House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I have a few items of House business.
Firstly, I wish to announce the Committee on Privileges and Elections will meet Tuesday, June 4, 1996, at 10 a.m. until 12 noon in Room 255, to which will be referred a review of the Children's Advocate legislation and the Judicial Compensation Committee report.
With respect to the Estimates sequence for today, in the House the Justice Estimates are set aside and will be replaced by the Department of Urban Affairs and, if time permits, the Seniors Directorate. Continuing in Room 254 are Highways, and Culture; and in Room 255 will be Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Sport.
For Thursday, at 9 a.m. in the House will be the Committee of Finance; Community Support Programs; Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote; Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations; Emergency Expenditures; Internal Reform; Workforce Adjustments and General Salary Increases; Urban Economic Development Initiatives; Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program; and Employee Benefits and Other Payments. That is in the House.
In Room 254 will be the Department of Rural Development and Decentralization Initiatives.
In Room 255 in the morning will be the Department of Government Services and in the afternoon will be the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
For Friday this week we have two committees. In the House will be Government Services if they do not finish tomorrow, followed by Northern and Native Affairs. In Room 255 will be the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
Madam Speaker, would you call the following bills for second reading: Bill 35, Bill 26, Bill 57, Bill 52, Bill 53 and Bill 45.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave for all the changes proposed by the honourable government House leader for the sequence of departments to be considered in the Committee of Supply? [Agreed]
Do you have another item of House business before we commence second readings?
Mr. Ernst: Considering the hour, Madam Speaker, I think we will call for second reading today only Bills 35 and 26. The other bills will be deferred.
SECOND READINGS
Bill 35--The Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Training, that The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Mitchelson: This bill is a major step forward in protecting Manitoba's children from abuse. It is a fundamental part of the government's commitment to deal seriously with people who abuse our children. These amendments to The Child and Family Services Act will ensure that anyone guilty of abusing children will be listed on Manitoba's Child Abuse Registry.
The bill seeks to increase protection of children from abuse by expanding the scope of the provincial Child Abuse Registry. Experience in administering The Child and Family Services Act has shown that its definition of abuse is too narrow. At present it covers only parents and guardians and others caring for children. It does not cover third party offenders who are not in a position of trust or responsibility to a child.
The expanded definition will now include third parties who do not have care, control, custody or charge of a child. It will encompass anyone who sexually exploits a child, whether or not they are actually caring for a child. This will include pedophiles, dangerous sex offenders and users and procurers of children for sexual activity.
* (1450)
This will make it possible to place the name of anyone found guilty of a crime involving abuse of a child on our Child Abuse Registry. As I have said, we intend to leave no doubt that abusers are abusers or that they threaten a child from within the family or from outside a child's family. Bill 35 will ensure that there are no gaps in the reporting of child abuse or the listing of abusers on the registry.
The second major aspect of the bill concerns the obligation to report names for inclusion on the registry. In this area, one change applies to Manitoba courts. They will have to report the names of person found guilty or pleading guilty to an offence involving abuse of a child to the director of Child and Family Services for inclusion on the registry.
Madam Speaker, the police will also have an expanded child protection role under our bill. Once the police learn of the whereabouts of a child abuser in or moving to Manitoba, they will have to report that person's name for entry on the registry, except for those already reported by the courts.
There is a critical aspect of this requirement to cover as many situations as possible. It will not matter whether an abuser's offence and/or conviction took place in Manitoba or outside the province. In either type of situation the name must be sent in for inclusion on the registry.
These changes to the Child Abuse Registry complement our government's earlier initiative of introducing community reporting of the presence of high-risk sexual offenders and establishing the Community Notification Advisory Committee to administer the procedure. With these amendments, we are ensuring that the names of abusers who have gone through the law enforcement and criminal justice systems will be sent to the registry as a consequence of their crimes.
We want our children to grow up in an environment where they are protected from abuse. In our society and in the policies of our government children and their care and protection are our highest priority. In this bill we are acting on our commitments to strengthen child protection and to deter child abusers. A more comprehensive Child Abuse Registry is one important tool with which to build a safer community for Manitoba's children.
