Third Session -Thirty-Fifth Legislature

of the

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba

STANDING COMMITTEE

on

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

39-40 Elizabeth II

Chairperson Mrs. ShirleyRender Constituencyof St. Vital

VOL XLI No.3 • 7 p.m., MONDAY, JUNE 22,1992

MG-8048 ISSN 0713-9608 Printed byllle Offlcs of llle a.-. Printer, Prov#I'ICB of Manitoba MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature

Members, Constituenciesand Political Affiliation

NAME CONSTITUENCY PARTY. ALCOCK, Reg Osbome Liberal ASHTON, Steve Thompson NDP BARRETT,Becky Wellington NDP CARSTAIRS, Sharon River Heights Liberal CERILLI, Marianne Radisson NDP CHEEMA, Guizar The Maples Liberal CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan NDP CONNERY, Edward Portage Ia Prairie PC CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose PC DACQUAY, Louise Seine River PC DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell PC DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk NDP DOER, Gary Concordia NDP DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden PC DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach PC DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. Riel PC EDWARDS, Paul St. James Liberal ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside PC ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood PC EVANS, Clif Interlake NDP EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East NDP FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo PC FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield PC FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley NDP GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Liberal GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa PC HARPER, Elijah Rupertsland NDP HELWER, EdwardR. Gimli PC HICKES, George Point Douglas NDP LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Liberal LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas NDP LAURENDEAU,Marcel St. Norbert PC MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. Morris PC MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows NDP McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek PC McCRAE, James, Hon. BrandonWest PC MciNTOSH, Linda,Hon. Assiniboia PC MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East PC NEUFELD, Harold Rossmere PC ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. Pembina PC PENNER, Jack Emerson PC PLOHMAN, John Dauphin NDP PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet PC REID, Daryl Transcona NDP REIMER, Jack Niakwa PC RENDER, Shirley St. Vital PC ROCAN, Denis, Hon. Gladstone PC ROSE, Bob Turtle Mountain PC SANTOS, Conrad Broadway NDP STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC STORIE, Jerry Flin Flon NDP SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye PC VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. FortGarry PC WASYLYCIA-LEIS, Judy St. Johns NDP WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River NDP 67

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Monday, June 22,1992

TIME -7p.m. Diane Sobie, Manitoba Anti-Poverty LOCAT ION-Winnipeg, Manitoba Association Erika Wiebe, Winnipeg Child and Family CHA IRPER SON- Mr s. Shirley Render (S l VItal) Services - Central Area ATTENDANCE · 10- QU ORUM· 6 Shirley Lord, Choices Members of the Committeepresent: Renate Bublick, Social Planning Council of Hon. Messrs. Gilleshammer, Praznik, Hon. Winnipeg Mrs. Mcintosh Greg Selinger, Councillor for TacheWard , City Mr. Ashton, Ms. Barrett, Mrs. Carstairs, Mr. of Winnipeg Martindale, Mrs. Render, Messrs. Rose, WR ITTEN SUBMISS IONS: Sveinson Bill 85-The Labour Relations Amendment Act WITNESSES: Ross Martin, Brandon & District Labour Bill 85-The Labour Relations Amendment Act Councii, CLC Susan Spratt, CanadianAuto Workers James Cowan, Graphic Communications Peter Olfert,Manitoba Government Employees International Union Association Neil Harden, The Professional Institute of the Howard Raper, Communications and Electrical Public Service of Canada Workers of Canada Sandy Hopkins, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce Paul Moist, Canadian Union of Public Employees - Local 500 Grant Mitchell, Private Citizen Bill Sumerlus, Canadian Union of Public Bill 64-The Child and Family Services Employees - National Amendment Act Terry Clifford, Manitoba Teachers' Society Dennis Schellenberg, Child and Family Services of Central Manitoba Richard Orlandini, Choices Jerry Ross, Private Citizen Bernard Christophe, United Food and Commercial Workers Gillian Colton, Private Citizen Gale Pearase, Director, The Street Kids and Roland Doucet, Private Citizen Youth Project Bill 64-The Child and Family Services MATTERS UNDER DISCUSS IO N: Amendment Act Bill 64-The Child and Family Services Rob Grant, Manitoba Coalition on Children's Amendment Act Rights Bill 70-The Social Allowances Amendment and Jean Altmeyer, Choices Consequential AmendmentsAct Mike Bills, Knowles Centre, Inc. Bill 85-The Labour Relations Amendment Act Bill 70-The Social Allowances Amendment and *** Consequential Amendments Act Madam Chairperson: I would like to call this Genny Funk-Unrau, Private Citizen committee to order to resume presentations Pat Woolley, St. Matthews-Maryland regarding Bill 85. I would also like to advise Community Ministry committee members that I have received a fourth 68 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

written presentation. This is from the Winnipeg Relations Board, the business community and Chamber of Commerce. They were, as committee labour all know the past practice, history and the members may remember, scheduled to appear in working of these provisions. To change it, in the person, Sandy Hopkins representing the Winnipeg minister's opinion would be to bring Manitoba in line Chamber of Commerce. with other jurisdictions. I would now like to call upon Roland Doucet, The CAW strongly protests the changing of this Private Citizen. I will then call upon Susan Spratt, section. The proposal in Bill 85, Section 3 which

Canadian Auto Workers union and there will be a deals with subsection 6(1 ) , 6(2), 6(3), will make it presentation distributed. Would you like to go easier for the employers to interfere in organizing ahead? drives and to circumvent the certification processby the use of fear tactics under the guise of reasonably Bill 85-TheLabour Relations held opinion. Amendment Act Employers will now be able to say, if these Ms. Susan Spratt (Canadian Auto Worker s): changes receive Royal Assent, almostanyt hing to Sure, thank you very much. their workers in an attempt to deny the workers the The CAW Canada represents working women opportunityto join a union of their choice by catering and men in over 27 workplaces in Manitoba. Our to the fears of their workers by making statements members work in foundries, theaerospace industry, so long as it may be even remotely reasonable. furniture manufacturing, farm equipment These changes will only draw out thecertification manufacturing, the service industry, the public processand will, we submit, have the parties before sector, auto parts and servicing industry workers, the Labour Board on issues such as reasonably held and workers in many other industries including the statements many more times, which only serves the carmen in the railways. interestsof employers in an attemptto keepunions The proposed changes to The Labour Relations out of their workplaces. If it is not broke, do notfix Act in Manitoba are, in most areas, a step it. backwards for working people in this province. In The Bill 85 proposed amendments in Section 6, the Labour minister's announcement of the dealing with subsection 41 , is another step proposedamendments to the act, he stated thatthe backward, in our opinion, with respect to the amendments are the result of a lengthy review of expansion of secret ballot vote on applications for Manitoba's labour legislation and are designed to certification. The lowering of the limit to 40 percent improve the operation of the current act, and that is meaningless, since the majority of times unions theseam endmentsuphold the right of employees to rarely make application with a low percentage of join a union. Minister Praznik goes on to say that support. their purpose is to provide greater certainty in the In the CAW-Canada's opinion, this is a change certification process. which is not required, but we will accept. On the Nothing, in our opinion, is further from the truth, other hand, increasing the percentagerequired from and the minister's comments show a total lack of 55 percent to 65 percent to receive automatic understanding of the real labour relations world in certification makes the whole process more lengthy Manitoba. and will increase the amount of votes which have to The CAW Canada submits thatthemajority of the be held. It will also give employers more of an amendments as proposed are designed to thwart opportunity to intimidate their workers by drawing the union certification process and are in response out the process. to pressure from the business community. There You are most certainlyaware that unions operate are no proposals in Bill 85 which are a direct request with a great difficultywhen organizing due to the fact from the labour community. that unions do not have access to the workplace, The amendments to Bill 85 and Section 8, 1 0 and nor do unions have access to the names and 11, which have the approval of the Labour addresses of the employees. If this government Management Review Committee, we are not in wishes to be progressive, we would submit that the opposition to. The current provisions in the act present level of 55 percent be lowered to 50 percent, under Part 1 , Section 6, although not perfect, are which is based on a simple majority of the total working well and all parties involved, The Labour number of employees in the unit. June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 69

This, we submit, would be more democratic. The Ms. Spratt: It has been my experience and the amendments in Section 7, regarding subsection experience of our organizing department with the 4S(4), vis-a-vis information on initiation fees and Canadian Auto Workers that the process to regular membership dues is, to say the least, a organize the workplace is very complicated, and shock. This issue to our knowledge has never been that if you go in to meet with workers, it is a very discussed in the Labour Management Review long, slow process. They ask many, many Committee and the proposal comes right out of the questions. They want to know about the wilderness. constitution of the union. They wish to know questions in relationship to unionization. There is no other jurisdiction in Canada with even a remotely similar provision and this, once again, * (1 920) leaves the process of certifications to challenges, Many times you will go and talk to workers, two, delays and lengthy hearings before the board. three or four timesto specifically answer concerns There is noneed for this proposed change, nor was that they have with respect to the union, and I think there even a request from the management interest that the union movement takes the same position on the committee; therefore, it would appear that that the women's movement does. When a worker nobody wants it, nor is it required. says no, it means no. The CAW Canada fully endorses the brief which If they require more information, then that is what was previously submitted by the Manitoba an organizing person is there to do is to give them Federation of Labour regarding Bill 85, and our that information. I could not agree with you more submission deals only with the most contentious that this is something that,to our way of thinking, is issues in this bill. quite bizarre because for anybody, and perhaps nobody on the side of the House who has actually We thank you forthe opportunityto appear before gone to do organizing would realize, this is a very you today. Thank you. complicated matter. Workers think many, many MadamChairpers on: Thank you. times before they sign a card. They have questions, and initiation fees and union dues are not an issue. Mr. Steve Ashton (Th omp son): By the way, I share your puzzlement about the section in regard Mr. Ashton: Just one other question, as I know to initiation fees and membershipdues. I think quite there are many presenters, and I would like to ask a few of us on the committee are wondering where many more questions if time permits, but the other this was developed from, because it really has no major concern that has comeup aboutthis bill is the history and seems to-probably littlea more to, as I opening up, as you pointed out in the brief, of the have said before, the feeling that some of the ability of employers to participate in the certification Conservatives have, that when workers say yes to process by making it much easier for employers to a union, they do not really mean yes. saywhattheyfeelin the case of opinions reasonably held, which is the exactterm used. There seems to be an attitude in the bill, as Now some people will say, well, that is freedom expressed, that the bottom line is they eithermade of speech, but I am wondering from your perspective a mistake or did not know what they were doing, that and looking in an organizing situation if you can it can somehow be a fairly easy process of people outline to members of the committee who perhaps signing union cards without any thought to the have not been in the situation of being a worker consequences. thinking about unionizing andworried abouta lot of I want to ask you, from your experience in the things, particularly-! would say from experience, labour movement, is that the case? Is it the case that many workers have gone through in certifying that people make the decision to join a union lightly? drives-of losing theirjobs if they happen to support Do they not ask questions aboutthe dues structure? a union, and that certification drive does not What is going to be involved? Do they sign their succeed. name withoutreally meaning it? When they say yes What really happens in that situation? I notice to a union, are they really meaning maybe or no? from the brief, as many other labourrepresentatives Or in your opinion, is the government perhaps have said, the argument is that we should not in any misleading the public in terms of what actually way or shape be opening up. Can you perhaps happens in that process? explain to some of the members of the committee 70 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

who have never been through that or even remotely least some members of the government caucuswill close to it, why in fact there should be protection think about whatis happening with this particularbill against the ability of employers to become heavily and the openingup, really, of thefloodgates in terms involved in the certification process? of ability of employers to engage in the kind of Ms.Spratt: We take the viewthat this is a decision activity you are talking about, which to my mind I think is absolutely unacceptable in Manitoba In the between the workers and the union ifthey wish to 1990s. So, thanks again for an excellent be in a union, and it is then up to the Labour Board to decide whether or not these workers should be presentation. unionized and who should be their certified Mr s. Sharon Car stalrs (Leader of the Second bargaining agent. Opposition): Yes, in your presentation you Once the employer becomes involved in that focused on a number of things, but there are two­ process, a whole array of questions and things can and maybe it is not possible for you to choose be said in theworkplace . I will give you a couple of between the two-but which do you find the most examples from organizing drives that I have done offensive? The increase from 55 to 65 percent, or myself. With the new language in the proposedact the right for the employer to become involved by that says "reasonably held" there is nothing stopping being able to say, in esse nce, what they will to the an employer under this new act. employee and potential union member? It has happened in the past, an employer saying Ms. Spratt: I find both equally distasteful to be that ifyou unionize the plant will close immediately. perfectly blunt. In my mind, they are both The plant will relocate. We can go to Alberta, we undemocratic. You know, you are moving the vote can go to Saskatchewan, we can go wherever, but up to 65 percent, the employer is becoming involved we are not going to open up here ifthere is a union, in something. Then, on the other hand,the question and if you have a certified bargaining agent, we are as to whether the employer can interfere or speak not going to do that. to employees, I take the view it really has nothing to do with the employer. It is a decision that is made If there are immigrant workers, it has been held by the workers to be in a union. They are both and has been argued before the Labour Board distasteful. where intimidation has been found, where employers have said to immigrant women that Madam Chairperson: Are there any further perhaps they may be deported or perhaps they will questions? Thank you very much. have visitations from immigration officers if they Ms.Spratt: Thank you. think aboutorganizing into unions. MadamChairper son: I nowwould like to callupon There have been other issues around issues of Peter Olfert, Manitoba Government Employees equity in the workplace and the whole question of Association. Mr. Olfert, do you have a written misinforming workers on the true intent of a union in submission? the workplaceand telling workers that have 25 or 30 yearsseni ority: Well, the uniondoes not want you; Mr. Peter Olfert (Manitoba Government they will get rid of you and protect somebody Employee s Asso ciation): I just have one copy. younger. MadamChairper son: Okay, thank you. These are the kind of comments. I find it Mr . OHert: Madam Chairperson, members of the ludicrous thatwe are having takenaway the right to committee, good evening. I am here representing electioneeron the day of an election, but right up to the Manitoba Government Employees Association. the day of the vote and right up to the day of any Our union represents some 25,000 workers in the balloting an employer can interfere with the whole public sector in this province. The people I process under thisnew act. So those are the things represent work in personal care homes, that do happen in Manitoba. Those are things that universities, community colleges, government do happen on an ongoing basis in organizing drives. offices, hospitals. They are the backbone of all Mr. Ashton: As I said, I wish we had the services Manitobans enjoy and are entitled to opportunityto get into more depth on that, but I thank receive from their government. you for outlining those kind of experiences to Lately, however, the pride of public sector members of the committee, and I am hoping that at workers and the services they deliver have been June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 71

assaulted by this government. Time after time, every memberof this government, we in the labour through regulation, legislation and administrative movement will expose this strategy at every whim, people working in the public sector have been opportunity. How can we take part in any more subjectedto arbitrary layoffs, wage freezes, the loss consultationswhich only serve as window dressing of collective bargaining rights, privatization, for this antilabour legislation? How can we contracting out, and the list is very extensive. co-operate with you if you continue to attackworkers that we represent in this province? While these attackswere underway,many of our members and, indeed, many hundreds of people I would like to turn for a moment to several specific throughout the public sector, had their personal lives aspectsof Bill 85 to illustrate exactly why we cannot shattered. How does a 55-year-old find work in accept this legislation. First, the amendments on today's economy? How does a single parent whose certification votes propose that the range be income has dropped by 20 percent keep her family changed from 45 percent and 55 percent for a together? What about families suffering because of mandatory certification vote to between 40 percent the job stress placed on one parent or another? and 65 percent. Our position is that if more than 50 There is then a little-known or understood human percent of the unit have signed cards, there is no side to what has been happening. Yet, in spite of needfor a mandatory certification vote. A majority the cruelty of these changes, watching the news is a majority is a majority, andin this case it is more coverage of this process over the last couple of than 50 percent, not the 42 percent who electedour years especially, I am continually amazed by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in Tuxedo. By raising the language governments use to explain what is being upper limit, however, it is quite clear that the opportunities for employers to intimidate their done. workers before a vote is held will be substantially This government's public persona, if you will, is increased. that ofa consultative, middle-of-the-road, moderate and caring government I am here today to bear * (1930) witnessto the radical and reactionaryagenda which Amendment 7(1 ) is also destructive. What it is is being foisted on this province. Let us look at the saying is that the union must explain its dues reality. Is it moderate to arbitrarily freeze the wages structure before a worker signs a union card. First, of 50,000 workers? Should they be singled out to I cansee from this clause that the minister probably bear a disproportionate share of the so-called war has never been involved in an organizing drive. on the deficit as they were under Bill 70? Is it During any drive the first questions asked by middle-of-the-road to change Workers workers are, what benefitscan the union provide for Compensation to an experience-rating system me, what are the dues or initiationfees? which rewardsthe bad employers andpunishes the This amendment is also highly insulting and workers? Is it caringto destroyfinal offerselec tion, paternalistic. Unions are not in the business of a processwhich gave Manitoba thefewest days lost conning peopleto join. Workers who chooseto join to strikes in this country? The answer to all these a union know verywell why unions are needed and questions is, no. they do not need you to protect themfrom us. The sorryfact of the matter is that the government Finally, this amendment is yet another tool for says one thing and does another. It is a matter of management to undermine legitimate organizing trust. The latest piece of labour legislation, Bill 85, drives. I can just see it now, managers will only is no exception. The minister said that this have to finda few antiunionemplo yees to sign cards legislation is a result of consultations. I want the and then testify that the due structure was not record to show that for my part as president of the explained to them,even if it had been. Conceivably, MGEA there was no time when we felt that the so­ the certification process could be entirely derailed called consultations were anything more than a because a clause like this, quite simply, is polite ritual on the partof thisgover nment. This was impossibleto monitor. a one-way process only. After even the most Section 8 is a counterpunch to Section 7 cursory reviewof the bill, it is abundantly clear that amendments. This section restricts activities by the Chamber of Commerce got an awful lot more managers and unions on the day of the certification thanthe polite hearing we received. So let me serve vote. The restrictiontalks about, other activity, and notice to you, the membersof the committeeand to again a loosely worded, wide open, catch-all phrase 72 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

designed to provide management with a tool to testimony from people today, and again tonight, entraplegitima te union activityto delay certification. pointingto how difficult a decision it is for people to When taken in its entirety, it is evident that the make. governmentis saying that fairness doesnot matt er. I just want to ask you, with your experience in the Each of the changes gives management a bigger labour movement, to give perhaps to those on this club, a biggerlever to use againsttheir employees. committee who might have something of an open It is obvious to everyone in the labour movement mind on this, how you would explain to them how that the Chamber ofCommerce has lobbiedhard to that decision is. Is it an easy decision? Is it a have theirage nda paramount in the draftingof this flippant decision? Is It a diffi cult decision? When legislation. someone signs a union card,do they really mean it? This bill smacksof thewhole philosophy so often Mr. OHert: I can certainly vouch for the fact that it espoused by the Fraser Institute, the Business is certainly a long process. It is not somethingthat Council on National Issues, and others of their ilk. you can go in and organize generally in a matter of When taken as a whole, these changes illustrate days or weeks. Many times it is months before you that for the governmentto claim that this bill came out of a consultative process is patently absurd. It get to a point where you may be in a position to apply for a certification. is not compromise or consensus at all. It is quite simply another direct attack on workers and their In speaking to people,there is no question that it collective rights as trade unionists. is one of the biggest decisions of their lives. When taken as a package, there is clearly a Because in today's-and especially in today's common theme linking each amendment, each bill economy, when jobs are tough, there are not very affecting labour, each decision taken by this many jobs out there to begin with, and people are government. This government does not want certainly fearful for their jobs. So they view this as workers to organize, to gain reasonable benefits,or a very big risk for them to take, to put theirjob on the to be treated fairly by theiremployers. In fact, this line in terms of signing a membership card. It is not legislation states unequivocally that there shall be an easy decision, a long process. no fairness for workers; there shall, however, be There is no questionthat when you get a group of more and more ways to reward employers. employees together they want to know everything Thank you very much. about your union, what kind of services they can Mr.Ashton: I justwant to askone ques tion,b ut an provide to you, what services you canoffer to them. importantone. AsI have said before, I really believe They always ask what the dues-and we are very many members of this committee not only havenot upfront about the dues question and initiation fees. been through organizing situations as you have Many of those thingsare discussed with them and, said;have not facedthat choice ; have not ever been generally speaking, many meetingshave to be held a member of a union so perhaps do not even with groups of individuals, and people have to be understand how unions operate in terms ofthe due told over and overthat the union is thereto fight on structure, et cetera. I want to give you the theirbehalf. opportunity to address, not so much those who So itis a long process and one that people do not might come upfront, and maybe some government take lightly. members in this committee, and say the real Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the information to the purpose of this bill is to prevent people from members of the committee, and I do hope that at unionizing, because I suspectthat is part of it. least some of the government members on the It is a deliberate attempt to make it more difficult, committee will listen to the advice of people such as to prevent employees from unionizing, but there yourself and others who know what the process is may be some, as I said before, who perhaps do not and how it is a serious process and how much this come out and say thatdirec tly,who perhaps thinks, bill will damage the ability of workers to freely as I said before, that when someone says, yes to a choose to say yes to a union. So thank you very union, they do not really mean, yes, they m ean, much. maybe or no; they were either mistaken or hoodwinkedor coercedor whatever to sign a union Madam Chairperson: Are there any further card. We have already heard some pretty clear questions? If not, thank youvery much. June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 73

I would now like to call upon-now, I am not too petition was circulated and, of course, anyone sure about the spelling here and the pronunciation­ refusing to sign was immediately categorized as a Howard Raper. union sympathizer. The personwho organized this meeting was a so-called independent objector. Mr. Howard Raper (Communication s and Management claimed they had no knowledgeof the Electrical Worker s of Canada): Thank you. It is meeting and had not authorized it. No action was pronounced Raper. taken against the independent objector, of course, Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. even though she hadsupposedly taken people off Raper. When you are ready,please proceed. You the production line during working time without have a written presentation, and I believe everybody authorization. I wonder what would have happened has a copy of it. if an employee who was a supporter of the union Mr. Raper: I would like to thank you for the held such a meeting under the same circumstances. opportunity to appear before this committee. I am We, of course, sought legal counsel to see if it was here representing the Communications and possible to successfully file an unfair labour Electrical Workers of Canada. This is a union of practice. We were informed that unless we could approximately 40,000 members across Canada, prove that the employer had initiated the meeting we some 2,000 of whom reside in Manitoba. All of our would be unsuccessful before the Labour Board. Manitoba members have the same employer, the Imagine what the impact would be if employers Manitoba Telephone System. In other provinces, a could freely campaign in the workplace. We large percentage of our members are employed in already have a flood ofconsultants eager to collect the manufacturing and servicing of electrical and exorbitant fees from employers for showing them electronic products. how to stop organizing campaigns. Now labour We are proud of our reputation as a union that lawyers will be making a lot of money arguing what works to build a positive relationship with the defines a statement of fact or an opinion reasonably employer, in which both parties act to expand and held with respect to the employer's business. improve the business in order to enhance the The proposed changes to Sections 6 and 32 working condition and employment security of our constitute an open invitation to employers to members. We believe that labour relations intimidate their employees. This would extinguish legislation should reinforce the concept of the the principle of an employee's right to freely decide partnership of labour, business and the withoutcoercion or intimidation by the union or the government. employer whether ornot they wish to join or to work In our view, Bill 85 fails miserably in this respect. in a unionized workplace. It reinforces an adversarial relationship between I would like to say that in talking about having labour, business and, indeed, with the government. people sign cards, and I heard Sid Green earlier say We have reviewed the suggested changes that the workers in Manitoba are not easily contained in Bill 85and would like to address a few intimidated. Well, let me tell you that they are very of the issues in this legislation. Because I have easily intimidated. Certainly, there are a core of been directly impacted by the current Labour fighters who are willing to risk their job to join a union, Relations Act, I feel well qualified to provide some but those are in a very small minority in any constructive criticism on some of the proposed workplace, where you have a core group that feels revisions. so intense about the thing that, yes, they are willing • (1940) to put their job on the line . The first issue I would like to address is the repeal My experience is that the first thing that you tell of Section 6(2) and the addition of Section 32(1 ). somebody when you are asking them if they would We see this as a change that could make organizing like to join a union is you assure them that the only in this province next to impossible. We have people that will know that they have signed a card alreadyhad occasion to see first-handthe effect this are yourself and usually there is one other person kind of intimidation would have. During a recent with you. You assure them that nobody else in the organizing campaign, employees in the plant were plant will be aware that they have signed a card, and told to attend a meeting during working time on the that is for the simple reason that they are concerned employer's premises. At this meeting,an antiunion that somebody in that workplace is going to tell the 74 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

employer that they have signed a card and thenthey People recognize the fact that an organization are really concerned about their continued requires funding in order to provide services. They livelihood. should be given the right to decide what is an So we make it a practice to assure them of the appropriate dues structure. This revision ofthe act privacy of the act of theirsigning a card. They are would take away the right to make thatdecision from very easily intimidated, and it is certainly one of the our new members. Thedecision would be takenout most populartactics by employers. I experienced it of the hands of our members and placed in the in the union drive that I am just talking about where hands of the officers of the national union. managers tell employees, well, if a union comes in This is contrary to the democratic principles on here the employer is going to move out of this which our union was founded. We would have to location and everyone is going to lose their job. set some rate that we thought would be appropriate When you approach an employee who has been and tell the people we were organizing that this is told this you say, I have heard that you were told going to be your union dues. They would not have this. Is this true? Yes, it is true. Are you willing to that right to decide for themselves. testify to that effect? No, I am not. They will not The changes to the percentage figures in Section testify before the Labour Board that the employer 40(1) are another example of how this government has intimidated them, because they, again, are wants to make it more difficult for employees to fearful oftheir continued livelihood. freely associate in an organization. To give the The nextrevision I would like to address is Section outward appearance of fairness, the percentage to 45(3.1) . Our union is recognized for the wide trigger a vote in the workplace was lowered. powers given to members to make decisions. One I know of no union that has knowingly submitted of the decisionsmade by local members in our union cards to the Labour Board of less than 55 percent is the amount of dues thatthey pay. Members of in order to have a vote in the workplace. Unless newly formed locals decide by majority vote how there is over 55 percent support, unions have no much is requiredto operate thelocal. This is usually desire to have a vote conducted. The decrease in done at a membership meeting held shortly after the percentage required to trigger a vote is they have become certifiedby the Labour Board. meaningless. It will have no impact at all. There are no specificdues set for members of a Union leaders realize that oncetheir intention to newly created local. Our two locals in Manitoba organize is made public, employers will attempt to now pay a different percentage of their wages in dissuade union membership and some of the initial union dues. Thisis because the members ofthese support slips away. They also realize that stalling two locals have made different decisions on how tactics by employers to delay a vote will further much is required to operate their local organization. erode support. The union movement has many study resultsindicating the longer avote is delayed, In our organization, the dues are set by the the less likely the vote, when taken, will be in favour members and a lot ofthe differencesin the dues that of the union. members pay depend on their organization. If it is a local representing people that are all under one .. (1950) roof in one plant and they are all, say, located in The percentage of 65 percent required to trigger Winnipeg, their dues can be set quite lowerthan the an automatic certification is totally unrealistic. How dues of a local such as we operate now in Manitoba. many provincial or federal governments can make We have two locals that represent telephone claim to have the support of 65 percent of their workers right across the province. To have constituents? Not many. This revision is an meetings we have to fly representatives from out-and-out attack on the labour movement of Thompson, The Pas and Ain Aon to Winnipeg so Manitoba and a concession to business interests that theyhave a voice in the affairsof the local . That who want to eliminate the labour movement from the is a very expensive local to operate. However, picture in Manitoba. under othercircumstances, like I say, if the plant is We propose that an indication by a majority of all under one roof, the dues can be much lower employees that they want to organize, as proven by becausethe local does not require as much dues to a majority of bona fide cards signed by the operate. employees, should result in automaticcertification June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 75

