nor do lies or deceptions.

The next presenter is Mark Saban. Good evening, Mr. Mr. Toews, the comments that you have made to the Saban, andwelcome. Mr. Saban, while your presentation press overthe last fe w months have made my bloodboil. is being circulated, I would invite you to proceed with You have painted all unions as fat cat hierarchies that your opening remarks. dictate and deceivetheir memberships. Your comments are a slap in the fa ce to the intelligence and integrity of Mr. Mark Saban (Private Citizen): Thank you. In myself and my union members as well as all union advance I would like to thank everybody fo r their time. members across this province. Many of us put in I appreciate the opportunity to be able to voice my countless hours of volunteer time working towards concerns on these issues. fa irness in the workplace. What you have been describing, Mr. Toews, is theway the Filmon government My name is Mark William Saban, and I have come itself abuses its power and thrives on deception. here today to represent myself as well as my fe llow workers, my union, Local 469, of the Retail Wholesale Fortunately, I wasimmune to one of the largest Filmon Division ofthe Stee lworkers. As most people in this city deceptions of thepast for I am not an overzealous hockey are well aware, we have been on strike against Westf air fa n. Foods fo r almost seven months now. Letme tellyou about democracy. It is a system that is Some time ago I was elected by the membership of my alive and well in our union, and the Tories can learn a local to serve as a bargaining committee member. I have lessonfrom it. It is democracy in the truest and strongest been on the front lines of a very long and painful strike, senseof the word. Thepower to make decisions and take and I speak from true experience when I say to the thesteps thatwe believe in as union members and fe llow Filmon government that we adamantly oppose Bill 26. workers has always been in our hands. There has not We would like to see the Labour minister start doing been an occasion that my union representative has what he is being paid to do. Serve the people, the vast dictated tous. He mayhave disagreed with our decisions 136 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 in the past but after the majority ofthe committee made One was terminated for spitting at a vehicle, as well as a decision, he gave us the union's full support. The allegedly violating a court injunction. I believe it was supreme power to carry out important decisions lies in something minor like walking one too many times in the hands of the union membership, the people who the front of a truck. The other employee was terminated fo r decisions affect the most. Decisions in our union are peelingflaking paint from theexterior wall of a store. I made by the people, for the people. This is true do not believe the Criminal Code of Manitoba will find democracy. these individuals guilty of criminal misconduct. However, I am certaina companysuch as Westfair would I will not go over everydetail of this disastrous Bill 26 pursue these types of frivolous issues to the nth degree but instead will foc us on just a few. Regarding the with the Labour Board. Would they succeed? I believe proposed requirement for unions to disclose financial they would at least have a good shot at it. Imagine, statements to nonmembers, this does nothing but losing a job you have worked hard at fo r l 0 or 20 years deteriorate labour laws in Manitoba by giving ruthless because you leaned against a wall and flicked some companies like Westfair Foods an unfair advantage over peeling paint from it. theirunionized employees. Inrelation to a labour dispute such as the one we are presently embroiled in, the Does the Filmon government believe that a hard­ company could conveniently look into our finances to working, tax-paying citizen deserves such a punishment? ftndout just how many more months to keep the dispute The government and lawmakers of our society should going untilthey have succeededdestro in ying the union's learn how to effectively punish and take away therights finances. of criminals. This is the area that is screaming out fo r strong action by strong leaders. While violent youth Althoughstrike fimds area separate issue, we all know gangs run wild on our streets, the Filmon government local union treasuries take a strain during a labour spends its time and our tax dollars interfering with and dispute. In my opinion, this is exactly why the Filmon weakening the rights that the essential citizens of our government is implementing this section of Bill 26. population have fo ught for years to achieve. I am referring to the civilized Manitobanswho obeythe laws Our union already keeps our membership well andwork hard for the food on their table. informed about our finances. An outside auditor audits our books. At our regularmonthly meetings, these are Dealing with citizensas though they are criminals is presented to the membership. Our year-end fm ancial thepredestinatioo of this provision. Which door is it the statement is preparedby an outside chartered accountant unions of our pro.vince are lining up at asking for this and is available to our members at meetings or at any legislation? If the Filmon government had a genuine time the member wishes. So where does this section of interest in promoting union member democracy, then it Bill 26 increasethe democratic rights of workers? Again, would havenot repealed final offer selection. Final offer what it does is give unfair advantage to companies like selection may have beenthe instrument that could have WestfairFoods who abuse their employeesjust as they shortened ourdispute with Westfair Foods, maybe even abuse the legal systems presently in place. This is averted it. Instead, after halfa year, we fa ce offers from evident by the vast number ofgriev ances that flow from the company that have become progressively worse than our locations, which can number anywhere from l 00 to the original final offer that our members voted down at 300 grievancesannu ally. Asyou can see, the limitations the beginning of the dispute. This company has no that Bill 26 imposes on access to expedited arbitration interestin negotiating. Theyare effectively dictating their will not help union members. It will only help a terms to us, thanks to a system already suffering a great company like Westfair continue and even escalate their imbalance. abusive treatment of their employees. Mr. Toews, it is not easy to get people to understand Regarding the provision that would allow a company what it is like to work fo r an employer who continually to pursue dismissing an employee fo r a picket line intimidates its employees so it may succeed in realizing violation through the Labour Board, from our strike its unfair agenda. I have worked in theWestf air Foods alone, Westfair has already terminated two employees. abusive, modem-day sweatshop environment fo r over a October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 137

decade. In my opinion, the systems that are presently in * (2300) place do not protect the workers of this province from relentlessly unfair employers such as Westfair. Mr. Saban: Theone incident thatwould probably come to mind occurred probably about two or three weeks ago Mr. Chairperson: You have less than one minute to go, when we held a mass picket at our warehouse. During sir. thatmass picket probab ly about 88 to 90 union members were present, and during that time everyone was Mr. Saban: Thank you. fo llowing the guidelines of the present court injunctions quiteclosely, thatbeing that we are only allowed to make What labour laws in this province really need is some one pass in front of the trucks. During that time, one of fo rmof antiscab legislation that would pressure arrogant the security people was jumping up and down like a companies like Westfair to be fa ir. Mr. Toews, how is it cheerleader trying to wave trucks through our line. The that your government can come across with this apparent action was purposely to intimidate the picketers and to concern fo r the democratic rights of workers when we get them to break the injunction or to suck them into cannot even get a mediator appointed when we request doing something wrong. one? It tookapproximately 20 days to receive a negative response from your office. We sent the request directly If anything was a picket line violation, that was. The to yourself, sir, but the response came back from your response in this province is, the moment they thought deputy. Even inthat response, your office chose to again there was a violation they called the police. The police insult our integrity. The letter stated and I quote: I came running, like they usually do when the company would like to make available to the parties, if requested, calls them, and two or three police cars spent about an the services of the Manitoba Labour Board to supervise hour and a half at our picket line, once again wasting a vote among the affected employees on a final offer of taxpayers' money, getting statements off ofthe security the employer or on a proposed collective agreement when people, and it came to nothing. That is about the best one is achieved. example I can give you of what occurs on picket lines.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Saban, that would conclude the Mr. Toews: I amcurious here. In respect ofthe request time allotted fo r the presentation. Mr. Reid, with a from the union fo r a mediator, do you know the date of question. that letter? Mr. Reid: Thankyou, Mr. Saban, fo r your presentation. I will read through the remainder of your document and Mr. Saban: It was some time at the beginning of the have almost neared that point now. You referenced in month. your final paragraphs the voting system that you have in place within your organization, and to me it seems very Mr. Toews: You do not have a copy of that letter here much similar to what is practised fo r provincial general and you do not know the date of that letter? elections and by-elections, and I am happy to see that. Mr. Saban: When I saw that letter, I recall it could have I want toask you, sir, because this government has, as been the of third of the month. I cannot say exactly, a result of this Bill 26, a provision in here that would because I do not have the letter in front of me. deal with strike-related misconduct, Section 14.1, where the employer would have the ability to fire an employee Mr. Reid: Are you aware, Mr. Saban, and perhaps I fo r what they term to be misconduct on the picket line. should backup a bit, so what you are saying with respect to the picket line activity was that the employer or the I want to ask you, sir, do you have any experiences, agents of the employer were attempting to incite those have you had other experiences besides the one you are members, employees of that company who were on the currently embroiled in with Westfair Foods that perhaps picket line to do actions that would be considered under you can relate to committee members so perhaps our this legislation grounds for dismissal and that under the government members can get a better appreciation fo r provisions ofThe Labour Relations Act that the employer things that may occur on picket lines? is only subject to I think it is a $2,000 fine, where the 138 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October29, 1996

employee would be subject to dismissal or loss of Financial accountability means being responsible to employment. those who have entrusted money to you. In the case of business,senior management must be accountable to the Doyou think that it is fa ir for this governmentto have company's board of directors who, in turn, must be this provision in Bill 26 that would allow employers to accountable to shareholders for the revenue and equity incite such activities and only suffer a minor fm ancial dollars they spend. Accountabilityis measured in terms penalty when the employees themselves would suffer ofretums. Ifmargins are low, shareholders will pull out such a staggering loss? their investments.

Mr. Saban: Of course I believe it is extremely unfair, Charitable and nonprofit organizations must be especially because Westfair Foods can throw away accountable to their supporters fo r the donations and $2,000 at a time from here to eternity, and it would not membership fees they spend. Ifmembers are not satisfied hurt them one bit. with the service, they can choose to disassociate. Like publicly listed corporations and not-for-profit Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Saban, organizations, public sector unions are also in the for thepresentation tonight. The next presenter is Victor business of representing members but with less Vrsnik. Is Mr. Vrsnik in the audience? Goodevenin g, accountability. Surely, everyone at this table agreesthat Mr. Vrsnik. union reps must be accountable to the rank-and-file members for the dues they spend, everyone except Mr. Victor Vrsnik (Manitoba Tupayen perhaps Choices, 'a social justicecoalition . Association): Goodeve ning. In an article denouncing Bill 26, Choices, a social Mr. Chairperson: Doyou have a written presentation, justice coalition, argues that leadership elections are a sir? sufficient fo rmof accountabilityand that any other form of financial accountability represents an erosion of the Mr. Vrsnik: Yes, I do. democratic process. If they truly believe that accountability begins and ends with elections, why is

Mr. Chairperson: Good. While your presentation is Choices, a socialjustice coalition, not objecting to the beingciradated, I wouldask you to commence with your holding of these hearings today? By their reasoning, verbal presentation. today's public consultation hearings as a fo rm of accountability must represent an erosion of democratic Mr. Vrsnik: I hate to crash the love-in here tonight for process. I ask the same question, why are we even the crowd assembled here, but I am actually speaking in havingthese discussions today, given that if elections are favour ofBill 26. So, everyone, wake up. I reserve these sufficient fo r accountability, then by that reasoning there comments for thecrowd . If you guys want to discuss any is no need fo r these consultations and the government of my points, I would be happy to outside in the corridor should just go ahead full steam and pass these if you just let me make the presentation. Thankyou. amendments?

I am Victor Vrsnik, the research director for the By arguing that elected union reps are, by definition, Manitoba Taxpayers Association, which is a nonprofit, accountable, apologistsfor the status quo will have stood member-driven organization representing over 13,000 theprinciples of democracy on its headand rendered the members and supporters. Our mandate is to act as a term "accountability" meaningless. Even the provincial fiscalwatchdog on wasteful government spending and to govenunent recognizes that elections alone are not blank pr

Now what assurances do unionized employees have Regrettably, many unionized employees are not entitled over the spending of their membership dues or, if you to free access to information on how Manitoba unions will, union taxes? The Manitoba Federation of Labour spendtheir money andtaxpayer dollars. Bill 26 remedies has portrayed the government's amendment to the act as this shortcoming by requiring unions to disclose annual a tip in the scale in fa vour of business. For the audited financial statements and a report of all union Taxpayers Association, Bill 26 represents a balancing of employees compensatedin access of $50,000. One might collective union rights with the rights of individuals, expect that union reps would applaud incorporation of minorities and taxpayers. Long overdue reforms to The this provision into the act. By offering the option to Labour Relations Act will democratize certification union employees to redirect their dues during political applications and improve union accountability. campaigns,unions canthen declare without equivocation that their political actions are actually sanctioned by the Now some people made the inference that the membership on occasions when there is not an exodus of government is flirting with fa scism or some sort of union dues to other causes. authoritarianism, and that comment is absurd. Reforms to the act also remedy some of the more objectionable and undemocratic facets of the Rand I just want to elaborate on this point, that historically Formula withoutactually di smantling the law. Individual authoritarian governments were able to control unions by employees will be able to determine the outcome of all insuring that the official unions had a monopoly over applications fo r certification by mandatory secret ballot membership. The system of union monopoly would then vote . To make the patronizing argument that employers have more in common with today's industrial relations will be able to intimidate employees and scare them out landscape than the proposed reforms packaged in Bill 26. of voting fo r certification is to presume that employees are incapable of makingdecisions fo r themselves without Those opposed to Bill 26 want to ensure that current the guiding handof thebenevolent union leadership. We unions have a lock on members hip by denying its operatefrom thepresumption that employees know what members the right to the freedom of association or the is best for employees,and that is, secret ballot vote on all right to choose not to associate with the union. Owing certification applications is by fa r the best way to respect to the Rand Formula or automatic dues checkoff, there the wishes of our public servants . can be no free association or free competition between unions. So before anyone charges the government fo r The reforms favour taxpayers forced to carry out the flirting with fa scism they should take a good look at the burden of public sector spending. The costs of a way union monopolies are structured today. mediator, appointed to settle a collective bargaining impasse, will now be divided evenly among the * (23 10) government, theunion andthe employer. For the moment taxpayers foo t the bill fo r all mediation costs. For many public sector employees, dues collection is just another fo rm of payroll tax collected to bankroll an On balance the reforms reflect a growing public army of union reps and political causes. Consider the weariness over the cost of government and public sector hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by public sector unions on local taxpayers. The government has taken unions on political advertising today and during the some measures to minimize its role as employer with the elections. How many employees disagreed with the recent announcements of privatizations and contracting partisan ads but still had to pay fo r them? How many out of services. Savings go a long way for the average taxpayer dollars went in to bankroll the public sector overtaxed fa mily. employees? How many of those dollars were then funnelled through theunion bureaucracy and then donated Nevertheless governments are too generous with to a particular political party? The rights of taxpayers, taxpayer dollars when awarding settlements to public individuals and minorities caneasily be tread uponunless sector unions. Employees in the public sector typically thereexists a mechanism fo r them to opt out and redirect earn wages 20 percent higher than comparable private their dues elsewhere. sector workers, and there are a lot more benefits. For 140 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 every extra dollar awarded to a public sector union, the not one that I agree with, but nevertheless we read your taxpayer is one loonie short. But governments' first comments. I am not sure how you fund that operation, responsibility must be to the consumer and funderof its sir, but I guess that is something that you may want to services, the taxpayer. Government accommodation to share with this committee. public sector unionpressure on matters of costconstitutes a disservice to the overtaxed Manitoban. I also want to ask you-because in the past when members of your organization have come before this To level out theterrain in contract disputes and release committee, we have learned that your organization does taxpayers from the high costof public sectoroperat ions, not hold annual conventions, doesnot have the ability to governments should simply minimize its role as employer have policy resolutions put on a convention floor; does and enact reforms thatwill create a more competitive and nothave theability of any members, whoever they might democratic labour relations environment. Taxpayers be, of your organizationto come fo rward and debate the should then count on the delivery of cheaper and more issues andto bring forwar d issues that may be of concern flexible government services. It is essential that our to themselves. So can you tell me, sir, what has public sector unions be as accountable as possible to transpired since the last time when your organization dues-paying members to ensure that they cannot unduly camebef ore this committee to indicate to us that you are exploit their near monopoly position which creates now operating ina democratic fashion like you are saying privilegeat theexpense of theordinary working taxpayer. thatyou want tohave for unions, and tell us how that you Anaccountable union monopoly can justbe as damaging areble accounta to all of the peoplethat you sayyou have to the public interest as an unaccountable business as members and that you say that unions are not monopoly. accountable to their members. Can you explain that to me, su.'? Now toanswer $50,00the 0-question, which I am sure I am going to get later, no, unions are not democratic owing to the regrettable fact that the Rand Formula does Mr. Vrsnik: I would be delighted. I will say this that not afford individual workers the freedom to choose not the Manitoba Taxpayers Association has more in tobelong to a union. To add insult to injury, unions are common with the unions that you profess to represent entitled by law to collect dues without member fr001the turn the of century thanthe NDP and the unions authorization and use those dues for whatever purpose together today. At that time, unions operated under the they fa ncy. How would workers respond ifa renegade principle of freedom of association, voluntary union leadership started to channel dues into, perhaps, assoctatton. 'That is how the Manitoba Taxpayers the Progressive Conservative Party? Ifthat happened, I Association operates. We present our principles to our am sure there would be bloodshed, because there is no members before we signthem up. All across Manitoba measure of accountabilitywhich respects the wishes of wehave sales agentson theroad, pounding the pavement, individual union members. knocking on doors, presenting the work that our organization has done-[ interjection] May I finish? Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Vrsnik, fo r that presentation. That concludes the time, and I would Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. recognizeMr. Reid fo r a question. Mr. Vrsnik: -outlining the principles of operation and Mr. Reid: Thankyou, Mr. Vrsnik, fo r your presentation they may choose to take out a membership or they may here thisevening. It is quite interesting. You start off-I choose not to. If they are dissatisfied with the am not surewhy youdid it-attacking a particular interest organization they can choose to disassociate, but that group, but that is not thequestion I want to ask you. You privilege is notafforded to members or to employees who said members of your organization, the Taxpayers work in a closed shop or an open shop where they have Association, have beforebeen members of this committee to pay duesto a union whether they like it or not. We do in the past. I note that you provide fo r members of this not impose that condition. We do not have legislation Legislature and members of the public a particular which says that Manitobans have tojoin the Manitoba newspaper publishing a certain point of view which is Taxpayers Association. It is their prerogative. October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 141