Madam Speaker, I know this bill will be supported by all members of this House and I ask for support to pass this bill before we rise on June 6.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): It is a pleasure to rise and give support to this bill and we join the government in wishing this bill be passed as soon as possible, preferably passed and receive Royal Assent before we break for the summer. As a police officer I know sometimes the difficulties in interpretation of who really is in care and control of a child. This will remove any ambiguity in regard to that in that any person who has abused a child will now be put on the Child Abuse Registry and I think it speaks to the safety of our children.
It also clarifies the obligation of courts to put people on the Child Abuse Registry and we think this will be a benefit for the children of Manitoba, so we ask all members of this House to consider passing this into committee and encouraging all members of this House and all parties to support this legislation and have it passed before we break for the summer.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I, too, like the member from The Maples, would like in essence to compliment the minister on this particular bill. On going through the bill, my interpretation or what has been explained to me, the part that I find--and I will be somewhat graphic if you like, there are pimps that are out there that take advantage with our children, and this is the type of bill that can address problems such as that.
For that reason, I think the bill should warrant the opportunity even to receive Royal Assent before June 6. I know that the minister at least acknowledged that she would be prepared as government to have the bill go through its entire process and ultimately receive Royal Assent on June 6. The member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), who is the critic for the Liberal Party regarding Family Services, has already spoken to the bill and following his lead, my intentions are to be very short and brief and, in essence, to appeal to the New Democratic Party in reviewing this bill as quickly as possible and possibly agreeing at allowing this bill to receive Royal Assent primarily because I do think that this should be a relatively nonpolitical issue.
It is something which the minister brought to our attention a while back and, after looking into the bill, we feel that the bill does deserve a lot of accolades. For that reason, we support what appears to be the intentions of the bill and we would ask that the New Democrats do likewise and demonstrate--and it would not be the first time. I can recall a couple of years back when we had a bill regarding food distribution or the food banks, and it was more of a spontaneous gesture at that time where we saw all three political parties in the Chamber expedite that particular bill, and it ultimately received Royal Assent.
Madam Speaker, when we had appealed to the official opposition back then, they saw fit to allow it and, once again, we would like to appeal again to the New Democrats and hopefully see this bill receive Royal Assent before ultimately we adjourn or recess on June 6. Thank you.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 26--The Labour Relations Amendment Act
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 26, The Labour Relations Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations du travail), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill 26, an act to amend The Labour Relations Act. As I do so, I am sensitive to the fact that this House will be considering this legislation against a backdrop of unusual turmoil in some aspects of labour relations across Canada. This turmoil is marked not by unusual levels of conflict between employers and employees, but rather by an era of, frankly, partisan political conflict between governments and union leaders in many parts of Canada. In part, that is understandable.
In our neighbouring province of Ontario, the excesses of past governments have left the current administration with no option but to undertake massive and sudden downsizing of the public service. The employees affected in that province are naturally concerned. We have been fortunate in Manitoba that we have maintained and strengthened the management of our public affairs and never allowed it to sink to the levels that prevailed in Ontario under past governments. So as we struggle to achieve a sustainable government, one that can meet its responsibilities at a cost that Manitobans can bear, we have faced few layoffs and have been able to manage the process with humanity and with consideration for the loyal men and women who make up Manitoba's outstanding public service. As members know, I am a former member of the Manitoba public service and I say that with pride.
Although our situation in Manitoba is very different than that of our neighbour, we are seeing much of the excessive rhetoric that has marked the Ontario arguments being imported by union leaders to our province. We are hearing extreme accusations and personal attacks, not from all quarters of the union movement, it is true, but from some. Abusive and unnecessary confrontation have no part in our Manitoba tradition. They are simply alien and irrelevant to the values that Manitobans share, so I would hope that, as we debate this legislation, we can do so in a Manitoba way, that is, with civility and mutual respect.
* (1500)
To begin with, I think that all of us in this House, along with a vast majority of Manitobans, can agree that organized labour and free collective bargaining play an important and largely positive role in the economy of Manitoba. Approximately 35 percent of all men and women in our provincial labour force belong to labour unions and, of course, the existence of this strong unionized sector influences wages, benefits and management practices across the economy as a whole. The advocacy activities of unions have influenced the employment and workplace legislation that has evolved under successive Manitoba governments, contributing to the steady evolution of safer, fairer and more humane employment practices.