of the union. Only those applications which fall this is a very undemocratic bill. Ithas provisions in between45 percent and 50percent plus one, should here in terms of elections, which would never be initiate a vote to determine the wishes of the found in any electionsact. Your reference in terms majority. of thenumbers is quite accurate again. I mean, this I would now like to turn to the proposed new governmentdoes not have 65 percent of support­ Section 48.1, regarding electioneering on voting never has, never will. day. It appears quite reasonable on the face of it, £:venin terms ofthe independent objectors, once but I have seen enough of the message used by again we have election regulations in terms of so-called independent objectors to be wary of this disclosure of campaign funding and limitations in type of legislation. that regard. Even in terms of the question of This section puts no restriction on independent employer interference, to my mind, what is being objectors. I suspect there will be many instances proposed here would be equivalent to having the where Independent objectors, on the advice of United States campaign in our elections, because high-priced lawyers, will be interfering with the free they are affected by Canada-U.S. free trade. They vote by the employees while thumbing their noses have a stake in it, so why should they not they be at the Labour Board. There have to be severe able to come in here and explain theirposition to us? penalties levied on any individual who interferes I donot think too many people would expectanyone with a free vote in the workplace. to thinkanyt hing of that nature. I experienced firsthand how independent I want to ask you that because you specifically objectors operate. Two or three individuals, who pointed to a case of a so-called independent earn less than $10 an hour, somehow have the objector pulling peopleoff the line during company financial resources to retain legal counsel, an time to circulate an antiunion petition-and that is example of whom you saw earlier today, whose fees even by current legislation, and it showsthat there run well over $100 an hour. They somehow find the are limitations even in current legislation. financial resources to rent meeting halls and I want to ask you to go one step furtherwith this distributeantiunion literature to all employees in the Bill 85. What do you think it is going to do in terms potential bargaining unit. Yet they can act with of organizing drives? You made some very strong impunity andscoff at the Labour Board. There are statements here. This would make organizing this no penalties that the Labour Board can impose on province next to impossible. How is it going to do these individuals. There is no obligation put on that? What impact is Bill 85 going to have, given these individuals to disclose the sources of their that some of thisstuff is already going on? funding. Mr. Raper: I believe that the example that I gave If this legislative committee really wants to make where a so-called independent objector called an honest attempt to ensure that employees have the right to decide about union representation people off the line to circulate an antiunion petition withoutcoercion from anyone,then make revisions and to ask people if they were supporters of the making independentobjectors responsible for their union or not-1 think that is going to be done, or actions. I ask you to consider changes to Bill 85 that similar kind of things, maybe not a petition, but would address this problem and to ensure that certainly there are going to be meetings called by independent objectors are truly independent. employers of the employees in a particular plant or whatever theem ployers' organizationis going to be. Thank you. The employer is going to have a forced audience MadamChairp er son: Thank you very much. because they are on company time, they cannot Mr.As hton: Madam Chairperson, I find your brief choose whetherthey attend or not, and people are particularly interesting, because it focuses in on, I going to hear the employer's line as to why it is not think, one consistent themethroughout this, which in their intereststo join a union. I thinkthat is moving is the question of democracy. Presumably, the the line way into the employer's favour when it question of certificationrelates to thedemocratic will comes to a free decision without coercion and ofthe emplo yees involved. intimidation by an employer on employees. I know when going through the bill, one of the So it is just going to make it so that while we will concernsthat many of us have had is the fact that have to encourage peopleto come to our meetings; 76 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

theywill be forced to attendthe em ployer's meetings in theplant, usually in their own home. Sometimes on company time andat company expense. there are leaflets at the plant gate and that kind of Mr. Ashton: So essentially what this bill does is thing,but what I foundis the best way is to go to the handcuff the ability of, not even just strictly the person's home, ask to be invited in. Ifthey slam the unions involved, but particularly the employees in door in your face, thatis the end of the story. I mean, that particular workplace who want to be you cannot force your way into someone's home. represented by a union. If theyallow you in to discussthe issue, then you I just want to take thatfurther because one thing get asked-1 have heard earlier presenters go into that I found again is that a lotof this bill seems to be what is asked. One of thefew things that is asked coming more from the bias of the government than is about the union dues. One of the things that we, any particular rational reasoning. Some of the because we have been asked so many times in the sectionsthat have been pointed to already tonight past, sayright upfront and usually at thestart is that as basically coming out of thin air do not exist In any ifyou decide that you would like to sign a union card of theirjurisdic tion,were not even asked for by the there is an initiation fee. We tell them what the Chamber ofComme rce, but are being pushedhere. initiation fee is, and we tell thema range of dues that pnte�ection] are quite likely to happen in their instance, butwe informthem that is their decision to make once they Madam Chairperson, the Minister of Consumer get an idea of the union structure. Affairs (Mrs. Mcintosh) will have her opportunity in debate on third readingif she wishes to debate this * (2000) or ask questions. I would be interested to know The most important thing we find to tell them is where the government came up with some of these thatif theysign the card, no one otherthan the two brilliant ideas, quite frankly. people that theyare talking to at that timewill know Butwhat I want toask is, becauseonce again you that they signed a card. If we do not do that, we get these stereotypical pictures put up by the found that we had very limited success because Conservativesand by some people, not everyone, they are very concerned that their intention is not In the business communitythat somehow big unions made known to their co-workers, some of whom descendupon small employer uninvited, somehow they may nottrust to keep their mouth shut in front bamboozle the employees, and then they join a of the employer and some of whom they might not union, can you perhaps explain to people on this trustto justhave it slip out somewhere where it does committee whodo not understand how it works? I not belong. So we ensure the secrecy of that card mean, do unions gointo areas-arethey going to get and we collectthe initiationfee. very far if they are not wanted by the employees if As someone said earlier, usually it takes two or there are not employees supportinghaving a union three visits to really answer all the questions that there? What is the process? What is organizing? they have. In fact, I have made it a practice of my Let us maybe go back to some of the basics, own not to sign up somebody on that first visit, to because I really sense some of the government give them timeto thinkabout it, lookthrough some members, apart from those that are just dead set of our literature that we have given them, and make against unions-there are probably a fair number in an Informeddecision when I return. My big concern that category-there are some who just do not is that the whole independent objectorthing is the understand how someone signs a union card and one thing that has plagued unions throughout. the processthat goesinto it,and how an organizing These are people who supposedly are acting on drive begins and the role of the employees their own behalf with no interference from the themselves in that process. I am wondering if you employer, but I strongly suspect that mostof them can give some indication from your experience. are. I haveseen the actionsbefore , duringand after Mr. Raper: Well, my experience in organizing is an organizing campaign, and it has convinced me thata callis made to the union officeby an employee thatfew if any of these independent objectorscould in thatwork group who feels that there is a needfor really meet the test of being independent. a union in thework group. From that you attempt to I really feel that an em pioyer using theso-called see if theyhave at least a small circle offriends who independent objectors to defeat the campaign would be interested in helping you to organize that should not happen anywhere. I thinkan employer group. If youdo, thenyou starttalking to thepeople has the same right to determine whether their June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 77

employees should be unionized as the employees We were created just down the street, 29 years have the right to determine whether that employer ago, at the Hotel Fort Garry in 1963. At that time we joins an organization like the Chamber of were 79,000 strong. We are now430,000 members Commerce or some otherem ployer association. across the country, and I say that not to talk about our bigness, but to advise you that 80 percent of Neither unions nor employees should be able to those employees are employed in units of 50 or determine that, and I do not believe employers have under. Unlike the previous presenter before you any right to determine whether their employees broke at six o'clock, we are not part of that 25 belong to a union organization or not. percent of the work force that was organized prior Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I would just like to these rules being put into place; CUPE's to thank the presenter. I cannot help but be struck membership has been organized almost entirely by the similarities between what happens in this since 1963. Most of the units, as I said, are not big, case where workers are democratically deciding large strong units, they are under 50 employees in who represents them and what happens in an size. election where we face the same reaction. I mean, With those preliminary comments,I will turn it over some people close the door and then some people to Bill Sumerlus and we will both field questions invite you in; some people want you to come back afterwards. two or three times. Mr . Bill Sumerlus (Canadian Union of Pu blic In each and every case, you do not get anywhere Employees - Na tional): Thank you. Madam unless you are wanted. You do not get nominated, Chairperson, committee members, honourable you do not get elected unless there is a core group minister, I am just going through the brief, you will of people out there that believe that you have note I have noted the preamble to The Labour something to offer. I really cannot be struck by Relations Act of Manitoba at the outsetin the brief. anything more than what you have said, which is the It reads: 'WHEREAS it is in the public interest of the same thing with people saying yes or no, their Province of Manitoba to further harmonious choice as to whether they join a union. relations between employers and employees by Unfortunately, the government withBill 85 seems encouraging the practice and procedure of to be saying that what is good for politicians and collective bargaining between employers and elections at a political level does not apply in the unions as the freely designated representative of workplace. So, thanks again for giving us some real employees." That is the preamble to our labour legislation. insight. I would submit that the practice and procedure of Madam Chairperson: Are there any further collective bargaining will not be encouraged by Bill questions? If not, thank you very much, and I would 85. Rather, the amendments to The Labour like to call upon Rob Hilliard, private citizen. Rob Relations Act contained in the bill will work to delay Hilliard? The next presenter, Rob deGroot, private the certification process with needless and costly citizen. Rob deGroot? Next person, actually two litigation for both sides. The certification process is people, Bill Sumerlus and Paul Moist, CUPE designed, actually, to be a quick and clean one, in National and Local 500. Their written presentation which the employer really has no business. is just being distributed right now. Whenever you Now I appreciate that there may be some are ready, please, gentlemen? members of the committee who may not consider Mr . Paul Moist (Canadian Union of Pu blic that to be accurate in terms of an employer's Em ployees -Local 500) : Madam Chairperson and business and whether or not a union comes into his committee members, my name is Paul Moist and I plant. I can tell you, however, that really it is a work as a national representative for CUPE in decision which is made by the employees for the Manitoba. With me is Bill Sumerlus, our legal and employees. That is properly where it is left. It is up legislative rep, who will take you through our brief in to the employees to decide whether or not they want a moment. I will just say at the outset that CUPE to unionize. represents some 20,000 workers in Manitoba, One effect of Bill 85 is the potential for greater largely in the health care, education and municipal employer involvement in the certification process. sectors as well as some Crown corporations. Due to the vagueness and uncertainty of other 78 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

provisions of Bill 85, another potential effect, as I enactment of the Wagner Act in the United States indicated earlier, is increased litigation. The almost 50 years ago resulted in an end to strikes for invitation to increase litigationwill only serve to get recognition. By allowing greater employer the process of collective bargaining offto a bad start. interference in the certification process, this The animosity which is engendered-and I am legislation represents, I would submit, a step familiar with this on a personal level, in terms of my backward in labour relations philosophy. practice of law-the animosity engendered by a It is particularly important in these tough hearing before the Manitoba Labour Board may do economic times that government, business and serious damage to labour relations and the labour labour work together to build Manitoba's economy relations climate in any enterprise . The in an effortto regain lost jobs. I would submit that amendments contained in Bill 85 will work to a legislation of this nature will only further divide and certain extent to increase the likelihood of such create more areas for confrontation in the hearings. certification process, which is really an effortto sort Changes to certification, in totality, suggest, I of get labour andmanagement together in collective would submit, an American-style sort of campaign bargaining. approach to unionization which has been * (2010) demonstrated to impact negatively on unions. I Dealing firstly with the amendments, the first would submit with respect that the legislation section which I would bring to your attention is generally is biased against unionization. Section 3(3)(g) dealing with employers' statements Decreases in unionization in the United States show to employees during organizing drives. This why these approaches should not be followed. amendment, which you have heard a considerable Public policyin this province and acrossour country amount about, expands the statements that is in support of unionization and collective employers or supervisors-that is, a person in a bargaining. Proposed changes, I would submit, are management-related capacity-can make to not consistent with this broad policy. employees during an organizing drive to include I read something by the Minister of Labour (Mr. statements of fact or a "reasonably" held opinion. I Prazn.ik) which indicated that the purpose of the think it is quite clear that this amendment is likely to amendmentswas to provide greater certainty in the generate a wealth of hearings before the Manitoba certification process, to eliminate the misuse of the Labour Board to determine whether the statements first contract provisions and to provide for some made were fact or opinions which were reasonably general housekeeping of the act. I would submit held. again with respect that the amendments will slow In its current form, The Labour Relations Act is down, complicate and delay the certification clear in this regard. Both parties know what is process, while at the same time enabling greater permissible andwhat is prohibited in the course of employer interference in a process which the an organizing drive. The amendments in Section employer really has no business in at all. 3(3)(g) of Bi11 85 introduce, I would submit, a greater Section 5(1 ) of our Labour Relations Act reads vagueness into the process. The time of the that every employee hasthe right to be a member Manitoba Labour Board would be better spent of a union, to participate in the activities of a union, dealing with other serious issues which come before and to participate in the organization of a union. In it, rather than determining whether an opinion, a labour law text which is often used before the expressed by an employer or a manager, was Manitoba Labour Board, George Adams notes that "reasonably" held in the circumstances of the "The certification process is at the heart of our particularcase . system of collective bargaining and has a In the Adams' text, which I quoted to you earlier, fundamental impact on labour relations . . . . on page 529, it is noted: All Canadian labour Modern collective bargaining laws were enacted to relations statutes afford employees the freedom to eliminate recognition conflicts." join and participate in the activities of the trade union I would submit that the amendments to The of their choice. Reflecting the high value placed on Labour Relations Act contained in Bill 85 will serve this right, legislation generally prohibits employer to increase recognition conflicts and negatively interferencewith or participation in the formation or impact on labour relations in the province. The ad ministration of a trade union, and more June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 79

specifically forbids threats or other coercive or have taken a quote from the Ontario Boardat page intimidatory behaviour which might compel 1 04 of that decision. It reads: We cannot stress someone to become, refrain from becoming or enough the unique relationship that exists between continuing to be or ceasing to be a member of a an employer and his employees and the privileged trade union. Underlying these provisions is the position it puts the employer In to influence those belief that an employer's superior economic position employees. From this unique relationship, the and control inherently lendssignificant importto the employee perceives the awesome power of the views expressed by it in the context of collective employer to fire him or her at any time, in other bargaining. words, the power over life and death. Any I would submit, members of the committee, that involvement by the employer in the exercise by the this legislation will simply further enable an employee of his or her basic right to join a union puts employer to exert its superior economic control in unfair pressure on the employee. terms of expressing its opinions on the An employee joining a union must not be put in a appropriateness of the fact of certification. situation of a second-class citizen who is adhering Reducing the limitations on an employer's right to to asecret society and being ashamed of it. Either make comments to employees concerning the the rightis recognized or it is not. If it is, it must be effect of organization will only increase their ability exercised in full light and withoutfear. to chill organizing drives, and, therefore, interfere In that same decision the board also notes, it is with the rights ofem ployees to becomememb ers of quoted at page 6 of my presentation: Theexercise a union and bargain collectively. by itsem ployees of their fundamental right to freely This amendment will clearly interfere with an join a union, which consists essentially in the employee's right of freedom of association. It is expression of their desire to change their interference which is enactedunder the guise of the relationship, that from individual bargaining to right to free speech. I mean, it is often said: Well, collective bargaining, almost invariably brings a why should an employer notbe able to say what he negative reaction from the employer, towhat degree wants to, when he wants to? It is a free country. depends on each individual employer. That Why can I not say what I want to. Itis enshrined in reaction stems from the employer's views that it is our Charterof Rights. contrary to its interests that its employees do The right to free speech is not a totallyunfettered become unionized. It is recognized by employers, right, as I am sure you will hear in thenews dealing as a fact of life, that additional financial benefitsare with that case that is going on right now, with the Ku obtained by union representation but, most Klux Klan case. It isnot an unfettered right, andthe important,that the possible Mure collective relation right to participate or become a member of a union will mean a significant Joss of their management and bargain collectively without employer flexibility. interference is a reasonable limitation, I would The importance, I would submit, of keeping submit, on the right to employer free speech. employers out of organizing drives is readily seen in The section I have noted in the Canadian Charter decisions such as this. The amendments in Section of Rights indicates: The Canadian Charter of 3(3)(g) of the bill will only serve to increase the Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and possibility of that involvement and consequently of freedoms set out in it subject only to such further hearing before the Manitoba labour Board. reasonable limits as prescribed by law and as can The next section, Section 6, is the one I would ask be demonstrablyjustified in a free and democratic you to consider now. It is the section increasing to society. 65 percent of support necessary for automatic I would submit that the right to free speech is certification. It changes the parameters from limited reasonably by an employee's right to between 45 and 55 to between 40 and 65. I would organize, pursuant to Section 5(1) of our Labour submit again, to a certain extent this represents an Relations Act. unwarranted interference with the employees' right In the American Airlines Inc.,Toronto, Ontario and to organize. It is essentially, I would submit, unfair Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship to unions. It undermines the principle of majority Clerks'decision which is a decision from the Ontario determination which is basic to our democratic Labour Board, noted on page 5 of my submission, I system. 80 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

Once it is agreed that a simple majority of support As indicated, no other jurisdiction in Canada, is sufficient to determine the issue of certification, including the federal government, has seen any then I would submit there is no valid justification for merit in legislation of this nature. The potential for increasing thesupport required from 4 percent to 14 abuse obviously outweighs any benefits which percent, ratherthan asimple majority for automatic might be provided by this section. Asnoted earlier, certification. The Labour Relations Act already contains I would also bring to your attention the sections of provisions for the protection ofempl oyees in terms The Labour Relations Act which currently exist. I of the information provided them by a union in an have included them at the back of my submission organizing drive. for your easy reference. Section 45 of The Labour Further, pursuant to Sections 49 and 50, which Relations Act, and specifically Section45( 2), (3), (4) are also included at the back of thissubmission, the and (5) contain clear and unequivocal restrictions act provides and makes provisions for applications on membership requirements and proof of by dissatisfied employees to cancel or terminate the membership in a union, as well as provisions certification of bargaining rights of a union. This dealing with intimidation, fraud, coercion or amendment, I would submit, in that respect is therefore unnecessaryand, as I indicated, will result threatenedpenalty by the union in the solicitationof in further and unneeded delay, potentially memberships. expensive not only for unions but for management Pursuant as well to Section 45 of the current act, as well. the board may examine records, make other If the will of the government is to proceedwith this inquiries and hold hearings for the purpose of amendment notwithstanding the appurtenant determining whether employees in a unit, on the problems, there should at least be a provision date of a certificationapplication, were members in included in the act, and there should be a union. consideration made whereby a signature on a card These built-in safeguards more than adequately containing information required by this section is ensure the accuracy in ascertaining membership in deemed sufficient com pliance with the section in a union for the purposes of an application for absence of evidence to the contrary. certification. Therefore, I would submit there is no Going on to Section 8, the electioneering need to increase the amount of supportrequired for provisions, the amendment restricts activities by automaticcertification to 65 percent. unions and employers on the day workers vote on Somethingelse I might indicate to the committee, certification. It creates an unfair labour practice for although not included in my brief, is that it is plainly anyone who distributes printed material orengages not fair. Why move up 10 percentto 65percent and in electioneering or engages in any otheractivity for not move down 10 percent, but only move down 5 the purpose of influencingthe vote on the day ofthe percent? I would submit that clearly that indicates vote. Along with the other amendmentsmentioned a bias against certification and the certification above, it is clear that this amendment will only fuel process. more potentially lengthy and really unnecessary litigation before the Labour Board . • (2020) The issue of what amounts to any other activity Dealing with Section 7, the next amendment for the purpose of influencing the vote is, I would included In Bill 85 is the information to be provided submit, vague and ambiguous. It will have to be to the employee on an application. The continuously defined and redefined by the Labour amendment, as indicated earlier before this Board. Employers obviously have an unfair committee, is uniquein Canadianlabour legislation. advantage already in connection with votes of this I will submit again that it will only serve to delay nature. The fact that it takes place on the applications for certification by increasing the employer's premises where management is easily likelihood of excessive litigation at the Manitoba aware of who votes and who does not vote is in itself, Labour Board concerningwhat information has and I would submit, a detriment or deterrent to has not been provided to an employee at the time ascertaining the true wishes of employees. This theempl oyee is solicitedin supportof an application amendment will only furtheradversely affect unions for certification. in applying for certification. June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 81

Further,one point that is not containedin my brief, Before I conclude,I would also askto bring to your but I would ask you to consider, is the fact that it attention, or I would ask you to consider, the makes reference to unions, it makes reference to amendment which deals with the removal of the management, but it makes no reference at all to provision which says that supervisors essentially objecting employees. You heard a very strenuous can become members of unions. I would submit advocate before six o'clock on behalf of objecting thatthis Is something that shouldbe considered by employees. This section completely omits this committee. It is really unfair to supervisors, objecting employees, completely omits restrictions because the act before was clear. Supervisors on anything that is done by objecting employees were entitled to become members of unions. I before, after, during, in the course of, on the election would submit that the repeal ofthat sectionwill only day, or anything like that. I would submit that it serve to again exclude people from the right to collective bargaining who formerly had that right and should, and some consideration should be given to make more difficult the processby now having to go restricting what is done by objecting employees as to the Labour Board again to determine whether or well. not this supervisor is really employed in a Really, again, members of the committee, managerial or confidentialcapacity. So I would ask employers do not have anything to do with the issue the committee to consider that as well. of certification in any event. If the issue of the Again, in conclusion, it should remain clear that numbers is determined, that is to say in an an employer has no legitimate interest in whetherits applicationfor automatic certification, an employer employees join a union or not. The interest in really does not gain very much by intimidating, or employersin applicationsfor certification should be the possibility of Intimidating his employees, but if restricted to the description of the bargaining unit there is a vote,clearly thereis more incentive on the and not the issue of certification itself. Employers employer's part to do something in terms of have no business in the decision of employees to intimidating employees, and I would ask that the bargain collectively. That is the reason for the committee consider that In terms of this particular longstanding legislated restrictions on employer amendment. practices which could interfere with this decision. The final section which I would ask you to The amendments again contained In Bill 85 consider is Section 9, which is a report tothe board enable increased interference and delay an regarding the first collective agreement. This employee's ability to organize and legally participate amendment, I would submit, appears to be in what happens to them at their place of incongruous with Section 68(3) of The Labour employment. These amendments will help to Relations Act and Section 11 of The Department of preserve employer monopoly of control in the LabourAct. Itmakes the opinion of theconciliation workplace contrary, I would submit, to the aims and officerthat the partieshave made reasonable effort goals as noted in the preamble of The Labour to conclude a collectiveagree ment and are not likely Relations Act stated at the outset of this to conclude a collective agreement a mandatory presentation. It is therefore submitted that this step in theSection 87 Labour Board settlement of a committee should recommend the withdrawal of this collective agreement. But if either side wishes to legislation or at least its return for furtherstudy and challenge the opinion of the conciliation officer, refinement. according to Section 68(3),which has been included Thank you. at the endof my submission, as well as Section 11 MadamChairperson : Thank you very much. of The Department of Labour Act, the officer is Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I appreciat&­ neither a competent nor compellable witness and while I missed part of the presentation, I had the conciliation reports are inadmissable in any opportunityto read through here-thedetail in which proceedings. CUPE has gone in terms of providing an insight on While I do not have any quarrel with the question the legislation. I particularly just want to focus on or the principle of noncompellability in relation to one aspect of the bill. You have gone into quite conciliation officers, I would submit that it certainly some detail in the brief, noting some decisions, does present a problem, when considered in the Ontario Labour Board decisions, particularlydealing context of the amendments of Section 9 of Bill 85. with thequestion of free speech, freedom of speech, 82 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

because this is one of the flags that I know the free speech. It is like saying, well, you are entitled Conservatives have been raising on Bill 85, that to spread all sorts of hate, and you are entitled to somehow this is to give employers freedom of make any kinds of comments you want simply speech. because you have the right to free speech. This is I note from previouspresenters that some people a right. The right to organize is recognized by our pointed to some other areas where obviously we labour legislation. It is not something that is not have some limits in terms of freedom of speech. unrecognized by our very statute in Manitoba. So Sexual harassment is getting a lot of attention, thatI would submit, dealing with any sortof opening which it should, in the workplace, andobviously that or any reductionof that right is only going to increase is a question of balancing off the employers or the already, I would submit, unfair advantage that anybody in a position of authority's ability to say an employer has in an application for certification something, freedom to say it, vis-a-vis the power and in an organizing drive. and influence andto the degree of harassment that * (2030) can create for the employee. Mr.Asht on: Madam Chairperson, wouldI just like I just want to focus on this, because once again I to thank the presenters, and I can indicate that we do not think a lot of the people on the government will be introducing a whole series of amendments side understandwhat theyare doing with this bill. I covering many of the sections that you have think some of them do. They want to stop unions identified. While you understand, obviously, that from being able to certify. They want to stop our positionis one of strong oppositionto the bill, we employees from being able to say yes to a union, concur with many of your observations that the bill but in casethere are any of themwho are a bit more takesa bad principle and applies it in an even worse open-minded, can you perhaps explain to themthe way. So we will be paying very close attention to concernthat is being expressed here as to why it is some of the very good suggestions about the reasonable to say that an employer who has ability weaknessesof this bill. to hire, fire or promote should have restrictions, Thank you very much. some prettysevere restrictionsover a decisionthat is essentiallynot the employer's decision anyway, it MadamChairper son: Mr. Sumerlus, did youwish · is the employees? Can you perhaps give anyone to say anything in response? with an open mind on the government side some Mr. Sumerlus: No. indication why they should not be opening up the Mrs.Carstalrs : Yes, I would like to just ask you a floodgate as they are with Bill 85 by allowing little bit more detail about your concerns about employers to have much more latitude to interfere Section 7(1 ), subsection 45(3). That is with in the process? regard-you have proposed the idea of a signature Mr. Sumerlus: I can just advise that I think it is on a card, indicating the information with respect to quite clear that an employer is obviously in a very there having been given information about what superior position and an-well, I will not say unfair, dues would beand whatthe initial initiationfee might but in a very, very more powerful position in an be. Would you anticipate such a change in the bill application for certificationthan the employees who or in the regulations with respectto the bill? are generally scurrying around hiding and afraid that Mr.Sumerlus: I would expect that either way that anybody is going to see them. Once you allow-and change came about, the significance of the change the provisions of the previous act were quite clear should be that that be considered prima facie in terms of comments which were made by people evidence of compliance in absence of evidence to in management, people whowould likely have some the contrary. It seems to me that right now there influence over an employee or who could even be could very well be problems if it was enacted as the perceived to have some influence over an minister indicated earlier, in terms of what was employee, about the very careful restrictions on needed and what was wanted or what was comments which are made by those individuals at necessary. That is oneof the problems thatI have the time of an application or at the time of an with the legislation, in that it just sort of opens the organizing drive. door for greater and greater litigation and more and By allowing thisamendment, dealing particularly more problems in terms of interpretation of what is with the right offree speech, it is notreally enabling actually requiredand what is actually needed. June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 83