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Vrsnik, thank you fo r your The next presenter is Claudette Chudy. Good evening, presentation. I have a couple of questions. If you were madam. Thankyou very much fo r appearing tonight, and to sign me up in the Manitoba Taxpayers Association, I would invite you to commence your presentation. would you be collecting a commission fo r signing me up. Ms. Claudette Chudy (Private Citizen): Thank you. Mr. Vrsnik: If I did the work, incurred the expenses to I have never been a member of Parliament. I am just go to your part of town, if I had to spend the night in a someone out in the workforce trying to understand hotel, et cetera, if I incurred those expenses plus did the another government decision and why there will be work tosign you up, I would be entitled to a commission, another barrier fo r me to cross. yes. I am a health care aide at a 1 00-bed personal care Mr. Toews: Mr. Vrsnik, thank you fo r your home. When Bill 22 was implemented at our home, not presentation. Mr. Vrsnik, are you aware that the largest only did it affectour employees but our residents as well. public sector union in Manitoba, or one of the largest We arenot a big fa cility. We are only 97 members and, public sector unions, the MGEU, has been statutorily because our fa cility is so small, we did not get days off recognized, that there was never any recognition vote and without pay. We all lost 15 minutes a day. Some of our that even if a person wanted to belong' to another union, departments left early while others like myself could not by statute they are prevented from associating with any leave thebuildi ng, so management decided to extend our other union and must be a member of the MGEU and, coffee breaks by 15 minutes, which meant our residents secondly, in respect of the secret ballot vote, are you at our fa cility received 15 minutes less care each shift. aware that the MGEU sent an organizer to Nova Scotia to show Nova Scotians how to organize the way they do With the attack on health care, this year alone we lost it in Manitoba, and of 147 signed-up cards, so-called all ourLPNs, two full-time activity workers and two full­ signed-up cards, 100 of those 147 were fo rged? Are you time health care aides. That leaves one health care aide aware of that? to tend to the needs of 13 residents, and yet our seniors are told they will receive the best possible care. I cannot see how this is possible with more cuts in the future. * (2320)

With all the different sectorsout on strike this year, our Mr. Vnnik: No, I was not aware of the latter comment, facility included, you would think that the government but I think that just speaks to how democratic these would get some kind of a message, and yet we are still unions are today and the fa ct that they have a monopoly ignored. We the people are tired of fightingfo r what is over members in terms of the MGEU and in terms of the rightfullyours. Thecost ofliving keeps going up, but the fa ct that they are willing to stuff ballots out in Nova workers' mighty dollar stays the same. While the Scotia attests to the fa ct that Manitoba unions, indeed, employers are making a profit, we are asked to take a are democratic institutions. rollback or a wage freeze. When you ask the employer to see his financial statement when trying to negotiate the Mr. Chairperson: That would conclude our remarks or best deal and maybe try to understand the need fo r a our time allotted fo r questions. rollback, he tells you it is none of your business, that he has his reasons. Mr. Vrsnik: May I make one more comment?

Now that Bill 26 iscorning into play, we already know Mr. Chairperson: No, I am sorry, sir, the time as what is in it fo r the employer, but what is in it fo r the allotted fo r questions has been concluded unless it is with working people? What about our rights? Every time we the leave of the committee. tumaround, we are losing something and it always seems the government has the final say. I want you all to know An Honourable Member: No. that I want my union to speak on my behalf when I cannot. With my union, I know I have the freedom of Mr. Chairperson: All right. Thank you, Mr. Vrsnik. speech and the right to my own opinions. They listen to 142 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 what I have to say and take criticism well. I know from does have the power to do what he wants, we are all experience that the union is onmy side, and they are there gone, becausewe tooka stand and went out on strike. to take a stand on my behalf. Mr. Reid: This government has said that they want to I have beently recen wrongfully terminated and if it was democratize worthe kplace, and I am trying, as I have to not fo r the unionbeing thereand working for me, I would many of the other presenters here and last Thursday, I be another statistic for unemployment. If we had no have asked them the question, have you or any of your union, thatwould give the employer the right to terminate colleagues, as one of the dozen or so people that the ifthey thought your smile was not sincere. At this time, minister said he has consulted on this bill, been one of I have not been reinstated, and I know if no agreement is those people consulted about the clauses that are in this reached it will go to arbitration, if it still exists. Bill 26 prior to its tabling in the Legislature? Have you beenone of thosepeople, or have any of your colleagues, Most employers still have their power. It is only to the best of your knowledge, been consulted on this controlled in a democratic way. The employer does not bill? have the final say. We all take a vote and then it is decided. I really hope you have listened to the people Ms. Chudy: I have not been approached, and to my who have made presentations on this bill. It is very knowledge none of my co-workers have either. important thatyou understand where we are coming from. Now it is my tum to ask you to reconsider Bill 26. Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you very much, Ms. Chudy. That would then conclude the questions tonight, and Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Chudy. thank you very much for coming before this committee. Are there any questions of the presenter? The nextpresenter tonight is Alex Puerto. Mr. Puerto? Mr. Reid: Thankyou, Ms. Chudy, fo r your presentation. Calling Mr. Puerto for the second time. Mr. Puerto's Healthcare has been an issue, has been very much in our name will be struck off as there is no response in the minds over the course of the last year, and we saw the audience. The next name is Mr. Ken Nickel. Is Mr. devastating impact of the government's direction with Nickel-ah, good evening, Mr. Nickel. You are respect to thehome care situation. We would much have indicating, Mr. Nickel, you have no document to preferred that the government had taken the necessary circulate. steps to try and resolve that dispute in a more timely fa shion, but unfortunately they were much hardened in Mr. Ken Nickel (Private Citizen): No, I will be nice their position. and quick here. ·

I want to ask you, because the provisions of this Bill Mr. Chairpenon: All right. Well, I would invite you 26 will allow the government to give powers to the to proceed, sir, and thankyou very much. employer or the employer organizations to dismiss employees fo r strike or picket linerelated conduct, do you Mr. Nickel: My name is Ken Nickel, and I am a shop have any experience in those areas that you might care to steward with the UFCW 832. For the past 10 years, I share with the committee, and what would your thoughts have worked part time at the Real Canadian Superstore, beon whether or not this practice would be fa ir to allow and I want to address Section 72. I , subsections (I) and employers to only pay a $2,000 fine if they are fo und to (2). These sections deal with the minister may require a be in contravention of The Labour Relations Act versus ratificationvote, or the employer may request the vote. the loss of employment fo r an employee so chargedby an employer? My concern is that some employers, like maybe mine, might manipulate the contracts, the final offer, if you Ms. Chudy: Onour picketline, we did not seem to have would, that affect the very employees that this bill seeks too many problems. Like I say, we are only a 97-member toprote ct. The example is the minority of the members. fa cility, so our picket lines were very small. As fa r to the An example of the minorities would be like a substitute rest of your question, it is in my opinion if our employer teacher where theymake up a smallerpart than theactual October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 143

teachers, paraprofessionals where there is only a much Mr. Nickel: I am not totally fa miliar with that, no. smaller group, night staff, weekend staff, temps, terms What I say is always a company canmake up any final and seasonal staff. Any members that fa ll into the offer so long as it works towards the minority, you could smallest category of a bargaining unit can be targeted or totally, as I say, eradicate the minority, the small singled out. individual person or peop le.

What I mean by that is that let us say a company has Mr. Toews: Sothen Iappreciate thefa ct that you are not fu ll-time employees who make up only 8 percent of the in fa vour of allowing workers to vote on a collective bargaining unit. The company's final offer gives all the agreement or on a vote that has been ordered by a employees a dollar-an-hour increase, but it also asks to minister, but, as a second choice, then I clearly hear you eliminate all full-time positions in the company. The saying that you want some clear limitationon the number vote could probably go 92 percent to accept, 8 percent to of votes that could be called in any one particular reject, and the contract would be a done deal and there situation. would be no more full-time positions. Then, of course, contract after contract, the company goes after all or any Mr. Nickel: Well, the more votes you have, you are not of the minorities . A negotiating committee would not really getting anywhere. I mean if you are going to fine­ allow this. We stand all fo r one and one fo r all. tune a contract, the negotiating committee should fine­ tune. They are voted, by us, to do that particularjob. It Unlike some of the other speakers, I do not want to seems crazy, like,nit-pick to and to continuously go over change any of these sections; I want to eliminate them and over, you know, one item at a time increasing or entirely. This legislation should be eliminated. If the decreasing what you are going to get or going to have to party wants to help Manitobans, have every employee in do to get it. nonunion companies surveyed annually and asked whether they would like to be in a union or not, and then we will see how much animosity there would be about Mr. Reid: Thank you fo r your presentation. Sorry you bringing in a union. Let us allow all union members in have had towait so long tomake the presentation, but we Manitoba to vote on this legislation. After all it is those appreciate your staying and participating in this process. people that this bill is supposedly protecting. Is it really fa ir fo r 32 MLAs to pass judgment o� thousands of its The minister referenced situations in Ontario with own constituent s? An individual's rights are of the respect to labour legislation,and, of course, we have seen utmost importance. One might not always agree with what the Harris government has done there, repealing the their union; one might not always agree with their antiscab provisions that were brought in by the previous employer or with their fe llow employees, not even with government, which would lend to labour-business peace, the party thatis in power. But he or she can always try to and that the government there, of course, is now change things fromwithin . I want to thank you. embarking on other areas where they are withdrawing from workplace safety and health committees. The * (2330) minister referenced some time ago that his bill is modelled after the Ontario bill, the Ontario legislation Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Nickel. thatthe Harris government brought in, but what he does not tell the public is that Ontario does not have the Mr. Toews: Are you aware of in Ontario that when the removal of the Rand Formula as one of the penalties fo r Ontario Federation of Labour asked the Ontario not complying with the financial disclosure provisions. government under Premier Rae to repeal the vote provision, which our legislation is based on in that respect, the Ontario government under Mr. Rae said, no, But, more importantly, I want to talk to you about your they would not indeed? They then subsequently used it workplace and your experiences and how you see or do to send the transit workers back to work by the workers not see democracy functioning in your workplace. voting on the contract that their union had rejected. Are Perhaps you can share with members of this committee you aware of that? your experiences. 144 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

Mr. Nickel: Well, as I have said before, I have worked circulated, I would invite you to proceedwith your oral part time 10 years at SuperValu. Working parttime is presentation. Thankyou, ma'am, very much. not my choice. When I fm t went in, I went in, I put an application in for parttime to get my foot in the door, and Ms. Cindy Garofalo (Private Citizen): Thank you, thenasked I for a full-timeposition and I appliedthe way Mr. Chairman. I should. It has been 1 0 years in coming, and I see this contract as abig negativebecause they could turnaround My nameis Cindy Garofalo, and I reside in the city of and pull the few 8 percent full-timers. There are 123 full­ Winnipeg. I am employed with Media Union of timerswe that have here Manitoba,in and they couldjust Manitoba, No. 191 ofthe Communications, Energy and have us vote them away. I mean, there should be more Paperworkers Union of Canada as a full-time office full-timers than less. I mean, the more part-timers looks administrator. greatfor unemployment figures, but part-time people only pay part-time taxes. You want full-time people paying The Media Union of Manitoba represents full-time taxes. approximately 800 members working in the newspaper and commercial print industry. Inmy capacity as office Mr. Reid: Well, I agree that the objective should be administrator I am responsible for , among other things, full-timejobs, and we would verymuch like to see that. the preparation and presentation of all financial matters That is one of the reasons why we have been strivingto concerning my local. bring in prorated benefits for part-time workers throughout the province. We would encourage the I object to the proposed legislation in Bill 26, Part government to move in thatdirection; and, ifthey do not VII. I, Disclosure of Informationby Unions, that would want to do it, perhaps in the future there will be an require audited financial statements be filed with the opportunity for successive governments to do that. But Labour Board because I fee l that it would cause undue I am interested in your comments with respect to how hardship on locals by attempting to misdirect dues from yam union-howyou fimctionwithin that body. What say the areas that members have democratically voted to doyou have in the operations of that? Are you apprised support and cause additional expenses to locals by of the financial matters of the organization, and do you requiringextensively audited financial statements be filed have a chance to comment on that? Canyou participate with the Labour Board. fully? Mr. Nickel: They have quarterly fm ancial statements. Thecurrent methodof reporting to our membership is It is postedin every store, the dates, the times, when you adequate in that it is a system that our members have can be there. I have beento a few of them. The people developed. Theygovern the method of reporting,and we can ask questions. I went to the last electionwhere we have our own checks and balances in place that provide electedBernard Christophe. To me, it is very democratic. accurate information to our members in regard to I was involved in the counting of the votes. What they financial condition, the operation of the union and the did is, anybody who got up to ask questions or to speak, nature of its expens es, income and expenditures. The if there was a dozen of us or whatever, we were members of our local have not asked fo r these proposed responsible fo r countingthe ballots. So it was not-it was changes as outlined in Bill 26. like a surprise to us, because we were just picked, like, almost at random. But if you had negative or positive At the beginningof each yearour fma nce committee, comments, wewere allpicked to count the votes. So, you made up of rank-and-file members of our union, meet know, I thought it was a very democratic way to go. with thetwo staffpeople and prepare a proposed budget of revenues and expenses. That report goes before our Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou, Mr. Nickel. That would executive board, once again madeofup of 15 rank-and­ conclude the time allotted for questions. Thankyou, sir, file members, who review and discuss all areas of the very much fo r coming to this committee tonight. budget, suggest changes and vote on the acceptance of that budget. The budget is then presented to our full The next presenter tonight is Cindy Garofalo. Ms. membership at a generalmembership meetingand, again, Garofalo, good evening. While your text is being all areas of the budget are discussed and debated at October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 145

length, and the general membership votes on the employer to stop remitting union dues collected through acceptance of the budget. The procedure is virtually the compulsory dues checkoffbecause someone has deemed same for all expenditures that we incur. thatinsuffi cient details have been provided. Compulsory dues checkoff is a fundamental trade union right, and The general membership votes on the groups that we allowing for a provision to stop dues checkoffbecause of are going to support through financial donations and the noncompliance cuts the union's ability to function or to causes that we support through the contribution of do the work that our members have asked us to do. manpower fo r activities that we support as the local. A rank-and-file committee reviews the employment The process of checking off everyone's dues every conditions of the local staff annually and makes month is not an easy task. It is a tedious and time­ recommendations to the executive board on wage and consuming process but a necessary one because some of benefit issues. The executive board votes and refers the the employers make errors in deducting dues, and matter to the general membership meeting to again be adjustments are required. Sometimes our employers do voted on at the general membership meeting. not provide all the information about members that they are obligated to provide through requirements in our A finance committee meets on a monthly basis and collective agreements. I do not see any proposals in Bill reviews every financial entry that I have made. It is their 26 to penalize employers fo r not providing sufficient mandate to ensure that the policies of the local are being detail such asmatching the dues that have been deducted fo llowed as they pertain to the finances of the local, and from members of our shop when they fa il to provide these they make recommendations to the executive board on sufficient details. any changes that they fe el are necessary. Our local secretary-treasurer, a rank-and-file member, is responsible to review the financial records and report on We operate on a very tight budget. Ourexpenses are them. Copies of each monthly financial statement are generally very close to our revenues every month. Ifan circulated to our executive board fo r approval at each employer remits dues late, it is sometimes necessary to monthly meeting and once approved are circulated to juggle outstanding invoices to accommodate fo r the lack members attending the next general membership meeting of cash flow. Ourmembers have agreed to pay the dues so they may be approved by our general membership. thatthey pay throughvoting in a democratic fa shion, and I they vote on how we are to spend those dues. At the conclusion of each year, the local hires a certified accountant from BOO Dunwoody to audit our What you are proposing would misdirect those funds financial records and prepare the local's tax returns. from the sources that members have democratically Copies of the audited statement arethen circulated to the elected to do with them. This would be a disservice to executive board and the general membership at the next those who are paying the dues as well as to the meeting. The financial reports are also made available to organizations that benefit from our support. You would our national union office fo r a review by our elected be opening an opportunity fo r antiunion groups to representatives in Ottawa to ensure that we are virtually cripple our local requesting information that conducting ourselves appropriately. may not even exist by halting the financial resources that we depend on. We are in the business of member * (2340) services, bargaining fa ir collective agreement and resolving grievances from members who pay dues Asyou can tell, we have nothing to hide. becausethat is what they have democratically decided we should be doing with their dues money. Bill 26 would Our policies and procedures are developed and only make our internal union financial information administered by rank-and-file members to ensure that available to antiunion interests who would make use of they know that their dues are being spent the way that this information fo r their own purposes. they have voted to spend them. It is our members, the ones who have set the policies, who determine that the We are already wholly supporting the concept of union information is sufficient, not an outside agency telling the accountability in the way we conduct our business. I ask 146 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October29, 1996