For the most part, collective bargaining has tended to work better and less disruptively in Manitoba than in many other jurisdictions. Perhaps because of the strong sense of community that has always marked our society, we appear to be able to disagree without sacrificing mutual respect and basic civility. As a result, we have enjoyed a labour relations climate that, in general, has been peaceful, orderly, and that has augmented both the fairness of our economy and the attractiveness of Manitoba as a site for new job-creating investment.
That is no accident. Many groups and individuals have worked in good faith to build bridges and mechanisms for resolving differences that reflect our uniquely Manitoban sense of community. As laws affecting the workplace have evolved in Manitoba under governments of differing political stripes, there have been few, if any, occasions where either organized labour or management have been satisfied that their particular interests have scored a total victory, but in most cases, there has been a grudging acknowledgement that governments must strive to ensure that our investment climate remains attractive to business and to achieve continuous improvement in such key areas as workplace safety and health and overall employment standards.
In the process, we have evolved such unusual institutions as Manitoba's Labour Management Review Committee which provides an ongoing forum for labour and management to work and reason together to provide government with advice about workplace legislation in general. As a result of all of this, we have been able to achieve improvements in legislation and practice responding to changing precipitations and changing economic realities with a minimum of disruption.
It was in that spirit, for example, that Manitoba was able to achieve financial stability for a Workers Compensation Board without having to take the drastic measures that were needed in some Canadian provinces. That spirit led to improvements we have made in maternity and paternity provisions to better protect working parents and to ensure that our laws evolve in tandem with changes in the values and the realities of our communities. It lies behind the improvements we are making in The Pension Benefits Act and the streamlining and improvements that we will be proposing for an integrated employment standards code.
That same spirit animates the important modernizations we will be making with respect to technical safety. Compared to virtually every other jurisdiction in Canada, if not in North American, what has been outstanding about the evolution of labour relations and workplace legislation in Manitoba has been that, in our province, the evolution has been characterized less by conflict than by consensus.
I stress these points as I rise in the House today to propose amendments to The Manitoba Labour Relations Act, the main piece of legislation that governs relationships between unions and employers and between unions and their members, because it is important to say at the onset that our government's intention is not to alter the balance between unions and employers that exists in the current act. The current balance has, generally speaking, served our collective interests and the interests of those involved in the bargaining process.
So the main focus of the amendments I am proposing today is not the relationship between unions and employers. Instead, those amendments, like an important part of the amendments that were enacted under a New Democratic government in 1985, focus on the relationship between unions and their members and, like those changes, enhancing individual workers' rights. The changes I am proposing today aim to enhance individual workers' rights by strengthening the accountability, the transparency and the perceived fairness of internal union operations.
It may be useful to members if I quickly describe the main impact of that earlier 1985 set of amendments. The principle behind those changes in the law was described as the duty of fair representation. The most important substantive changes made at that time were a strengthened requirement for strike votes and for votes among employees as to whether to accept or reject management offers. Those changes were not seen nor intended to be antiunion actions by the government of the day. Rather, the main intention of the changes was to ensure that the internal democracy and accountability of labour unions was clear and visible to all, because unions can best play a positive role on behalf of their members and in the broader community if they are seen to be fair, open and democratic in their operations.
The changes I am proposing today arise from the same motivation. I believe, by enhancing union democracy and the accountability of union leadership to its own members, we also enhance the legitimacy and authority that unions can bring to the task of participating as positive agents of change within the industries where their members are employed and in the broader society of Manitoba. We also believe leaving more rather than fewer matters to work out through free collective bargaining is the route we ought to follow in Manitoba.
Government's role is to set the parameters, the basic and balanced legal context within which unions and employers can meet their shared responsibilities for the welfare of both enterprises and employees. Today, more than at any time in the recent past, that will require both unions and managements to respond to fundamental changes, to find new ways of relating, to innovate and to adjust to a new set of competitive realities that inescapably will affect Manitoba industries as they are affecting enterprises all over the industrialized world. Like it or not, changes in technology, and in the end, international terms of trade mean that the economy is changing in Manitoba, and we have to change with it. Our enterprises and our entire economy have no choice but to respond to meet tougher competition in our export markets and here at home.