So whetherit be by regulation or whether it be in The society is seeking and will continue to seek the act itself-! mean perhaps it might be easier in to have legislation enacted to provideteachers with the regulations-butI think it is something that should rights similar to those provided to other employees be considered if the will of the government is to under The Labour Relations Act. As a result, the proceed with this. Again, I am not trying to indicate society is legitimately concerned whenever any my supportfor it. I am only indicatingthat if it is the attempt is made to reduce the rights enjoyed by will of the government to proceed, consideration be employees under The Labour RelationsAct. given to something like this which will hopefully Indeed, even if the society were not seeking expedite the process for both sides. improvement of collected bargaining rights of Mrs.Carstalrs: Would you envision something, for teachers, we would be concernedwith any attempt example, and I do not have a union card in front of to lessen the rights of employees in general to me, but I am interested in joining the union. I have unionize themselves in order to bargain collectively. been informed of the union dues, et cetera, and then At present, The Labour RelationsAct prevents an the signature. employer from making statements that might Mr. Sumerlus: Something along those lines. Yes. intimidate employees into not joining a union, and requires thata union be certified withouta vote if 55 Mrs.Cars talrs: Thank you. percent or more of the employees have signed MadamChairpers on: Thank you, Mr. Sumerlus. union cards. Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Yes, I The amendments proposed by Bill85 significantly would just like to point out to Mr. Sumerlus, he made weaken employees' power to organize themselves reference to the repealof Section 2(2) of the act, that and strengthen an employer's ability to defeat an that provision was a unanimous recommendationof organization drive. The present requirement that a the Labour Management Review Committee, in union can be certified without votea if 55 percentof which Mr. Kostyra, your union, is a representative employees have signed union cards more than on that committee,and I just wantedto pointthat out satisfies the requirements of democracy. The for your information. proposed requirement that would increase this Mr. Sumerlus: Thank you. I will be speaking to number to 65 percent makes it even easier for a Mr. Kostyra about that. minority of employees to thwart the wishes of the majority and provides all the more opportunity for Madam Chairperson: Are there any further the employer to become aware ofthe unionization questions? Thank you very much. drives e'1CI institute countermeasures. I would now like to call upon Donna Poitras and It removes the definition of what constitutes Dennis Ceiko, spokespersons,Commun ication and interference in the formation of a union. Under the Electrical Workers of Canada Local No. 7. present act, an employer is expressly forbidden I would now like to call upon Terry Clifford, from indicating to employees that he or she objects Manitoba Teachers' Society. We have our written to unions or prefers one union over another or that presentation from Mr. Clifford, which is being the employer's attitude will change if the union is distributed right now. When you are ready please, certified. Mr. Clifford. The proposed amendment removes this express Mr.Terry Cl ifford (ManitobaTea chers' Society): prohibition and adds a new right to the employer, the Thank you, Madam Chairperson, on behalf of right to communicate to an employee a fact or an 13,000 public school teachers in Manitoba, for the opinion reasonably held with respect to the opportunity to present at this committee. employer's business. This opens the doorto legal Public school teachers in Manitoba are not arguments over what constitutes interference and presently covered by The Labour Relations Act. what constitutes reasonable opinion. They derive their right to bargain from the provisions An employer might be able to threaten employees of Part 8 of The Public SchoolsAct. However, it has that the formation of a union could lead to plant long been the position of the Manitoba Teachers' closure and defend him or herself by arguing that it Societythat Part8 of The Public Schools Act, which was a reasonable opinion. It certainly allows an has not beensubstantially amended since 1957, is employer to debate with the employees the out of date. advantages and disadvantages of becoming 84 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

unionized. This is not a question of the right of the clock back towards a meaner era of industrial freedom of speech nor a question of free political malevolence. debate. MadamChai rperson: Thank you, Mr. Clifford. The current Labour Relations Act guarantees employers freedom of speech as long as theydo not Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the perspective of The use intimidation, threats or undue influence against Manitoba Teachers' Society organization, not the formation of a union. However, the expression directly affected by The Labour Relations Act, but of a fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to obviously affected in the sense that any collective the employer's business may be difficult to organization is affected. I have always looked at distinguish from an attempt to unduly influence what has happened in Bill 85 and otherbills as not employees against forming a union. being that far from what might be another step which has been talked about, the right-to-work legislation, * (2040) another misnomer, but essentially a direct attack on The fact is thatthe parties to the question are not the ability of any organization to collect dues, to equal and, regardless of labour legislation, never operate as an organization. have been. The employer always has the appreciate the perspective. justwant to focus employee in his or her power and debate between I I on one point and ask one specific question because them cannever be between equals. In the words of think it bears emphasizing. What you are saying, the learnedJudge Hand: I as I understand it from the brief, and I found the Language may serve to enlighten a hearer, quotation to be quite useful in that sanse, is that though it also betrays the speaker's feelings and essentially what has to be looked at here when we desires; but the light It sheds will be in some degree are talking about supposed freedom of speech or clouded ifthe hearer Is in his power. Arguments by the employers, is not so much what is said or what an employer directed to his employees have such not is said, but the impact-partlythe intent, but even an ambivalent character ...the privilege of free with or without intent-the impact of what is said speech protects them; but so far as they also given thefact thatan employer obviouslyhires, fires, disclose his wishes, as theygenerally do, they have promotes, demotes, and what an employer says to the force independentof persuasion . . . . Words are an employee in the exact same words may have not pebbles in allen juxtaposition ...but all in their absolutelyno meaning outside of the workplace, but aggregate take their purport from the setting in may have extreme meaning if you are an employee which they are used, of which the relation between and you are concerned about being laid off, the speaker and the hearer is perhaps the most demoted or, I suppose on the other side, perhaps important. What to an outsider will be no more than gettingsome advantage in terms of promotion. the vigorous presentation of a conviction, to an employee may be a manifestation of a So is that basically what you are saying, that this determination which it is not safe tothwart. opensup the ability for comments to really be made which use this position of power to exert undue shift of In itsatte mpts to the balance power in the influence on the employees? employer/employee relationships further towards the employer, 8111 85 contradicts almost 50 years of Mr. Clifford: The debate has got to be among Canadian public policy which has supported equals and an employer-employee relationship is unionization and collective bargaining as the most not. desirable method of mitigating industrial conflict. I would be quite happy to debatewith an associate Previously, when the force of law has various factors of this; I would be a lot more cautious unequivocably arrayed against unionization, if I were debating the same concept with my Canadian society was racked by debilitating superintendent. industrial conflict. The legitimation of collective Mr. Ashton: Thanks again. I think that bargaining and statutory support for the rights of perspective is important to the members of this workers to organize has institutionalized industrial committee. I appreciate the views of the MTS. conflict and stabilized our society as a whole. The Thanks very much. Manitoba Teachers' Society opposes 8111 85 insofar as it reduces employees' rights to organize Madam Chairperson: Are there any further themselvesfor free collective bargaining and turns questions? Thank you very much,Mr. Clifford. June 22, 1992 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 85

I would now like to call Richard Orlandini, down to the level of the right-to-work states in the Choices. Mr. Orlandini, do you have a written United States. That is an injustice to theworkers of submission that has been circulated, thatcan be? Manitoba. Mr.Richard Orlandlnl (Choices): No, I do not. In I had an opportunity to see those right-to-work the way of an explanatory note, I do not have a states in action before they were calledright-to-work written submission because I was informed that I states. In 1965 I was a civil rights worker in would be appearing before this committee this Alabama for Martin Luther King, and we sawwhat morning, and it really did not afford me the time to that government was prepared to do to people's do a comprehensive submission. rights; and, flowing outof those battles,we see what they are prepared to do to workers' rights in terms As a background, however, to what I want to say, of right-to-work legislation. This legislation, if a year ago I had the opportunity to be one of the enacted, is the goose step back into the 1930s. people who helped co-ordinate the fight back This legislation, if enacted, will be partof an erosion against Bill 70. In the course of that hearing, I that if you carry to its ultimate you will not only be watched with dismay what I considered to be an eroding workers' rights-but why do you not take it abrogation ofdemocratic rights. It will remain in my to full course? Why do you not in your level playing mindforever that 4:30-in-the-morning sitting, when field institute voter literacy tests, for instance? You the Chair read 500 names into the record on a will be on apar with Manitoba. Sunday morning, and500 people were refused their participation in this hearing because of that In your right-to-work legislation, and that is what essentiallyantidemocratic behaviour. we are talking about here, in levelling that playing field, you can take the workers of Manitoba to the I had hoped in comingbefore this committee that same level that child labouris in the United States. you would have learned something out of that experience. The phone call this morning that Yesterday's edition of the New York Timeson the informed me that I would be appearing today front page carried a very interesting article aboutthe dissuaded me of that hope. It brings to mind what right-to-work states, and thatis where you are taking a French republican once said of Louis XVIII, that it. More children are employed, often perilously, he had surrounded himself by men who had and they are talking right-to-work here. On the job forgotten nothing and learned nothing. they suffer amputations, burns, deep cuts and electrocutions. At least several hundred a year are I come before you today not to deal with the killed. Child labour-14- to 16-year-olds. Is that the specifics of Bill 85, because the trade union kind of !9vel playing field that you want to enact? representatives, I think, have been more than Because that is thedirection you are taking withthis eloquent in their protestation as to what that bill kind of legislation, this kind of erosion of the hard entails, but I would like to deal with something that fought rights that workers have achieved over a is more general in nature butyet specificto Bill 85. period of time in thisprovi nce. We in Choices view this particular piece of legislation as reactionary, regressive, part of a * (2050) continuing erosion of workers' democratic rights. It is appalling really to watch thedirection you are We asked ourselves, why might they be doing this, going. If this governmenthad any guts at all, rather aside fromthe ideological considerations that that is than bringing in this kind of reactionary bill, you to be expected from the Tories? would be fighting a North American Free Trade I hear ministers of the Progressive Conservative Agreement and then you would not have to worry government constantly prattling on about meeting a about thisbloody level playing field. As it is, you are level playing fieldto go into the negotiations for the taking us down a long and rocky road, hardly a NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement, and I think worthyone of any governmentin Canada. that is the crux of the issue here. I think you are Rnally, in dealing with someof the specifics ofBill trying to erode workers' democratic and trade union 85, I noticed that you are calling for changing rights so that you can establish what you consider automatic certification from 55 to 65 percent. An to be a level playing field, and in your toadying to interesting, if not antidemocratic concept. Perhaps your federal counterparts, you are hurting the we should apply the same measure to election of a people of Manitoba. In looking for a level playing Legislature. Sixty-five percent, I would hazard a field, you are trying to take our labour legislation guess that most if notall of you at this table would 86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

not be here. Given that, maybe the measures do with Mexico? Do you think It is part of a bigger have some merit. Given a 65 percent majority, agenda? maybe the measure does have some merit. Mr. Orlandlnl: Oh, l believe Itis. I believe thatIt is The legislation is working. It ain't broke; you do certainly part of a bigger agenda. I think the worst not have to fixit. In fixing it you are only going along elements of this bill are even beyondthe scope and with, in my view, repressive legislation that is imagination of some of the troglodytes in the coming forth on theinternational scale for the North Chamberof Commerce. It isvery, very distressing American Free Trade Agreement. We do not need legislation. I could offer some unsolicited advice, it. The workers do not need it. This government that if thebill does pass, Itnot be sent in the federal would be doing ltseH proudto withdraw it. mail. There is antipornography legislation in place Thank you. and I would suggest to you that this bill is both Mr. Ashton: I, first of all, want to Indicate that I obscene and has no sociallyre deeming values. remember 4:30 in the morning last year, last July, Mr.Asht on: You have no disagreement from our quite well, and I can indicate that you are right, it was caucus onthat. Thanks once again. I note that last not democraticand I can assure you that it will not year you did not get a chance to present at be forgotten, not justin terms of the incident but the committee. I am sure it must have been awful hopes, to my mind, that our committee hearing tempting at times. It was quite an educational processwill never sink thatlow again. I really thank process, I think, for all of us in te.rms of some of the you for that statement again, that reminder to concerns expressed. Similarly, with this, I really members of the committee and other members of welcome your comments and your participation in the public about what happened last year. thiscomm ittee. Thanks very much. Just one question, because I appreciated the Madam Chairperson: Are there any further perspective you applied in terms of right-to-work questions? Thank you very much. I wouldnow like states, and what is happening in the United States to call upon Bernard Christophe, United Food and becausequ ite frankly, I have expressedconcern for Commercial Workers. I think all committee a number of years, going backto statementsmade members have the written submission in front of by membersof this government, then in opposition them. by the way. A little less fettered in terms of what they say or what they do not say when the Mr. Bernard Christophe (United Food and Conservative caucus then said they supported Commercial Workers): Tory blue? Oh, my God. Perhaps this is to appeal to theirsenses, you see, right-to-work legislation. perhaps to have some greater interest in what I am I really believe that the only thing that is going to present. preventing us from slipping into that sort of situation-end it is a misnomer, right to work is not Madam Chairperson, members of the committee, right to work, it is right to destroy any collective my name is Bernard Christophe,and I represent the organization, including unions. The only thing that United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local is keeping itfrom that, I think, is the efforts of people 832, which represents 14,000 members in the such as yourself, people within the labour province of Manitoba. We are the largest private­ movement, the public of Manitoba who would just sector union in Canada and Manitoba. We not accept that, because I really believe that, given negotiate collective bargaining agreements for the chance, many of the Conservatives would some 145 different bargaining units. Some introducethat. collective agreements cover two or three employees, and others 4,000 employees. But I want to just ask you one very specific question in regard to that and in regard to the First of all, I am not so sure I want to give any comments you made about the North American credence to one person who spoke before six Free Trade Agreement. Is it your opinion that, from o'clock, but he mentioned my name and I did not what you are saying, this bill is being driven not just have a chance to rebut. I want to do it now. by the local Chamber of Commerce having some I do not want you to think for a moment that we election IOUs to the Conservative Party, but by a sued adefe nceless little girl for a million dollars, and broader agenda, and that is levelling the playing did it deliberately so, without the other side of the field,presumably not only with the United States but story, which was: We had a strikeagainst Westfair, June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 87

which you are all too familiar with, and certainly I them so that they could be identified. Ofcourse , our was. A strike vote had been taken. The majority legal counsel happened to be of the same Jewish had voted in favour of. She decided to exercise her faith, and said, hey, wait a minute, do you not right and cross a picket line, andwas, with the help remember in Germany they used to have numbers of management, inside the store circulating false too on them? I think he abandoned this idea. information about the position that the union had But I would like to tell you, of all the time spent, taken. the money spent, the aggravation, the tragedy, As a result of that, we filed alleged unfair labour which labour legislation in Canada and Manitoba, practices,and alleged that the other 1 ,400 members fortunately, had brought within perspective-and we whose majority has decided to vote in favour of no longer have to do, as they did 60 years ago, to strike action, that this employer, and we named 1 0 overturn buses and go to prison-tohave the right to other management representatives, was assisting represent workers. I surely do not have to tell you that personin weakening the effectof the strike and the contribution the labour movement has made to passing false information. We said that their right this province and this country overthe years. I think was affected, and all of them were affected, and we this has been recognized, I am happy to say, by multiplied 1 ,400 by 2,000, which is the maximum most governments. penalty under the act, and that obviously amounted However, when it comes to amendment to 8111 85, to millions of dollars, but I should tell you that it had we believe that it will tilt the delicate balance the necessary effect. between management and labour In favour of Our application was withdrawn. She never lost management. There are no facts orevidence that her job even after the strike was ended. So I just exists to justify these changes or amendments. The wanted to correct the record. There is one thing I Manitoba business community has not suffered or want to make clear too. There was a sad incident gone out of business or had difficultyin operatingits which, I think, during the strike-a tragic one-which business because ofthe existing Manitoba labour illustrates why there should be labour legislation, Relations Act. and even then the labour legislation we were • (2 100) seekingat the time was not in place, and I am talking with the final offer selection. We believe the amendment as a political commitment made bythe present government tothe One produce manager went home. He was Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. The changes working in the store during the strike. He had will make it easier for some employer to take chosen to cross the picket line and he had the right advantage of Manitobans earning minimum wage to do that. Sometime during the evening he heard and will make it more difficult for employees to be a noise at his back yard, he took his revolver, and represented by a union. I want to make two points believing thatsomebody was tampering with his car, here: I am not suggesting that the Chamber of shot the person, which happened to be his Commerce does not fulfilla role among employers, neighbour, who had nothing to do with Super Valu. but when it comes to labour relations, they have The tragedy is, and the moral of the story is, if always, in my opinion, been living in the past. They there were othermeans to resolve labour disputes always believe that-and I have a quote later on from than by strikes, when the employer decides to an employer, not in Manitoba but in Ontario, who continue to operate, some unfortunately ugly illustrates the knee-jerk reaction of employers who incidents take place. We were suggesting at the are not yet unionized about the coming of trade time another humane way to resolve the dispute, unions. other than the labour dispute-and final offer The Chamber of Commerce in Manitoba, in selection was such an event-thistragedy may never particular, has always believed that if trade unions have occurred. come into their establishment, thatwill be the end of During that strike, too, the legal profession was their business. I do not know of one single trade involved drawing lines on the pavementas to where union or this union when organizing or representing people should picket. One learned judge who was their employees who has wanted to put them out of of, I think, the Jewish faith, went as far as saying he business, or, in fact, which resulted in them going had a problem with not identifying picketers and out of business after they sign a mutually perhaps what they should do is paint a number on satisfactory collective bargaining agreement, or 88 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

even one thatwas imposed by a first agreement, by In regard to Section 2.2, our view is also that the the way. repeal of this section is clearly intended to deny So I justwanted to say that in regard to some of employees the benefit of being represented by a theirrequests , it is not justified. The amendmentin labour union in the same bargaining unit as other the present form might be a recipe to stop unions employees, even though they may have a from being certified. Businesses which do not do community of interest. well in Manitoba, do not locate in Manitoba, do so Before the minister reminds me that I am on because of the recession or free trade and not labour relationscomm ittee, he isright, I do not know becauseof existingManitoba Labour Relations Act. if It was jointly accepted, and if it was, then the These amendments, we believe, are antiunion employer must have been very persuasive, I did not following two successive years of antiunion attend one of those meetings. But anyway, I just wanted to say that to you. amendments, specifically the removal of the final offer selection, and I can tell you that it worked The nextpoint has to do with the amendment 3, because it acted very often as a deterrent by both, if you will, in striking out the word "Every" and with the union and the employer not to have the substituting "Subject to subsection 32(1) ...." We selector select for them. It compelled the party to have no objection per se to this amendment. reach an agreement that was acceptable to both In regard to the repeal of subsection 6(2). The sides. repeal of subsection6(2) removes the onus on the Although many applications have been made­ employer not to interferein the formation of a trade and I tell you, I am very proud and happy to identify union. This removal very clearly, in our view, clears myseH or ourselves as oneof thosetwo unions who the way for employers to do everything possible to have made frequent use of the right under The stop their employees from forming a trade union. Labour RelationsAct, but we do so because we are The only persons who will benefitare theempl oyers in thepri vate sector. We do so because it does not who, in some instances, may continue to pay their employees minimum wage and treatthem unfairly say, you shall only use the act twice a year. We do and unjustly. so because we have planned to deliver for the membership we represent. They do not want to The reason I mention that is because these often wait threeyears andwhen it comes, for example, to are the reasons why people join trade unions, expedite arbitration, they want their grievance obviously. I am not going to suggest for a moment settled and settle them quickly without going to that all employers are treating their employees in arbitration. that way, even those who are nonunion. I am saying that thereare many who, when doingso, may Because we acceptanybody who wants to join deny theseempl oyees who needthe representation our union, being small or large, and because many of a union the opportunity to be represented by of the employers in theprivate sectordo not want a them. A further amendment to The Labour union, do not even want to make the effort to Relations Act later on in fact clarifiesthis intent and negotiate a fair collectiveagre ement, we are often that disturbs us. left with no alternative to apply for first contract In regard to items (a) to (f) of thesame Section 3, legislation or go expedite at arbitration. But I want we have no objection to these amendments,which to tell you this, that from the many applications we we considercosmetic; however, the new subsection made, and the record will show, only about four or (f) gives licence to an employer to say whatever he five, for example, a veryfew, actually go all the way or she wants to stop an employee from joining a to the arbitrator havingto make the decision, or even union. The words "communicates to an employee in expediting arbitration, the same happened. a statement of fact or an opinion reasonably held In 70 or 80 percent of instances, grievances are with respect to the employer's business" disturbs us settled without going to arbitration through the greatly. Clearly, this could mean that the assistance of a conciliation officer, who do an employer's "reasonably held opinion," is that if the outstanding job, by the way, to bring parties union, although democratically chosen by its together. So I just want to say I make no apology employees, comes in, he will hold the opinion that for utilizing it because I think it is therefor thebenefit he will go out of businessbecause he will notbe able of employees who are citizens of this province. to pay the wages and benefits, without often the June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 89

benefit of collectivebarg aining or even looking at the The employer, remember, has already an proposals that the union might make. immense influential power over its employees Many employers in this province who are because the employer pays the wages, hires the nonunion hold that view. In a recent statement in employee, fires the people and any words or The Globe & Mail as related to the province of indication of displeasure will be interpreted by the Ontario, by the way, some employers were recorded employee as detrimental to them, even though the as saying, ifthe unioncomes in the front door, I will opinions, reasonably held, are sometimesfalse and close up business and move outthrough the back baseless. door. I believe some employers in Manitoba and in We personally have no objection for an employer the Chamber of Commerce hold that view without to communicate to an employee any statement of justification, but this is the myth or the image they factsdealing with its business as long as Itis factual. have of trade unions. That amendment will give This, however, as long as it is not designed to them an opportunityto say that. discourage employees and intimidate them and as long as again it is factual. I should tell you that although under the present legislation, they are barred to employers' We propose, therefore, that the words •or an interference, I can, right off the top of my head, give opinion reasonably held with respect to an you three recentones that we are in the process of employer's businessB be deleted from the organizing, andthe Manitoba Labour Board record legislation. If this statement stays, the employer will substantiate what I have to say. One with has a captive audience. A statement made by the Northern Meat, which we organized, and two employer will not be rebutted, particularly when the employees were fired for, we alleged, union trade union may not be given such information, or the statement that the employer had given. activities. We went to theLabour Board, the Labour Board agreed with us, had themordered rei nstated, In addition, we propose that if this government the employer still refused to reinstate them, and I keeps subsection (f) in The Labour RelationsAct, or think finallythey gave in. introduces it, that a statement of facts be made in writing to employees and said statement be given to In anotherinstance, the Thunderbird truck drivers, the trade union on request. In this fashion, if the which are a native group who drive, I think, employer statement is false or incorrect, then a handicapped people around. One of these prospective bargaining agent will have an employees was also fired during the organizing opportunityto rebut them. drive. We have nodoubt whatsoever that theintent was to intimidate the otherem ployees. The matter, Furth&;,in amendment No. 7, theunion organizer I think, is before the Labour Board, has been dealt is required to explain the union's restructure before the workers sign a union card. If that is so, and with. I am not so sure of the outcome at that point. if these similarly should be required to give its In anotherorganizing drive we are in the process employee a statement offact and give a copy to the of being involved in, one employee has been fired. trade union, what is good for the goose is goodfor I cannot name the employer at this time, but it is a the gander. case where the firing of an employee has frozen in In regard to the removal of the words ,hreat, B their track the will of the other employees, obviously "intimidationB or "coercionB from the titles, the to join the union. removal of the heading here simply removes the What I want this committee to know is emphasis that threats, intimidation and coercion are intimidation, in spite of what is in the present act, still not acceptable and we believe should be retained. happens. If you allow an employer to have that We object to the increase for automatic position of telling their employee an opinion that they certification to have 65 percent or more instead of reasonably held-onceagain some hold the opinion, 55 percent. This once again clearly is designed to reasonably, that ifthe union comes In, that is theend make it moredifficult for an employee to join a union of them, they might as well fold their doors and go and gives greater opportunity to theem ployer, with out of business. We will communicate this to their the previous amendment, to threaten or intimidate employee. That, in my opinion, would obviously Its employee from joining a trade union. discourage theem ployee to join the union. Governments in Manitoba are elected, or can be * (21 10) elected for the whole province with a 35 percent 90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