that the amendment pertaining to the disclosure of who refuses to disclose the salary that they are paying to infonnation by unions be withdrawn. Barry Shenkarow? Perhaps you would like to comment on the actions of this government in that regard. As oneclosing remark, I would also like to say thank you to Barry Shenkarow. You see, I worked at Mr. Ms. Garofalo: Well, it appalls me that the government Shenkarow's car dealership, as my last nonunion job, wouldnot come clean. I mean, Ihave also attached, that before starting work for the union. I worked long hours, I did not referto as I spoke, a ftnancial statement fo r our at low wages, with no overtime. I had my vacation own local. It details all of the areas that we deal with. It rescheduled at the last moment, and during the last six details salaries and benefits, for example, and that is the months I worked there, all of the employees were forced grand total of salaries and benefits paid to staffpeople to take a 12.5 percent wage rollback. I want to thank that work there. We have no problem with telling you Barry for giving me a wake-up call. Working in a how much we are making. nonunion shop stinks. I now have a decent-paying union job, with decent holidaysand a pension plan. Thankyou, Mr. Toews: Well, ifyou are in the habit of giving Mr. Shenkarow, for showing me the light. Thankyou. advice or in the practice of giving advice, I would appreciate, perhaps, ifmaybe you would come over to my Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou, Ms. Garofalo. house sometime and talk to the people who live in my houseadvise and themas to the fa ct that the men who are Mr. Reid: Thank you very much for your presentation. standing outside of our house on a daily basis, with It is quiteenlight eningto hear some of the things that we baseball bats, playing baseballs into all hours of the thought might be happening. I can tell you that I have night, who stand on a public street and curse and swear, heardanecdotal stories about Mr. Shenkarow in the past, aresimply carryingout union activities and that they will but this is the first time that I have heard fust-hand not harm my fa mily and they will not harm my information relating to his habits and how he treats neighbours. If you could explain that to my fa mily, in working people. Of course, as you may have heard even a nice written letter, I would appreciate that, and if earlier, one of the things that wehave been tryingto get you also would, perhaps, explain to some of them, who outof this government, by way of ftnancial disclosure, is have heard stories about gasoline bombs beingthrown, the salary that they have paid Mr. Shenkarow as the that you as an individual would condemn that kind of highest-paid civil servant in the province ofManito ba. activity whether it comes from any source, union or nonunion. Theysay they have a provision under public disclosure legislation, Bill 57, $50,000 threshold, but it is our Ms. Garofalo: I live on William Avenue. That is also understanding that Mr. Shenkarow was paid over a in my presentation. I am quite usedto seeingpeople out million dollars by the taxpayers of Manitoba for his on my front street with baseball bats. They are not performan ce,conttol direction and fo r the Winnipeg Jets. always playing baseball. The woman beside me, about a Of course, he also received an expense account in yearago, wasshot by ashotgun blast through the door of addition to that, and had any losses from his own side herhouse that was nextto door me. You know, I also try covered by the government, but, of course, the and count on the police so that when you lodge a government refuses to disclose that. complaint to the police, ifyou think that you or your family have been threatened in some way or another, the Now you can see that the members opposite take police would react. I have to assume that if the police offenceto that, but it is funny that they have in this bill-I have not reacted, theyhave goodcause for notreac ting. want to ask your thoughts since, as regards Mr. Shenkarow, the government will not come clean about Mr. Toews: So, just simply for the record then, you how much theyactually are paying him, do you think it is condone people shooting in the streets, you condone fa ir that this government, through Bill 26, is saying to the people with baseball bats. unions, who, we have had demonstrated here time and again for the last two days of hearings, are open and Ms. Garofalo: No, I certainly do not. Ofcourse , I do democratic to the nth degree, yet we have a government not condone that kind of people beingshot in the street. October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 147

Mr. Toews: Thank you very much. through the freely negotiated contracts in the private sectorwhere unions have negotiated Rand Formula? Do Mr. Reid: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I would like to ask a you think thatit is right that governments should interfere question of the presenter since the minister has just with that process? attempted to insult once again one of the presenters here tonight fo r a- * (2350)

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on a point Ms. Garofalo: No, absolutely not. It has taken us a of order. great deal of work to get those kinds of clauses in our collective agreements, and we closely guard the small Point of Order benefits that we do manage to achieve in our collective agreements. I think that would be a major step Mr. Toews: Point of order, I think, again, the member backwards in the collective bargaining process, to have is misquotingme . He is clearly misquoting me. I simply legislation do away with those clauses. asked if the individual condoned that type of activity. She indicated no, and I accept that answer. I am trying to Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou very much, madam, fo r determinewhether it is common union practice to do that coming before us tonight and takingtime to present to the kind of thing in front of private homes. If it is not committee. common union practice, and this witness indicates that it is not common practice, I accept her word, and I am Thenext presenter is Jack Samyn. Goodev ening, Mr. prepared tocontinue on, but fo r this member, Mr. Chair, Samyn. You have no written presentation, so I would tosuggest that I have done anythingelse other than to say invite you to proceedwith your oral presentation. this is what is happening and this witness does not condone thatkind of activity, I am quite satisfied with her Mr. Jack Samyn (Private Citizen): Thank you very answer. much.

Mr. Chairperson: This is a dispute over the fa cts. I You know, you probably question why a person that is note that the hour is advancing, and I commend all retiredcomes in front of this committee to speak against honourable members fo r the restraintand the discretion the bill that is in front of us. Well, I was here on which they have shown in the presentations tonight. · I Thursday, and the government members were very much would urge that we proceed in a like fa shion. with glee when Sid Green came in and said, the Lord

* * • giveth and the Lord taketh away. Well, you people are not the Lord, to begin with, and with friends like Sid Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Reid, with a very short question, Green, who needs enemies? He believes in the rule of the as we are now over the time limit. jungle, the survival of the fittest.

Mr. Reid: Well, to the presenter, I offer you our I will speak to you about my experience in the labour apologies on this side fo r the comments that were made movement. I workedfo r a Crown corporation. It was a by the Minister of Labour. Even ifhe himself will not large corporation, Manitoba Hydro. When I was 35 retract and apologizefo r those comments, we do offer you years ofage, therewas a voluntary recognized union, and our apologies. you know why? Because technical and clerical people did not believein the unions anddid not want any unions. I want to ask you, because this government says that We had a union, yes, and outside, the IBW, and to they believe in the right of working people, people in prevent the people inside to organize, they recognized unions, and they want to democratize those workplaces, themvol untarily, andthey drew up the agreement without do you think that it is right that this government has the much input from the members. ability and is implementing that will, that political will, as they had done under Bill 70 a number of years back, I will read you one article that people would be where theywill infringe upon the decisions that are made discussing with their union members if that would be 148 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

permitted, change of marital status, fe male: A single voluntarilyrecognized. We appliedto the Labour Board female employee who marries but does not wish to and we were certified. Lo and behold, what happened? terminate her employment in consequence shall, on Most of the people disappeared because the ones who resignation, give writtennotice of her desire fo r continued werein thecontract-by classification, engineers were not employment after marriage. Approval of request for in it. Oh, no, they could not be part of the agreement continued employment after marriage shall be at the anymae,of thecertificate. Theydecided at that time how discretion of the corporation-very enlightening. Where many people should be, yet they voluntarily recognized continued employmentis approved, it shall be considered thembef ore, becausethey had contr ol. So, when we were as terminable by the corporation on two weeks notice certified, then they had to bargain, and we started to get without other cause. All other conditions applying to a little bit more democratic. Because of the govemment, single fe males shall continue for married fe male we did not establish a democratic union within that employees. workplace.

An Honourable Member: What year was that? The members that ran the union at that time were by the membership pushed to negotiate, and pressure was Mr. Samyn: That is 1965. That is not so long ago. put on, not that a Crowncorporation would not just fire would say that the Ross Pierres (phonetic] are still alive him outright without cause because he was involved in in Manitoba. the labour movement, but they put the pressure on enoughand he � to quit. So what did they decide, the Theminister asked a member before, do you know that membership? After a long discussion, they should join the employees' association was in the statutes? Yes, it what I will call a legitimate labour union because they

was, and it wasby theConservative government who did need protection for the people who were going to not give them the freedom to choose what union they represent the employees. wanted to belong to, so do not point the fm ger at the union, becausethey were not called the union. Theywere When theytalk about financial situation, ifthe minister called an association at that time, and it was the isso coocerned within-it that does notreally matter what government who forced them into it. So do not go and organization you have, a labour organization, you have pointthe finger atthe uniooon democracy . I do not think dissenters, and quite often they happen to be that the unions have to learn democracy from the Conservatives. If theyare so concernedthat the financial government, because I wish that the governmentwas so reportof the union is not available, let them come to the democratic as the unions are. minister and say the union does not want to give it to them, because there is no union that I worked fo r that An Honourable Member: With baseball bats. financial statements are not available. But the reason he wants to do it is because he wants the employer to know Mr. Samyn: Yes, with baseball bats, too. Theyhave whatmonies theyhave, do andI will say this one, that the done that. Ross Pierre (phooetic] did it. He pushed them membersof thegovernment are not stupid. They may be into water. Now, Mr. Fallis (phonetic]-you probably all ignorant of how the unions work, but I think it is on rememberhim very well-decided that there was not going ideological reasons why theyare doing it. to be any negotiations,whatever negotiations took place, and they were going to give the employees a 2 percent I have to remember, these members here, that the increase, and by cashing their cheques, that would have nurses, theschoo lteachers were not pro labour, they were been a continuation of the contract and the extension. not politically active. The government made them And Sid Green sayswe donot need any legislation for the politically active, and they have to pay the penalty by employees. what they have done and what they are afraid they are going to do in the future. When they are talking about So what they did, the employees, they decided that to the political actions, I do not know how the goverrunent fo rce theemplo yer to negotiate, they should be certified, is going to handle it because unions that belong to a andwe had the members. The employer did not have to national or an international union, a lot of theirfmances say what the units were because they were already are handled by them. How are they going to control it? October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 149

That is my question; like, they have not enough work to decision tobe made. Unions are fo rced in the majority to do already. exaggerate their demands, because if you do not scale them down,they sayyou arenot giving up anything. It is Why should unionsnot be politically involved? Good? a Mexican bartering, unfo rtunately. It is not rational. It This government on this side were very happy when the is the employees that want to make it rational. Within Saskatchewan, lO or 15 years ago, when the NDP and the Manitoba Hydro, when I was in negotiations, we had labour movement were not agreeing with each other, nothing to hide andwe said, we will tape it and will give when they defeated that government, and they did the it to the membership. What did the committee say from same thing not so long ago in Ontario, because they did management? No, becauseit will not be free discussions. not agree what the government was doing. But that is When I talked at one time about salaryincre ases, I was probably okay, because it happens to be, you know, not talking about myself, I was talking about the against the New Democratic Party. membership, and he says, why do you need an increase? You havelots of money in thecredit union. Intimidation, The labour movement have more integrity than you and that is large organization. people give them credit fo r. When they are saying on political action that the members who do not agree with I just wonder what members would do trying to it should not have their moneys contributed there and organize when there are only 30 employees and they are should be contributed to charitable organizations, well, well known. The intimidation that would be put on those I have got news fo r you people. If you wanted to make members is just unbelievable. I would have been afraid, sure that there are no monies going from the union to a if I wasbelonging to a smallorganization, to just starting political party, change the laws on contribution on to organize and get involved, because my job at the political action, change the laws and say that only Hydro was not running fo r the union, it was to make a individuals can contribute to a political party. But you livelihood fo r my fa mily- people will not do it, because most of your money comes fr om corporations. That is where your money comes Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Samyn, that from. Thatis who you areacting fo r-and Mr. Penner can concludes the time available fo r the presentation remarks. shake his head all he wants because he is lying through I would recognize Mr. Reid for a question. his teeth, and I can use that language.

* (0000) Mr. Reid: I was quite enjoying the experience of listening to the presenter. I am wondering, Mr. An Honourable Member: But you would chastise me, Chairperson,if there is a willingnessof the committee to ifl used it. allow the presenter tocontinue his comments, to consume the remainder of the time if necessary so that he provide Mr. Samyn: No, I will not. fo r us and share his experience.

An Honourable Member: Because I am an elected Mr. Chairperson: What is the will of the committee? member. Mr. Samyn: No, my only comment would be, if the Mr. Samyn: Yes, but you are not elected by the government, if they are tryingto say something about the majority of the people in Manitoba, you are only elected labour movement, trying to move people away from it, by 40 percent and you are acting like you are elected by are they going to do the same thing with the lawyers, over 50 percent. That is the difference. We can even saying the lawyers, ifhe does not agree with it, he should look at how the committee is fo rmed. It is not not belongto the Law Society? Are they going to say the proportioned fo r the members in the legislation meeting. same thing, make regulations, to say the medical doctors should not belong to the MMA? I am not advocating it, Mr. Chairperson: One minute, sir. but they sure are not talking about thatone.

Mr. Samyn: Also, you people obviously know very Mr. Penner: Mr. Samyn, you profess that the union little about negotiation because negotiation is a movement and the union communications process confrontation to begin with. It is not a harmonious internally is very open. Is that correct? 150 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

Mr. Samyn: Yes, I do. Mr. Samyn: No. Aslong as he receives the benefits fo r it, I thinkhe should pay the fare. I have to pay my taxes Mr. Penner: If it in fa ct is and if the information is as in Manitoba, if I donot agree with it, giving money to the readily available on aU aspects to membership, then what Jets, fa theminister to take his wife to South America on is so wrong with this legislation which really purports taxpayers' money, I do not say that it should not be, but and supportsa much greaterdegree of openness between I say, fm e, ifyou do ananalysis with the union, do it for the membership and the union itself? the govemment the sameway.

Mr. Samyn: I am telling you ifthere is one member in Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you, Mr. Samyn. That the union that I worked with-and I canspeak probably concludes the time we have available for questions for a majority of the unions-that it is not available to tonight. them, the financial report that is made available through the union, if it is not available, then I challenge you at Mr. Samyn: Thankyou very much. that time make legislation that it should be presented to the government, butnot Wll ess it is not made available to Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou, sir, fo r coming before the the members. committee. The next presenter is Buffie Burrell. You have written presentations? Mr. Penner: If the union is as supportive of labouras Ms. Duffie Burrell(Private Citizen): Yes, I do. they profess to be, and I do not argue that they are not, why dothey need legislation that forces payment of dues Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you. While your upon individuals that do not want to be members of the presentations are being circulated, I would invite you to union? proceedwith your oral comments. Mr. Samyn: Okay, it is verysimple. If you are going to Ms. Burrell: Thankyou. I standbef ore you today as a pass legislation that you do not contribute to it, then why person who has been a rank-and-file member of three do the unions have to represent them, have to go to different unions since 1973. [interjection) Are you two grievances, arbitration and pay the cost for it because he wanting to carryon a debate here, or are you ready? is just freeloadingand he does not want to? He gets the benefitsjust as anybody else. If he does not want to pay Yes, I do work fo r a central labour body, and I spent the fare, say, fine, ifyou stay outside the union, you do approximately 11 years working for the members of one not receive the benefits, you do not have the right of ofManitoba's largest unions. During this 23-year span, grievances nor of arbitration. I have always been a rank-and-file member of a union. Today, I am a rank-and-file member of the We had members who had no valid case and went to Communications, Energy, Paperworkers Union, Local Sid Green and insisted that it has to be presented CULR I andam adues-pa ying, nonactive member in the regardless if he had a case or not. He did it out of spite Association of Commercial and Technical Employees, becausewanted they to be represented, and the union has Local 1725. Prior to becoming a member of ACTE not got any choice on it, he has to proceedto the end. 1725, I was a member in the Manitoba Government Employees' Association, which is now the Manitoba Mr. Penner: Just a final short statement. It appears to Government Employees' Union. me, Mr. Samyn, that if an organization, be it a fa rm organizationunion ora a anyother organization is really For the 23 years that I have been involved in my worth its weight in salt, as you say they should be and various unions, I have always held elected positions in are,and if they really are supportive of the individual, as my local or my union, positions I had to run for and get they should be, it would appear to me that individuals elected, a novel idea fo r a nondemocratic organization. would be only toowilling to become members and retain In the 23 years I have been an active or nonactive theirmembership status by paying their dues voluntarily. member of a trade union, I have never needed to be Would you support that? protected from the union or the big union boss, as your October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 151

government is so fo nd of calling the duly elected assaultedon a daily basis by a supervisor, a boss or even members of my union or central labour body. anotherco-w orker. Would you not want that harassment orassault to be stopped as expediently as possible? But My union has always been there when I needed it, not now, due to your shortsightedness and what I believe is when it chose to talk to me, not when some outside body your government's total lack of respect fo r working decided I needed help, but whenever I asked fo r their women, women who have to work to support their assistance. Even sometimes when I did not even ask, fa milies because of the cutbacks in all the social they knew help was needed, and they were there. Does programs your government has hacked and slashed, this sound like an organization that I need protection women will have to work in a hostile environment even fr om? No. This sounds like an organization that cares longer because they are denied the right to use the what happens to me, not only at work but in society in expedited arbitration process. That is hardly fa ir or general. My union has always been there to help when I democratic. needed them. Bill 26 fo rces my union to spend time and money on BiD 26 will not make unions more democratic, will not ensuring that my employer or business or Big fo rce unions to better represent its members, as the Brother-and,just in case you do not knowit, that is you members are the union. It will not put more financial the government-knows exactly what type of financial information into the hands of the members, as all positionmy union will bein. If the union has money, you financial information is already in the hands of the may choose to wait until another day to attack us, but if members. Bill 26 does make unions more undemocratic you determine that we are in a weak position fm ancially, as they will fo rce a person to select or choose a union you may decide that it is a good day to take on the union twice before they are allowed to join a union. For me, because the financialresources required are not there fo r that decision or process is a nonissue. I would always the union to fightback. votefo r the union. But to an immigrantworker who does not speak English as their mother language, who comes Should the union not comply with this financial fr om a countrythat is tom with civil wars, fighting and disclosure, then you threaten to take away the Rand very fe w human rights, where people are shot fo r doing Formula. If my union and its members democratically something as simple as wanting to join a union, you and vote to decide not to comply with your legislation, then your government now want to fo rce these same people you will punish us? I thought this was supposed to be who have fled their country to actually vote in a process about democracy. run by the government, the very body in their country which ordered the elimination of persons who show any Shouldnot everyone be financially responsible back to sign of being involved in a trade union or human rights their members, shareholders, citizens, et cetera? I do not activism, the very same type of body they ran from in the remember the company that I invested in coming back first place-not likely. and asking fo r my permission to give a corporate donation tothe Progressive Conservative Party. Did they * (0010) or will they lose rights because they did not have prior permission? I think not. Bill 26 also addresses the expedited arbitration process, a process that by your own labour board's Should the government fa ll and be impeached when statistics, works for both union worker and the employer. they do things totally opposite to what they promised in To please yourtaskmasters, your government has decided an election, i.e., the loss of the Winnipeg Jets, selling to make it almost impossible to settle disputes in an MTS, cuts in health care, et cetera? No. We elect our expedient manner. You have limited the access to this government in a democratic election. Give them the process to two areas. They are extreme areas, but two power to run the affairs of the province or country fo r a areas nonetheless. Just fo r the moment, I would like you specified term. Shouldthis government enact legislation tothink of yourselfor your wife or your daughter working or policiescontrary to their election policies, then we the in a work location that allows you, your wife, daughter, people are out of luck until the next election. That is sister or mother to be sexually harassed or sexually democracy. I donot have the option of taking away your 152 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

taxes when I do not like how you spendmy money, that trade union movement was eliminated or silenced, it left is what the majority rule is really all about. thedoa foropen theNazi governmentto start picking off other groups and individuals as there was no organized Speaking of democracy and majority rules, when we groupto protest. to lobby or to educate the people of the want to runfo r a position in our union we normally have great justicesin and heinous crimes that were committed. tohave 50 percentplus one of the ballots cast in order to There was no one to speak out on behalf of all workers, be declared elected, not so our democratic government. whether they were gay, white, black, disabled, sick, I believe that Mr. Toews only had 35 percent. Who is poverty stricken, and the list goes on and on. really more democratic? Bill 26 makes me think of my grandfather and my Is Bill 26 really about democracy? Does it reallyput fa ther who fought against this tyranny. They did so to more power inmy hands as a rank-and-filemember of a ensure that you and I would be able to live in a union? I think not. So what is Bill 26 really about if it democracy controlledby the people. They did not fight is not democracy? to have the same basic rights taken away at home but I believe Bill 26 is about controlling one of the most fo ught toensure democracy would be ours. I believemy voiceful groups in society, organizations that are critical grandfather andmy fa ther would tell you that they would about government cuts, spending, programming, et not be proud to call themselves Progressive cetera. It is about control of groups of people organized Conservatives today, asyour government is attempting to in a democratic manner, who express opinions different changeour society ,.s did those governments of long ago. fromyour government. who mobilizeopposition to your policy, who are openly critical about the way your Thisrank-and-file trade unionist is here to tell you that govenunent acts on their behalf In other words, it is all your plan will not work. I will not sit idly by while you about shutting down the only realgrassroots opposition dismantle our social programs, while you dismantle our tothe right-wing policies your government is planning to universal education system, while you gut the economic implement, a movement that jeopardizes your security of WOOlel1and children, while you make the poor commitmentto carry out dehumanizing of our society. and weak the enemies. I will not sit by while you try to destroythe trade union movement in our province. I will I therefore find that I must also be standing here as a fight back. I will speak out, and therefore when you descendant of a long line of Progressive Conservative comefo r me, there will be somebody to speak out fo r me, supporters. Now I do not do this with any pride or any my union. Thankyou. joy. I only share this with you to help clarify my fo llowing statements. Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you, Ms. Burrell. Are there any questions of this presenter? Yes, my fa mily have supported the Progressive Conservative governmentsof thepast, but my fam ily also Mr. Reid: I thought perhaps some of the government believedin the freedom of basic human rights, to decent members would want to ask questions about this living andworking conditio ns, equality fo r all; above all, presentation, butas hasbeen their practice, they pick and they did believe in democracy. choose, I guess, who it is that they want to kick as They believed in democracy so much they were willing presenters. to die for it. They fo ught against tyranny, fa scism, Ms. Burrell: I am not young enough. dictatorships. They fo ught so that I and the rest of our family would be able to live without fe arof Big Brother Mr. Reid: Perllaps, as the presenter has indicated, there interference, soI would be able to choose where I wanted is anage fa ctor that is appliedhere, that the government to go and what I wanted to do. chooses to pick on young people. Bill 26 makes me wonder if we are not headed down Point ofOrder the same path as Nazi Germany did so many years ago. History tells me that the trade union movement was the Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, on a point oforder, I just firstgroup to beoutlawed, shut down, silenced. Once the want to make it very clear to Mr. Reid that just a fe w October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 153

minutes ago he accused those of us on this side of the Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Ms. Burrell. I am the House of harassing women. I think we want to be very Chair, and my job is to recognize you if you wish to be careful on this side of the House that we no further responsive to Mr. Reid's question. If you do not, you present that image that we want to harass any one of the have no obligation to respond. women who are presenting here today. If we have questions of anybody from this side of the House to Ms. Burrell: I will respond to Mr. Reid's question. It presenters, we will ask those questions, but we will be was the other gentleman's question that I was concerned very careful that we will not be overzealous in asking about. women questions. Mr. Chairperson: I would ask you to respond to Mr. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. I do not Reid's question. believe there was a point of order set out in those remarks. Ms. Burrell: Thank you.

* * * Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou, Ms. Burrell.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Reid, I would invite you to * (0020) proceed with your question. Ms. Burrell: I believe there are a number of areas although I believe that expedited arbitration should b� Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, you have raised an there for everything. Another prime example where it interesting question and one that, to be honest, I had not createshar dship, not only fo r theperson who is grieving thought of as being part of the expedited grievance but also fo r theperson who has received thejob, is when process. I guess I should be somewhat apologetic fo r not somebody is appealing the appointment of a job or not realizing that this was a possibility, where sexual getting a job, both the worker that gets the job and the harassment complaints and sexual assault complaints worker that does not get the job and appeals it. If a against someone in a workplace, which include an normal arbitration process can take up to two to three employer or someone in the position of authority as an years for varying reasons to determine who is right and agent of the employer would be involved in that and that who is wrong, that disrupts the whole work location fo r that would be part of the expedited process, that would that period of time. The incumbent of the job is not sure no longer be allowed under this legislation. I find it whether they are going to have that job so many weeks, inconceivable to think that a government would remove months, years down the road, and the person who is the ability of a worker to file a sexual harassment or a seeking the job is looking fo r advancement and is not sexual assault charge or complaint against a supervisor sure what is happening, so it creates a lot of tension in or an owner of a company. the workplace. Can you tell me, Ms. Burrell, are there other examples The othertypes of issuesthat you need to have clarified that you can provide fo r us on the effects of this immediately are fa mily-related leaves. For example, I government's withdrawal from the expedited arbitration know that, when I worked fo r the Manitoba Government process that would lend some support to our argument that we need to continue to have that type of a process in Employees' Union, I represented a mother who used the this province, not that the issue that you have raised here special leaveto take her daughter to the hospital because is not reason enough, but I would like to expand a bit on she was in respiratory arrest, and the employer argued that, if you might? that the fa ther could have done that if she had only notified him instead of her having that leave and denied Ms. Burrell: I beg your pardon. her the right to pay under those circumstances. We fo ught that through the arbitration process, but it took Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Burrell, ifyou wish to be- many, many, many months to get through that and the person was finally awarded those days credited back into Ms. Burrell: Well, I thought the gentleman over here her vacation and taken out of her sick leave as was was making a comment to me and- allowed under the collective agreement. 154 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

So there are a lot of issues, but I think the most labour stability, long term. The bill before this prevalent one isthe sexual harass ment, the sexual assault. committee does not provide the necessary long-term Thisgovernment did not considereven anything like that. stability in labour law required to attract investment All they were concerned about was the length or the capital. It provokes labour unrest. A knowledgeable tardinessof the penalty that was imposed; youare either corporate executive reviewing the provisions of this bill dismissedsuspension ora looger than worksthree . Well, would not invest in this province. A government that quite frankly, I think aperson thathas got a three-week proposesa bill that would detract from investment is not suspension or perhaps even dismissedfo r some causes is serving the interests of Manitobans. a lot less stressful than somebody that is being sexually harassedor sexually assaulted on the job almost daily. Ifthis billis passed. a competent investor will realize that a subsequent electionof an NDP government will Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou verymuch, Ms. Burrell. revokethe provisions of this bill, and theunions will be That now concludes the timeallotted fo r the question woddngto hard do so. Hence, no long-term planning or and answer, andI thankyou for coming before us tonight stability, hence nolong-term investment, hence no job with your presentation. creation for Manitobans.

The next presenter tonight is Brian Burchat. Calling Inreviewing any bill,the question of whose interest it Brian Burchat fo r the second time and there is no serves and what possibleproblems can be created must response, his name will be struck offthe list. be answered. The minister has stated that one of the interests is that of union members themselves. This law The next name is Mr. George Anders on. Good isa reaction tocomplaints received. Perhaps a review of morning, sir, andwelcome. basic facts on law would be helpful. All unions as democratic bodies have a constitution. Theconstitution Mr. George Anderson (Public Service Alliance of is ratified by the members. Any individual member who Canada, Union of Taxation Employees, Local believes that his union or its leaders have violated the 50011) : Good morning, and I do mean morning. constitutionhas redress within theunion movement itself andaccess to the comtsestablish to ifthe union has acted Mr. Chairperson: And so do I. And thank you very unfairly towards its members. much. I see your presentation is being circulated. I would invite you to proceed with your presentation.oral This bill is saying to Manitobans that the courts will not protect individuals from organizations. Is it in the Mr. Anderson: Mr. Chairperson. members of the interest of Manitobans to have governments regulate committee, my name is George Anderson. I ampresident organizations rather than the courts? Do Manitobans of the Local 50021, Public Service Alliance ofCanada, want increased government intervention in their lives? andthis bill we are doesdisaJssing not in any way, shape Hasthe PC Party come to believe in big government? Is or form, concern any of my members, except as they all this bill in the interests of the PC Party? live in the province of Manitoba. I am an employee of the federal government. I am employed by Revenue This attack on an organization and its structure can Canadaas a tax collector. In addition, I ampresident of lead to intrusion by government on religious ourlocal union. Frankly, theonly ways I couldbe more organizations and business organizations. By this unpopular are if I was a card-carrying member of any government's actions, they are legitimately opening the political party or as an elected MLA or M.P. doors to similar legislation by their political opponents. I suggest that adequate steps are available through the As a Canadian living in Manitoba, I fm d it hard to courtsto protect individuals from both organizations and believe why the average Manitoban is offended by governments. government. A review of Bill 26 gives me the answer. Capital andcapital investment seeks stability to ensure a Justice Rand, in devising the RandFormula, allowed long-term return on investment. To a great extent the for individual freedom withinthe union organizat ion. A stability rests on capital implications, long term, and Rand deductee is not bound by the will of the maj ority October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 155 but gives up the right to vote and speak out on union presentation to us here this evening. I only wish that the issues. The deduction is then a fe e fo r service, that of Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) could hear yourwords collective bargaining. because I think you have some interesting perspectives that you bring to this. Perhaps he may get a chance Unions, by law, must provide service to members. somewhere down the road to review your thoughts with When governments take actions that affect wages and respect to the Supreme Court because whatthe minister benefits, unions must act. They become politically active is essentially doing here is overriding the decision that to protect the rights and benefits of its members or lose has been made by the Supreme Court with respect to their collective certification rights. union activities involved in furthering the interest of their members, as you so clearly point out in your document. TheSupreme Court of Canada has recognized that the political actions of unions is a required obligation of the * (0030) union and a justifieduse of dues. Does this government believe that the Supreme Court of Canada is I want to ask your thoughts, though, because the incompetent? Is it in the interest of this government to minister saysand the government says that unions are not have Manitobans no longer believe in the good of the responsiveto theirmembers , that they do not provide the courts andto no longer obey laws? I u'nderstand that the information to their members and that they withhold or minister hasrefused to acceptthe recom mendations of the keep secret the activities or ongoings of the union labour-management body set up by the minister. I organization as made by those elite big union bosses. suggest that if the minister has no confidence, either Can you tell me and relate fo r the members of this revoke or re-establish a body that he has confidence in. committee your experience that you havewith respect to unions in this province? I suggest that the people of Manitoba would be better served by the minister scrapping this bill and taking the Mr. Anderson: I have a great deal of difficulty really fo llowing constructive actions: 1) establishan all-party believing that members of this committee, with their committee charged with the mandate to bring to the experience in labour relations, do not realize the Legislative Assembly a new bill on labour-management democratic portion and methods that unions utilize. relations thatcan be unanimously endorsed by the House; What I canrespectfully suggest, and I will tender an open 2) convene a meeting of organizations representing invitationto anymember of the PC Party to attend at our unions, large business, small business, large investment meeting on February 20, at our annual general meeting, firms and interested parties to bring about a consensus and find out what democracy is all about. There is decision to that all-party committee; 3) using interest­ nothing fo r any union leader to gain by withholding based principles worked out by the Harvard school of information fromhis members. Ifhe does that he is not negotiations, bring fo rward a new law and a new way of going toget re-elected. What arewe? Stupid. You have doing business in this province. todistribute the information. You have to have support. How can I keep secrets and get support from my Conflict between governments, organizations and membership on actions that are to be based on a individuals canbe resolved by caring, understanding and collective decision? It defeats any union to engage in respecting the rights of all, or it can be resolved by secrecy fromits members. It is your members that you authoritarian actions. The choice is yours. Make a wise callupon to go on the picket lines. What would happen one fo r Manitoba. if I calleda strike and no one came? How do you think we get people out on the picket lines? Do you think Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. people give up seven, eight and nine months salary Anderson. because we are keeping secrets from them, or do you Mr. Reid, fo r a question. believe that theyare really fighting fo r what they believe in? Unions do not call strikes; members call strikes. Mr. Reid: Thankyou very much fo r your presentation, Mr. Anderson. I am sorry that there was such a long Mr. Reid: Thankyou fo r that information. I appreciate delay and that you agreed to stay with us and make your that. You have referenced the fact that we have raised 156 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), wherever he The next name is Philippe Trottier. Mr. Trottier. may be, because this minister has refused to accept the Goodmorning, sir. recommendations of the Labour Management Review Conunittee,which is a bodythat is chairedby none other Mr. Philippe Trottier (Private Citizen): Good than Professor Wally Fox-Decent. You have asked in morning, Mr.Chairperson. your presentation here that, if the minister has no confidence in the LMRC, it either be revoked or re­ Mr. Chairpenon: Do you have a presentation to establisha body that he has confidence in. Doyou think circulate to the membersthe of committee? the minister would be willing to accept your recommendation in this regard? Mr. Trottier: No, I am afraid I do not have copies of my presentation to circulate tothe members. Mr. Anderson: I would hope the minister would tryto bring about a consensus fo r Manitobans, to bring about Mr. Chairperson: Fine. Thankyou, sir. I would invite a climate where all Manitobans fee l comfortable with you topr oceedwith your oral presentation. where the labour market is and we can take a common approachto attracting capital into this province. I cannot Mr. Trottier: Thankyou. My purposehere is twofold. understand why this would not be done. One is to provide you with my story of my involvement in labour unionsthis in province and secondly perhaps to Mr. Reid: So then I sense from your comments that the draw a history l�son, particularly for the Minister of minister has not built that consensus, and by the actions Labour (Mr. Toews). that he has undertaken through Bill 26 he is destroying thevery bodyhas that attemptedover a numberof years, My story began with a pay deduction off my pay sincethe 1960s, tobuild that cmsensus between business cheque over 30 years ago. Upon inquiry, I wasadvised and labour in this province. Am I correct in the that the $4 that was deducted-I thinkit was $4.67 interpretation of these comments? actually-from my pay cheque was uniondues . I was employedin a company as a glazier, and that company, the company employees were organized by the glaziers Mr. Anderson: That is correct. The only issue I could union. As a result of the Rand Formula, there was a probably findI when look at why somebodywould reject requirement for the payment of union dues, and I was the adviceof a body he has established is that that body invited tojoin that union. The union meetings were held is not bringing about a large enough consensus. So I onthe shopfloor after work. I became intimately fa miliar would suggest to the minister that, if that is the problem wilh grassrootsin democracy a unim organization, on the with the body that he has established, if he broadens the shopfloor, whatmaja the issues were, what the concerns consensus, he is going to get better formed decisions. I of the members of that union were, the health and safety would like to be a citizen of the first province that can issues and how theywere going to tryand improve them bring forw ard a labour bill that the left, theright andthe in the next round of bargaining. centresay, can yes, we cansuppm it. I would like to live in a province like that. I would like to live in a province I was a young ladof maybe 16, went on to university. where I can say all three political parties careabout all My next involvement with a union organization came the interests of Manitobans. We need change. again as a pay deduction some 10 years later. That deduction happened to be an $80 deduction offmy pay Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. That cheque, and it wasnot fo r union dues. I worked fo r the concludes the time available fo r your presentation federal govenunent The explanation that was offered by tonight, andthank you for coming before this committee. personnel was that it was to recover a one-day loss of salary because apparently I was not at work on the last The next individual on the list is Bernie Perreault. Is day of work in one department before I transferred to Bernie Perreault in the assembly? Calling Bernie another department. So the manager that I had in my Perreault fo r the secondtime . There being no response, area, whontclose Iwasfairly to, wasvery supportive, but that name will be struckoff the list heindicated it wasout of hishands , that it was something October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 157 that was being done in Ottawa, over which he had no one of those members had the opportunity to vote as to control. The fo lks in pay and benefits, again, said, well, who theywanted astheir national officer. I was fo rtunate it was out of their hands. It was something over which to be elected on three consecutive occasions. So I think they had no control. That it was something that was I can speak about grassroots democracy in union being done by Ottawa, and it was something that was organizations with some authority. going on between two departments. The unions are accountable. During that time I was Well, I went to my shop steward. Back in 1976, $80 called upon to be the chair of the finance committee on wasa severe deduction from my pay cheque, particularly three consecutive conventions, and I can assure the seeing I had a wife and two kids to support. My shop minister and the members here that, with respect to steward did not have the answer. My shop steward financial statements of a national union organization, directed me to a union representative, and we met, the such as the Public Service Alliance, audited financial threeof us, and laid out a course of action. The course of statements are provided and printed each year in a action was, rather than to file a grievance immediately, I magazine that is distributedto some 155,000 members had proof that I was there that last day of work. I had a across the country. Last year that audited financial standing travel advance back then of some $400. I was statement was in excess of eight pages, and, upon asked to return it to the department, arid I did by way of comparison to the audited financial statement that is a memo. The memo was dated the exact date that I was presented to the shareholders of Great-West Life, it is a supposedly absent from thewor kplace. lot moredetailed thanthat. It is a lot more detailed than the financial statements that are presented to the other * (0040) shareholders of major corporations such as Xerox and IBM with which I have some fa miliarity; not only that, The solution was to first write to the deputy minister but it hasa widercir culation. Those financial statements involved and advise him of this fact. Indeed we did, and generally are circulated to the shareholders at a meeting. indeed thedeputy ministersaw hisway clear to correcting The financialstatements of the alliance are circulated to the situation and reimburse the $80. The lesson was: 155,000 members across the country. The friend that I had in the workplace was not the