vote. Ifit were to be equal, then trade unions should of a union fails toprovide this informationto a single be able to represent all employees and bargain for employee as outof perhaps a unit of 1 ,000. them with only 35 percent support. Instead, this This is clearly an antiunion amendment and proposed amendment makes the percentage engineered deliberately to make employees who needed more difficult and again clearly casts this want a union fail. It is impossible during an government as antiunion as they make it more organizing drive when you organize hundreds of difficult. people to necessarily absolutely guarantee that Again there was no basis and factual evidenceto each and every employee will be given that showthat employees who have indicated more than information, althoughthey are very often askedfor 55 percent supportof theirown free will did not want it. It will make it easy for persons acting on behalf a trade union. of the employer to have this application or Therefore, the increase by 10 percent is unfair certificationfa il. and undemocratic. The 55 percentshould remain. While I was sittingthere and hearing other people Let me tell you that mostorganizing drives do not making presentations, and the same caveat that my happen within afew minutes. We do not sign all the colleague made, althoughI am not in favour ofit, if cards instantly. There have been instances where, the words "dismiss the application," if this wording from the time we began the organizing drive and was removed, and, to answer Mrs. Carstairs, some began signing people, somepeople have chosenof statement in the legislation, not in the regulation, to their own free will to cancel their cards. They can this effect, would be made part of the act: if a do so now. They have done so; ofcourse, we have statementsigned by an employee who has signed respected thatand taken their card out and, in fact, a union card indicates that she has been given have not, naturally, utilizedtheir card. information in regard to what he or she will be In some instances, we have not applied for expected to pay or reasonably to pay in regard to certification because of those happening. So the union dues, or theprocedure thatthe union intends opportunity is there if they want to send back the to utHizeto arrive at union dues, thisshall constitute vacuumcleaner, as somebody indicated. Again, no proof and compliance with Section45( 3). orga11izing drive takes place in the middle of the I thinkthis is something that perhaps underthe night while nobodyis looking,and the nextmorning circumstances could be acceptable. The reason I everybodyis signedup. Itjust does not happen that said to add thewords orthe procedure to arrive at way. Sometimes it takes several months, and union dues,because I think Mr. Rapermade a very duringthat periodof time,if they wish to change their good point. He said that in his union structure they mind,they obviouslycan do so and have done so. may form alocal union with this new bargaining unit Insofar as lowering of the45 percentto 40 percent and the employees democratically will decide how to obtain a vote, I can only repeat what some of my much their union dues are going to be. He would colleagues have said, this Is totally meaningless. neverbe in the positionto be able to tell themwhat My experiencehas beenthat 40 percent or moreof they will be because the workers themselveswould the employees support unions. Unless there is decidewhat it would be. management interference, a vote will not change So, ifyou hadwords , again, indicating that ifthey theresult-40 per cent supportis 40 percent support. sign a statement and if they have signed a union Itdoes not translate to 55 percent or 65 percent. card, that indicates they have been given that Now, dealing with the provision of 7(1 ), this in information or the procedure to arrive atthe dues, itself is not an unreasonable request and is an item that shall constitute proof of compliance. that is routinely provided by union organizers. In my opinion, that would be more acceptable When I say it is not unreasonable, it is because we than, for example, the proposition that any do it all thetime, and I really object, too, that this be employee who alleged that his card will beremoved, in factleg islated. The most disturbing aspect of it is the only problem with that is that we would not what follows. accept that necessarily. We would want evidence Amendment 7(2), however, changes the real of that. We would have to go before the Manitoba intent of 45(3.1) by allowing the Manitoba Labour Labour Board. Then how is the board going to Board to dismiss, emphasis, the application for decide when a union organizer meets an employee certification if a union or a person acting on behalf alone somewhere and this organizer explains the June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVEAS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 91

due structure to him, and then maybe because he Perhaps, ifyou were to add another (c) part to the wants to change his mind or whatever, then he will 68(3)-egain, I do not thinkit should be ther&-but if say, no, it was never explained to me? you had a (c) part that would read •or 30 or 60 It is going to be very difficultto induce evidence calendar days has elapsed since the appointment and would create delay or the Labour Board to have of the concl6ation officerand a collectiveagreement to decide who is telling the truth. To have that in, I has not been reached, thenthe conciliation officer think might-although I am not in favour of it, would shall, for thepurpose of 7(1) notifythe board and the be something that probably we could, if it has to be party in writing that, after making reasonable effort, in the act, then we could perhaps deal with it that no firstagr eement has been concluded." way. We have no problem at all in making an effort to In regard to amendmentNo. 8, the electioneering reach an agreement before the Labour Board deals on voting day, I realize one of my colleaguesmakes with the question of imposing a first collective a point to eliminate the part dealing with other acts agreement. We have no problem with that at all. I and so on, which I really agree. But basically, I have think it should be there. no objection to this amendment as such. I think Conciliation officer now, by the way, it is basically employees in most instances have made mandatory, eitheraccor ding to therules of the board up their minds before the voting date which way they or the legislation, that before theboard deals with a are going to vote, probably the same as when they first contract application, a conciliation officer be elect politicians. The last day may not necessarily appointed. I have no problem withthat, butit should be the day that they are going to make up their not be open ended. minds. So in that instance, and I think at the Labour Again, I think the conciliation officer would feel Management Review Committee, I think we had much more comfortable to indeed assistthe party to some agreement in regard to that issue. reach an agreement providing thaton their shoulder In regard to item No. 9, we are opposed to these they do not have the weight of deciding who has changes which will destroy-this is where the made the reasonable effort and who hasnot. As I conciliation officernow becomes involved in judging said, they have been, I think, overall very successful whether theparties have made reasonable effortto in Manitoba, are respected by both labour and conclude an agreement. We are opposed to these management andnow they are going to take sides. changes which would destroy the neutrality of I do not think many of them feel very comfortable conciliationofficers who have traditionally played an with that, but if there was a time limit, I think that impartial role in trying to bring both partiesto reach probably would be more acceptable. an agreement. It will destroy their neutrality Item 1 0, although this section was not a because it will have to determine or make a mandatory section, it nevertheless was a clear judgment that the partieshave made a reasonable indication which both sides could look at during effortor not made a reasonable effort to conclude collective bargaining and should have stayedas is an agreement. in thepresent legislation. One person's opinion may differ from another in Number 11 , again this is a follow-up on the regard to what reasonable effort means. Besides, conciliation officer, and we are opposed to the that conciliation officer does not want to be placed conciliation officerbecom inga judge or substituting in the position of being an arbitrator, a judge or a for the Labour Board. We have madea suggestion labour board. This has potential for a delay in the for that. bargaining process. In regard to amendment 11 (2) to 11 (6), we have If this section were to remain, there should be a no objection to the party selecting an arbitrator to maximum number of days such as 30 or 60 days settle their first contract. If both feel comfortable from the date the conciliation officer has been that it should bethe case, then I think it is worthwhile appointed. Otherwise, if the conciliation officer is to perhaps have. too busy with other cases and cannot meet, this Item 11 (2) to (6), I think is a repetition of what I could drag on for a very long time, which in my view said. would be unfair to both management and labour. Item 12, we are opposed to the removal of • (21 20) subsection 130(6) because a vice-chairperson of 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

the Manitoba Labour Board should have the about it. The previous presenter, I think it was Mr. opportunity also to act as an arbitrator in an Raper, who correctly indicated that ifthe employer arbitration board, which is an additional source of threatenedthe employees in some way or another, income based on the fact that the position of it is verydifficult for the employees to testify to the vice-chairperson for the board is not a full-time board against their employer, against theirboss. position. It would make it Jess likely to have My suggestion only in terms of fact,if there are someone familiar and experienced in labour some facts, and they say, look, this is our balance relations ifthis additional opportunitywas removed sheet; you can see it clearly demonstrated; this is from them. our profits and losses; you should know aboutthis. In conclusion, again many of those amendments Then, ifthat is made available to the employee, the are unnecessary; not based on facts or evidence; trade union should have the right, as I suggested, to will notim prove the economicsituation in Manitoba; obtaina copy in the event that this· fact would not be will not create jobs; will not entice business to locate substantiated or correct. in Manitoba; have the potential to deprive That would be the only-1 prefer not to have that, employees on minimum wage to beunfairly treated quite frankly. I prefer not to have the other proposal and not representedby a union; are indeed some of or amendment. My concern is within the confines the recommendations of the Chamber of of theplant of the unit. The employer who now fires Commerce; are not in the best interests of the employees during organizing drives will have even citizens of Manitoba. Many of those amendments more freedomto intimidate them and scarethem. should be either withdrawn, substantially changed "Statement of fact; their facts, that is onething, or amended. For these above reasons, I ask you either to vote against or change them or amend but "opinion reasonably held; this is loose. They will hold the opinionthat, if the union comes in, they them. will go out ofbusiness, the employees will lose their Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Christophe. jobs, thatwould be the end it.of It never is the case. Mr.Praznlk: Mr. Christophe,first of all, I would like That alone never contributed to an employer losing to thankyou for an excellent presentation. I like the his business. form�t of it. It is very easy to follow through all of Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Christophe, you, on page 7 of your proposals. If I may just for a moment, I your presentation, refer tothe heading and we have appreciate as well identifying those proposals in had some discussions. I think our draftspeople which you have agreement, or would recommend made some changes there, so your pointis certainly that theyfind their way into this act. noted, and I would have you lookat that- I am curious with respect to your comments on Mr. Christophe: I had not noticed. fact and opinion reasonably held in terms of disclosure. With respect to opinion reasonably Mr.Praznlk: -valid point. held, does the inclusion of the word "objective· On page 9 of yourdraft, the intent of thatparti cular opinion, doesthat give a little more satisfaction or a provision-some of the otherpresenters have made little more comfort? I can appreciate the point one references to it-was, by and large, to mirror the makes about a subjective opinion that bears no controverted election provisions of The Elections resemblance to fact of being the concernthat you Act, which is that each vote, whether a vote would raise. Would that provide a greater comfort level? be counted out or not, whether or not you would Because I think our intent was to allow someone, as have an election or change thescheme or the result, you agreed with, to make a statement of fact. would depend on the number of people affected. Sometimes the facts are objective opinions as to a So your comment is certainly appreciated and noted particularmatter, but they have to be tested against by myself. some standard. I am just wondering ifthat would- I also note here that one of-your reference to Mr. Christophe: No, it really would not because havingsome sortof staMory wording was an issue objectives in the pure definition of the word are, I that we had considered. It was our decision, at the think,unders toodin the dictionary, butin the context time, to leave that to each individual union to of the workplace where the employer has a captive determine. I wanted to have flexibility in that audience, that would not satisfy my fear and my provision. I gather that it would be very likely that concern because, again, we often would not hear most unions would include some reference on the June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 93

membership card. I have had a chance at looking some of the things you are suggesting. On the at the membership cards thatUFCW uses and other information to be provided to employees on due unions, and they are fairly extensive in their structure, et cetera, you are suggesting a specific information. So I take it, it would not be too difficult wording that would be signed off, which is more to add an appropriate wording to the card which evidentiary, more of an affidavit that individuals likely would have evidentiary purposes before the have been provided theinformation, so as to avoid Labour Board. extensive complications that might arise underthe I am a little concerned about a statutory wording currentwor ding. because then I have restricted what youcan put on Mr. Christophe: Yes, well, what I am suggesting your card, but I do note your comments about is perhaps the addition of asentence on the card or processas well. whatever that would clearly reproduce the words * (2130) that I suggested. If they were contained on the card, Mr.Christophe: Yes, process is the key because when the person signed the balance of the card, it even if we put this on the card, this may or may not would contain that statement. That would be a be accepted by the board. This may or may not be proof in compliance with Section43 as opposedto challenged by the lawyer representing some having a hearing as to whether an employee objecting employee, and this statement will have a alleging that he has not been given information is guarantee of what your intent is, and also our correct or not. guarantee that if we comply, if we provide them that Mr. Ashton: Which I think is a very useful information,the employee agreed that we did, then suggestion. It is something I think that this there will not be a hearing on whether indeed did we committee should look at in terms of amendments. provide, did we not. I justwant to go a little bit further as well and to Mr.Praz nlk: Mr. Christophe, your point is certainly clarify in terms of, on the other side, what an noted, and I wanted to indicate to you, as well, that employer can make, whether it be a statement of your comments with respect to the use of first fact or opinion, and you gotinto that. I think thatwe contract, I certainly appreciate if it is in the law, it is are fairly clear in terms of that. You are suggesting there, it is a tool to be used, and there is noharm in that if there is going to be wording ofthis type, that that. The concern that we had in bringing this it be in writing in a similar way that you are forward was that there shouldbe an opportunityfor suggesting for the informationto employees. conciliation to work. Your concern is noted as well and we are certainly going to take that into Mr.Christophe: Yes, you see, it is notthat I am­ consideration. thankyou, Madam Chairperson. I realize I have to I should just point out to you, though, we were wait for the tape presumably to go on. talking about Labour Management Review I haveno problem with people,union or employer, Committee. I understand therepeal of Section 83 disseminatingfactual information. If it is fact and if was one of the unanimous recommendations, as it exists, the key is when and how and whetherthey well. are in fact factualor not. That is our concern. Thank you for your presentation. H theyare factual, andwe have an opportunityto Mr.Christophe: Thankyou very much. what it is, thenwe have-and If it is incorrector false, Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I also wish to the same as the employer would correct us, we commend the presenter on a very detailed, very would like an opportunity to do the same with the useful presentation. We are very much in a similar employer, if this is allowed. I would prefer that it not situation to yourself in the sense oflooking at a bill, be there, but if it is and we know about it, then if it is large sections of which, in substance, are incorrect, we have an opportunity to rebut it. The objectionable to us. On the other hand, we are in employees can really decide thenwhich is the best the dilemma that if we simply oppose and not tryto way for them to go. amend it, we will end up with a bill that will be far Mr.Asht on: Once again, itseems to be some way more disastrous thaneven a bad bill would make it. of getting some more balance in what we feel is an I want to focus in on a couple of the points you unbalanced bill, and it is certainly a legitimate raised toget some clear indicationto thecommittee, suggestion from them. 94 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

A further question: In terms of the section in I am wondering if you can give some sense to regard tothe powersof the board in dealing with the anyoneon this committee on the government'sside question of information provided to employees by who perhaps has not been in that sort of the union in terms of dues, it very clearly states in situation-many may nothave been a member of a thecurrent act as proposedthat the board may have union, or even thought about what it is like-what the abilityto dismissthe application in theproposed happens as to whether it is a serious decision or Section 45(4). Now you have suggested wording not? Does the union just go in, decide this is going on the sign-up that might prevent a lot of dispute to be certified, or does it require the support of prior to getting to that stage. Although the minister people in the workplace itself? What reallyhappens said the Intent is not to allow that, would you in a certification drive? recommend, based on your reading of this, that I am hoping through your expertise that you can section on dismissalof the application be taken out, give members ofthis committee perhaps a bitof a in the sense thatone disputed card would then not betteridea than Is demonstrated certainlyin this bill be able to be usedto dlsm iss the entire application? of what really happens when workers say yesto a Mr. Christophe: Well, most definitely. I think the union. dismissal just on a card or two cards is the ultimate Mr. Christophe: Well, I think some of my other penalty and could result in no certification almost colleagues have clearly explained that, I think quite ever succeeding. That would be devastating if adequately in the sense that when an employee allowed to go into the bill. It is a penalty imposed wants to form a union, we obviouslydo not go there thatshould not be there. and sign the card for them; they have to make their own decision of their own free will, and sometimes Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I appreciate we succeed andsomet imes we do not. some of the other comments, by the way, and suggested amendments. I just have one final There are instances, I donot mind telling you, not question. too long ago where we did not succeed. We did not have a majority of people. I do notmind telling you Throughoutthe day andinto this evening, I have the place; Canadian Tire was one of them, and the been referencing the fact that obviously the managementhad done a very good job,I guess, to governmentcaucus has broughtthis bill in andthere convince people that we should not represent them. may be different views within the government Right now I think they, whatever they did was caucus. I think some people would probably say effective and we were not, so no matter how much upfront that they are against unions, but it appears we wanted to organize thisparticular company, we there is another influence in the bill. That is, some were not successful. We are notalways successfu l, might not say that, but, as I have said earlier, seem we do notcome in the middle of the night as some to feelthat when people sayye s, to a union they do people believe and the next morning everybody is notmean It,or theyare really saying only maybe, or signedup andnobody knows what theydid. Itdoes theywere coerced intimor idated. nothappen that way. You probably read Hansard, I am sure, many I also explain that an organizing drivetakes some times. One ofthe sort of scenarios thatofte n is built timeto organize from the date the first cardis signed. up is some union comes in unwanted, and then Almost invariably, on occasion, there are some forces employees to sign up and they do not know people who change their mindsand we accept that. what they are signing up for. Then all of a sudden I mean, they have done it and we have withdrawn they are a member of a union, and the mentality their application andthey were not partof the card being, and much of It in this bill, to my mind, being we submitted, orwe did not apply at all. thatsomething happened along the way. So there is already-and there is one more thing Your union is in terms of volume of certifications people should know, once a union is certified, we obviously one of the most significant. It is the are not there necessarilyto represent theem ployee largest union in terms of the retail sector, et cetera, forever and a day. As the act says, after a year and in Canada. Also, because of the nature of the retail a half or two years or three, every year there is a sector, you have a lot of different units. You are window ofopportunity, and if the employees do not involved with a lot of certification questions, a lot of want the union, they can apply for decertification, so different unitsapplying for certification. we have to earn their support. It is not just a June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 95

one-shot affair. If they are not satisfied with us, they detailed amendments andsome of your experience will get rid of us. I mean, it is that simple. We have that you broughtto the committeewill help persuade no illusions about this. It already exists in the act; some of the government members of the committee, so, this is why we said, and my colleague said, and at least, to understand that all that is really being I said that there was no need for these changes or asked for in terms of labour relations is the same these amendments, and if there were some, then democratic principles that we have in everyday life, they should be changed so that it does not tilt the which is the ability to choose without being subject balance, which was a delicate balance. to intimidation or-1 cannot imagine anyone going Amendments to the act in the past were not just through anything like that with theprocess of voting taken out of the air; they were based on many in a provincial election, of being spied upon and experiences. harassed and losing their job, et cetera.

* (21 40) So I can indicate that is our fight on this Therewas one I shall never forget. I should relate committee, is to make sure those principles, as far that to you. Valdi opened some small convenience as possible, are followed in The Labour Relations store in Manitoba, perhaps some of you remember. Act. So thanks again, for an excellent presentation. Valdi was owned by Steinberg, a company who Madam Chairperson: Are there any further since have been selling their stores in the province questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Christophe. of Quebec and elsewhere. When they came to I am just going-<>h, one more name to call, Harry town we proceeded to organize them. The Mesman, Private Citizen. manager called some of the employees one at a Okay, I am going to go through the list one more time, or told his manager howto stop the union by time for people whom I had called earlier and who firing them and so on and so forth. But it did not stop were not present: Roland Doucet, Rob Hilliard, Rob there. They were so intent on stopping the union, deGroot, Donna Poitras or Dennis Ceiko. I am they advised two of their managers to park in front sorry, your name is- of the Labour Board with their cars to see which of their employees were going in. Mr.Roland Doucet (PrivateCitizen) : I am Roland Doucet. Lo and behold comes a policeman and their car-it was like a Keystone Cops operation-was parked Madam Chairperson: Okay, Roland Doucet, do right in front ofa bank because there is a bank right you have a writtenpresentati on, Mr. Doucet? Okay. across on Portage Avenue. Mr. Doucet: First of all, I am not going to go So the cop came and said, "What are you doing specifically through the amendments and to try to here, what is your name?" They thought they were detail what is going on because we all know that. casing the place. So they got their names and we That has been covered thoroughly by several utilized those policemen to testify in our favour that people far better than I could. they really intended to stop their employees and go I would just like to say, we know exactly what is to the extent of watching who was going in. going on here. No matter how many details there So if you think-and in those days by the way, are, no matter what it might look like, we all know there was no ability for the board which now exists the purpose of the amendments is to make it more if there is interference by the employer and where difficultto organize. It is as simple as that. they stop the employee they have the discretion at It is amendments to the legislation that has been one point to certify, did not exist in those days. But put forth by the Chamber of Commerce, and its the board took a strong stand at that time and purpose is to make it more difficult to organize. We ordered, very unusual that we be allowed to go in all know that the people in our economy who have the store, they had to post a notice, but the reason a strong bargaining position do not have all that I illustrate that is that it became a textbook case, by much trouble to organize, possibly. So the way, right across Canada, as to what not to do amendments such as these, they will make it difficult in an organizing drive, to what extent the employer for those who need to organize the most, the most goes sometimes to stop trade unions. Valdi was a vulnerable, ofcourse . typical case of what could happen. Before I really get going, I would like to quote Mr.Asht on: Madam Chairperson, I would like to something from the very first paragraph, the very thank the presenter. I hope that some of the first page of The Labour Relations Act as it stands: 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

"WHEREAS it is in the public interest of theProvince some democracy of the workplace. It is supposed of Manitoba to furtherharmonious relations between to be an absolute legal right to be able to have employers and employees"-in the public interest, it democracy of the workplace. says-"by encouraging the practice and procedure Yet, in this day and age, we have a government of collective bargaining between employers and that passes legislation, an amendment that we unions as the freely designated representatives of know-we do not need to think twice about it-that is employees." meant to make it difficult, ifnot impossible, for some Just about every jurisdiction across Canada, of these people to have some kind of democracy. probably every one of them, has a preamble to their Of course, the most vulnerable are recent labour relations act that is similar to this. immigrants, women, single women, poverty­ Since after the war,when PC 1003 was enacted stricken women who work two jobs just to barely by the federal governmentto legalize or to recognize make it. legally the presence of labour unions, this was the What kind of recourse do people like that have if focus of having labour unions: the public interest of they are harassed on the job? Nothing, absolutely trying to increase the power of workers, trying to nothing. I talk to people who get harassed by right the imbalance between labour and capital. supervisors, sexually harassed. They do not have That was the intent, not because they liked certain workers or they liked unions. It was perceivedto be recourse to anything-police, lawyers. What can a for the public good, because we all know individual poverty-stricken woman do? workers are completely vulnerable in front of their The trade union is absolutely the only avenue of employer, and withoutthe right to organize we know having some recourse to some justice, some what happens. collective action, some democracyof the workplace, Employers do not make any bones about it. Their a steward to go to, somebody who has some ideas bottom line is the bottom line, maximize their profits, of how to proceed where there is an organization and they know very well how to do that. Vulnerable behindto give her some protection. These are the employees cannot possibly deal with any strength people who will not be able to organize because of in trying to get decent wages and decent conditions. the demands of these amendments, requiring 65 The long and short of it is, of course, that without percent that has been covered before. Imagine if trade unions workersfall into poverty. It is as simple we had such a requirement for elected office. Only as that. Mr. Ashton here would be elected from comments I So the people of Manitoba can expect more from heard before. their government than to have a piece of The simple point, we have to keep going back to legislation-in this day and age, a piece of legislation, the simple point, is democracy. People want to an amendment to legislation that is strictlyfor a very, unionize and it is already extremely difficult. It is very small interest group in the province and that now possible for employers to intimidate people and obviously is going to cause real hardship to a lot of they do it. It is possible for them to fire them. The people, a fair number of people. Again I have to last presenter, Mr. Christophe, covered it extremely stress, it is those who are the most vulnerable. well-all of the things that the employers will do to I work for Amalgamated Clothing & Textile prevent unionization. Now it is going to be even Workers Union. I represent people who work in the more difficult. garment industry. Lots of people who work in the garment industry work two jobs. A lot of them make .. (21 50) minimum wage. Those who make more than I would like to refer to comments made by the minimum wage do not make too much more than Labour minister (Mr. Praznik) in the Free Press, I minimum wage. think it was the day after the amendments were There is hardly any plant that is unorganized in proposed, in which the Labour minister said it was the garment industry where the workers would not repugnant to deny the employers basically their like to be. I have contact with plenty of them. They rights of free speech. The word he used was would like to be organized. They want to be repugnant that employers did not have the right to organized. All they want is democracy of the say basically what they wanted to say to prevent a workplace. That is what they want. They want union from organizing. June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 97

Well, it is interesting to note that the Supreme organized, butcurrently are not, or may not have the Court of Canada, in a decision, Davidson v. Slate opportunity because ofsome of the changes in this Communication, does not exactly see it the way our bill. You particularly mentioned something I think present Labourminister sees it. In that decision, the that is something that should be relayed to this court held that because of the inequality in committee. You mentionedin thegarment industry, bargaining power between workers and their largely the employees are women, as you said. The employers, it was reasonable in a democratic vast majority are new immigrants, many single societyto place restrictionson the free speech rights parents, I know. Wages are not exactly thathigh to of employers. It is reasonable for obvious reasons, begin with, to say the least. because ofthe imbalance. I always hope in these committees that there is I have a right to swing my arm. I thinkwe all agree somebody with an open mind on the government to that. I have absolute right to swing my arm. It is side that could look at some of these issues outside my business. I can swing it ali i want. Where, for of their political biases but, looking at this bill and instance, where the Labour minister'snose begins, what it is going to do, I am wondering if you can my right to swing my arm ends abruptly. I do not relate to anyone who might have an open mindon have the right to dothat. the government side howyou think this bill is going Certain rights that we have in certain situations to impact, particularly the section that allows are okay. In other situations,they put other people employers now to make a statement of fact or at a tremendous disadvantage. There are all kinds opinion honestly held. We have heard a lot of of rights of free speech that we do nothave . We do people tonight say that that couldbe, well, unionize not have the right to say things about other people and you are going to be closeddown, I will leave the that will harm their reputation even if it is true in province, et cetera. certain circumstances. We do not have that right. What kind of impact do you think that is going to If they cause harm to people's reputations, there are have onthose women in the garment sector who are some situations in which we do not have that right. already pretty vulnerable to begin with? I do not For an employer to have the right to say certain think anybody in this room really can come even things with the express purpose of preventing close to putting themselves in that position. With people from exercising their legal right to have your contactand your knowledge of people,how do workplace democracy under the guise of free you think Bill 85 is going to impact on them? speech is a sham. It is an absolute sham and it is Mr. Doucet: Well, it is already extremelydifficult to going to hurt. do anything about unfair labour practices as it is I want to tell the minister, I want to tell this now. It does not matter where the onus lies, it government that your amendments are going to be always lies with the union to try to prove something effective. They are going to be effective. There is that is very difficult to prove. So, as has been no question about that. You did not waste your covered by other speakers, it is extremely easy for time. If you want it to be effective, you will be employersto intimidate and to prevent unionization effective. Some people outthere who have no hope as it is. of improving their work situation, of dealing with As you have mentioned, the people that I things like harassment, dealingwith intimidation by represent and the people who work in the industry the employer, their only hope is to organize, it is that I represent and whowe would like to organize, collective action. You have taken that away from they have less bargaining power, they have less them. strength, they have lessconfid ence,they have less Thank you. wherewithal in our society than, well, probably the least. They are the most disadvantaged. Mr. Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I wantedjust to They are the ones who the threat of losing their ask one very simple question, but I think it is job, even if it is not all that realistio-1 know in an important because we have a bit of paradox here in organizing drive, I have talked to some people who one sense. were involved in an organizing drive, and they were The people who are going to be most impacted told that the plant would shut down. Right? How by this bill, as you have said, are those who are not imaginative this employer was. He threatened to organized, by definition, people who might like to be shutdown if they unionize. The same old story. He 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

said that the work would be-it would all be is the nextone that we are going to be dealing with. homework. The work would all be sent home. This Is that agreed? Agreed. is a factory that produces parkas, et cetera. So we Mr. Praznlk: I look to my two critics, the member all knowthat it doesnot make any sense. They can for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I understand that we of send a lot work home. You can do pockets and will be going on to the clause by clause on this bill hoods and things, but you cannot do parkas, et tomorrow when we take thatcommi ttee. cetera. You cannot do the whole process at home like you can with the sophisticated machines they MadamChairpers on: Is it the will of the committee have in the shops. to take a five-minute recess? Okay. It was still effective. People who do not • (2200} understand the language toowell, who come from Now before you all escape, let me, just so that we traditions where they come from sometimeswhere are ready to go quickly, the first person to be authority is wielded by people who are not exactly presenting for Bill 64will be Mr. Rob Grant. We will fair, to say the least, the intimidation factor was come back in fivemi nutes-1 0:05? Agreed. extremely powerful. This was anotherunion. They had signed quite a few cards, enough to have an ••• election, and the intimidation managed to, on the The committee took recess at 10p.m . part of management, it ended up that they voted againstthe union overwhelminglybecause theyhad After Recess been scared to death. They had been told thattheir coffeethat they have The committee resumed at 10:14 p.m. would be taken away from them,that was provided by the company, that the use of the company Bill 64-The Child and Family Services parking Jot would not be there anymore, et cetera, AmendmentAct but especially that theplant would be shut down and Madam Chairperson: I would like to call this that the work would be sent home. committee to order to consider Bill 64. If there is Th�t is theway thingsare now. Sonow it is going anybody in the room who would like to make a to beeasier still. Soyou can addsomething to that. presentation tonight, would they leave their name It gives youan Idea of how virtually impossible it is with the Sergeant-at-Arms at the backof the room . going to be to organize from here on in. I would like to call on Rob Grant, Manitoba Mr. Ashton: Thanks very much forgiving us that Coalition on Children's Rights. His presentation sense because that is important. I really hope that has been distributed to committee members. Mr. some of the govemment members in this committee Grant,when you are ready. will think about what is going to happen when this Mr.Rob Grant (ManHoba CoaiHion on Children's bill is passed. I really wish they could be in the Rights): I guess to preface my presentation, I just shoes of those women you were talking about. want to mention that I am presenting on behalf of Thanks verymuch. the Manitoba Coalition on Children's Rights. It is an Madam Chairperson: Are there any further organization that has a lot of members. There are questions? Thank you very much. no particular membership fees or anything like that so it is hard to pin down exactly the number of Mr.Doucet: Thank you. members. Madam Chairperson: Before Mr. Doucet made A lot of what I am going to talk about in the his presentation, I read through the list of people presentation came out of committee work that was who had indicated they wishto make a presentation. sanctioned by a workshopthat we had recently that There were no more responses. I would now like to was attended by over 1 00 organizations and ask the committee: Is it thewill of the committeethat individuals from around Manitoba, specifically on no further presentations be heard on Bill 85? the issue of children's rights. At that conference, Agreed. there was a real clear sanction, really overwhelming Just a quick reminder to committee members that sanction, from that group to strike a committee to we have four more bills to deal with. I understand, lookat Bill 64with the specificgoal of offeringsome from speakingwith committee members, that Bi1164 recommendations to strengthenthat legislation. June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 99