manager; the friend I had in the workplaceI was not There is a certain amount of democracy at play, and paying benefits; the friend I had in the workplace that there is a certain amount of accountability at play in helped me out was my union. I went on to become union organizations. I think, as I stand here this evening involved in that union. I attended a local general or in the wee hours of the morning in this committee meeting, and, as a result of having this solution to this room and look out the window, I see the statute of our $80-pay problem, I b ecame involved, first as a shop fa ther of Confederation, Louis Riel. Dear Louis fought steward and then as an elected official. It was at that against big government. He fought against the abuse of generalmeeting that I was electedas the vice-president of power. He fo ught against government interference. It is the union organization, and I have to say that it was done the same kind of abuse of power, it is the same kind of in a very democratic fa shion. government interference, we see in this legislation.

I spent the next l 0 years heavily involved in the union Riel had two lieutenants at Batoche. We are all aware organization called the Public Service Alliance that of Gabriel Dumont. His other lieutenant was Charles represents most of the fe deral government workers. I Trottier, whose son Michel and four Sioux warriors have to say as a national officer of that union honoured themselves at Batoche. They spilled their organization, we did practise democracy more so than we bloodand they honoured the fa mily. They fo ught against see atthe provincial or fe deral level, where as a national abuse of power. They fo ught against government officer I ran fo r election every three years, and my interference. The lesson to be learned-and, hopefully, constituency was the employees in that particular this lesson is taken well here tonight-is that as you department throughout Manitoba of which there were in increase the abuse of power and authority, so, too , you excess of20 worksites both in Winnipeg and in the rural bring about the greater resistance to that abuse of power areas as fa r north as Thompson. Every three years each and authority. Thank you very much. 158 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Trottier. Mr. Reid, Mr. Trottier: Yes, I do have some fa miliaritywith the fo r a question. recommendatioosof the Labour Management Committee, and I have a fa ir degree of fa miliarity with the chair, Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Trottier, for your Wally Fox-Decent, whom I took a political studies presentation. I am sorry fo r the late hour and the coursesfrom at the University of Manitoba. I have a lot requirement of the government members forcing this of coofidcncein Mr. Fox-Decent. I think that indeed this committeeto run past the midnight hour. We had hoped vehicle is a very appropriate vehicle, and indeed the togive members of thepublic the opportunityto go home observations and recommendations that they have made and come back on another day and present at a more tothe minister flow from a consensus-building approach reasooabletime, but thatwas not to be due to government and certainlyare reconunendationthat perhaps should be majority. incorporated in the legislation.

I want toask your thoughts aboutthis Bill 26. Do you Mr. Reid: Then with the obvious confidence that you think that it is proper fo r a government to operate in a display fo r Professor Fox-Decent, do you think that Mr. fashion that would develop a processwhereby it would Fox-Decent would be the person that would be be a winner take all, and by that I mean where the representative of public interest with respect to matters government of the day would determine the types of dealing with labour relations in the province, because the policies and ignore the balance that has been struck or minister has referred in the past to having no public should be struck with respect to labour-management interestinvolved? Do youthink that Mr. Fox-Decenthas relationships in the province. Perhaps you can share your and can continue to play the role of a public interest thoughts about this winner-take-all-style of government. defender?

Mr. Trottier: I, for one, particularlyam not necessarily Mr. Trottier: Yes, from my experience with Mr. Fox­ in favour of a winner-take-all approach. I think the Decent, I am sure that certainly Fox-Decent has approach, certainlyone of the previous speakers spoke to Mr. considered what the public interest is and certainly can it, is one of a consensus-building approach, where you provide that kind of viewpoint with respect to his can reach agreement amongst the parties, and that way observations on the legislation. the parties can then live with the legislation orwhatever the agreementthat has beenreached and that you would Mr. Cbairpenon: Thankyou very much, Mr. Trottier. endup, with that consensus-building approach, you have Thatappears be questioostonight, and I would like the co-operationof the parties. to the tothank you very tnuch fa takingthe time to come before this committee and testify tonight. A winner-take-all approach, as history has shownus, simply develops a further resistance to whomever has Mr. Trottier: Thankyou. It was a pleasure to be here. won until such time as they are eventually overthrown, andthe resistance brings about furtherchan ge. Mr. Chairpenon: Good morning, sir. Mr. Reid: I take it from yourcomments that you would be in favour of the Minister of Labour accepting the The nextm name the list is Leagh Blackwell. Calling recommendations that were brought fo rward by the Leagh Blackwell fo r the second time. There being no Labour Management Review Committee when those respmse,Blackwell Leagh will bestruck theoff list. The questions were posed to them about the clauses ofBill next name is Emile Clune. Calling Emile Clunefo r the 26. There was very much majority support on both the second. time Therebeing noresponse, the name is struck labour and management, and there was consensus that offthe list. Calling Anthony Joyce. Calling Anthony was built of that, so you see that that vehicle for Joyce fa the time.second There beingno response, Mr. consensus building should be one that government Joyce is struckoff the list. should, with all reasonableness, accept as a recom­ mendation fo r serious consideration for inclusion in the Thenext name is Heather Grant. Gooding, morn Ms. legislation. Grant I seeyou have some comments to circulate to us, October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 159 and while those are being circulated, I would invite you distance call made, every call of my cellular phone. I to proceed with your oral presentation. travel frequently; when I watch a movie, I pay; order a Coke, I pay; make personal phone calls, I pay. When a

* (0050) colleaguevisits Winnipeg from Canada or abroad, we go for lunch, we have dinner, we have a few drinks, I pay. Ms. Heather Grant (WinnipegLabour Council): The Why? Becauseit is mymembers' money,I have no prior Winnipeg Labour Council represents 47,000 trade approval andI amaccountab le. It offends me to hear you unionists from 29 affiliated local unions in the city of and your government say this bill is to make me more Winnipeg. Our council celebrated its 1 OOth anniversary accountable, coming from your government who just last in 1994 and was an integral player in the Winnipeg week, it was revealed-your DeputyMinister of Natural General Strike in 1919. We survived that and grew Resources and his extravagant tastes. We eat at Pizza stronger despite those who wish we would dry up and Hut. Your government chooses Dubrovnik's and Rae & blow away. We wiU survive Bill 26 as well, and what is Jerry's, and you call this fa ir. occurring now is the same that occurred in 1919. We will become stronger. I have heard you talk, Minister Toews, about our members not knowing what we make. Let me tell you I must beginby asking the same question many others how my salary and benefitsare set, by the members at a have asked you, Minister Toews, and still not answered. meetingof LabourCouncil with me in the chair. You try Why? I wish these committee hearings were reversed, chairing one of those meetings. What a process to go and we had theopportunity topresent and then to ask you through. I have nothing tohide now, and I have nothing questions, but I amstill not so sure that would satisfY me tohide in the future, and,yes, I do make over $50,000 a either becauseI am not so sure I would receive the truth. year. A year ago, Mr. Toews, I sat in your office with my brothers and sisters from the table officers of the Atthe Winnipeg Labour Coun cil, our local unions pay Manitoba Federation of Labour when you were clearly anextra two cents per capita tax into our political action askedand we were clearly toldthat you fe lt no changes to fund. This is a voluntary funddeterm inedby thoselocal The Labour Relations Act were required. Tell me what unions who wishto make this contribution. Who makes has changed in a year. the decisionof whereand when andto whom those funds go? The members who pay into it only, only those You talk to us about being more democratic. I do not members. Is this not democratic? When I coached think you have a clue of how democratic we really are. baseball in this community, which I did for four years, Let me give you some sense of how the Labour Council and I called a parents' meeting, if only three parents operates, and I invite you publicly, anytime, to attend one showed upand a decision was made, I proceeded. Were of our meetings. It will not be pleasant, I can assure you, some parents angry? You bet they were. But I said to but I think you need to see democracy in action. them the same that I say to many of my union members, if you cannot take the time and the effort to participate I am adues-pa ying unionmember since 1982, and first and be there, you live by the decision of those who are elected president of the council in 1985. I have been re­ thereat thatmee ting. Thatis majority; that is democracy. elected every two years thereafter by the delegates The difference here is your party is not the beneficiary of selected by their local unions to attend our meetings. our politicaldonations and never will be. I have beenan There are two people full time, myself and a full-time NDP member all my life and I will be until the day I bookkeeper. I have 14 people, elected again by the leavethis earth , and nothing your governmentor any bill delegates of council, which make up my executive. We will do will ever take that away fromme. electthree trustees,fo ur people, four of my table officers, and we hire an accountant to audit our books yearly. I, Why is it that I as a taxpayer cannot go to some Mr. Toews, cannotbecome more accountable. Do I have government department and find out what the CFIB or authorityto order flowers when a loved one of one of my the chamberspends on political action? They do so, and executive members dies without tab le officer approval? theydo so in largenumbe rs. Or, better yet, do theyreach No, I do not. I account for every fax sent, every long every individual chamber member before their money is 160 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 spent? Youmay be surprisedhow many charities would chamber. I have been involved in Winnipeg 2000. I receive money. The difference is your partyreceives the have worked to bring businessto this community. One majorityof their donations. of the key components of bringing business to this community is an active and a steadfast and a solid, Letus be clear here. This is not aboutaccount ability. balanced labourmov ement. This is not about being more democratic. This is not aboutfairn ess. It is about payback. It is about slapping Theynot do want strife. Theydo not want picket lines. our hands, you union leaders-sorry, you union bosses. They do not want us out on the streets, as Mr. Toews talked about earlier, with bats, ifthat is the case, which You, Minister Toews, and members of your govern­ I donot believe it is. Folks want some balance here, and ment, I want to personally thank because with this and businesswants some balance in this province. We have otherlegislation, you have helped politicize my members worked hard. We continue to work hard with many, that I have not been able to do in 10 years. Members of manybusiness ocganizatioos in this community which are thelocal community club shouldtheir run club. Chamber not afraid to come to Manitoba. We still have good ofConunercemembers should run the chamber. Workers labourlegislation here prior to this bill. That is the type will continue to run my Labour Council as they should of balance thatthey are lookingfo r. continue to run their unions, not this or any other government. I firmly believe, as much as they are going Mr. Struthen: Is it your intention or the Winnipeg totry, the opposition will not besuccessful in amending Labour Council's, intention to somehow drive business or defeating this bill. That is part of your agenda. away from ourprovince? However, I do believe with all the bills being rammed through this session, one is missing, the bill to officially Ms. Grant: No, it is not. It is not ourinter est. It is not change the title Minister of Labour to Minister of to the province's interest. It is not to anybody's interest. Employers, because I trulybelieve the balance and the Our goal is no different than yours, no different than fairnesshas shifted. business. We want attractto business to this community. We want good, full-time paying jobs fo r those in this Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you, Ms. Grant, for your province who choose to stay here, and that is a big presentation. Mr. Struthers, with a question. concern for us. We want fo lks to be able to stay in this province. Mr. Struthen: I want to congratulate you on a very well put togetherand thought out brief. One of the many Mr. Reid: Thankyou, Ms. Grant, for your presentation myths that this government likes to fo ist upon and fo r staying to this early morning hour. I apologize Manitobans is that if they not do this kind of union­ for thislate hour. Youref erencein your presentation here busting labour legislation, we will have businesses this evening, andwe have heard from other presenters, as floating out of our province, and we will discourage well, about deputy ministerial waste of taxpayer dollars, business from coming in and providing all the jobs that ofministerial trips, of trips by the Premier (Mr. Filmon), this government claims that business is going to be all attax dollars, I might add, never once brought before providing fo r us. the floor of the Legislature fo r approval prior to the expenditure of those funds. I want to know, if you agreewith the statements that were made in an earlier presentation that says that, in I want to draw to your attention a piece of literature fact, the opposite will happen, that business will not that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) is now cometo Manitobawhen this legislation is passed through distributing throughout the province, talking about the because there will not be a stable, long-term working labour law changes. I mean, we have before us Bill 26 population. talking about the changes. It has not beenpassed into law yet; we arestill in theprocess of public hearings, and Ms. Grant: I do agree withthat statement, andpart of wehave the Minister of Labour,through the fundsof his my whole concern with this area is, again, I am very department, circulating a pamphlet talking about the active in this community. I have been involved in the virtuesofhis bill. October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 161

Doyou think it is proper fo r the Minister of Labour, or I am here tonight to make a presentation on The any government member fo r that matter, to put out a Labour Relations Amendment Act, Bill 26. Bill 26 deals propaganda piecesuch as this prior to the approval of the with the plan of the present Conservative governmentto Legislative Assembly passing this bill into law and amend the current Labour Relations Act. After having having approval of this expenditure of funds, this read much of the documentation that was available, I taxpayer dollars? conclude that the courage expressed by the Conservative Premier, Gary Filmon, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ms. Grant: No, I do not approve of it, and it is even Toews) must be acknowledged. Two days ago I wrote a more offensive when one of them arrived on my desk. I letterto the president of the Canadian Labour Congress, come here before you tonight with full authority from my Robert White, and I also wrote a letter to the national delegates, the council. I do not come and even make a president of theCanadian Auto Workers, Buzz Hargrove, presentation like this until I haveappro val. I do not write to ask them to seriously consider presenting specially to a letter. I do not authorize anything. I can order office the Minister of Labour a certificate that shows supplies without approval. That is the accountability I recognition fo r your efforts to help with what in my have in my labour council. I would expect, with my modest opinion as a union member is the best dollars, government would have that same accountability. underground action toput thefighting spirit back into the labour movement in Manitoba. * (0 1 00) Some people see history as a tool to help us to learn from our pastmistakes . History sends signals to us about Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, madam, fo r the good and bad accomplishments of a society. If we appearing before us tonight and taking the time. We learnanything fromthe past lessons of history, we should appreciate your presentation, and thank you very much. keep thepresent Relations Act in place the way it is, not tear it down. Instead, the minister has decided to repeat The next name on the list is Bernie LeBlanc. Is Mr. the mistakes of the past. LeBlanc in the assembly? Then he will go to the foo t of the list, being no answer. In order not to repeat the mistakes of the past, again, we must understand and respect our historyfirst. I guess Jorge Maldonado is the next presenter. Mr. the Conservative government has been so busy tryingto Maldonado, good morning, sir. While your briefs are destroy our communities and our labour movement that being circulated tothe committee, I would invite you, sir, theydo not have time to do some labour history reading. to proceed with your presentation.

Manitoba has an incredible rich labour history. For Mr. Jorge Maldonado (Private Citizen): Thank you. example, the general strike in 1919, that just last year I am Jorge Maldonado. I am a member of local 3005. I Manitoba celebrated the 75th anniversary of the strike of have never beenso proud of belonging to an organization 1919, did not happen overnight. It came as the result of such as the Canadian Auto Workers and the Canadian a long period of suffering and attacks on the working labour movement. The CAW constitution and the local class that had started long before June 21, 1919. by-laws guarantee the democratic right of each of our members. All our leadership, local and national, are I guess the firstlesson we have learned from that proud ruled by a recall procedure, and at all monthly meetings moment of Winnipeg history is that you can push workers the membership get detailed reports of all financial around and, without a doubt, we will take it, but not transactions done by theexecutive. Right in our local by­ because we are stupid or unable to respond to the laws, we have clauses defining the limit of spending corporations' arrogance or unable to criticize the which can be done by the treasurer. Every month union nonsense approach that Conservatives have been dealing meeting notices are posted on all bulletin boards, where with the problems of society. place andtimes are announced. Every local member can attend meetings, runfor anyposition and be as passive or It is more likely that working people are basically active in the union as his or her heart desires. looking fo r solutions through a nonviolent and com- 162 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

promising approach. Workers differ from corporations To clarifyI what am referring to, workers would like to because we always look fo r what is best fo r society as a seeantiscab legislation, no more oppression and beatings whole. On the other hand, the corporations, as it has fromthe police as in the case of the Boeing strike, and a beenclearly demonstrated at the casino, Boeing and GM better distribution of work available along with new, strikes, the approach has always been, their way or the good jobs, actually putting Manitoba back to work. highway. Instead, we get privatization, contracting out, lower wages and attacks on our unions, and you keep Corporations always asks for more and more. No destroying the social safety net that gives some comfort matterwhat the levelof profits workers produce for them to Manitobans in need in bad economic times. Bad it is never enough. Workers and their fa milies, on the eoonanictimes that arecreated by smart CEOs trying to otherhand, only ask for a fa ir distribution of the wealth. fix the mess caused by their collective mismanagement.

There never was a worker present on the board of the The present Conservative government can enjoy the corp

Mr. Minister, workers are patient people. We In this hearing procedure, if there were really an destroyedthe wall that corporate greed and fa scism build instance where input fromwork ing peoplewas seriously onebrick at a time. This is not meant as a threat, but as taken into account, then the group that put the most a statementof reality. Mr. Minister, do not back down an rational andmore practical approach fo rward will have a inch from your fa scist agenda, because the present chanceof arriving at a common-ground solution with the balance, afteryou pass Bill 26, is going to be tilted to the government. corporation side. You know that and the labour movement knows that- The funny aspect of this intention of changing The Labour Relations Act is that weas union members do not Mr. Chairj,enon: One minute, sir. have a problem with the present Labour Relations Act. We did not ask the minister to save us from our unions, *(OliO) to come to our aid with these changes. Some union members fee l that the present systemcould be improved Mr. Maldonado: Okay-andyou also know that we will to become even more democratic and more in favour of remember. the workers and their fa milies, but those changes we are wiUing to obtain through a truly democratic process, not Take the time to enjoy your momentary victory by one imposed on us through Bill 26. sippingchampagne and cheering. The only thing I want October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 163

you to remember is that you and thecorporations will not Bill 26 that he is doing this to protect union members, the have the final victory. You may think you have won this rank-and-file members, because he tells the public that battle, but by fa r you have not won this war. After Bill they have no say in the operations of their union. Can 26 is passed, I personally see a new start fo r our labour you, sir, fo r the benefitof the members of this committee, movement not only Manitoba but all across this country. explain to us the process that takes place in your union We in CAW do ilot take challenges lying down. GM and the nature with which and how decisions are made, workers took over a plant in the recent GM strike. Those both financial and other decisions? brothers and sisters democratically made the decision to defend their rights and theirjobs with everything that they Mr. Maldonado: In CAW we have, fm t of all, every have available to them. This type of action is not an single decision that is made is ruled by two documents, uncommon phenomenon in present times. Similar the constitution of our union and the by-laws of our actions were practised by the poor, since the late 18th locals. Every member in the leadership that has been Century, but somehow workers forgot their old way s. elected to play a role must conform to those rules. Those The bigger mistake was to believe that we are equal in rules are basically approved by the membership at the front of the law. local level and then, through a delegate procedure at our national convention, we approve our constitution that has been basically reviewed every three years. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Maldonado. I think that now concludes the time we have available for your presentation, and I will canvass the committee to see if To me, when the minister said that we do not have a there are any questions. Mr. Reid, with a question. say, the only say that I do not have is if for my own personal decision I decide not to go to a meeting and not Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Maldonado, fo r your to participate in that discussion. That is the only thing presentation and for agreeing to stay in the late hour. We thatcould stop me from being active in my local. In this apologize for having to sit beyond what would be case, you can see that I have an accent, I am an considered to be amore human time where it would, I am immigrant, and especially with immigrants because of sure, make your ability to communicate with this problems of language and racism, CAW went even one committee much more pleasant than having to stay well step further. They gave us more opportunity to be part of past the midnight hour. the decision-making process by setting up our own immigration caucus and our workers-of-colour caucus, thatwe can put our own things that bother us and things An Honourable Member: Lots of us on the fa rm, we that we want to see happen, we can put it forward to are used to working these hours. those levels of our organization.

Mr. Reid: Well, the member fo r Pembina (Mr. Dyck) says that he works long hours, but then I guess working Then in this case, myself, I cannot speak fo r anybody during the months of April and August, doing the tasks else except myself. I find that in the case of CAW, and thathe used to do, pass fo r him being a full year's worth I can only talk about that because that is the experience of work so we will leave that fo r him for his further that I have, I can never really say that I have ever seen a considerations. more democratic organization that what CAW is all about. I want to ask the presenter- Mr. Reid: I am very happy to hear that the CAW takes Mr. Chairperson: I believe, Mr. Reid has the floor fo r steps to fight racism. I think that is extremely important. a question to the presenter. I would invite Mr. Reid to That is one of the things that had not occurred to me. I presentthe question, and I would encourage all members know that it has been an issue before this Legislature, to enable Mr. Reid to put his question to the presenter. and I know my colleague the member fo r The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) has raised this with the government on other Mr. Reid: The government is sayi ng and the Minister of matters, so I am happy to hear that the CAW is actively Labourhas said time and time again since he introduced involved in that regard. 164 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

What do you see the end result being besides uniting ctttzen. We would be kept in our place, and to this day the labour movement in this province? What do you see that company is not organized. At that time, though, I as being theres ult of this bill and the impact on working was treated not badly. A lot of employees were treated people in this province with respect to wages, benefits, badly in themganization, but I was not treated too badly living conditions,workplace conditions, when this bill is because I wasan actuarial and student we were privileged passed, because the government does carry the majority people. One of my fe llow students became a very, very and nodoubt will ramthis bill through. What do you see senior person in the company. happening in the future to the working people of this province? I could only take it fo r a couple of years, and I headed out andstarted to work in Africa. I worked in Africa fo r Mr. Maldonado: A weaker labour movement, that is 1 7 years, and certainly saw-and there were many 1 00 percent my observation that that is what is going to accounts of the horrendous treatment that workers would happen. You are right. I think the labour movement is besubjected to in workplaces where there were no rules, going to come out of this stronger than ever before. I where governments would just back offand employers also see that whatever thing especially fo r us as could do what they would want. I could go into many immigrants, when you talk about being under fe ar, these accounts, but they were of the most disgusting nature, changes in this legislation, this is what it is going to wherejobs were assigned, were awarded to people on the bring. Workers arejust going to either-at the beginning, basis of sexual fa vours granted. they are just going to step back because they know that anything that they may say or do is going to affect their This government in this province, I guess, as chances to get a job. Even today, even where the law is distasteful as I find the Harris government in Ontario, I not as bad today, still that fea r is there. find it fa r worse here. This government is-I just do not have the adj ectives that I could use to describe it. When Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou, Mr. Maldonado. That I go into Ontario, I wear my button, Harris is against would conclude the time we have avai lable for the Mike Harris, just so that they know what I fee l about questions. Thank you very much, sir, fo r coming before them; but, I tell you, Mike Harris is honest in some ways. the committee. This government is deceitful. They would not even announce at the last election that they were Progressive The next presenter is George Harris. Good morning, Conservatives. They hid it in small print. A lot of our Mr. Harris, and welcome. You do not have a written corporationsdo thoseof kinds tricks, small print. Maybe presentation fo r the committee? in a way it works out okay, because we can assign whatever party name we want to this government. We Mr. George Harris (Private Citizen): No, I do not. can call them Reform Party. We can callthem fa scists. We can assign whatever name according to the actions Mr. Chairpenon: All right, I would invite you to that they take, but certainly watching the last election, I Thank proceed withyour presentation. you, sir. saw a party that was ashamed to be called Progressive Conservative because it would identifY themselves with Mr. Harris: Well, I am not in a very good mood. the colossal fa ilure of their fe deral Progressive certainly donot appreciate beingkept here untilthis time, Conservatives. and I just wanted to state that up front. * (01 20) Just who I am, I grew up in a farm community just outside Winnipeg, and my fl fSt work was, obviously, working for neighbours and so on. I headed off to Bill 26 is anexample of the deceit of thisgovernment. universityand got a degree in actuarial mathematics. My Bill 26 is not about democracy. I mean, that is a sham. first positionof workwas with what we wouldrefer to as Thisgo vernment is not interested in democracy. I mean, Great Waste of Life, and that was my first experience wespent a lotof time talking about it tonight, but unless with intimidation in the workforce, intimidation in what we redefme democracy, this is not about democracy. many people in Winnipeg refer to as a good corporate Maybeone definition that I would like to suggest is that October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 165

democracy to this government means government ofthe Mr. Chairperson: Yes, I gave you the one-minute wealthy fo r the wealthy. I did not say, by the wealthy, signal, sir, and you have now about 20 seconds to because this government are basically wealthy wannabes, conclude. people who go around and dip into the public coffersfo r all kinds of different purposes but certainly not to benefit Mr. Barris: Okay. I just want to emphasize in closing, me and not to benefit the average taxpayer. there is no reason fo r us to trust thisgove rnmenthere. I just repeat that statement. They are constantly uttering antilabour statements so there is no reason. If there is The bottom line on this is the Tory government here anything in this bill that is going to be an end result fo r should not be trusted on this legislation. You can see labour, it is going to be negative. from all of the antiunion statements, there is no reason to trust this government ona piece of legislation. If they are Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Harris. antiunion, why would they introduce legislation that is Mr. Reid, with a question. fa vourable to unions? There is no reason. I do not even want to get into the debate about that because the Mr. Reid: Thankyou, Mr. Harris, fo r your presentation government is not interested in democracy. It is a sham herethis ev eningand myapol ogies to you, sir, fo r having in this piece of legislation. It is a detracting thing. What to stay to this extremely late hour. It would have been this is all about and I think from my own perspective is nice ifwe could have held these hearings again at another it is support fo r a fa iling system and a support fo r a day and at a morereasonable time; nevertheless, that was fa iling system that is called capitalism. Capitalism is a the government's majority decision. system in which powerful people get up there and put other weaker people down. Capitalism only succeeds­ I want to ask you, sir, because you referenced at the verypowerful people suc ceedby destroying other people. beginning of your comments some life experiences that That is part of the fundamental nature of the capitalist you have with respect to a particularly large employer system. So we have poverty in this country, because headquartered across the street from this building where there are wealthy people and there are super-wealthy they practised, I take it from your comments, intimidation people. of employees. Can you expand on your comments to give

I us some examples on how that intimidation, as you Thereare fo ur ways that people become superwealthy. referred to it, occurred, because other presenters here They already have the money to begin with, they got it tonight and on Thursday past referenced the ability of from somebody else; they exploit an advantage; they get employers to practise intimidation of their employees? I pure lucky; or they engage in a criminal or some other would like to hear some of your life's experiences. illegal activity. Theycannot get superwealthy by working hard, otherwise the fa rmers that I saw in northern Mr. Barris: It is very simple. All you have to do is let Tanzania would be the wealthiest people in this world, the word out that anybody who tries to organize will be and that is a fact. blackballed, that they will not get a job in the insurance industry again. You let the word out, and we would hear Anint erestingarticle camethrough in the Guardian, in on a regular basis of people either being threatened with July, and I took it out. I consider these as the most dismissal or with being blacklisted, or whatever term we despicable people in thewo rld. Thewealth of the world's want to usefo r this, in the industry. That would come on 358 billionaires is greater than the combined annual just such a regular basis. incomes of countries with 45 percent of the world's population, and we are encouraged to look up to these Now, I did not even have to go out and seek it. It people who are billionaires. One of those billionaires is would just be coming through from people from all runningfor the presidency of the United States. We look around, so you would hear sometimes of a dismissal and up to these people, but they are the people who have got so on. People are fearful. How many of us who have their wealthon theback of the workers that I believe this been planning and who decide that, okay, I am going to legislation is designed to attack. So what I want to do at tryto save up enough so that I can buy a car, put a down thispoint -and I think I saw a signal. Did I see a signal? payment or something like that- how many of us are 166 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

going torisk under those circumstances even if what you entire fa milies and entire villages, and I am just have heard is something that they will not do? wondering whether thereany are analogies tobe drawn betweenwhat happened in Africa and some analogy that * (0130) you can use in organizational-type strategies that we should be aware of in Manitoba. Mr. Reid: So then I sense from your comments that there is an employer with which you are familiar that Mr. Harris: The question of the Tanzania wheat practises the more subtle forms of intimidation- project, and I am not the most-1 have been quoted in publications, The Globe and Mail, very critical of the Mr. Harris: It works. wheat projectthere . It was very intrusive. It dislocated people. The purpose of my comments with relationship Mr. Reid: -and that the employer is successful in to Tanzania here were not to draw Tanzania into the keeping under their thumb, under strict control, any discussion. It was basicallyas a bit of background. My people who are in their employ out of threat of losing comments arethat we have a world that is in very, very their jobs, and that the employer and the supervisors for serious disarray, that is fundamentally connected to a that particular company are the ones who are releasing flawed capitalist system, a capitalist system that brought that information to the employees in some fa shion. usthe GreatDepres sion, and Conservative governments, whetherthey themselvescall Progressive Conservative or Mr. Harris: It would not always have to be the case liberalor whatever, Cooserva tive governments with their, because people would develop a rumourand things like what we like to Call, nco-liberal policies are setting in that. There couldbe that kind of possibility, but it would place the conditions that are in fa ct going to lead us to not necessarilyhave to originate with the employer. much greater calamity than we have ever seen before. That is my fundamental belief, and I just want to Mr. Penner: Mr. Harris, judging by your comments, emphasize that I fee l that this government is one of the you served in Tanzania. architects ofthis. You are not people who are not to be held accountable for this. Mr. Harris: Yes. Mr. Chairpenon: Thankyou, Mr. Harris, very much Mr. Penner: Did you work for the Canadian govern­ for yourpresentatioo tonight. That concludes the time we ment on the Canadian wheat project in Tanzania? have fo r your presentation.