As a background to what thatcomm ittee did, and people responsible or the office responsiblefor that, I guess one reason I am saying this is, I know that be both impartial in practice and also perceived as when the minister has spoken about this bill before, impartial by the public as well. he has referred to some ofthe origins of this coming Secondly, if the officeof the Child Advocate was from various reports and different models of child reporting to the Legislature it would have the advocacy across the country. I think we followed capacity to address more than just one small portion kind of in that trend as well andtook a look at what of a child's needs. As it stands right nowthe Child is happening around Canada and in our own Advocate bill describes an office thatwill respondto province. inquiries or requests or complaints about We took a lookat what was happening in Ontario specifically services under The Child and Family and Alberta. I had the privilege of speaking to the ServicesAct, butwhat about The Mental Health Act, Child Advocates from both provinces personally, education, justice, recreation, and the list goes on had some good conversations with them aboutthe and on. functioning oftheir offices. You cannot expect a child's life to be thateasily We had a good look at the B.C. Ombudsman's compartmentalized, and I think that anyone who has report, and I believe an excerpt of that is contained worked in the system knows that when a child is in our submission. vulnerable and in some kind of a situation it is not We considered Manitoba reports done by particularlyunder the guise of one particularminister Kimelman, Reid-Sigurdson, the Aboriginal Justice who could respond to that or one particular office Inquiry and recently the Suche report. We also took that could clearly respond. Quite often they are very a look at something that was happening in Quebec complex issues. where they have set up advocacy committees for That whole notion has been reflected in reports the Young Offenders Act. That is in addition to the right across the board. All those reports that I expertise that I think members of the Manitoba mentioned, particularlya really extensive bit of work Coalition on Children's Rights offered, and that is that was done in Ontario, that was suggesting that years of experience from a diversity of people who one of the most critical issues in children's and have worked with children before, worked in the family services was that it was too diversified and system, parents, that kind of thing. there was too many ministries taking care of it, and We did ourhomework and thereseemed to be-l actually a recommendation that they had was to guess this will bring me right to my first take a look at a ministry of children so that it all can recommendation. One thing that all of those be pulled under one umbrella. reports, all of those sourcesclearly stated was that I think by limiting the scope of the ChildAdvocate , an office of Child Advocate would be most effective what has happened is that we have missed a real if it was impartial and if the needs of children were opportunity,because I think that, you know we really dealt with in a very holistic way and not being creditthe government for bringing forwardthis idea, compartmentalized to any specific function of it was about time. What has happened is that we government, but really specifically looking at what have missed the chance to do something really do children need and how can we lobby best to important for children. We are going to do make sure that the services that government are something for children but it is not going to be all that providing, there Is some kind of recourse to ensure Important, I do not believe. that children do get their say andcan actually have We have a chance to do something really some kind of input into the services that are being important but by limiting the scope I think we are provided for them. needlessly limiting the potential of what we can do All of those reports, and our stanceas well, is that with the Child Advocate in Manitoba. Failing this, if this bill would be much stronger if the office of the indeed the Child Advocate reports strictly to one Child Advocate was reporting to a legislative minister and within one ministry, I think also that committee, that it was not responsible directlyto one from the coalitions' point of view that there is still a ministry, and I cannot say that any more strongly. lot of potential to improve the service and to There are a couple of reasons and one is the strengthen the service that can be offered. In a Impartialitythat would bring in. When we are talking couple ofways I think that right now the Minister of about advocacy, I think it is just implicit that the Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) is responsible 100 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

for several bits of legislation and service and we are right on top of those situations. Within that wondering why, even in a limited way, that the scope legislation, I would say, if anything, an advocate of theChil d Advocatecould not bespread out to take would be dissuaded from doing that. Basically a look at other bits of legislation that have a direct everything in that bill specifically talks about impact on children. We just know that there are investigatingonce reportsare received at theoffice, vulnerable children whospecifically are impactedby as opposed to saying, well, we know there are those bits of service that the governmentprovi des. vulnerable kids, we know some of the reasons why, * (2220) we knowwhere there are weak spotsin thesyst em, so let us really do some advocacy and get out there One otherpoint aboutthat is that we feel also the and address those. Child Advocate's office could be expanded to somehow include cross-ministryissues , even if it is The question about accessibility is really not reporting to different ministries. There are important. I think the advocate's office is only as issues, it is just inevitable that those are going to good as it is accessible. Accessibility to children is come up, and in what way can that advocate really really kind of a tough one. It is not a clear issue. creatively and really effectively respond to issues Adults, I suppose, could have easier access to an that do cross ministry boundaries? office or to a phone or to write a letter or whatever, That would noteven necessarily be breaking new but when you are talking about children, you are ground. If we want to look at models for that, talking often about a second or third party having to Ontario already has that within their mandate, and advocate for that person to get to the advocate, in some ways, try to address that issue, so there is talking about a really diverse province in terms of a Child Advocate around that is addressing that. geography and cultural make-up. The advocate in Ontario did have the editorial I know this is not particularly an issue of the bill comment to that that they are lacking the funding to itself,but maybe about the implementationof it, but do it really well, but certainly within the mandate of I find it hard to believe that three people working in the Child Advocate, they can cross ministerial Winnipeg are really going to be able to respond boundaries. when it is needed. Again, I think it will be three To be trulyeffective , I also believe that the Child weeks afterthe issue responding to some issue,as Advocate needs to be active and I would even opposed to being right there when kids might suggest proactive. The office cannotjust sit back potentially need it the most. I am thinking of kids and wait for complaints much like a department from the North, from rural Manitoba, thatif their only store or a complaint department. Right now, recourse is to make a long-distancecall to Winnipeg reading the description of what this advocate is and talk to some guy on the endof the phone, that empowered to do and its mandate, a lot of it Is to a lot ofthose calls are not going to get made. Again, respond and to react to things. I just kind of throw that out, wondering how can we We already know there are weaknesses in the ensure that this office truly Is accessible to all kids system. We can identify them real clearly, and we in Manitoba. knowthere are vulnerable parts ofthe system that In terms of a recommendation in that area, I think are leavinga lot ofkids vulnerable. I am wondering one thing that perhaps is missing from the mandate why we cannot empower the advocate to take a of the advocate's office, is the role of encouraging, proactive stance. supporting and developing natural advocates that I suggest the areas of special needs children; the happen. There are all sorts of people and groups co-ordinating and making available assessments around the province that can play, and presently are for childrenand how that all happensin the province; playing, a very important role in advocating for tracking of children experiencing multiple children. If the office was able to utilize these placements and placement breakdowns; culturally resources, help these resources, offer training to appropriate placements-ellof thosethings-it is well different groups-by groups I am talking about documented, and those arevery troublesome spots parents groups, Metis locals, aboriginal groups, in the system. women's groups that already exist around the I would suggest that the advocate can take the province, that we know can be very effective bull by the horns and start trackingthose and stay advocates for children. June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 101

I think it is really important to have central Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second co-ordination of these things, and that is where the Opposition): Well, thank you for an exciting advocate's office couldcome in. I wonderwhere in presentation on what a Child Advocate should be. I that bill, that would allow for that kind of thing to particularly liked the differential that you made happen, or whether it would again be dissuaded, between investigation and advocacy, because I because now we have the advocate. Does that take think the only function that this office can possibly the onus or even the responsibility or the impetus have in the format that has been presented, is an out of those kinds ofgroups to do the advocacy that investigative one. That is even limited, as you is going on? indicated, by the lack of investigators in the field, if About that particular suggestion, it is pretty you will, that can respond to the children who have cost-effective, as well. It is not a big-dollar item fallen through the cracks. If you had an ideal when you say that we can go out to the community scenario, doing the kinds of things that you have and recruit and train and have in place natural outlined, all of which I think are extremely positive, advocates. Looking at the model in Quebec, where how would you see a Child Advocate's office for the Young Offenders Act, they have a whole working in the province of Manitoba. system of community advocacy committeesthat as far as I have heard are working all right. • (2230) That is about it-maybe one last comment. I Mr. Grant: I guess there would probably be two guess the application of the word advocate to this parts to that. I think one is, we can look at another particular office troubles me a little bit in that I hope model. Since we are looking at models from other that it does become a strong voice for children as it provinces, et cetera, I think we have a model presently is. I would hate to see people misled into existing in Manitoba in the Ombudsman's office. thinking that setting up an office with three people in We can take a look at that. It is an officethat reports Winnipeg suddenly means that all children in to the Legislature. It is independent and, in terms of Manitoba have an advocate. It is very narrow, and structure, that would be the way to go. so I think there is a lot of qualifications that need to I would add, when we are looking at different go along in educating Manitoba about what exactly models, that both the advocate from Ontario and this office is, and what it can do. We have to be from Alberta stated that if their offices reported upfront and say, it is not near the general Child's directly to the Legislature they would be much more Advocate that someone may think we have in place effective. if this bill goes through. I also wanted to state, in lookingat the model from Thank you. Alberta,which I understand was partof the process Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Grant. Are of developing this, we are looking at new legislation there any questions? out there as well. Their advocate's office has not been in place all that long, four or five years, and Ms.Becky Barrett (Wellington): I appreciate your they are in the testing kind of ground as well, so if verbal report and your written recommendations we want to latch onto something that is in the testing and background information that you have given to us. I just wanted to have a brief comment that I phase, the advocate out there himself readily says, thought your report covered most of the concerns well, you know, it could be improved. I think we are that we have about this legislation. You have kind of looking the wrong way, particularly when you helped us clarify what our position is and many of have a model like that in Manitoba. the major concerns that we have, particularly, the The one thing, the organization structure, I would staffingcomponent. look to the model of the Ombudsman's office I think you are absolutely correct when you say perhaps as a model to look at. In terms of the that three or four staff are not going to be able to service provision, the ideal model, I would look adequately deal with the issues that are going to be towards the community and take a look at raised, and the expectations that are going to be empowering people throughout the community and raised by the children and the people who work with identifying areas of natural advocacy. I think that is children in a province as diverse as Manitoba. So the only way that an office like this would ever be thank you very much. accessibleto children. 102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

Mrs. Carstalrs: As you know, there will be an shows up in some of the other submissions, that is amendment to this bill which will at least give us a a pretty limited view of things that affect children. mandatory review at the end of three years, which This is particularlytrue in light of the fact that an hopefully then can broaden the base of what the independent advocate was recommended by advocate will do and also in the recommendations Kimelman in '83-you have probably heard this list a of community activists such as yourself make it hundred times-Reid-Sigurdson in '87, the independent of the ministry, since we are not able Aboriginal Justice report last year, and the Suche to get that at this particularpoint in time. report this year. Having somebody called an Can I just encourage you to monitor this advocate advocate who reports to the minister seems to very carefully for the next three years and then come compromise the veryprinciple of independencethat back with all your ammunition tomake this a much would be crucial to what I would consider to be an better bill as soon as possible. advocate function. Mr. Grant: I will mark it on my calendar. My understanding is that the experience of the Ombudsman, who is independent and who is more Mrs. Carstalrs: Okay. directly responsible to the House, even the Madam Chairperson: Are there any further experienceof that office in gettinga response from questions? Thank you, Mr. Grant. Family Services has not been particularly wonderful. Thiswould not seem to bode well for the Mr. Grant: Thank you. experience of the civil servant who reports directly to the minister. Madam Chairperson: I would just like to advise committee members that written submissions have Certainly, if one reads the papers these days, been received from Dennis Schellenberg, Child and some of the stories and issues that are being dealt Family Services of Central Manitoba; Jerry Ross, with there are revealing that children in families who private citizen; and Gillian Colton, private citizen. I are supposed to be taken care of by this ministry think committee members have those written clearly have not been, and that the internal submissions. investigations were not, in fact, sufficient. So again, hard to understand how an advocate's position I would now like to call upon Gale, and I am not would change that. sure how to pronounce the last name, is it Pearase?-P-e-a-r-a-s-e-1 am not too sure whether I think it is also telling, I mean, partly it is the it is-Director, the Street Kids andYouth Project, and process of this, which would tend to be an committee members have that presentation here in intimidating procedure for people who find front of them. Is she here tonight? themselves caught up in the Child and Family Service system, so they are not here. Our I would like to call uponJean Altmeyer, Choices. understanding is that a numberof the groups who Do you have a written presentation? No. Okay. would be a member of the coalition or groups who Ms.Jean Altmeyer {Choices): One of the things I would have a great deal of expertise to offer on this notice looking at the room is that we are obviously issue, are not here either, andthat is, frankly, a lack talking aboutchildren in poverty, because there has of safety on their part,that they could, in fact, appear been a gender shift in the audience. and speak. Choices is A Coalition for Social Justice. We do I find that pretty depressing overall for our not pretend to be expertson this issue. I would like community, because if the very people who have the to think we may be one of the natural advocates that experience, the expertise and the skill feel Rob was just referring to. Certainly Choices would constrained because of their connection to the be in support of the Child Advocatepositi on. We do existing system from appearing before this not happen to believe this is one. When you call committee, then we have lost access to a whole somebody an advocate and then tie them group from whom we should hear. specifically to the minister for whose department I would also just like to reinforce the point made theyare supposed to advocate, it does seem to be about the language used in the bill, advise the a contradiction in terms. It also then fits to limit this minister, review and investigate complaints she or advocate to The Child and Family Services Actand he receives, not finds, but receives, responds to has been noted by Rob, and I am sure probably requests, submittingan annual reportwhich goes to June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 103

the minister, and then I understand within 15 days Legislature, and we would see this position is to be sent to the House unless the House is not becoming part of the Ombudsman's office. We sitting, and then when it decides to sit again, then would see the advantage of this that clearly thenthe the reportgets submitted. advocate would cover all ministries and would not I understand there has been some discussion be limited to CFS. about a review afterthree years. I suppose that is This more clearly retains the principle of betterthan nothing, but three years is a significant independence. It avoids another layer of amount of time given that the Child and Family bureaucracy, as was clearly stated by the ServicesCrown corporation was created a year ago Ombudsman at theconference on children's rights, and there has not been any annual report on that, that this will now be another layer that the nor has there been a review or procedures for a Ombudsman will monitor. The Ombudsman also review. I am not reassured by this. has stronger legal authority, because it is my In addition to our primary concern about the understanding from reading some ofthe comments reporting mechanism for the advocate going tothe on this bill that it does not appear as though the ministeris the factthat this is limited only to the CFS advocate has the right to retain counsel on behalf of act and apparently-and I am not a lawyer, nor do I children and youth. want to be one-butas I have read theproposed bill, Thank you. it sounds like this advocate can only seek * (2240) information that is from agencies that have status under The Child and Family Services Act. So it is Ms. Barrett: Thank you. Again, an excellent even more constrained. presentation which covered many of the concerns thatwe have been expressingover the lastthree or One would think if a child is in the system but is four months. I particularlyliked your commentsthat being affected by other systems that are notcovered this is not an advocate. Itis sortof what theprevious by this system, the advocate cannot talk to those presentation stated as well. folks,and that seems significantly bizarre. I agreethat it is not unlike otheractions taken by As well, and I am particularlysorry that we were the government which are finesounding and high not able to hear SKY's presentation, because I feel sounding and, when you get down to line by line, quite limited in my ability to speak on behaH of the you realize there is very little proactive content to youth served by SKY and similar groups but, as a thisbill. result of some work that was done by some students, it becomes very clear that some of the I enjoyed your recommendations and hope that children andyouth most at risk in Winnipeg and in we will be able to convince the minister that some the province are the very children who are evading of these changes that you are recommending will the Child and Family Services system, not theones come to pass to make thisbill, at least begin to make who are in it. If a child has evaded thesystem and it a true advocacy bill, ratherthan an investigative if the advocate can only deal with children as partof functionthat probably cannot even do thatvery well. that system, you have again cut outthe people most Thank you. vulnerable. Mrs. Carstalrs: Thank you, Ms. Altmeyer,for your I also, and this would be very consistent with presentation on behalf of Choices. I will bepleased Choices positions on a number of things that this to share with you SKYs report because I have a government has chosen to do, and that is, this again second copy, so I will give you my second copy. tries to create the sense that something has Essentially, their comments are identical to your happenedso thatsomething is seeming to be done. own, and I think it is clear that anybody who is You use theright words, but you structure it in such involved in the field,whether it is the four reports you a way that it in fact contradicts itself and mentioned or indeed those who have worked, like counterbalances itseH. Rob Grant, in the field for many years, theyare all We would recommend because, besides the in fact making exactlythe same suggestions. brickbatsthat we throwat the choices peoplemake, The difficuitythat I think we are all faced withnow we do try and present alternatives. We would in a majority government is, do you defeat the bill as recommendthatthe advocate be independent of the it is with theamendment which we hope atleast will minister, that he or she report directly to the give a mandatory review, do you at least start the 104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

process, or doyou vote against the Child Advocate reporting to one individual minister, but to the and not have it establishedat all? Ifyou were in that legislature in general. legislative position, what would you do? What I can add other than that-1 think it is an Ms. Altmeyer: Good question and it is the excellentidea. We have talked at Knowles forquite brilliance of this government's strategy that you are a long time about a Child Advocate. Itis something dammed if you do and you are dammed if you do the kids really need, not just at Knowles but in the not, because we all knowthat if people were to vote entire system. Again, the government has the in opposition to it, the government would be very opportunity to make a very unique choice at this quick to jump all over them about, you guys voted point and do something really great for all the kids down a Child Advocate. in Manitoba. I would hope that they make the IfI am going to retain values andintegrity, I would choice to make it a larger scope. That is basically say you have to vote against something that clearly what I represent. is a contradictionof what it is intended to do because MadamChairperson : Thank you, Mr. Bills. once it is in place, you have become co-opted, and Ms. Barrett: I appreciate your comments and so I would say that it should be voted down because particularly yourstate ment that you agree with most it is in fact an abrogationof what it claimsto be doing. of what was stated before without having to restate Mrs. Carstalrs: Thank you. it at this hour of night. Madam Chairperson: Are there any further I am wondering if you can just give us a brief questions? If not, thank youvery much. example of what you see from your position as I would just like to advise committee members working in Knowles, what you see as a problem with thatthe reportpresented orsubmitted earlier by Gail the current scope and structure and reporting Pearase, Director of the Street Kids and Youth mechanism of the Children's Advocate. Project, is now going to be considered as a written Mr. Bills: I look at the advocacy system as submission since she was not here earlier. something we present to children when they first I would like to call upon Victor Schwartzman. come Into Knowles. They have an orientation Mike .Bills, KnowlesCentre . Mr. Bills, do you have package that we talk about-these are your rights. a written presentation? In fact, we just had a recent general meetingat the AGM. We just gave a copy of the rights to Mr. Mr. Mike Bills (Knowles Centre Inc.): No, I am Gilleshammer, presented by one of the children at sorry, I do not. Knowles. MadamChairperson: No problem. We talk a lot about kidscoming in and do not know Mr. Bills: Approximately at three o'clock this what their rights are. They do not know how to be afternoon, my executive director sat down with me treated. They do not know what is right. They do in his officeand he said, would you mind going and not know a variety of different things, so we really addressing this committee tonight. I am thinking talk aboutthose with the children. We, in fact, give from what I have heard from Rob and what I am them a copy of our orientation package and go hearing from Jean,I am going, were theyin the office through it line by line with the staff within the first also? shift, shiftand a half that the kids are actually there I will make a very quick speech to you. I do not in the cottage, so literally they understand what the know what I can add really that is different than rules, routines are. Theyask questions. anything else at all. Basically, the concerns we At the same time that we do the actual admission, have at Knowles would be the scope is limited. we talk aboutif you have problems with how you are Again, it should not apply to just children in the CFS treated, who do you approach? I am one of the act. It should apply also to people in education, to people they can approach. They may not feel corrections and mental health as well. We have comfortable. That is fine. There are other child some serious concerns about the number of staff groupers and there are therapists at Knowles. required. It seems very insufficient actually. I There are people on ourboard of directors. fact,In guess the model is the most important thing. We we havejust recently voted in a memberof theboard are looking in terms of moreof a recommendation who was one of our previous residents at Knowles regarding a model toward an Ombudsman's, not which is a firstfor us, again, to act as an advocate. June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 105

We, at the same time, talk in terms of the system. The first name is Tim Knight, Union of Manitoba If you do not like how you are being treated here at Municipalities-Tim Knight. Knowles, you can approach your social worker. Genny Funk-Unrau, Private Citizen. Do you have Who is your social worker? Who is your social a written submission? worker's supervisor? Who is availableto you at the Child and Family Services Directorate? Who is Ms.Genny Funk-Unrau (Private Citizen): Yes, I Evelyn Mathers? Who is Pat Alphonso-peoplewho do. I have some copies here. they can call if they choose to. I realize it is late for all of us, but thank you for They are allowed to, again, if they choose, all they sticking around and listening. have to do to access anybody is phone the main My name is Genevieve Funk-Unrau, and I reside office literally and talk to the switchboard operator, and work in the inner city ofWinnipeg. I have many and she will make arrangementsfor peopleto get in friends and neighbours who currently are on both contact with the child. I am not aware of many kids city and provincial social assistance, and for this actually using the system, but it is there for them. reason, I have chosen to speak today to your Kids will comeand ask, can I use this? How do I go committee. about thisagain if I need to? So it is there. I believe it is the government's responsibility to What I see as the Child Advocate is another part, create a safety net for those who are unable to a furtherexte nsion of our safety plan for each child survivein our current capitalistsystem we have here in the Knowles. At the same time, I would hope to in Canada. We have one ofthe bestsocial systems see it as something we at Knowlescan use on behalf in the world, yet I see it deteriorating over the last of our kids. If, in fact, they are electing to make a decade as a more Darwinistic philosophy, the phonecall, if we are having problems with a specific survival of the fittest, has set in. agencyor a specific ministry, we can make contact with the advocacy. It is not meant just for the My world view, however, calls uponme to lookout children. It is meant also for us in terms of if there for my neighbour and give a helping hand as is red tape forthe reasons we would hope that the needed. Therefore I feel it is up to the havesto give person could do that. Again, if in fact, the reporting to the have-nots, while workingtoward a more just mechanism is only to the Minister of Family Services and equitable society. (Mr. Gilleshammer),we have some concernsabout I realize the likely response will bethat the haves whether in fact we can actuallyaccess that. have been giving a lot already, especially those in Ms.Barrett : That is fine. Thank you. the lower middle class, as theytoo are losing their jobs and ending up as have-nots, yet I feel it is our Madam Chairperson: Are there any further moral responsibility to give proportionallyas we can. questions? If not, thankyou verymuch. Therefore I call upon you and thosewho can give I would just like to call VictorSchwartzman once more to do so. mor&-VictorSchwa rtzman. Our society cannot affordto continue toincrease Is it the will of the committeenotto hear any further itsarmy of unemployed and thoseno longercapable presentations on Bill 64? of even being in this army of unemployed. As we Some Honourable Members: Agreed. continue this decline, social costs will increase in MadamChairpers on: Agreed. areas such as health, education and justice. It is time, rather,to stop this decline and work toward a * (2250) more equitable andjust society. I want to applaud the Manitoba governmenton its Bill 70-The Social Allowances move to standardize social assistance rates. Amendment and Consequential However, what concerns me is what level of rates Amendments Act the government will choose. Will the government Madam Chairperson: We will nowmove to Bill 70. take into consideration the difference of costs of The list of people wishing to make presentations livingwithin the province and therefore choose the was distributed this afternoon at 2:30 when the highest levelfor all to live on, or will some people be committee initially sat, so I will not go through that seeing their allocations of money decreasing, list right now. I will simply start at the top. therefore findingit even harder to survive? 106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