Mr. Harris: No, but I am very familiarwith the wheat The next nameon the list is Gill Gagne. Mr. Gagne, project inTanzania. Secondly, I went over and I worked good morning, sir. While the Clerk is circulating your as a volunteer on 20 percent of the wages that I was presentation, I would invite you to commence your oral getting here, andit was something that allowed me to get presentation. the experience directly from the perspective of people who are exploitedby very ruthless employers. Mr. Gill Gagne ( Private Citizen): I would like to thankthe committee for lettingme express my fee lings on Mr. Penner: I ampleased that you arefa miliarwith the this proposed legislation. I will not touch on all the wheatpro ject becausewe had the opportunity to visit the changes to The Labour Relations Act, since I want to keep my p tation brief wheat project inTanzania, and it was , of course, initiated resen bythe Canadiangov ernmentto provide a new technology and a new way offanning in Tanzania. I thinkthere was I think the government has not gone far enough in a clear demonstration there of exploitation in the reverse, helping the peoplewodcing inthis province, unionized or takingpeople out of the native setting that they were very nonunionized. I fee l thegov ernment is definitely going fundamentally familiar with, and they provided fo r in thewr oog direction. Theyabout care the people in this themselves very well according to their standards that province. I wasdi sheartenedother the night whenI heard theywere used to, their historical standards. When they Dan Kelly fromthe Canadian Federation of Independent werebrought into this new technological era, it disrupted Business speak ontheir behalf Hestated that he worked October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 167

at Canada Safeway part time while going to university. Conservative Party. The money they save can be given to There are approximately 845,000 Canadians who are a charity of their choice. fo rced to work part-time jobs because they are unable to find full-time work, and there are 3 million more that are lilr (01 40) working part time. These are fo rced people. This is almost the population of this province. I am confused why my union would have to file audited financial statements to the Labour Board. Would the The point I would like to make is that Mr. Kelly was company I workfo r have todo the same? If the company very fo rtunate to have a good paying part-time job while did not, would the Labour Board order the company to going to university. Mr. Penner mentioned his grandsons give the profits to the workers? This may sound having a hard time fm ding work too . There are people in ridiculous to you, but I do not think the government has this province fo rced to work-[interjection] Pardon me? any right to take away the Rand Formula. [interjection] In my union the membership, like all other unions, Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would ask the democratically elects the bargaining committee. Why presenter to proceed, and I would invite the honourable would this government think that the employer or the members to allow him the opportunitY. government has the right to say when the membership should vote on the last set of proposals that was offered by thecompany? That is why we vote fo r our bargaining Mr. Gagne: There are people in this province fo rced to committee. work at low paying part-time jobs while trying to keep their fa milies fe d. Another point Dan Kelly made was he I guess there is no sense in letting the bargaining did not think he should be fo rced to pay union dues. committee have any sort of strategy. Instead, why does the government not pass legislation that the company has A union is a democratic system, and union members toaccept the first offer put out by the union? Why would can vote on all decisions made at their monthly meetings. you want to pass legislation to make it an unfair labour The Canadian Fedemtion of Independent Business has no practice fo r employees who are on strike or locked out to collective decision-making process like a union has, and engage in strike related misconduct? This could be used I do not think the Manitoba Taxpayers Association d�s by employers as just cause to discipline or even fire either. employees that have beenon strike or locked out, that are accused of strike related misconduct. We all know picket When Mr. Kelly was asked about this, he stated that if lines areconfrontati onal locations, and the justice system any member did not like what he had to say they could already solves the situation. I could understand why the quit Canadian Federation of Independent Business. government wants peace at a picket line. Every workers Nobody is fo rced to work in a union environment. If Mr. wants peace at the picket line. That is why I would Kelly wanted to, he could have quit, worked at a suggestyou would pass antiscab legislation instead. This nonunion store with poor wages, poor benefits and little makes it fa irer. The employees do not get their wages, job protection while he attended university. and the company's operation is not making any profit.

I do not knowwhy the government wants us to consult I think the government should be looking at ways of every employee in our bargaining unit on the use of dues creating employment insteadof attacking working people. fo r political pur poses. This would weaken the One suggestion I would like to pass on to you is that democratic nature of my union, and it is not practical. I Canadians work a lot of overtime. Approximately remember a number of years ago the company that I 800,000Canadians worked paid overtime. Half of these worked fo r was giving us literature to support fr ee trade. 6.4 million hours were converted into new fu ll-time jobs I would guess this would be some fo rm of political that couldproduce 80,000 people to year-round fu ll-time purpose. Are the corporations going to have the same jobs. So what I would suggest to you is pass legislation guidelines as the workers? Maybe you could pass so themaximum amount overtimeof a year would be I 00 legislation that big business cannot contribute to the hours annually. Any overtime over I 00 hours would then 168 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

be compensated on the basis of time off in lieu at the Mr. Gagne: Thankyou . overtime rate. This would kill two birds with one stone. It would be creating full-time employment, and this Mr. Reid: We have heard quite a number of would bring in extra tax dollars for you. It might even presentations this evening- make the Manitoba Taxpayers Association happy, not that I care about them. This would also give working Mr. Gagne: And mine was the best, right? people moretime with their fa milies. Mr. Reid: Without a doubt, I thought it was the best. Inclosing, I would like to say that a lot of peoplehave fa ith in the system. If you truly care about people in this Mr. Gagne: Thankyou . province, you will not pass this proposed legislation and other proposed bills that affect working people in Mr. Reid: We have heard quite clearlythat the labour Manitoba. organizations, we heardboth from what the government terms "the elite union bosses," which the government Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou very much, Mr. Gagne. says are in complete care control and no responsibility fo r thoseorga nizations. Yet we hear from the rank-and­ Mr. Gagne: Oh, I am not done yet. file members, many of them here tonight and last I know a lot of peoplewho votedfo r this government Thursday, that it is the rank-and-file members of the and even people that put your signs on their lawns are unionsthat make tJte decisions and that are the ones that very upset with these proposed bills. They see this as are charged with the responsibility of those unions, and very antiworker, against public sector workers, health their elected representatives; their leadership, are only care workers, teachers, construction workers and all justthat, representativeselected thereto dothe will of the workers unionized and nonunionized. When I first maj ority ofthe members . This minister has said that it is began, I mentioned how disheartened I was when I the eliteunion bosses that make those decisions, so I am listened to Mr. Kelly. A couple of days later, I met a happy to hear your presentation about being in charge. student from rural Manitoba, and he was explaining to me that at school he is being taught how negative these I, too, was disappointed in Mr. Kelly's presentation bills are on the people of Manitoba. He also mentioned from the CFIB. I know he supports members opposite, the sale ofMTS. hasevery he time hascome to this committee. There has never been once where he has come here and said I asked himwhen he turned 18, and he said, next year. something negative about this government's proposals. I then asked Lee who he would vote fo r in the next We also know too that Mr. Kelly works fo r an provincial election, and he said it would be Gary, and it organization which gets their money from who knows wasnot Filmon. Thisme made think back to when I was where. Theydo not hold annual conventions; they do not in school and I asked my social studies teacher why the have ability fo r whichever members they may have, so people in Quebecwanted to separate. His answer was, there is no accountability in that organization. Yet this they are taughtin their school system to be separatists or government says and is proud of being associated with Quebecois. So I would suggest to this government to that type of nondemocratic organization. In fa ct, I think stopticking offthe teachers, the nursesand the workers, it was referenced that Mr. Kelly was an adviser to the sooner or later you are going to be in the same situation Premier (Mr. Filmon), so you can see the influence that as Kim Campbell, I think that is what her name is. Mr. Kelly is having on this government. So we have a nondemocratic bodyof people, however many they may At present, unions are run by workers. Minister bebecause we never were given that information by Mr. Toews, unions are run by workers, not by the Kelly before the government cut offour ability to ask government, so I would ask that you keep it that way. questions. Thank you. So I would like to ask you, sir, what your members Mr. Reid: Thankyou, Mr. Gagne,fo r your presentation think of the government of Manitoba that was elected and fo r having to stay to this early morning hour. with less than a majority of the voters of the province October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 169 listening to a nondemocratic organization who is logo fo r the Manitoba government, Department of Labour providing advice to the Premier on matters that affect on it, obviously printed and paid fo r through the working people and their democratically elected leaders. Department of Labour, which is taxpayer dollars, telling Perhaps you would care to share with me your thoughts the working people of this province the benefits of his on the way the government is accepting their advice Bill 26 even before thisbill is passed into law? Perhaps, becausewe know clearly that the Minister of Labour has you would care to share your thoughts with us about the only listened to a dozen people in this province, and I minister being so presumptuous that the bill would be take it that Mr. Kelly and his organization is one of them. passedand it is good for working people, even before he knows of any amendments or suggestions coming from Point of Order the public.

Mr. Toews: Just on a point of order. * (0150)

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on a point Mr. Gagne: I am going to try not to say any swear of order. words. I was very disappointedwhen it first came to my attention as I was sitting in the gallery. It is my tax­ Mr. Toews: Well, I have certainly listened to Mr. paying dollars- Gagne's submission along with the other submissions that were made here tonight. I fo und his remarks Floor Comment: Paying your wages. interesting, and certainly one of the many that we will have to take in mind to see whether there should be any Mr. Gagne: I ampayi ng your wages, thanks. I am very, amendments ofthis bill. Is that a point of order? very disappointed. That is my moneyand you are using it for an election campaign, for political purposes, as far Mr. Chairperson: I do not think so, Mr. Minister. as I can see. This is just my little brain here.

* * * Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Gagne. That wraps up the time we have available fo r

Mr. Chairperson: I wouldinvite Mr. GagneI to respond questioning. Thank you fo r coming before us this to Mr. Reid's question. evening.

Mr. Gagne: We do not like it at all. It is very The nextperson on thelist fo r presentation is Michelle unfortunate. I mentioned in my brief that we do believe Deneka. MichelleDeneka. Calling Michelle Deneka fo r in a system. I was also here Thursday till about­ the secondtime. No response. Her name will be put to well-1 :30. Finally, I went home. I do have a family, a the foot of the list. The next person to present is young fa mily. It would have been nice to see them. I am Maureen Jordan. Calling Maureen Jordan fo r the first just hoping the Minister of Labour is listening to all the time. Beingno response, her name will go to the foot of people from unions speaking on our behalf. My union, the list. Thenext person is Joanne Daly. Calling fo r the anyone who spoke up, we did not have a union rep, we first time. Thereis no response; she will go to the foot of did not have an area director speak, it was all rank-and­ the list. The next person is Bob Desjarlais. file members. Some of them may be shop stewards, presidents, but it was all rank-and-filemembers. I am a Mr. Desjarlais, good morning,sir. chairperson of my local, andif the governmentwants to see how much I make a year, it is $250 a year, and I am Mr. Bob Desjarlais(United Steelworkers of America, not here fo r my health, I can tell you that, or the big Local 6166): Goodmo rning. bucks. Mr. Chairperson: I presume, sir, you do not have a Mr. Reid: Are you aware, sir, that the Minister of presentation to circulate to us. Labouris now going around the province of Manitoba-I mightadd-at your expense with a document that has the Mr. Desjarlais: That is correct. 170 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

Mr. Chairperson: All right. I would invite you to regard to the area of certification, so we are extremely proceed with your oral presentation. opposed to that.

Mr. Desjarlais: Thank you very much. Consulting with each bargaining unit member before undertakingpolitical action It is absolutely unbelievable Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou, sir. that that is part of this resolve of the Tories. It is clear that the Conservatives are attempting to circumvent Mr. Desjarlais: Goodmorning, everybody. Before I get important precedentestablished by the Supreme Court of into the nuts and bolts of what I have to say, I think it CanadaLevine inthe decision regarding political actions would be important fo r you to understand who I am and by unions. Again, the highest court in the land has ruled the organization that I represent. I am the president of on the union's ability and its right to be involved in the the United Steelworkers of America, Local 6166, out of political arena, and this governmentis now going to by­ Thompson. I represent 1,328 members, steelworkers in pass that right. The Levine decision is very clearabout theInco unit and another 200 members in smaller units. a workplace democracy as fa r as political action, once a Just to give you a little background also about my work unionhas tmdergone a voteand a majority of the workers history, I worked for 23years in the plant, 12 years in the have decided on a political affiliation, be that Progressive underground environment, II in the maintenance Conservative, Liberal or NDP or Reform or whatever department as an industrial mechanic. I am also the partythey want to associate with. Once that process has aboriginal vice-president of the Manitoba Federation of taken place, then �e majority rules. Labour. I am extremely proud of that. TheLevine decisim is veryclear about what that really Yes, Minister Toews, I guess you arenot here to hear means, and they drewthe correlationto the taxesin this mycomm ents. It is toobad because certainly you needto country. The analogy they madewas simply this: once hear what I have to say. That does not surprise me. the taxes have been taken in by the government, how However, I do fit themold, if you will, of the union boss. would government functionthe if ability fo r the taxpayers Whatthe hellthat is, I am not quite sure what that really of this country to withhold their taxes because they did means. I am arank-and-fi le member of the Steelworkers, not agree with what the governmentwas doing with any cameoff the floor. I am now the president of the largest portion ofthat taxes? It is unbelievable. You could not localin western Canada. Union boss, I am not sure what fu nction as a government if that was the case, and they that means exactly, but, yes, I am the president of my drew the analogy of the same thing takes place in a local union and accountable to my members. workplacedemocracy known as a union. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the unions were a I think to say that Bill 26 is not designed to improve democratic organization and could be and should be democracy and power for union members is a gross involved in the politicalarena, and this government has understatement of what this bill is designed to do. decidedto by-pass that undeniable right by the Supreme Certainly it is meant todo the exact opposite in a number Courtof Canada. So we were talking about democracy. of areasof thisbill thatcertainly arecounterp roductive to I su ggest very strongly you should take a look at what workplace democracy, things like the required votes fo r you arereally attempting to do here. Thishas nothing to newcertification. Automaticcertification is no longer the dowith wokplace democracy. We know that. We want order of the day after 65 percent. Now the bosses get to Manitobans to know that. intimidate members. They get to delay the process. We know that the Labour Board is not capable as far as Not onlyis it acceptable that unions undertake political manpowergoes of fitting the criteria of seven days. That actim,it is alsoimpmant that we maintain our ability to is not going to happen because of the staffingproblems do that. Bill 26, again, is an escape out of this decision with that area of the minister's responsibility. since it requires consultation with bargaining union members before dues are made. It is not about So we are extremely concerned of theramifications of democracy. It certainly is about circumventing the thatsituation . It is going to be very difficult fo r workers Levine decision. No such rule applies to employers. to certify. Certainly that is the gist of this legislation in Some of my members are shareholders of lnco Limited. October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 171

Why are corporations like Inco not fo rced to ask each difficult time I have ever had as a president of a local shareholder before they make political contributions? I union. I talked to my members and I explained to them believe they gave your party, the Progressive what this government was up to and what the Conservative Party of Manitoba, $25,000 last year. I possibilities were down the road if we in fac t took this guess the answer is self-explanatory. That was not company on, what it really meant. What it really meant rhetorical, by the way. wasthe abilityof this government to circumvent, by-pass the union,and go directly to my members anytime during The loss of picket line protection during strikes related this labour dispute and fo rce them to vote on another to misconduct and the ability fo r the corporation to fr re offer, the last offer or any offer that the company wanted workers, again, strikes at the heart of the ability fo r the to make. That could also mean less than what we went union to protect itself on a picket line by manning picket out fo r. Clearly I had an obligation as a president to lines. It is a double double jeopardy that is explain to them what that really meant. unprecedented in the history of this country. What it does, it is designed fo r one thing and that is to curtail So if, in fa ct, that legislation is contemplated to bully union activity on picket lines, to make it impossible for workers,congratulations , Tories, you did a real goodjob, workers to walk on picket lines. This has nothing to do because you bullied my members into signing a with restricting violence on picket lines. There is not a substandard agreement. I now have a 10- and 12-hour union that I am aware of certainly in Manitoba that shift configuration in the undergroundenviro nment, and condones picket line violence. Absolutely not. As a I cannot protect my members in safety and health, and trade unionleader, we speak vehemently in opposition to that concerns me a great deal. any type of violence.

* (0200) Anyway, the Conservative agenda is the Conservative agenda whether it is in Manitoba or in Nova Scotia. Asa matter of fa ct, just fo r the record, I think it is very Nova Scotiathe is prime example of the consequences of interesting, we just came through a labour dispute in absolute powercorrupting absolutely. The Westray mine Thompson where we walkedpicket lines. We got a letter disaster where 26 miners paid with their lives, workers fr om the RCMP two weeks after this dispute werefo rcedto choose between unsafe work conditions or commending thelocal union for the conduct on the picket abject poverty, which is no choice at all as far as I am line, ifyou canimagine that . So clearly, the Steelworkers concerned. Is that what we want here in Manitoba? runvery good picket lines but this particular amendment Because that is the type of environment that you are is designed again for one thing and that is to curtail union fo stering in Manitoba and we as steelworkers are activities on picket lines. These amendments have absolutely in opposition to that. already had an impact on the bargaining relationship between loco Limited and the Steelworkers, and I am Just a fe w quick comments. I would like to correct a referring in particular to the abilityfo r the government to few misconceptions fo stered by Minister Toews. intervene in the final offer oflnco, fo r instance. MinisterToews did notconsult with me or anyone else or in my union about these amendments. As a matter of I just want to quickly go into what took placehere in fact, he missed a clear opportunity to do so. In the last couple of weeks. We were in a very difficult September of 1995, the minister and his staffmet with situation. We were in a lockout situation with Inco myselfand someof my local union executive. We talked Limited. Two weeks into that dispute, I went to my about matters of mutual concern, such as the worker members with-we brought the company back to the advisor program. I asked himdirectly if any amendments bargaining table. We made some changes, certainly not werebeing planned. He said only minor changes to The what we wanted. We made some inroads into the 10- Employment Standards Act. He said The Labour and 12-hour shiftconfiguration, which was the nub of the Relations Act was basically sound and a goodbalanced labour dispute, but there was not enough there fo r us to piece of legislation. I do not believe the minister was recommend to our members, to 1,328 steelworkers to telling the truth, and outside the Legislature we have a accept the agreement, but at the same time I had the most word fo r that. I cannot use it here. 172 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October29, 1996

Less than three months later the minister revealedthe Mr. Desjarlais: That is a very, very good question. As detailed and wide-ranging attack on unions and union I already alluded to, the fa ct is that the democratic members and all working people, an unprecedented processplace takes in my union. When my members tell attack in Manitoba, and I cannot trust what he has to say me, theybring a motion fo rward, they want to align with today. I think it is a sad commentary on him as an the Progressive Conservative Party, we will debate that individual. As fa r as I am concerned, he has no integrity and we will gut that just as quickly as it hits the floor. with the Steelworkers and certainly with the trade union However,democracy will rule the roost in my union. My movement in Manitoba. Thankyou very much. members will tell meexactly who we will affiliate with and who we will not affiliate with. It is that simple. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Desjarlais. Mr. Democracy. Penner with a question. Mr. Chairperson: I believe Mr. Reid is next, Mr. Penner, and then I will comeback to you. Mr. Penner: Mr. Desjarlais, you indicated that Inco had made a donation to the PC Party of Manitoba fo r Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Desjarlais, fo r your $25,000. Have you any proof ofthat on you? presentationhere this evening. I amsorry that we had to sit tothis early mooling hour and that this committee saw Mr. Desjarlais: I do not have that document sitting in fit, through the govenunent's majority, not to allow the my lap. As a matter of fa ct, I do not carrythat kind of out-of-town presenters, such as I believe you are, sir, to document around with me. I do not know, do you? come fo rward at the beginning of this evening to make your presentation. I apologize on behalf of the Mr. Penner: There have been two allegations that have government members. been made around this table that concern me . No. 1, there was one made that Westfair Foods paid to the You say the minister consulted with you or at least Conservative Party a very significant amount of money, travelled or you had the opportunity to meet with the and I believe it was$40, 000that the allegation indicated. ministerwith respect to whathis intentions were as a new I would like the member opposite to lay proof of thaton minister, and you say that the minister youtold that he the table and, if not, withdraw the allegation. was only going to bring in minor amendments, housekeeping amendments, to The Employment Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Penner, I would interjectat this Standards Act and he referenced or gave no indication point, and I wouldask if you would address your remarks that he was going to make changes to The Labour to theChair or throughthe Chair to the presenter because Relations Act. Are you saying, sir, that the Minister of this is an opportunity for us to examine the presenter Labour clearly misled you with his intentions and the rather than engaging in conversation across the table. intentions of his government?

Mr. Penner: I certainly did address the Chair, and I Mr. Desjarlais: Mr. Reid, I think that you are being make these comments and I ask these questions through overly kindyou when say "misled." Absolutely, if that is the Chair to the presenter and also to the member asfar aswe cango in this fo rum, then there is absolutely opposite because there are allegations here that I think no doubt that he misled. I would say outside of this are very serious, and I would like the allegations to be legislative hearing, we would call that a baldfaced lie. verified in a documentable way. If they cannot do that, thenI would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that you ask Mr. Chairperson: I believe Mr. Penner is the next them to withdraw thoseaUegations or present proof ofthe panel member to ask a question. donations to our party that they have allegedwere made. I wouldask Mr. Desjarlais whether their union has made Mr. Reid: So he gets two and I get one. any significant contributions to our party in our election campaign or in between election campaigns or whether Mr. Chairperson: I am not counting the questions. they havedone soand how much contributions they have madeto anyof the other political parties in this province. Mr. Reid: Well, you should be, youare Chair. October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 173

Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. I am the Chair. I am Mr. Chairperson: I believe, Ms. Friesen, that I have recognizing Mr. Penner. just indicated to you the process that I have been fo llowing. If you would wish to consult Hansard, that Mr. Reid: How do you get two to one? would reveal the process that I am conducting from this Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. * * *

Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Reid, on a new point of order or the same point of order? Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Point of Order

I have been sitting here listening and it did seem to me Mr. Reid: A new point of order. Mr. Chairperson, I that Mr. Penner had at least two questions- havesat in this committee fo r nearly some 20 hours now listening to presenters from all over the province of Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Friesen, on a. point of order. Manitoba from every walk of life, and you are telling me here today, Sir, that you have a hard-and-fast set of rules Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will repeat that you are fo llowing, because I have been here all the my point of order. I havebeen sitting here fo r some time time andnever once have you said that that is the process and it seemed to me that Mr. Penner was permitted two that you are going to fo llow. questions. It seems to me only fa ir as a Chairman and as a committee that we should permit Mr. Reid the same Sir, I challenge you if that is your decision. time and the same number of questions.

Mr. Chairperson: That is my decision, Mr. Reid. An Honourable Member: I agree with that.

* * * Ms. Friesen: Good.

* (02 10) Mr. Chairperson: I would rule at this point in time that I have been recognizing the members in sequence as they Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Penner, fo r a verybrief question. identifY themselves that they wish to speak, regardless of the number of questions they ask. So I will now Mr. Reid: I challenge that decision, sir. recognize Mr. Penner. I have stopped the clock. I would now recognize Mr. Penner fo r a very brief last question. Mr. Chairperson: All right, the rule of the Chair has been challenged. The rule of the Chair is to recognize Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, thank you. It will be a very Mr. Penner fo r one last question. brief comment, not a question. Voice Vote Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: All those in fa vour of sustaining Ms. Friesen: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. the rule of the Chair, please indicate by saying yea.

Could you then indicate how you are going to proceed Some Honourable Members: Yea. fo r the rest of this committee? Is it going to be alternated or is it going to be two or three questions from Mr. Chairperson: All those who are against the Mr. Penner now and then one from Mr. Reid? Could ruling of the Chair, please indicate by saying nay. you give us the rules on which this committee is now proceeding? Some Honourable Members: Nay. 174 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

Mr. Chairperson: I believe the Yeashave it. Point of Order

Ms. Friesen: I understoodyour directions to Mr. Penner Formal Vote to be one short question. Would you call him to order, An Honourable Member: A recorded vote. please.

A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Penner, I believe that Ms. fo llows: Yeas 6, Nays 4. Friesen does have a point of order. I would callyou to order andp resent one very brief question to the presenter Mr. Chairperson: I believe that the Yeas have it, and to wind up his presentation. Thankyou, Mr. Penner. the Chair is sustained. Point of Order Mr. Reid, for a new point of order? Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly abide by Point of Order your wishes. Ibelieve that thehonour able member-Bob, Mr. Desjarlais, just making a presentation here has Mr. Reid: I just wantto indicate for your benefit and the demonstrated clearly how democratically their union benefit of the members of this committee that the would deal with- operationsof this committee at this point are done, in my opinion, my humble opinion, in an extremely Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. undemocraticfas hion, which is very indicative of the way this government operates with respect to the legislation Point of Order that they have tabled before us and shows very clearly that you do not respect the ability of members of this Ms. Friesen: On a pointof order. Mr. Chairman, I am committee to ask questions when they have had their asking youto call Mr. Penner to orderagain. You asked hands raised. him to put one brief question, we are now into an extended statement on another issue. Please call this I hadmy hand raisedto ask a question of the presenter member to order. here, and you have denied me that opportunity and instead gone to the one of your members of this Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Penner, Ms. Friesen has raised committee, which, I think, is extremely undemocratic. another point of order, and I must sustain her point of order. I would urge you to present one brief question. Mr. Chairperson: Thankyou, Mr. Reid, fo r your point.

I would rule thatas a not point of order, but that is rather * * * a matter of opinion.

* * * Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I, again, respect your ruling, and I will make a very brief statement, as I asked Mr. Chairperson: I would now recognize Mr. Penner, for before. I said we had heard Mr. Desjarlais clearly fo r a very brief question to the presenter. demonstratethe democcacyby which they make decisions in their union when he made the statement that when the Mr. Penner: I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, in request- regard to the ruling that has just happened at this table, thatthe rules that were applied here were the exact same Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Friesen, on a point of order. rules that the previous government operated by consistentlywhile I madepresentations to this committee. Point of Order

The comment I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman- Ms. Friesen: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is my view that this member is making a mockery of your Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Ms. Friesen has a point rulings. That cannot happen. This is a parliamentary of order. system. Yourrule must prevail. This memberis making October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 175

a mockery of it and he is doing it deliberately. I ask you Mr. Chairperson: Yes, I did, and we were over the again to call him to order. time when I stopped the clock on the point of order. (interjection] That is correct. Yes. Mr. Desjarlais, you Mr. Penner: It is obvious that the honourable member have the last word, sir, as it should be. opposite does want to stem discussions or debate in this committee based on calling a member to order, and we Mr. Desjarlais: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to believe in the democratic procedures in this committee quickly respond, it has been a very interesting 15 that will allow members to ask questions and make minutes. It is no wonder we are in the state we are in in comments and, thereby, I ask you to rule as you did this province. However, I would like to make one final before and that we continue with the rules that have been comment, and that is that extremely inaceurate analogy applied consistently by a government that she was a thatMr. Penner drew from myremar ks. My remarks are member of prior to our taking office, and theserules are simply this, that we would entertain any motion that a maintained, and the direction that the honourable memberbrought fo rth as a democratic organization. As Chairman is receiving from the Clerk's Office is fa ir and an institution that debates these I would speak in equitable. I would suggest to you that you made theright opposition to any affiliation with the Progressive ruling. Conservative Party in Manitoba. There is no doubt about Mr. Chairperson: I would grant that Ms. Friesen has a that. However, democracy will rule the roost in my union point of order. As we are now well over the time limit as it alwayshas and always will, and that is, the majority allotted fo r thequestions to this presenter, and I must tell will decide on political affiliation. I can tell you that the honourable colleagues at this time that if there has democracy in my union said that we affiliate with the been consistently through the last two days of hearings a NDP. That is just the way it is. It appears that the member of the committee who has requested an government does not agree with workplace democracy. opportunity to ask a question and they run over the time Otherwise, they would not be passing this legislation. prescribed that we have agreed upon, but if their hand is Thank you very much. raised and if they commence their question before the time limit has expired, I have allowed that dialogue, that Mr� Chairperson: Thankyou, Mr. Desjarlais. We have sequence of questions and answers, so just to show that one more presenter, colleagues. Brenda Portree. Calling I have been trying to be as flexible as possible to ensure · Brenda Portreefo r thefr rst time. There being no answer, the discussion role in a free and flexible fa shion. she goes to the foo t of the list, and I will recall the list. After recalling the next series of names, if they do not Mr. Reid, have you got anything further to add to the respond they will be struck offthe list. The fr rst name is point of order because, otherwise-thank you. Bernie LeBlanc. On hearing no response, the name is * * * struck off. The next name is Michelle Deneka. On hearing no response, the name is struck off. The next Mr. Chairperson: At this point, then, I would invite name is Maureen Jordan. On hearing no response, the Mr. Desjarlais, if you have anything to respond to the name is struck off. Joanne Daly. On hearing no comments ofthe members that you have heard right now, response, the name is struck off. And finally, Brenda I would ask you to be responsive to that as time has Portree. Onhearing no response, the name is struck off. expired, and we have no opportunity to ask you any further questions. [interjection] I am sorry? I will now canvass the audience one last time to see if there are any other persons in attendance wishing to An Honourable Member: You did not stop the clock speakto the bill that is before thecommittee this evening. on the points of order? Seeing as there are none, does the committee wish to Mr. Chairperson: Yes, I have stopped. Are you on a proceed clause by clause with consideration of the bill? point of order, Mr. Reid? Mr. Laurendeau: I would move that we conclude Mr. Reid: No, I am asking you if you stopped the clock. public representations, and that we ask the House leader 176 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

to set another date fo r the committee to do the clause by legislatioo we nowhave. Theamendments will dictate to clause. all employees;employers will havea free hand to do what theywish with norecourse for emplothe yees. At present, Mr. Chairperson: What is the will of the committee? the employers are at least held accountable fo r their [agreed] actioosto employees, but this new legislation will entitle them to do whatever they wish with their employees, Public representations on this bill are therefore more so now than they could before. The legislation accordingly closed. Committee rise. gives employees little or no recourseat the worksite.

COMMITTEE ROSE AT: 2: 19 a.m. Theunion that I belong to has and always has had an open door fo r any one of its members to see the finances WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PRESENTED of the alliance. As in all other businesses, they have a BUT NOT READ board of directors, regulations and constitutions that we all abide by. All financial records are audited annually Chair and arethese passedthen to all components and locals to Standing Committee, Bill 26 be distributed as per our by-laws. I know that all our members are privy to any and all of our financial We congratulate the government of Manitoba for its statements. All corporales do not do that unless you are review of labour relations in Bill 26, The Labour a shareholder. � government doesnot require financial Relations Amendment Act We wish tooffer our support statements from these companies, so why should the for all ofthe attached amendments to Bill 26. unions have to? I call this discrimination.

It has beenthe experience of our members that teacher Union dues are used fo r union use and ifthis includes fed erations in many provinces have deducted mandatory some political actions, this is no different than any dues which are used in significant part to carry out company who donates a large sum of monies to their sociaVpolitical campaigns and objectives which are not political affiliates which does include some shareholders' endorsed or supported by many individual teachers. monies. It isquite wellknown that labour supports NDP Those teachers have no recourse under the present and corporate supportsConservative and Liberal. So I legislation when their dues are used for such purposes. ask you, what is the difference? Ofparticular concern are the use of millions of dollars of professional dues to support public relations campaigns to oppose significanteducation reforms. We would like to keep this good country of Canada free for speech, for independentbusiness, for negotiations We urge the government to move expeditiously to and keep it fa ir. The unions have a place alongside all protect the rights of individual union members through other businesses. Do not let this happen to Canada. the amendments proposed. Keep it safe from dictators.

* * * Respectfully, John Triplett, President Teachers fo r Excellence in Education Written Submission on Bill 26-The Labour Relations Amendment Act * * * The Labour Relations Amendment Act increases the Report to Industrial Relations Committee on Bill 26 power that employers are able toexercise overwor kers. Submitted byY vonneCam pbell, Public Service Alliance Workers will have more trouble fo rming unions. ofCanada, Local 50021 Unionized workers will see their wages and benefits reduced asunioo bargaining power is decreased. Unions Aspart ofthe greatlabour movement in Canada, I am will be limited in their ability to implement their appalled with the new amendments that are to replacethe members' policies. There are six amendments inBill 26: October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 177

1. Votes on union certification will now be Choices supports full financial and compensation comp ulsory. disclosureby unions to union members. Union members pay dues and are entitled to know how their money is Employers are only required to negotiate with a union being spent. In fa ct, most unions already provide if it has been certified by the government-appointed members with audited financial reports. Labour Board. Currently, certification is granted if 65 percent of an employer's workers sign cards . The This new provision goes too fa r. It requires full government will now require that a supervised, secret financial and compensation disclosure to those who are ballot be conducted every time a group of workers seeks not union members. In addition, the requirement to to become unionized. This apparent expansion of provide detailed financial information to nonmembers democracy is actually an expansion of employer leaves unions vulnerable to vexatious requests. Such opportunities to harass workers. provisions in the United States have required some unions to hire additional staff to respond to these requests. This is not how union members want their dues Inthe United States a sophisticated antiunion industry money spent. has developed to advise employers on how to intimidate prounion workers in the period leading. up to such votes. Employers may claim unionization will cause the Thereis no fa irness in this provision. It could only be company to move away. In some cases, employers have justified ifthe same disclosure requirement were imposed mounted telephone campaigns aimed at employees' upon other institutions-<:orporations, for example. But fa milies and intended to frighten them about the no such requirement isbeing imposed upon corporations. consequences of a vote to unionize. Thispro visionwill enable not onlyemployers, but also The government has argued that the requirement that a consultingfirms specializing in "union-busting," to have vote be held within seven days of an application for fu ll access to a union's financial circumstances. Since certification reduces the opportunity fo r employers to unions haveno suchaccess to an employer's finances, the mount an antiunion campaign. However, there are many employer gains a considerable advantage. ways in which a company can drag out the seven-day period. Currently, the Manitoba Labottr Board does not 3. Union members must be informed by their union have the resources to conduct supervised secret ballots any time the union intends to use dues fo r political within the seven-day requirement and the current purposes,and eachmember must have theright to choose government does not appear committed to increasing the not to have her or his union dues so used. number of Labour Board employees. The bill permits extensions oftime fo r taking a vote, and this is what will This is another provision which, on the surface, happen in many cases. appears to advance democracy. Upon closer examination, it erodes the democratic process. As democratic institutions, certainly more so than It should be noted that this is the second time the corporations are, unions' elected leadership ought to be Conservative government haschanged the rules regarding able to act upon the political and social policies that union certification. Prior to 1991, certification was union members have endorsed at union conventions. granted if 55 percent of the workers had signed union They can change the policy, and they can vote the cards. It would appear that the government has now leadership out of office. concluded that despite this increase, unions are still enjoying too much success in attracting new members. As a result it has chosen to take new steps to make it This is how representative democracy works in increasingly difficultfo r workers to unionize. Canada. If union members are dissatisfied with the political purposes to which their dues are put, they then 2. All unions will be required to file full financial and open the question fo r debate within the union. As this compensation statements annually and provide members piece of legislation makes clear, the government policy and nonmembers with detailed financial information. can have tremendous impact on unions, yet the 178 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996

government is limiting a union's ability to involve itself Picketline violence is a rare phenomenon in Manitoba. in political life . Those who engage in such violence are subject to prosecution under a variety of fed eral and provincial It should be noted that the government is not allowing laws. One is moved to ask what problem is the taxpayers or shareholders to opt out of government or govenunent trying to address? This provision is placing corporate political campaigns with which they do not striking workers in double jeopardy-ifconvicted by the agree. courts of a violation of the law they can be subject not only to fines

6. Any infraction of the law by an employee during Jim Silver picketing can be considered just grounds fo r dismissal. Choices