In studying the currentwelfare rates in Manitoba, budgets and especially the housing allocation are I see that families on City of Winnipeg social too low, and since the food budget Is not a fixed assistance as being the most likely to lose. These expense,money has to be taken from it to pay other families are currently receiving one of the highest budget items. financial allocations in Manitoba. In light of the In closing, I would recommend reassessing the Social Planning Council's report on child poverty in otherareas of thewelfare budgetand bringing them Manitoba which states that at least one in four up to the actual costof living. That rate shouldthen children in the city of Winnipeg lives in poverty, be chosen for your standard rate. Secondly, since would it not make more sense to assure that the thecurrent welfare rates are about 52 percentbelow children will notface further hardship? Would it not the poverty line, I would recommend that the make more sense to atleast keep the newstandard deductions taken off from the welfare budget such with the City of Winnipeg rates? as employment or CRISP be only deducted once the Using my family as a hypothetical example, we income actually reaches the poverty line. are two adults with a one-year-old child. If it were Thank you. necessary, we would be put on municipal welfare. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Just one The City of Winnipeg rates would give us about comment. I particularly liked your recommenda­ $973.36 every four weeks, which worksout to about tions, and seeing as how this bill does not tell us, or $1 ,054.47 every month. In comparison, the the minister has refused to tell us, what the provincial social assistance would give us $976.60 regulations will be, I certainly hope that he listens every month, a difference of $77.87 a month or very closely to yourrec ommendationsabout raising $934.44a year. the rates and making sure that the rates other than Since to date we have not been told what level of food , at thevery least, areraised so you do not have assistancewill be used to standardize, we can only families required to take money from their food assume that the cheaper route would be used, budget in order to meet things like shelter. which would mean thatthey would use the southern Excellent recommendations, andhope I the minister Manitoba's municipal rate which should give us listensto them. Thank you. about $946.67 a month, which again, compared to Madam Chairperson: Are there any further the City of Winnipeg rates, would mean a difference questions? of$1 07.80 a month or$1 ,293.60 a year. Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second * (2300) Opposition): I thank you too for your presentation, Even though the City of Winnipeg's rates are at and obviously, we all have somewhat the same the highest level, they still are substandard if you dilemma on Bill 70. compare them to your own Manitoba Agriculture 1 think all of us are on record, all three parties, as Report on the cost of raising a child in Manitoba. being in favour of a one-tier system across the The provincial home economistssay that a family of province. But the critical issue is rate setting. My three, as previously mentioned, needs $1,284.41 a concern is that the City of Winnipeg simply will not month to be able to survive in Winnipeg. This is a have the additional dollars in their budget to pay difference of $229.94 amonth from thecurrent city these additional rates if they are not going to get of Winnipeg rate, or$2,759.28 a year. To compare 50-50 from the province, and that is the critical this as to possiblestandardized rate using southern question we have not yet had answered from the Manitoba rates, for example, this is a difference of minister, which is what those rates are going to be. $337.74 a month or $4,052.88 a year, or $300 a month. That, ladies and gent lemen, is a lot of So I thank you for perhaps making the case better money that couldbe used to assist afamily in living, than I was able to make, since he did not seem to not just surviving. listen to me. As previously stated, this extra money each Madam Chairperson: Are there any other month, in the long run, would make a long-term questions? Thank you very much. difference in the Health, Education and Justice I would like to call upon Pat Woolley, St. budgets as poverty is closely linked to these. In Matthews-Maryland Community Ministry. I think all looking at the current rates, I have no quarrel with committee members have a copy of her the current food budgets. However, all the other presentation. June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 107

Ms. Pat Woolley (St. Matthews-Maryland inner-city schools and frequent disruptions in Community Ministry): I have additional copies if children's education are the result. These certainly therewere notenough brought down thisaft ernoon. carry a hidden economic costin the long run. Madam Chairperson: Okay, I thinkwe are doing Recently introduced practices around damage fine. deposits, which allow only one damage deposit to recipients, when coupled with thehigh incidence of Ms. Woolley: I thank you for the opportunity of damage depositswithheld by landlords withoutjust appearing before thecommittee. I am a member of cause, cause undue hardship. When people move the board of St. Matthews-Maryland Community and are unable to get their damage deposit back, Ministry, and I am presenting this brief on behalf of they must come up with a new deposit by dipping our community minister who was not able to be into their food budget. present tonight. Telephones are still not considered a basic St. Matthews-Maryland Community Ministryis an necessity by welfare, although they are necessary active member of a food working group, with for full participation in our modem society. The representatives from our food bank and several budget allowed for personal, laundry, home other food programs. We are committed to cleaning supplies was last adjusted in 1983 and responding to people's immediate food needs with does not reflect current real costs. Even for dignity and to addressing the rootcauses of hunger long-term recipients of social assistance, such as in our city. single parentswith dependent children anddisabled The vast majority of users of our food banks are people, the budget makes no allowance for people receiving social assistance. The recreation expenditures, although the federal inadequacies ofthis allowance to cover thecost of regulations would allow for thisto be cost-shared. basic needs such as housing, food, clothing and People continue to report great difficulty in personal needs forces people to rely on charity to accessing special needs allowance for essential feed themselves and theirfamilies. furniture or larger household items. We are very We have made a number of presentations concerned that people are instructed to use their highlighting our concerns aboutthe welfare system GST rebate to purchase these items. The GST and the inadequaciesof current socialassistance to rebate is to reimburse people for GST paid and meet people's basic needs. We are concerned should not be considered income. about the implications of standardization of social The changes to distribution of provincial income assistancerates suggestedin Bi11 70 and the impact tax credits will make it more difficult for people on these proposed changes will have on the poorestof assistance long term to have a lump sum for the poor in our province. purchases of household items. We are very It is theexperience of thepeople we work withthat concerned that this redistribution of funds will be current social assistance allowance from either treated as an increase in welfare benefits. municipality or province does not reflectthe actual These inadequacies often must becompensa ted cost of living within the provinceof Manitoba. It is for by using money budgeted for food to pay extra our conviction that Bill 70 provides an opportunityto rent for better accommodation, rent a telephone or review the overall rates, to bring the rates up to the supplement personal expenditures. As a result, we actual costof living in Manitoba, and to ensure that see a phenomenalincrease in thenumber of people everyone who is eligible for social assistance seeking help at food banks and soup kitchens. receives equal access and information with dignity People are forced to choose their food from other andrespect. people's surplus, a supply which is unpredictable, We would like to highlight some particular areas unsustainable and only the most short-term of concerns which have been raised by people who response to the crisis ofpoverty in our province. depend on social assistance to meet their basic Our food bank serves an average of 200 needs and the basic needs of their families. households each month. Forty-six percent of the Inadequate housing allowances severely restrict individuals represented by these households are people's access to safe, decent, stable housing. children. The number of people we are unable to Many people aresubject to frequentmoves, always help continues to rise. Charity is not an adequate hoping for a better place. High migrancy rates in response to the crisis of hunger, which is directly 108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

related to economic poverty. Charity does not their own needs. We believe that the long-term ensure redistribution of wealth to protect the most social benefits of such an increase would far vulnerable; rather, it redistributes goods and surpass the short-term economiccost . services that may or may not have value for the The work incentive component of City of recipients. Winnipeg social assistance allows people to earn The time is overdue for a review of the social $125 for part-time work or $245 for full-time work assistance rates in consultation with the poor and without penalty, whereas people receiving the organizations that work most closely with the provincial assistance are only allowed $50 earned poor, so that our social programs are publicly income or a certain percentage of the earned accountable, not privately directed, and so we can income. Many people are actually discouraged by support life and promotejustice and harmony in our this policy from working when on provincial social community. The economic cost is worth thesocial assistance. The allowable earned income actually benefits of ensuring that everyone has adequate serves as a disincentive. means to meet theirbasic needs and the needs of I would argue that a strong work incentive their children. program with higher allowed earnedincome be part We would welcome increased regulation of rural of a standardized rate system. This would address municipal rates which may currently be set arbitrarily the recommendation of the Social Assistance by councils. In rural areas, many municipal rates Review Committee with regard to employment­ are woefully inadequate, based on totally archaic related initiatives. Efforts to encourage and assist estimates of basic needs. We have also heard recipients to become independent of social horror stories of people having to appear before the assistanceshould bereinforced by increasing funds council to plead their need with little or no respect available for employment-related initiatives, for that person's rights, privacy or dignity. targeted specifically to municipal social assistance As you are aware, the City of Winnipeg weHare recipients. rates are significantly higher than the provincial Thank you. weHare rates, recognizing that even then, people cannc:rt always be assured of adequate access to MadamChairpers on: Thank you very much. their basic needs of food,shelter and clothing. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to As I have outlined above,both the municipal and thank the presenter for thisexcellent brief presented provincial current rates are inadequate. If Bill 70 on behaH of St. Matthews-Maryland Community provides an opportunityto standardizethe minimum Ministry. Because of the lateness of the hour, we rates, we are very concernedthat the lowest rates are not going to ask questions. I regret that will be chosenas the standard. We would urge you because it is an excellentbrief. to use rates which reflect the actual cost of living in I would like to comment on the second paragraph Manitoba as a standard. where you saidthe governmentwas provided with an opportunityto bring rates up to theactual cost of • (231 0) living. I think it would be nice if they would bring Currently, people on City of Winnipeg social them up even closer to the poverty line, but I note assistancereceive significant otherbenefits . If they that you feel that they had an opportunity and they are eligible for Child Related Income Support missed the opportunity and you regret that. We Program and 55 Plus, they are allowedthis income regret that.and that adversely affects everyone on in addition to socialassistance, whereas people on social assistance. provincial social assistance in receipt of these income supplements are subject to an equal Thank you. reduction of social assistance benefits and so Hon. Linda Mcintosh(Minister of Consumer and receive no net benefit. Corporate Affairs): Thank you for your It is our hope that standardization would extend presentation and for waiting so long. I know, having these benefits to all eligible people. The extra at one time been an advocatesitti ng in the audience, money would allow people to lessen their what it is like to wait and wait. I think you have been dependence on food banks and charity, thus very patient, and all of the people whoare waiting increasing their financialsecurity and ability tomeet deserve that commendation for their patience. June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVEAS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 109

Thank you, as well, for your brief and the good work The stereotype of people who are on welfare as that the St. Matthews-Maryland Ministrydoes. being lazy, irresponsible and drinking their money I just have one question. It is partly because it away does not wash. People we talk to at MAPO pertains to one of the divisions in my department, are caring and responsible and are on the system and I am just wondering if you could clarify for miH by circumstances, not by choice. The frustrations know youare presenting on behalf of someone else, of being on welfare can destroy a person's so maybe you cannot. self-esteem and emotional well-being. This becomes even harder when money is constantly In the last paragraph on the firstpage, you have being juggled around each month for things not indicated that the damage deposit to recipients-eort covered in the initial budget. of halfway down the paragraph, it has, recently introduced practicesaround damage deposits-that The welfare food budget is adequate enough to line-which allow only one damage deposit to cover for food, but it is this part of the budget that recipients, that this is a policy of Family Services, gets constantly eaten away to cover for other but it is the next line that I would like some expensesthat are not included. Given thewelfare clarification on-when coupled with the high rental guidelines, it is difficultto find decenthousing. incidence ofdamage depositswithheld by landlords Basic rent for provincial welfare is $282 a month for without just cause. one person, utilities included, and city welfare is even less, $229 for one person, utilities included. I am not sure if you are able to clarify that for me Sometimes a person on city welfare Is asked to or not. The landlords are not permitted to withhold make sure that the place is furnishedas well for this damage deposits without just cause, and damage amount. If a person does find housing over the deposits that are in dispute are referred to the guidelines and the departmentagrees, the excess department tosetUe. If there is not just cause, they rent comes from the food budget. must be reimbursedto the tenant. Do you have any specificsthere? With thehousehold and personal budget,what is not taken Into consideration is the actual cost of Ms. Woolley: I am afraid I cannot give any personal and household needs. Laundry soap, examples. I am not a staffperson, but a board cleaning supplies, toilet paper, haircuts and member. I presume the problem is a difference feminine products are expensive, and when the between thejudgments made as to whetherthere is taxes are added, it costs even more. Where does just cause or not. the money come from to coverfor these items? The I understandfrom staffthatthere are many people foodbudget, once again. who do not get their deposit back but actually Prescriptions for over-the-counter drugs are no should, but I cannot pass judgmenton it. I just know longer covered by welfare due to the recent budget it is a problem. cuts. This is now another expense thatcomes out Mrs. Mcintosh: I will look into that for you then. of the food budget. Thank you. Welfare does not allow for a basic phone Madam Chairperson: Are there any further allowance except for health or safety reasons, questions? Thank you very much. considering a phone to be a luxury. If a person I would now like to call upon Diane Soble, decides to have a phone, it comes out of the food Manitoba Anti-Poverty Organization. I believe budget. A phone is essentialfor a parent with small every member has a copy of her written children. If an emergency occurs, the nearest pay presentation. phone can be blocks away from home, and in an emergency situation, every second counts. Ms. Diane Soble (Manitoba Anti-Poverty Organization): We are living in the most difficult Small children are at risk by leaving them economic times since the Depression in the '30s. unattendedfor any lengthof time, and if there is no Bankruptcies and layoffsare increasing in alarming other adult to look after the children in an numbers. There are more andmore people who are emergency, then the person is considered to be a out of work who are becoming the new poor. With negligent parent. People should notbe put in these the recent changes to UIC with benefitsrunning out kinds of situations by the system. faster and withfewer jobs available, people have no Transportationis anotherissue in an emergency, otherchoice but to tum towelfare . because gettinga cab to a medical facility has to be 110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

cleared with the department first, but it is not easy such as MAPO, who work direcUy with welfare getting through to the worker. recipients and who have valuable insights into the Otherareas not taken into consideration are for needs and conditions of people who are on the things like recreation or for children in school. The system. costs offield trips or school pictures has to come out (4) Job creation programs should be a of the food budgetagain. A person lookingfor work governmentpriority. The welfare system needs to has to pay for postage, paper and transportationout be supportiveand to encourage people in becoming of the foodbudget again, as these items are not part independent. of the initial welfare budget. (5) Education and training programs must be An employer has no way of contacting the person realistic and lead to real jobsthat pay enough forthe for an interviewif there is no phone number to reach individual and their family to live healthy and them at. With the employment situation, there are productive lives. The current minimum wage a number of people applying for the same job, and reinforces poverty and keeps people living below an employer is not going to take the time to inform the povertyline. you of an interview in writing. If the proposed changes to the social assistance After covering all these expenses, there is little legislation are to be effective, these issues must not money left for food, and people are again left with be overlooked. no other choice butto have to turn to foodbanks and In closing, the government of Manitoba and each soup kitchens. of themu nicipalities in the provincemust, not •mat, Food banks are already overloaded and provide as states in The Social Allowances Act, Section 2, a temporary band-aid solution. Food banks are for •. . . take such measures as are necessary for the emergencies only and will not carry a person long purpose of ensuring that no resident of Manitoba, term. If a person needs more than a couple of days lacks ...such thingsw as essential to a person's food assistance, depending on the circumstances, health and well-being. sometimes welfare will provide an emergency food MAPO is committedto working with the province voucher. Unfortunately, the person is then dealing and municipalities to develop a social allowance with an overpayment, causingeven more of a strain program that accurately covers basic needs for all on their budget for the next few months until the its residents. overpayment is cleared up. Thank you. These are some of the recommendations that we MadamChairpers on: Thank you. have at the Manitoba Anti-Poverty Organization. Ms. Barrett: Yes, again, a comment, two Rrstof all, we applaudthe provincial government's comments actually. I do not knowthat I haveread move to standardize welfare rates. MAPO has or heard a much more evocative descriptionof some been actively advocating for a one-tier system for of the problems of living on social assistance than the past decade. However, there are a number of on page 2 of this presentation. major issues that need to be considered in this recommendation: I thought it was excellent and certainly puts into very clear perspective some of the problems that are (1) Current welfare rates do not reflect the actual faced by people on social assistance,to justuse one cost of living withinthe province of Manitoba. example, who cannot automatically have a (2) This is an opportunetime to review the overall telephone. It was excellent, just excellent, and I rates, policies and procedures and to ensure that certainlyhope the governmentlistened and was as they adequately cover the basic necessities. moved as I was by that part of the presentation. Rental guidelines need toreflect the actual cost of Also, I would like to comment that obviously rental accommodation. Household and personal MAPO and Ms. Woolley, a previous presenter, have rates must realistically cover the costs paid out by actually read the Social Assistance Review families and individuals. Regular telephone and Committee recommendations, particularly as they recreational expenses are also basic necessities relate to municipalities and the ways that they and should be included in the welfare budget. sometimes are as not positive toward people (3) Any changesto the current legislation should coming to them for social assistance, and also include consultationwith community organizations, particularly your recommendations 4 and 5 on the June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 111

job creation programs, and education and training directly related to increased financial strain on programs. families. It is absolutelyesse ntial, if we are ever going to The vast majority of the families in the child break the cycle of poverty, that these be welfare system are on welfare, so the relationship components-very strong recommendations in the between social assistance and family breakdownis SARC report. Obviously, the government has not clear. Families are barely surviving and in many paid any attention to them, but you brought them cases, are not surviving on present welfare rates. forward with a great deal of emphasis and clarity There are those who have extraordinarybudgeting tonight, so thank you very much for an excellent skills and community connections who get by, but presentation. we must pay attention to the alarmingly high numbers who cannot withstandthe severe strain of * (2320) living in poverty, and this is reflected by increased Mrs.Carstal rs: I justhave one suggestionand that family and parenting breakdown. Young children is, would you put a copy of this in the mail or deliver are then given a disadvantaged beginning which Flood, it to Gerald so perhaps he can understand a can only lead to more ofthe same in the future with little bit better the conditions of living on social an ever-increasing strain on an already assistance,rather than the articles in the paper over overburdened child welfare system and more the weekend that made it look like sweetness and important,the human costof damaged families and light. children. Ms.Soble: Okay, could I get that name off ofyou This is notto say thatif therewas no poverty, there again? Thank you. would be no family breakdown, but the relationship Madam Chairperson: Are there any further between the two is obvious. When a family is questions? Thank you very much. strugglingto get by on a day-to-day basis and not I would like to call upon Erika Wiebe, Winnipeg always succeeding, there is timeand energy for little Child & Family Services. Her presentation has else. Itis not only the financial strain which welfare been distributed. recipients struggle with, butalso the ccoma panying lack of choice, lack offlexibility, powerlessness and Ms. Erika Wiebe (Winnipeg Child & Family the assault on their self-esteem. Services - Central Area): I have a relatively brief presentationto make. I justwant to lendmy support Then there are those items suchas phones, bus to Diane's presentation and also to the people from passes and recreation, which for most of us are the community ministry. Those people ought to be essentials, but forwelfare recipients are considered considered expertswhen it comes to the issues of to be extras. There is no money in the welfare what people on welfare face. They really deserve budget for these items, and this has a direct impact to be listened to strongly. on family functioning. I personally knowof a single parent of two preschoolers who recently had a I am a community development worker with medical emergency and because she had no Winnipeg Child & Family Services, Central Area. I phone, her six-year-old son had to go out andfind a work specifically in the northof Portage-Sherbrook­ neighbour to phone an ambulance. She then had EIIice neighbourhood, and I just want to talk briefly to take both children with her to the hospital because aboutsome ofour responses. I have spokento our she was unable to phone for child care. administrator and some of the caseworkers who work on a day-to-day basis with families who are in We expect welfare recipients to budgetproperly, a great deal of difficulty. I want to talk a little bit but without bus passes, they are often forced to about this bill in relationship to child welfare. shop at the corner store where prices are higher. In May 1990,there were 567 children in care in Businesses such as comer stores, pawn shops and the Central Area of Winnipeg Child & Family cheque-cashingoutlets thrive on the backsof poor Services. A year later, there were 574 children in people. care for a 1 percent increase, but from May 1991 to Sowhat are the implications of all this for Bill 70? May 1992,there was a 15 percent increase for a Any changes tothe welfare systemshould be made totalof 662children in care. To what can this drastic with the clear understanding of thepresent system, increase in the past year be attributed? The strong so that changes go in the direction ofim provingwhat belief among workers andadminis tration is that it is is problematic. On the contrary, there are real fears 112 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

that Bill 70 will have the effect of worsening an of living, and this is the third brief thatwe have had already problematic system. that mentioned that. You said that any decrease Developing a one-tier welfare system across the would be devastating, and that is another common province is something that welfare rights groups threadof thesebriefs is thatpeople like yourself are have been advocating for years because of its concernedthat the lower of rates in thecity might be potential for cutting down on excess bureaucracy, chosen, namely, provincial rates rather than inequitiesand the shuffling offamilies back and forth municipal rates. from one system to another. If there is to be a Anally, your comments about the increase in standard rate, it must be one that reflects the real children in care are really quite astounding and needs of people, rather than what is most cost disappointing, especially since thestaff believethat efficient or based on opportunities for offloading the 15 percent increase in children in care on a from one level of government to another. year-over-year basis, to quote: The strong belief Present welfare rates are putting our families and among workers in administration is that Itis directly communities under severestrain and any decrease related to increased financial strain on families. would be devastating. The welfare system should So this is a very telling comment and a very sad be structured on the basis of what people need to commentary if children going into care are directly provide for theirfam ilies with dignity and opportunity related to poverty in families which is what the staff for the future. This includes making sure that are saying. So, once again, thankyou. recipients have access to phones, bus passes and Ms. Wiebe: Can I clarify that comment, just to recreation, and welfare rates which at the very least make sure. reflect the reality ofthe cost of living. Mr.MarUndale: Yes, please do. As one Child and Family Services caseworker said, quote: Do not try and save pennies on the Ms. Wiebe: I think by that they were not saying backs of the poor because you will pay in the long necessarilythat children are being taken out of their term with more and more kids in care. families deliberately on the basis of thefact thatthey are poor. I think what they were saying is that Thank you very much. families, because of the strain that they are under Mr.MarUndale: I would like to thank thepresenter due to poverty, are becoming unable to do the kind for anotherexcellent presenta tion. of parenting that theywould otherwisebe able to do. Before I make three brief comments, I would like Mr.MarUndale: Thank you for thatclarification . to make a general commentabout the excellent job Mrs.Carstalrs : Thank you, Ms. Wiebe, and thank that you do in community development work, and you for your presentation. Has there been any also yourcolleagues with whom you work and from statistical analysis done that would indicate in whom we have heard tonight, MAPO, and the other percentages how many children in care are the inner city outreach ministries, because you have result of that family having to live on social been working with and on behalf ofthe poor day in assistance? and day out and year in and year out, hammering frequently onthe sameissues over and over again, Ms. Wiebe: How many children come into care tryingto get a measure of justice forthe peoplewith directly as a result of the family being on-as I said, whom you work in your community. I notice that no, there is no empirical data at this point, but It is even an organization that for the past eight years the general held belief that there is a relationship. has been known for charity, namely, Winnipeg Mrs.Carstal rs: From your experience in working, Harvest, have now publicly said thatthey are going it has been your experience that many of the to lobby governments to make changes. In the children are a direct resultof families breaking down past, they have quietly lobbied behind the scenes because ofthe stress caused by poverty? with various organizations that you have been Ms.Wiebe: Yes. involved with, but now they are going public which I thinkis an indicationof how serious the situation is Mrs. Carstalrs: Thank you. in thecommunity. Madam Chairperson: Are there any further You have noted that what people really need is questions? Thank you ve ry much. I would like to levels of assistancethat reflect the reality of the cost call uponJean Altmeyer of Choices. pnte�ection] June 22, 1992 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 113

1 have just beenadvised that we have to do a tape poverty line as calculated by Stats Canada. change, so that will take a couple of moments and Penalizing the poor in this way, and especially you can do your transformation into Jean Altmeyer children and their single-parent mothers, is totally while we are waiting. unacceptable. Itis immoral andobs cene. If the city Ms. Shirley Lord. were to continue paying social assistance at the current rates with the standardization of provincial * (2330) levels, then it would have to findan estimated $5 to Ms. Shirley Lord (Choices): On behalf of $6 million to offset the lossof provincial funds. Choices: A Coalition for Social Justice, I wish to Such offloading of fiscal responsibility is not new speak against Bill 70. This bill does not address the to the current provincial government, but it is needs of the poor in Manitoba. It threatensto further irresponsible and would indirectly threaten city jobs impoverish thepoorest sectionsof our society, and or servicesor create pressure for further increases if it does not do this, then it will impoverish the City in property taxes. Resistance to these fiscal of Winnipeg and shift a portion of the cost of social pressures would reduce the ability of the city to assistance from the province to the city. Let me maintain socialassistance payments attheir current elaborate. level and hence Bill 70 constitutes playing a form of This bill purports tointroduce a single-tier welfare Russian roulette with the poor of the province. system into the province, a concept strongly Choices, therefore, opposes Bill 70 because it supported by Choices, but it does not, in fact, dothis. does not introduce a single-tier welfare system and Instead, what it does is harmonize social assistance at the same time, it threatens the poorof thecity of rates throughout the province and allows Winnipeg with a a cut in their already grossly municipalities to pay more than the standard rate, inadequate incomes. Instead of waging war on the but entirely at their own expense. It does not poor or the City of Winnipeg, the provincial standardize regulations or administrative governmentought to beaddressing the root causes procedures, exposing residents of smaller of poverty in the province. Itought to be launching communities to demeaning public application a full-scale assault on unemployment through processes and pressures to migrate to Winnipeg. capital works programs, early retirement and Most Importantly, the bill threatens to standardize retraining schemes, employment incentive rates of social assistance at the provincial level programs, neighbourhood improvement programs rather than thecity level. pnterjection] and housing retrofitting. Excuse me, I am wondering if committee Choices outlined such a program in its recent members were concerned about hearing the alternativeprovi ncial budget. Employment creation presentation. pnte�ection) of this kind would be socially useful, bringingforward Since city rates are significantly higher for several in time many items of expenditure that are needed categories of recipients, this would mean either that anyway; example, infrastructure renewal, and can they will have to be reduced to meet the provincial be financed in a socially responsible manner. By rates, or that the city will no longer be reimbursed creating more jobs, expenditureson welfare would the 50 percent it now receives from theprovince for be reduced. Manitobans would be more the difference. independentand fewer would live in poverty. In the first case, city rates exceed rates for ali The provincial government has taken the categories of recipients except single adults. opposite approach. A hands-off policy means in Standardizingat the provincial rate would have the effect economic mismanagement. Unemployment effectof reducing allowancesfor a single parent with and the number of welfare recipients have soared. two children by $500 to $820 per year, depending The government boasted the budget of the on the age of the children and would lead to Department of Family Services, expanded by $50 recipients losing family allowance and child-related million this year relative to last. But this is mere income support allowances totalling some $1 ,500 deception, as the increase is almost entirely in per annum. payments to a swelling welfare role. The Choices In effect, this would reduce their annual income budget actually reducedwelfare spending at current from all sources by some 14 to 16 percent, an rates by creating jobs in the province, and this must income which is already only 60 percent of the be the government's first priority. At the same time, 114 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

social assistance allowances, even at the city rates, ways: One, to remove the cap that you are placing are hopelessly inadequate, do not provide for basic on municipal social allowance; two, that income be needsand donot keep pace with inflation. Choices standardized, not just talking about rates and that argues that the poverty line oughtto be the minimum the municipalities have a strong voice in future level of assistance andthat rates should be raised negotiations on rates, special needs definition and gradually overfive years to reach that level. eligibility criteria. The Conservative government, through Mr. Our submission is based on four principles, and Manness, has acknowledged that it is responsible these are that reform must improve not harm the for pushing more people into poverty in this situation for those individuals and families to meet province, as quoted in The Sun the 14th of May of their basic needs, that reform must build upon the this year. This is an incredible admission, for it recommendations of the SARC report published in acknowledges that Conservative economic policies July of 1989, that reform must treat people in similar are therefore at least partially responsible for our circumstances the same and that reform must having the highest rate of child poverty in the land, respect the values of equity, adequacy and one In every 4.4 children living below the poverty accessibility. line. Such policies are responsible for the phenomenal growth in the demands on food banks. Our submission speaks from the perspective of Winnipeggers whose social allowance cases Meanwhile, all levels of government continue to represent over 90 percent of all municipal social dispense massive amounts of money to individuals allowancecases. I do not want to go into the history and companies who do not need it, underwriting the that is in the brief. You can read that, but it does fortunes of the already rich through subsidies, tax point out five of the series of things that have led up breaks and extravaganza. Now is the time to use to today and the introduction and the discussion on the abundant resources of this province to put Bill 70. people back to work and to redistribute the social productmore equitably, so that the less fortunate of The Oxforddictionary definesreform as a change the province can have a betterfuture for them and for the better. Does this piece of legislation leave their children. A massive job creation program, a individuals and families on social assistance better renewal of the Core Area Initiative and a generous off once it is adopted? We say no. Let me tell you increase in social allowances are the way to the reasons why; first, standardization. proceed. Bill 70 addresses none of these. When we speak about standardization, some of Thank you. us speak about standardizing rates, and others speak about standardizing income which • (2340) represents rates plus exemptions. The results are Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Are there any vastly different,but both can be assumed under the questions? If not, thank you very much. rhetoric of standardization. We all agree that social I would like to call upon Kathryn Hlady, Private allowance programs should treat people in similar Citizen, Paul Moist, CUPE-Manitoba, Renate circumstances thesam e. Conversely, this principle Bublick, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg. also means treating people in different Renate's presentation I think has already been circumstances differently. Therefore, looking only distributed. at rates can indeed cause inequality. Ms.Renate Bubllck (Social Planning Council of Let me give you some examples. The City of Winnipeg): I know the hour is late, so to be a little Winnipeg exempts CRISP, the Child Related bit expedient, I am going to skip over some partsof Income Support Program. The city also exempts thebrief that is in front ofyou, because you can read the first $240 a month of maintenance payments. it as well as I can. The province does not. These exemptions make a Rrst of all, I want to extend our appreciation for difference to families receiving social allowance. the opportunity to present to you the views of the Standardization should establish basic minimum Planning Council on the proposed amendments to rates for the items of existence covered by welfare, thelegislation in front of you. I want to start off really the items that we consider as basic necessities. with someof our recommendationsand repeat them Everyone in need across this province should be later on, but we urge you to amend Bill 70 in three eligible for the same list of benefits payable at the June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 115

same mm1mum rates. These are basic and could well influencetheir survival in this community. importantaspects of standardization. Unfortunately, in today'seconomy we all know that To what levelshould we standardize? I am sure municipal socialassistance is morethan short-term that is a question that all of you have asked assistance. It has become, for many, long-term yourselves. The SARC report contends that assistance, so let me speakabout rates. municipalitiesmus t have the flexibilityto exceed the How the rates are set is very important. The minimum when it is deemed necessary by the proposed legislation assumes that the provincial municipalities. The SARC committee concluded method should be the norm, and we ask the that, generally, it may be reasonable to establish question, is this in the best interest of social rates for the municipal client group at a level which allowance recipients? Again, the answer that we approximates those currently in place in the City of have is no. Winnipeg, rather than thosein place at theprovi ncial The City of Winnipeg uses what is called the level. market-basket approach in setting their food rates. The second point is cost sharing of municipal This approach uses the Agriculture Canada social allowance. The proposed amendments, Bill nutritional food basket, which has 64food items in 70, are to legislationwhich provides the authority for it and is priced by StatisticsCanada. The approach the province to cost-share municipal assistance is based upon the spending behaviour of expenditures, but it also sets out conditions for the moderate-income Canadians. It may not be the delivery of municipal assistance andplaces limitson absolute best approach, but at least, it gives us expenditureswhich may be cost-shared. some basis, some rationale upon whichto judge the We believe Section 11 (1) of Bill 70 defines appropriateness of the rates that are set for food shareable cost of municipal assistance and relates items. this to Section 5.3(1 ), and 5.3(1 ) speaks to what is * (2350) consideredeligible. In plain English, andthat is not easy with this pieceof legislation,these two sections The province useswhat is calledthe thrifty-food­ say that the province-inour opinion, it says-will not basket approach. This global approach only cost-share above a certain set amount and that the includes 43 food items. This might seem trivial to province will ultimately define what they see to be some of you, but when we consider the impact of special needs. nutritionon healthychildren, it is important. So let me talk aboutspecial needs. We contend The other item under this is, oftentimes,because that thedefinition of special needsis important. The it is a global approach, the province can say, well, it other thing that is important is what we consider to should be 5 percent because the cost of living is 5 be healthcare needs and which of thosecare needs percent, and very arbitrarily, we can say, no, it are covered. should be 4 percent. We really cannot make the For example, the City of Winnipeg and the decision ofwhat items we are cutting out. At least, province vary in theirdefinition of prescription drugs, with the city approach you can make a choice of and I know thatis underdiscussi on,the list of what whether or not, as politicians, you are going to cut prescription drugs are to be covered ultimately and out eggsor milk. what health care needs are responded to. They The next question is partnerships. It is our currently differ. understandingthat Bi11 70 suggests on theone hand The City of Winnipeg negotiates individual rates that the municipalities should continue to deliver with community-based agencies for clients staying social allowance programsand on the other hand, in residential facilities and hostels. The city often does not give the municipality sufficient input, we pays a higher board andlodging rate than does the believe, into setting policies and procedures in the province. Community-based agencies like Main Mure. Street Project, Union Gospel Mission and St. This approach to problem-solving certainly does Norbert Foundation could well receive less money not encourage improved co-operation, by the proposed legislationif the provincedefinitions co-ordination, collaboration and communication are adopted. between the two levels of government. Yes, the Standardizationto provincial rates would have an province's proposed legislation does not prevent immediate and direct impact on these agencies and municipalities from exceeding the standardized 116 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June22, 1992

rates. Yes, it says that. We, however, believe that Three in five single mothers in Manitoba live Section11 (1 ) of the proposedlegislation means that below the poverty line. You also know that the province will not cost-share any social Manitoba has the highest child poverty rate In this assistanceamounts that are paid by the municipality country. All of thesefacts are not pleasant, and they that are greater than the provincial rates that will be certainly do not give Manitoba a good place in this set. country. Our child poverty report which was This, in our opinion, is a clear rejection of the released just very recentlydoes talk aboutthe kind SARC reportand itsrecom mendation on this matter. of family characteristics which help predict poverty. The SARC report recommended cost-sharing These include characteristics related to family above the minimum levels of aid and that status, age, education, work status and the standardization of rates should approximate those presence of small children in a family. Almost one rates in place in the City of Winnipeg, rather than out of every twopoor children lives In a family where those in place in the provincial program. the head of the household has dropped out of school. Most poor children live in two-parent In effect, this leads me to my next point,and that households, but if a child lives in a one-parent is, we believe that Bill 70 puts a cap on municipal family, the likelihoodof living in poverty Is an almost social allowance, a cap onwelfare, a cap on more 50-50 chance. than 90 percent of all municipal social allowance recipients. We believe that through Bill 70, the The majority of poor children, three out of four, provinceis saying they are prepared to pay so much grow up in a family where the head of thehousehold is between the ages of 25 and 44: However, a and no more. If a municipality wants to pay more, significant number, 12 percent of poor children, that is fine, but they will have to pay the price, the grow up in very young families where the head of whole price, with no cost-sharing from the Province the household is betweenthe ages of 15 and 24. of Manitoba. We go through a number of other statistics,and I Now, I am giving you in the brief a couple of really do not want to deal with all of those tonight, examples. All of these three examples that are but I do want to talk a littleabout the food allowance, presented in the brief make the assumption that particularly the food allowance in the City of therewill be minimum provincialrat es, thatthe new Winnipeg food basket. costs, of course, to the City of Winnipeg are The City of Winnipeg is addressing the issue of dependent on certainscenarios. child poverty,partly by exempting CRISP, by paying In scenario No. 1 , we really talk aboutallowances a personal allowance for kids and by paying an above the provincial rate and that this will not be adequate food allowance to thoseclients who have cost-shared. If that scenario holds true, that children under the age of one. This allowance is element hasa $2.7 million price tag attached to it. based upon advice from the Manitoba Medical When we are talking about exemptions, and if Association, the pediatrics branch and recognizes exemptions are not cost-shared by the province, the special and unique nutritional needs of infants. thatcarries a $0.3mil lion price tag. If we are talking The food items are priced semiannually. Again aboutspecial items, and if thoseare not going to be this varies from what the province does. The city's cost-shared, that carries a $2.2 million cost item. food allowance as of April of this year was $1 60 per Now, there are different scenarios that can talk month and the province was $85 per month for a about whether or not the federal government will child under one. The City of Winnipeg food cost-shareany of these points. In effect, depending allowance for children in the majority of age on what kind ofscenarios will ultimately come to be categories is above the provincialrat es. trueor to holdtrue, the priceto the City of Winnipeg The City of Winnipeg has covered additional can vary between $2.6 million and $5.2 million. nutritional requirements of pregnant social Now, my last point deals with the issue of child allowancerecipients for the past twodecades. This poverty. You know that one in five Manitoba allowance is one measure to try to eliminate or at children lives below the poverty line. In terms of least reduce the number of low birth weight babies international comparisons amongst the born to low-incomewomen in this city. industrialized countries of this world, Canada We all know that poverty compromises people's ranked third highest in overall child poverty. health and it definitely compromises the nutritional June 22, 1992 LEGISL6tTIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 117

health. Research also tells us that children living in already exceedthe provincial rates. Three, if Bill 70 socially and economically disadvantaged homes is intended to initiatethe processtowards a one-tier are particularly vulnerable to poor nutrition. Poor welfare system in the Province of Manitoba, amend nutrition doeshave far-reaching results. the bill by giving the municipalities a clear voice at People who live in poverty-people who are on all future negotiations on rates, special needs, social assistance-often do not have the family and definitionsand eligibility criteria. peer supports that the rest of us so often depend .. (0000) upon. Add to this the problem of inadequate Finally, we conclude by stating that no financial supportto provide for basic needs and we governmentaction should cause furtherharm to our end up with children living in a no-win situation. children, especially our poor children. We must Young children develop their foodhabits early in cherish all of our children. We cannot live in life and research shows that chronic diseases such yesterdays. We cannot cling to old patterns of as cardiovascular diseases and cancer, diseases behaviour and thinking, when family changes and which kill people in the prime of their lives, actually economic necessity presents us with a new set of get started in early childhood. circumstances. We know that poor nutrition has a great impact on To us, the question of child poverty is an a child's school life. It can affectthe amount ofdays economicissue . Dowe value our children? Unless the child spends in school, how much attention the government policy responds positively to the child pays in class. A lot of cognitive tests have urgency of reducing child poverty in the city and in been done on those very issuesand a lot of studies this province,we put families,our children and the are going on at this very moment to try to find out economy of the future at risk. Consideringthat one just how muchthis impacts a child's development. in four children in Winnipeg now growsup in poverty, We all know that children who are born into public policy should not be permitted to remain povertyare more likely to drop outof schoolearly in behind the times and, certainly, should not be life, which means they really do not have a chance allowed tocause furtherhar dship. of contributing to a productive life for themselves or We thank you for listening to us. The houris late, this city, this province orthis country. and we hope that you will make the necessary NowI dowant to come to some conclusions. We improvements to the legislation in front ofyou. believe that if Bill 70 is passed in its present form , Mr.Martindale: Madam Chairperson,I would like the city basically has only two options. Option one, to thank Ms. Bublickfor another excellent brief. We the city can follow the guidelines set out by the appreciate the fact that the Social PlanningCouncil legislation which effectively would mean letting has the resources and the staff time to do an about ultimately 3,000-plus families in Winnipeg in-depth analysis of the legislation and the SARC know that their next welfare cheque will be less; or report, especially the SARC report, because the option two, the city could make no changes to its minister has repeatedly talked about it by way of current social allowance rate structure and press release and in answer to questions. But you exemptions and shift the extra tax burden to the point outthat althoughthe SARC report is the basis propertytax. of Bill 70, they rejected two of its key Both options we believe are unacceptable and in recommendations. You also said on page 9 that the final analysis would not reform the social this bill is really a capon municipal assistance,and allowance system in this province. To shift the we have been calling this the capped bill in debate burden to those who can least afford it should be for several months now. So we certainly agree in unacceptableto all of us and must not come about. our caucus with that partof your analysis. In fact, I We urge you to amend Bill 70 in three ways. If personally did not see anything in your brief that I Bill 70 is only intended to be a framework piece of did not agree with. I agreed with everything that I legislation, delete those sections that in any way read. limit cost-sharing of municipal social assistance. I would like to commend you, finally, for Two, if Bill 70 is only intended to be a framework recommending amendments. I think the piece of legislation to move towards standardization amendments are good ones, and I hope that the of rates, amend the bill to delete all municipalities, Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) will particularly the City of Winnipeg, whose rates listen to your amendments and to all of the 118 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

presenters tonight who I think would like to see this delegationstonight, I would have to share those as amended. All the presenters are in agreement well. tonight in condemning, especially the capping We, in the City of Winnipeg, have 90 percentof provisions of this bill, and that themin ister will bring all the people on municipal welfare, and for those in some amendments tonight to make major rates to potentially be capped by regulation 1 think improvements to thisseriousl y flawed bill. would precipitate an even greater crisis than is Thank you. already existing in the inner city right now and Madam Chairperson: Are there any further across the city. questions? As other presenters have indicated, we have a Mrs. Mcintosh: Not a question, really-the more generous definitionof what basic needsare in presentationwas very thorough and quite clear-:iust the city of Winnipeg through a wider nutritionalfood a comment and that was to say how much I basket, the ability to earn more money while you are appreciate all the information that is in the packet. on welfare, sothere is a greater incentiveto get out You have been very good corresponders, and 1 and find yourown source of income by not deducting especiallyappreciate the littlehistory. I knew some CRISP benefits and 55 Plus benefits, and also of it, but not all of it. I look forward to reading that through wider provisions on eligibility for special and wish you well for the future as well as the past. needs, particularlyin the medical sector with respect to drugs. Ms.Bubllck: Thank you. These benefits reflect the fact that the cost of Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Bublick. living in the city of Winnipeg is higher. That is the I would like to call upon Aileen Urquhart, West very reason why they are done. They are not done Broadway Community Ministry. frivolously. They are done after careful research by Mary Davis, Private Citizen. our social assistance department, and they are brought forward to meet the basic necessities of An Honourable Member: Mary Davis sends her people in the city of Winnipeg. regrets. She is unableto attendton ight. So the very concept of capping it, to set up a Madam Chairperson: Greg Selinger, City of standard provincial rate, I think, is specious. It is Winnipeg Councillor. just not a reasonable approach. I mean, you have Mr. Greg Selinger (Councillor for Tache Ward, to have rates that adjust themselves to the living City of Winnipeg): Thank you for the opportunity circumstances of the people in the particular to present tonight. communities they live in. Councillor Douglas was unable to be here. For example, housing costs in the cityof Winnipeg CouncillorGilr oy, who is the member of the Social are very high, and in the inner city they tend to be Action Review Committee, is out of town, so I am higher than even outside of the inner city, for the pinch-hitting for bothof those councillors tonight. simple reason that rent controls are not very Rrst of all, I would like to congratulate the minister effective. The rent control system is a for moving on dealing with the federal government's complaint-driven system, and many people who are decisionto offload on off-reserveStatus Indiansand moving into rental housing in the inner city do not pick up the cost for that with respect to the knowwhat the rates were before they moved there, municipalities. I think that was a very positive so they cannot make a complaint after they have gesture. arrived. This bill, as I understand it, and it is somewhat like The cost of housing is one of the contributing a city by-law. It has a lot of murky words in it that factors to why people are going to food banks, but are very hard to understand until very much later, the more basic factor is that welfare rates are less after you have made the decision. But it seems to than 60 percent of the poverty line. Another report me thatwhen I read Section5.3(1 ) that rates will be thatwas done by the Social Planning Council, by a established by regulation. Is that correct? I just senior researcher there named Harvey Stevens, want to make sure that I understandthe bill correctly. who now works I believe in your department. You pnterjection)Okay, if that is the case, the scenarios could have access to his research directlyby talking that have been presented to you by other to him. June 22, 1992 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 119

His research showed that when the welfare rates We take thatfinancial expenditure very seriously, drop below 60 percent of the poverty line, you see and it is a significant portion of our budget. The the phenomenon of food banks starting to pop up. welfare rolls in the City of Winnipeg are up 500 In Winnipeg we have 173 food banks, far in excess percent since the 1983 recession. There were of any of the hamburger outlets that we have, about 3,000 cases at that time. There are about including McDonald's and Burger King. I think that 15,000 cases now. That is the highest rate since speaks to a very serious problem that is developing the Great Depression. I do not think we should take in this province andin particular in this city. that lightly. When you have that many cases-that So this concept of capping the rates, I think we is not the total number of people; that is the cases. have to move away from that. It is going to have Those cases may have more than one member very, very serious consequences. within the family. But a 500 percent increase over the 1983 recessionspeaks volumes to the problems With respect to the city, we made an official we are having with poverty in the city and the request at the last official delegation meeting, and I problems of kickstartingour economy. knowthat Mrs. Mcintosh wasthere to have aspecial meeting on this topic with the provincial Previous speakers have spoken about child povertybeing the highest in the country. The effect government, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the of capping in the City of Winnipeg would be to most minister. We have not heard about that special directly impact on families with children. The meeting yet, so I would hope that this government evidence shows our rates for single individuals are would not move on any kind of rate capping until we lower than provincial rates, but our rates for families have had that special meeting and had a chance to are higher. Any kind of capping attempt would air all our concerns in a face-to-face way with directly impact on families, and we have the greatest respect to this topic. number of families in our history on the city welfare I also understand, in talking to Councillor Douglas rolls. We need meaningful job creation programs. this evening, that the SARC committee has not We need the Core AreaInitiative to get going again. concluded its deliberations at this stage, so I would We addressed that in the officialdelegation , and we not want anything precipitous done until that saw a responsive chord with the government. committee has had a chance to come to a An attemptto reduce costs, I think, is only going conclusion. to exacerbate the problems in the city and create As you know, welfare is a provincial responsibility other costs and other syste ms that are under your that has been delegated by legislation to the City of control, such as the child welfare system. In our Winnipeg. We already paid $15 million off the case, it will create increased costsin the protection property tax for welfare last year. Thewe Hare rolls area, and we will have costs that we pay for through have grown another 30 percent, and you could solving problems after they have been created make a case that constitutionally no property tax rather than preventing problems. We would hope, dollars should be paying for welfare; they should be before you proceed any further with this legislation, income tax dollars. So we are already doing more that you sit down andtalk to the cityabout this and than we should in terms of what the constitutional we find a way to make sure that we are protecting responsibilities are. Because we are a creature of the families in the city, particularly at a time when the Province of Manitoba, if you tell us we have to they are growing, andthat there really be no capping do it, we just simply have to do it, and that is the way at all, that you withdraw those provisions from the it is. We have no choice over that because we have legislation and we have a formula for cost-sharing no protection under the constitutional framework of welfare if you are going to delegate it to the city or this country. any municipality that is based on the need relevant Any attempt to cap it and increase the property to that context. tax burden further,as you know, would be very, very It has to be a needs-driven approach, not some reactive. There is a lot of pressure about property artificialst andardization approach. Other speakers taxes in the city already. The $1 5 million that we have said it as well, but it is my very firm conviction paid out for welfare last year would represent about that we cannot solve our financial problems on the a 5 percent reduction in the mill rate if that was backs of those with the least amount of resources eliminated. in our society. It does not make sense 120 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

economically; it does not make sense socially, and I also was interested in your concerns about the it will certainlycome back to haunt us in many, many consultation process. I hope very seriously the ways. minister takes your remarks to heart because he has said time and time again that there is a * (0010) representative of City Council on the SARC I had theopportunity to go out on the Street LINKS committee. It would appear from your remarks that program Friday night with the public health nurse the consultation has not been as thorough or as and the community worker in the van and drive complete as you might have hoped it would be. through the inner city. They are, as you know, a Perhaps the consultations that take place between prevention program for AIDS, which is a very the time of-if the bill passes-passage and the serious problem. They hand out suppliesto people implementation of the regulations would be a litt le on the street to have them be able to engage in a more thorough. healthier or safer lifestyle, and they also do a needle Mr. Selinger: I have just a commenton the SARC exchange. Most of those people are between the committee. Councillor Gilroy has indicated that he ages of 16 and 24. Most of those people are is one member, with a member of the administration aboriginal people, and the majority of people on the on that committee, but we have 90 percent of street are also parents. municipal welfare cases in the city. If we reduce welfare any further, we are going to Even if he is outvoted on that committee, I do not be driving more and more people onto the street into think that can be the final decision. There has to be the kinds of lifestyles that are very high risk and are a direct consultation between the City of Winnipeg going to cost us a lot more money in all kinds of and the provincial government on something that is costs, health care costs, protection costs, so I think going to so seriously impact on our budget and on that we have to look at the consequences of any the people of the city of Winnipeg. attempt to reduce the basic resources which people need to survive, particularlywhen you have had the Hopefully, there will be a positive recommenda­ tion out ofthere to not cap the rates, but Iwould think chance. that this should not be the final word on it, because I know thatthere have been ministers who have i of the proportionality argument, that we have the been nvited to go out on that tour. I hope you do it. vast majority of people residing within the city of As a person who worked on Main Street in the early Winnipeg where the poverty conditionsare probably part of my career, I found that the level of violence the most severe and the mostexacerbated. had increased, andI found the peopleexperiencing that violence were younger than in the days when I Mrs. Carstalrs: Thank you, Mr. Selinger. I just worked out there. It was a bit of a jolt to me to see have a question which is rather hypothetical, but I think it is important for this committee to hear and that. The people who were in the van who had that is, if, in fact, this bill passed as is without worked there after I did had also found that it had amendment, if there was capping and if the rates increased since the time they had worked there. were set at rates other than the City of Winnipeg's, The conditions are deteriorating and we cannot what is your best guess as to what the City of be withdrawing resources from these people at this Winnipeg would do? time. It is getting to be a very desperate situation. With those comments,I conclude my presentation. Mr. Selinger: You know, any decision made by City Council, at the best of times, is very hard to MadamChairper son: Thank you very much. predict. I can tell you that I would not support a Ms.Barrett : Thankyou, Mr. Selinger. It was good reduction of rates. to hearfrom the city some of the negative impacts I noticethat in the bill, there is a transitional clause that will occur if, as we fear, the regulations to Bill which I think is intended to do some buffering if there 70 comein at lessthan the current city rates. I say are any changes to reduced rates. That is a positive fear because we do not know. This is a very gesture, but, I, for one, would not support that. It, interesting piece of legislation in that the most just for me, would not be conscionable, but there is important element of it is missing, and the minister a very reactive taxpayer out there right now, and chooses not to let us know beforehand what the other councillors might react differently to other most important piece of this legislation will be. kinds of pressures. June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 121

As you know, we havehad a lot of concernabout I have just another piece of information that the reassessment,and we have had a lot of concernthis staff passed on to me. We talk a lot aboutfamilies. year about any mill rate that was higher than therate I am told that 80 percent of the people on the of inflation, even though the needs of the city are municipal case load in thecity of Winnipeg are single outstripping the rate of inflation. For example, the people, so that is a factor that we should keep in growth in the welfare caseload is 30 percent. That mind,too, when we talk about this issue. is not1 percent. That is 29 percent higher than the Mr.Selinger: H thatis the case,there is no reason rate of inflation. to cap it for families. They are nota proportionately We need to have furthersupports ifwe are going large part of the budget, and they should not be to be doing this job. We really act as an suffering by any changes that are made In therates. administrative vehicle for the province. It is not Mr. Gllleshammer: I would just say that any really our responsibility. It is really under the decision on rates will be made after the SARC Constitution, the BNA Act, the responsibility of the process hasbeen completedand the consultations province to provide health and weHare services. have been completed. We are doing it because we have been legislated to do it. We do it as best we can, but we need the *** proper supportsto do that. MadamChairpers on: Thank you very much. Is it Madam Chairperson: Are there any further the will of the committee not to hear further questions? presentations on Bill 70? Agreed. Thatcompletes Mrs. Mcintosh: It is a question really actually for consideration ofpublic presentationsto Bill 70. this presenter and the Choices presenter earlier. I I have been advisedthat this committee has been do not know if you were reading from a piece of called again for tomorrow,Tuesday, June23, 1992, paper there or not, if it is possible to get a copy of at 2:30 p.m. in Room 254, Legislative Building, to your presentation. considerclause-by-clause considerationof Bills 42, Mr. Selinger: These are my own notes. I do not 64,70 and85. Is thatagre ed?. think anybodyelse could read them. Committeerise. Mrs. Mcintosh: Sort of doodle-doodley types? COMMmEE ROSE AT: 12:19 a.m. Okay. Well, that is all right. Is there one from the lady in the white who did theChoices presentation? WRITTENSUB MISSIONS PRESENTED Did she have a presentation that we can get? BUT NOT READ pnterjection] I will look at the Hansard then. Okay. Thank you. Re: Bill 85-The Labour RelationsAmendment Act Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, with a Services): Madam Chairperson, I have just a membership of 3,800 individual representatives couple of comments. The councillor asked if we from 1 ,500 member firms and organizations, is the would be making any decision before the process voice of business on issues of common interest to with the SARC committee is completed, and the the business community. answer is no, that we have more meetings Regrettably, we are unable to personallyappear scheduled with members of SARC to hear from not to present our views but we do wish to put our only the City of Winnipeg, but the MAUM and the general positionon the record. UMM representatives. I am given to understand The Chamber supportsthe direction beingtaken that may take a few months yet. in the amendments to The Labour Relations Act. Certainly, we are aware of the request to meet The 1990 report of the Winnipeg Task Force on with city officials, and while that request did not Economic Development identified several come to me, I am sure it will be honoured. The economic challenges facing Winnipeg, oneof which concerns that you have indicated about costs for was our business climate. The task force municipal corporations, we are aware that all concluded that our labour laws are perceived as municipal corporations that are involved in social uncompetitive, a factor which may be working allowances pick up about 20 percent of the costper against Winnipeg in attractingnew investment. The individual case. proposedamendments should serveto alleviate the 122 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

negative perception and to establish a better *** balancebetween labour-management interests. Brief to the Legislative Review Committee SpecHic Observations concerning Bill 85 1992 Amendments to

1 . First Contract Provisions The Labour Relations Act The Chamber supports the requirement that, as a Introduction: prerequisite to applying to the Manitoba Labour There is a temptationto let changes in thepolitical Board (MLB) for settlement of a first contract, a stripe of government lead to significant alterations conciliation officermust reportto the board on the in labour relations legislation. A business­ efforts made by the parties to conclude a first supported Conservative government gets pressure agreement. This will help ensure that the two to make amendments that favour employers; a partieshave bargained in good faith and exhausted labour-supported New Democratic government is all options for resolution before intervention by the lobbied to make amendments that give unions the MLB. advantage. 2. Certification Procedures The experience in British Columbia since the The amendmentswould result in a secret ballot vote Barrett government of the early 70s is a classic example. Barrett hired Paul Weiler, a leader in on applications forcertification when between40 to labour relations thinking in North America, to draft 65 percent of the proposed bargaining unit have and administer a Labour Relations Code. Many of signed membership cards (extended from the the reforms introduced by Weiler have been existing 45-55 percent). Automatic certification adopted almost universally throughout Canada. would occur above the 65 percent threshold. We However, in 1987, the Social Credit government view this amendment as an improvement in that the hired Don Jordan, a management-side labour wider margin fora vote should minimize situations lawyer, to rewrite the legislation. When The where certification may have, or is perceived to Industrial Relations Act was passed, the B.C. have·, been affected by intimidation or peer Federation of Labour announced a boycott of the pressure. The Chamber would have preferred that new Industrial Relations Council. Now that the the Nova Scotia model be adopted where there is Harcourt government has taken power, Vince an automatic certification vote for every application Ready has been assigned to make further that has support of at least 35 percent of the amendments, which will undoubtedly swing the employees. We believe a secret ballot vote is the pendulum back again. most democratic approach to determining the true Ontario's Rae government is in the process of wishes of employees and would furtherreduce the making a significant number of amendments that likelihoodof covert orovert coercion. have angered business leaders in that province, to the point where they have launched advertising 3. Employer Interference with Union During campaigns against the changes. Many would Certification Program argue that Ontario's current LabourRelations Act is The Chamber is in favour of the repeal of Section very labour-friendly, and that to appease labour 6(2) which deems certain statements by an further, when the economy is so weak, is employer during the certification process to be an foolishness. However, the will of the Rae unfair labour practice. We support in its place the governmentto enact these amendments should not amendments which would balance the interests of be doubted, regardless of the business lobby. labour andmanagemen t but preserve the individual This is regrettable. What the working employer's constitutionally guaranteed right to environment would benefit from most is a stable freedomof expression, while stillpreve nting against environment where changes in government do not lead to major changes in labour legislation, the use of intimidation, coercion, threats, undue designed to swing the pendulum in favour of one influence and interference with the formation or side or theoth er. An equilibriumwhere unions have selection of atrade union. a reasonable opportunityto gain status, and then to TheWinn ipeg Chamberof Commerce serve as effective representatives of employees, June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 123

and where employers have a reasonable functions", Manitoba only excludes an employee opportunity to asserttheir legitimate self-interest, is who: the ideal. 1) performs "management" functions Since 1972, during the first Schreyer 2) "primarily" administration, which was the firstNDP (as opposed to CCF) government in the country, Manitoba has in 3) such that it would be "unfair" to include general had the most prolabour legislation among them (s.1 ). Canada's jurisdictions. Thishas not been true of all Section 2(2) adds that emrely supervising other provisions, but of many. Those addressed in Bill 85 employees does not exclude an employee. It is are among the more unique provisions that arguable that this section really adds nothing to the distinguish Manitoba from the other labour definition in 51 , because it would not be "unfair" to legislation across Canada. include someone who merely supervises or directs It is noteworthy that when the Lyon administration the the work of other employees. was government from 1977 to 1981 , no major What situation is really contemplated here? A changes were made to The Labour Relations Act. "lead hand" is responsible to supervise other The Pawley government that followed introduced employees, but is not necessarily in a conflict of Manitoba's first legislation concerningimp osed first interest with the employees he supervises, because contracts, then hired MarvaSmith in 1 983 to prepare he does not exercise significant discretion in a white paper on labour legislation reform, which led administering the collective agreement, in thesense to 91 pages of amendments thattook effect in 1 985. of: Finally, finaloffer selectionwas Introducedon June 4, 1987, after18 years of internal strugglewithin the a) hiring; NDP concerningthe viability ofanti-scab legislati on. b) discipline and firing; This legislation was met with opposition from not only business, but half of the labour movement. c) scheduling or assigning hoursof work and overtime; Once implemented, it earned the support of many of the unions that had initiallyopposed it, but it was d) authorizing time off; or repealed by the Almon government on March 31 , e) evaluating the performance of the 1991. employees he supervises. In this brief, I will review the proposed changes What is truly significanthere is the jursiprudence contained in Bill 85, one by one, in the context of of the Manitoba Labour Board interpreting these where they would leave Manitoba in the Canadian provisions. It is significant to note that our Board context, and where, in my opinion, they would has consistently looked at cases from Ontario, "improve" labour relations legislation, where they would have littleimp act and where they wouldhave BritishColumbia and Canada, at therati onale for the exclusion in those jurisdictions, to decide who an adverse effect. should be includedand excluded in Manitoba. The I expressmy personal opinion only. I am a labour leading Manitoba cases in this area are consistent relations and employment lawyer practising almost with the cases from other provinces and the federal exclusively on the management side in labour sphere. The overriding principle is universal: relations matters and, for the past nine years, the giving access to collective bargaining to the sessional lecturer in Labour Management Relations maximum number of employees, balanced with the at the Faculty of Law, University of Manitoba. The need to avoid conflictof interest within any particular comments I express do not in any way reflect an bargaining unit. opinion representative of the university orfaculty, or the clients I represent. I would say that decisions in Ontario and other jurisdictions outside Manitoba reflect an analysis (1 ) Section 2(2) stated in general in their legislation and spelled out Manitoba has had, for many years, the most in detail in Manitoba. I cannot think of examples onerous statutory provisions in the country relating where the differences in language in the legislation to establishing an exclusion from the bargaining unit have ledto differentoutcom es in exclusion issues. concerning "managers". Where Ontario excludes If there are such examples, it is unlikely that 52(2) any employee who "performs management would have produced such a difference, because 124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

the more fundamental differences are in the use of balance the cost of mounting such a challenge the word •unfairw and "primarllyw in 81 . against what might be gained. No one pursued it. I would be surprised if this amendment, standing It is not all that clear to me that 86(2) wouldhave alone, would lead to a different result in any case failed a challenge. Nearly all Charter cases in the than if no amendment occurred. Where its effect labour relationsarea have producedjudgmen ts that would be neutral, I would recommend that no pay singular homage to the political essenceof the amendment or repeal occur. law in this field. Provisions that contain clear prima (2) Section6 facie breaches of freedom of expression, This section concernsthe employer unfair labour association and assembly have been saved under practice of interfering with union organization or 51 of the Charter, on the basis that the political administration. The focus of the amendment is on considerations that have prompted these limits "formation or selectionw, the union's organizing justify them. The examples are too numerous to drive. mention. 86(1 ) in its current form is very similar to the To say that 86(2) may survivea Charterattack is "interferencew provision in other Canadian not to say that 86(2) is desirable legislation. The jurisdictions. The amendment to this first premise of the section is that an employer is subsection, making it subject to employer free restricted to a position of strict neutrality, and is not speech, does not amount to a substantial change in to participate in the debate among employees and effect. Section 32(1 ) remains unchanged from its the organizing union as to whether establishing a present form . union as exclusive bargaining agent is in the best The potentially significant change is in subsection interests of the employees. Any statement of the (2). This provision, unique in Canada, spelled out employer concerningthe unionization would offend what state ments made by or on behalf of an that neutrality, and therefore the employer is, in employer during the sensitive period of union effect, directed to remain silent on the topic. organization would constitute interference and Is this so different from the situation in other therefore an unfair labourpractice by an employer. jurisdictions? The Ontario decision in The Globe & The significance of the unfair labour practice is Mail case suggests that total neutrality is not mostly the discretionary certification provision, required In that province,so long as the employer's Section 41 , thatallows the board to certify withouta statements about the union are purely factual and vote a union that has not gained majority accurate. The Canada Labour Relations Board in membership support, because the true wishes of the American Airlines case insisted on complete the employees can no longer be ascertained by neutrality and non-participation from the employer. reasonof theunfair labour practice. Section41 will A goodcase can be made that the federal approach survivethese amendments. is to be preferred, because it eliminates any Section 6(2) deems the following employer confusion as to what speech is permissible and what statements to be unfair labour practices: is not. An Ontario employer could easily be seduced by The Globe & Mail into crossing the a) he objectsto unions or the union; boundary into unlawful interference. Once the b) he prefers one union over another;or employer enters the debate, it is difficult to avoid c) some attitudeor policy of theem ployer will going too far in attempting to influenceem ployees. change if the union is certified. Many employers in Ontario have been heldto have On its face, 86(2) is unduly restrictive on free interfered with the formation or selectionof a union, speech. Most practitioners felt that this section and therefore committed an unfair labourpracti ce, would never survive the Charter, 52 (freedom of by making statements that let the employees know expression). However, in 10 years of life under the that the employer was opposed to the union. It Charter, the section has not been truly tested. Any could be the lack of specific language in the employer wanting to challenge the section would interference section that led to the breach. In have to realize that final victory could only be Manitoba, an employer clearly understands from achieved in the Supreme Court of Canada, as the 86(2) that no communication is permitted. government would appeal any adverse ruling of a On balance then, I feel there is merit in spelling lower court. Any individual employer would have to out in 86(2) what communications are prohibited June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 125

during the organization drive. It is consistent with on knowing how much the merchandise costs the WagnerAct (and in Canada, P .C. 1 003) promise before agreeing to buy it, and no honourable to trade unions that in exchange for giving up the salesperson would failto give it a proper answer. right to strike for recognition, they would be secure This proposalignores what is really neededin this from employer campaigns to discourage union province. I suspect it is ignored because it would support. The practical effectof the section does not cost government money. go much farther, if at all, than the jurisprudence of What is truly needed is a worker's advocate, the other jurisprudence has gone in limiting independentof business, labour, the boardand all employer free speech during the organizing drive. other existinginstitutions. Such an advocate would The section clarifies for the unsophisticated be able to adviseem ployeeswho want independent employer what is permitted and, more importantly, information about: what is not. 1 ) their right to choose a union, or a different I do have a concern with S6(2) however. The union; vicarious liability aspect is unfair. The provision fails to make clear whose speech is limited and 2} theirright to chooseno union; whose is not. The employee who has some 3) exclusion from the bargaining unit supervisory responsibilities, but is not an alter ego (managerial or confidential); of the employer, may by expressing his opinion 4) protection from unlawful treatment by their about the union, deem the employer to have employers; committed an unfair labour practice. I would prefer to seethe restriction apply only to those authorized 5) their right to information; to speak on behaH of the employer, and to permit 6) the procedural requirements of the Act, open debateamong all employees below thatlev el. e.g., as to certification and opposing The proposedamendment to S6(3) concernsme certificationand as to decertification; as well. Section 6(3) exempts certain acts from 7) theunion's duty of fair representation; being viewed as interfering with a union. The 8) safety and healthcomplaints; proposed amendment would add to the list: 9) advantages, disadvantagesand tacticsof "(f) communicates to an employee a statement filinghuman rightscomplaints; and of fact or opinion reasonably held with respect to the employer's business·. 10) probably much more that I have not considered. Would an employer who sincerely believed that her businesswould fail ifthe union were certified be Employees whorequire this assistance now face entitled to inform herem ployees thatthey migh t lose a number of unattractive alternatives. Employers their jobs if they support the union? Such a belief and unions cannot be trusted because of their may be viewed as reasonable, particuarly by vested interested. The labour Board is too directly business, but such communication to employees involved with adjudication to be truly independent, would undoubtedly have a chilling effect, and and lacks the resources to accomplish what is borders on a breach of S1 7 (threats, intimidation, needed. Other government bureaucracies either coercion). I feel the inclusionof such a provision will involve individuals with insufficient breadth of create more problems than it will solve. It is also knowledgeto give this information, or have their own unarguably inconsistent with the preamble to the seH-interest in steering employees in a particular Act, that enourages collective bargaining. direction. The legal profession is intimidating because legal advice is so expensive, andlegal aid (3) Section 45 does not cover this kind of service. This amendmentis in effect a companion to S6. The lack of such an advocate is the single It obliges the union to inform prospective union greatest weakness in our labour legislation, in my members abouthow much it will cost tojoin, in terms view. of initiation fees and periodic dues deducted from This proposal is a baby step in the right direction. pay. It ensures that employees hear both advantages and disadvantages of joining a union. I (4) Section 40 and 48.1 do not view the change as being of great The S40 proposal expands the range for a significance. Any intelligent shopper would insist representation vote from 45-55 percent to 40-65 126 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

percent. On its surface, it means more Manitoba's first contract legislation has been, in representation voteswill be conducted. In practice, my view, a successful experiment in its •no fault" it will likely mean longer organizing campaigns. aspect. I have just published a paper in the It might befairer to require employers to post in Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and each non-union workplace a list of non­ Practice onthe subject of first contracts and FOS. I management employee names, addresses and commend the minister for leaving this legislation classifications, to enable an organizing union to otherwiseintact. determine the target it has to meet, and give it (6) Section 80(3) and 130(6) reasonableaccess to the affectedemp loyees. This The repeal of 880(3) will not have a profound would be consistentwith the principles espoused in effect on labour relations in Manitoba. It refers to the preamble to the Act. matters outside a collective agreement, which was Another alternative would be to require the union somewhat inexplicable from the beginning. only to achieve 40 percentand to have a quick vote Repealing the section is in that sense positive. As in every application where this level was a substitute, the minister might have considered demonstrated. This is the system that has been allowing provisions that oblige both parties to adopted in Nova Scotia. Longer campaigns lead behave reasonably, fairly, in good faith and in a employers into temptation. They are not allowed to manner consistent with the agreement as a whole. attempt to influence employee wishes. The I believethese areallo wed in any event, and in fact proposed amendment to S48 would prohibit are found in some collective agreements. campaigning on theday of the vote, which is fine. The repeal of S130(6) is also less than earth By then, however, the damage may have been shattering. Is it intended to have theeffect that no done. Vice-Chair of the Board can be appointed an Paul Weiler has written an excellent article on expedited arbitrator, even if the Labour certificationprinciples, comparing theCanadian and Management Review Committee has approved the U.S. systems. Itpoints out how the U.S. system that individual as a grievance arbitrator? This would offers a vote in every application has failed to seem nonsensical. On the other hand, limitingthe provide access to collective bargaining to many list to persons who had been so approved would American workplaces. The article was published make perfect sense. Just because an individual in the Harvard Law Reviewand is entitled, fittingly, has a five-year appointment to the board from the • ...Promises to Keep". Legislature doesnot make her a qualifiedgrievance (5) Section87 arbitrator. The proposed amendments to S68(3.1) and If all Vice-chairs are perforce excluded from section87 requiringthat conciliation be exhausted expedited arbitration, the government may find it before first contract applications are accepted is more difficultto convince qualifiedneutrals to accept very positive. This isa procedure which has been part-timeappointments to the Labour Board. abused on occasion in the past. The current Conclusion: legislation can lead to unnecessary hearings and The restraintdem onstrated in putting forwardthe contract impositions,which should be used only as proposed amendments is commendable. These a last resort. provisions indicate that there is not a desire to Providing the alternative of private interest over-politicize the labour relationsclimate, leaving it arbitrationinstead of a board hearing,but only when stable enough to encourage new business, new the partiesmutually agree to a private arbitrator, is trade union organization and to reassure those an excellent alternative. I only wish to add that in involved in existing, working collective bargaining my view, the Manitoba Labour Board has done a relationships that they can function together on a commendable job in implementing S87, and has in level playing field. general imposed fair contracts. The board will I do hope that at some point, a government will benefit considerably from the requirement that establish a worker's advocate that could provide conciliation be exhausted before applications are independent advice to individual employees. accepted. The same requirement must apply to strikesand lockouts forfirs t contracts, andarguably Respectfully submitted, should apply to all contracts, as in Ontario. Grant Mitchell June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 127

*** Child Advocate would only be mandated under The Child and Family Services Act and only beentrusted Re: Bill 64,an amendment to TheChild and Family witha role with those children who are being orhave ServicesAct a right to be served under this act. Clearly, this is a With this correspondence, please accept our response to someof the recentdifficulties with some written submission at the committee stage. This element of the child welfare service system submission is presented on behalf of Child and especially as it relates to issues such as timely Family Services of Central Manitoba and Child and reporting of abuse allegations. However, we Family Servicesof Western Manitoba. believe that responsive legislation of this sortmay We have . read the bill thoroughly and want to be ultimately shortsighted. compliment this government on being only the third provincial Legislature in Canada to propose an In Mr. Gilleshammer's remarks of 10 April, 1992, amendment to create the office of the Child we heard a very progressive statement about Advocate. Recent history in Manitoba is truly advocating for systemic change. Unfortunately, indicative of the need for legislation of this sort. All that role for the Child Advocatecannot be actualized of us who toil in child weHare in this province in this bill. The focus on child welfare alone is not a recognize that the role of Child Advocacy is a realistic view of the child in the context of family and necessary function in order that vulnerable and community. Every child in this province attends defenseless members ofour society can be served school and many are involved with children's special and protected by law andthose who enforce it. services or mental health services. Some children On Friday, 10 April, 1992,the Honourable Harold run afoul of the law and find themselves involved Gilleshammer, Minister of Family Services andth e with the youth courtsyst em, and all children must, sponsorof this bill, made a panel presentation at a from time to time, take advantage of our health conference at the Sheraton Hotel in Winnipeg. This system for their own health concerns. Given these conference was organized by the Manitoba realities for children and their families, a focus for Coalition on the Rights of Children. advocacy on child welfare alone is toonarrow . This Mr. Gilleshammer spoke at length about this bill is especially true ifwe believe in an interdisciplinary and answered some of the public questions that and integrated service approach to children and came to him. In his remarks, the minister stated that families. the role of the Child Advocate would be to Integration of services to children and families is recommend action in three areas under The Child a value which has achieved a great deal of and Family Services Act: acceptance among policy makers involved in the

1 . Action in specific areas involving children development of these services. Community and who have a right to servicesunder this act. Youth Corrections and Manitoba Education and 2. Action involving a whole category of Training are two functions of government who are children being served or underserved by on the verge of proposing the beginning stages of the act. integration. Legislation creating the Child Advocate's office could serve to enhance these 3. Action that would involve systemic action initiatives by ensuring that thisoffice has a broad to ensure the care and protection of enough mandate. Integration recognizesthe whole children. child and accepts that every child in this province Those remarks were helpful andwe would like to has a right to all manner of services provided or thank the minster for offering thatperspec tive on this funded by the provincial government. In fact, and in bill. reality, more children take advantage or are entitled CRITIQUE to service under The Public Schools Act than they Many of us were disappointed on the face of it to are under The Child and Family Services Act. see that the bill was an amendment to existing There is no recognizable advocate in law within that legislation. The expectation had been that this legislation even though more Manitobans under the would be a stand-alone piece of legislation age of 16 are served by it. This is but one example parallelling The Ombudsmans Act. This method of of the need for the expansion of these duties and presentation drove home the message that the the need for independent legislation. 128 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

If Bill 64 isread with the current act, the reader is Justice, Health, and Education and struck with the problem of the role of the Child Training. Advocate vs. the role of the director. It read as if 3. Given No. 2, that the Child Advocate's legislation is being used to create Civil Service Office report to the social service positionsbut the reportingis directly to the minister. committee of cabinet with an annual report Clearly, prior to the introduction of this bill, the to the whole Legislature. directorhad the dutiescurrently contained in this bill. We trust that these comments are helpful in So in thatsense, this role is not a new role but merely considering the future of this very vital function in a creationof a new position witha differentreporting this province. line to fulfill it. Although we recognize that regulations have not Yours truly, Dennis H. Schellenberg yet been prepared, this bill appearsto duplicate the Child and Family Services ofCentral Manitoba role of the current Ombudsman in some respects. Accountability for publicly funded services is not a *** bad thing. However, the growing number of external entities to whom Child and Family Services Re: Bill 64-The Child and Family Services is accountable appears overdone and therefore Amendment Act may be viewed as a waste of public funds. With bill We are writing to the committee to lend our support to the passage of Bill 64, The Child and 64,we see one more level ofaccountability but only · within a limited framework; that of Child and Family Family Services Amendment Act. Services. This means potentially the Ombudsman Children in Manitoba who are receiving services and the Children's Advocate may both be involved from The Child and Family Services system have in reviewing a case situation involving one child. long needed a children's advocate, over and above Again, this addresses the concern previously thesocial worker,to speak with a loud and effective stated, about viewing thewhole child and the need voice on their behalf and to give them input into for integrationof policy. decisions which affect their lives in the immediate and in the future, in addition to effecting necessary We recognizewith this critique that the minister changes in the system for the benefit of these has committed to an evolving role for the Child children. Many studies and reports have long Advocate andthat this amendment is a beginning. advocated suchan officeand thepressi ng need for However, we can safely predict that the same which, when implemented, could only be of responsibilities as outlined in theamendment will benefit to these children. not fulfill the government's expectations nor the Manitobans have long discussed the need for a expectations of the people of Manitoba. We also children's advocate and the benefits thereto. It is know that future changes to legislation are difficult with theabove in mind and thegrowing needfor the to conceive. Therefore, we believe that the said office thatwe strongly lend our support for this legislation should be written correctly the first time bill. withouta dependencyon future amendments. Yours truly, PROPOSAL Jerry G. Ross, B.A., B.S.W., M.S.W., LL.B.

Given the need for a Child Advocate's office and *** given the value of Integrationof children's services, we would like to see the following changesmade to To the Honourable Harold Gilleshammer: thiswhole initiative. Ithas recentlycome to my attention that the child 1. The current bill be redrafted to be a advocacy bill is in jeopardy. separate, stand-alone piece of legislation. I have felt for some time that this bill is extremely 2. The duties of the Child Advocate be necessary given the unfortunate plight of many expanded to include all services under children in Manitoba, as is frequently demonstrated government purview involving servicesto in the newspaper and ontelevisi on. children. This would essentially involve I had also felt that all political parties would be the Departments of Family Services, behind this much-needed legislation, but I was June 22, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 129

distressed to hear that there appear to be problems the Children's Advocate. That they are not formally standing in the way. identified as "children in care" doesnot imply that Itseems to me thatthe ideal scenario would be a they are children not in need of care either within or child advocate who would be totally free of all outsidethe Child and Family Services system. political stripes, i.e., a person to whom children in According to theUnited NationsConvention ofthe need would turn to without fear of any political Rights of the Child, all children have the right to interference. A true ombudsman, devoted to freedom of expression; freedom of thought, children's problems regardless of whether the child conscience and religion; freedom of association; is a ward of courtor just any child with special needs. protection of privacy; protection from abuse and However,I understand that this person will have neglect; health and healthservices; social security; to be accountable to eitherthe mi nister, a committee a standard of living "adequate for his or her physical, of the Legislature, or the Legislature as a whole. mental, spiritual, moral and social development"; I believe that reportingto the minister would make education; and leisure, recreation and cultural more sense, as any crisis situation would be dealt activities. with more expeditiously than having to report to a The Children's Advocate should be granted the group. breadth of scope and freedom to fulfill the function It would be a great pity if this importantpiece of of addressing the needs and rights of all children, legislation should fail to becompleme nted now due regardlessof their status within or outside the child to some pettypolitical infighting. weHare system. Yours sincerely, 3. The Children's Advocate should recognize Gillian P. Colton communicationand visiting with a child as a primary source of informationwhich may be complemented *** by communication and visiting with the child's guardianor representative. S.K. Y. - STREET KIDS and YOUTH The present wordingof 8.3(d) implies that a visit Proposed Amendments to Bill 64 with a guardian or representative of the child is an 1. The Children's Advocate should be responsible acceptable alternative, and not an addition to, time to the entire Legislature (as is the Provincial spent with a child. This is neitherappropriate nor Ombudsman) and notto one minister. acceptable as it fails to assure the child of a voice Such a structure would allow the advantage of while acknowledging the voice of the guardian or independent status and free inquiry into matters parent as a sufficientalternative . regardless of the government department which (Amend 8.3(d) to read •under this act, and a may be involved. guardian or other person whorepresents the childj. An independent status would also add to the 4. The powers of delegation bestowed upon the public credibilityof the Children's Advocate, as the Children's Advocate in Section8.4 is at best vague. positionwould be perceived as separate from party As it presently stands, the advocate may delegate interestsor influences. any task to any person at any time. Those tasks, (Amend 8.2(1 )(a); 8.2(d); 8.2(2); etc.) the positions/persons permitted to carry out those 2. Bill 64, entitled The Child and Family Services tasks and the timeframe(s) during which they may Amendment Act, must also encompass the rightsof be delegated shouldbe clearly specified by Bill 64. children not currently within the Child and Family (Amend8.4) Servicessyst em. 5. The procedure outlined in 8.8(3) for reporting to The phrase "relating to children who receive or the placement centrecould very probably place the may be entitled to receive services under this act" child's safety in jeopardy. should be amended to be inclusive of all children H a child has a complaint against the person in residing in the province ofManitoba. charge of the placement facility in which they are Itis clear that many children who do not fall within currently residing and the Child Advocate proceeds the currentstructure or servicedelivery of the Child to report theresults of the investigationto that same and Family Services system are also entitledto the staffperson while the child is stillin his/hercare, the advocacy,assist ance, intervention and protection of child may not be safe. 130 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 22, 1992

Aschildren involved with the child welfare system currently residing is not a realisticproc edure; in fact, will be aware of this procedure and the risk it may it is almost laughable. pose to their personal safety, any number ofchildren Even if a child can overcome the intimidation of may decide not to proceedto launch a complaint or the powerstructure and the individualstaff charged concern with the Children's Advocate, thereby with enforcing that structure sufficiently enough to nullifying the original intent of Bill 64. file such a request for communication with the This procedure must be amended in recognition Children's Advocate, how can the child be assured of this possibility and a more safe and appropriate that the staff person will forwardthat request (when procedure outlined. it may concern themself or a co-worker)? (Amend8.8(3)). If the officeand role of the Children's Advocate is 6. It is important the reporting procedure to the to be accessible to the people it purports to serve, complainant bestandardiz ed. As it currently reads, namely children, it must be accessible in practice, the Children's Advocate may decide upon recognizing the barriers children face as the "appropriate" reporting procedures in the absence subordinates of an adult power structure. of any standard format. These procedures must be (Amend8.9(a)). clarified and specified to encourage public 8. Sections 8.1 0(2) concerningdisclosure re duties understanding and trust of the role of theChil dren's and power and 8.1 0(5) concerning disclosure re Advocate. adoption records must also be clarified, as their (Amend8.8(4 )). current wording is vague. 7. The communication by a child to the Children's Respectfully submitted by Advocate through theintermediary of a staff person Gayle Pearase at the home or treatment centre where they are SKY Project Director