Interprovincial trade barriers are coming down, so we will face greater competition for markets and for investment from other parts of Canada. International barriers are also coming down. At the same time, technology is transforming industries throughout the economy, leaving firms with no option but to modernize if they are to compete successfully. And for unions and management, the need to respond to these changes implies a new and broader agenda that they have to deal with than in the past. That new agenda must include an understanding of the vulnerability of virtually all companies and virtually all jobs in the face of global competition. It must include a recognition that lifelong employment by a single firm will become rarer. Because that is undeniably true, an increasingly important new focus for the employer-employee relationship will be on finding ways of working and relating that will contribute to lifelong employability. That will increasingly become the best way that unions can serve their members' interests. Playing a positive role in defining and addressing this new agenda will certainly stress some traditional union practices and operations. For example, where technology transforms a multistep process into a two-step process, that must change the rules of work just as it changes the skill and knowledge requirements for the people doing that work.
Successful competition will require that enterprises strive to reduce costs and cycle times and to improve quality and service that will demand greater workplace flexibility and more active and innovative union-management relations than we have seen in the past. Many unions understand that. The amalgamations that have occurred within union ranks mean that more and more unions have the resources and the capabilities to analyze and understand these changes and to play an effective leadership role in what really amounts to a redefinition of the workplace in the face of worldwide competitive change. But change is always discomfitting, and union members will need as much confidence as possible that their leadership is truly pursuing their interests as they become engaged in this process of change.
In many ways Manitoba is fortunate in that we are facing these challenges at a time when for the most part our economy is experiencing steady and healthy growth. During 1995, we saw that growth in manufacturing, agriculture, banking, mining, transportation, retail sales and nonresidential construction. The net impact of that steady growth against a backdrop, a weakness in the housing sector and of necessary but carefully managed downsizing in the public sector led to a very healthy increase of 2 percent in average employment in our province.
* (1510)
To put that gain in context, let me tell you that it was significantly above the national average and more than double Manitoba's average employment growth rate over the past 20 years. Farm cash receipts have grown more quickly than the national average. Our mining industry is expanding with nonfuel mineral production up roughly one-third last year, and the long-term indicators are even healthier.
Point of Order
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like you to call the Minister of Labour to order, please. I believe the purpose of introducing this bill for second reading is to outline the principles of this piece of legislation, and I fail to see what the relevance of his current statements on the record have to do with the elements and the principles of Bill 26, and I would ask you to call him to order to deal specifically with what is in the legislation before us.
Mr. Toews: That is exactly what I am doing, Madam Speaker. This is a very important piece of legislation and it is not always easy to put things in a simplified form that the member would like. I believe I have a right in this House to outline exactly what the purpose of the bill is and what the essential elements of that bill are, and I would appreciate that the member opposite would respect my right to speak in this House and that when I speak for workers, she cannot just stand up and say that he has no right to speak.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I was listening to the Minister of Labour very carefully and he was discussing at some length the economic conditions in Manitoba. He was describing the economy. He was clearly not discussing, at this point, for the last several minutes, the principles of the bill, and therefore I think the point made by the honourable member for Wellington should be very well taken.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I understand the frustration, perhaps, of the members opposite in that their union bosses do not want to have this kind of legislation come forward. The fact of the matter is, though, nothing impacts on organized labour more than the economy and the changes in the economy, and the context of the changes in the economy are exactly what the minister is talking about. They have a significant impact, and that context is what he has to provide in order to give the explanations with respect to the changes in The Labour Relations Act. So in my view the minister is on track, right on track, in talking about these issues.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and the government members on the other side that want to continue with this debate do so outside the Chamber.
I thank all honourable members for their advice. On the point of order, regrettably, I did not hear the exact comments that caused the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) to raise the point of order, but I would remind the honourable minister that his comments, indeed, are supposed to be addressing the principles of the bill.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Labour, to complete his comments.
Mr. Toews: As I was indicating, the principles of the bill are primarily designed to take aware of the economy that is occurring not just here in Manitoba, but the global economy that we face. We do not just work in Transcona; we do not just work in Rossmere; we work in a global economy. As I have indicated, we are fortunately at a time when the long-term indicators are healthy for Manitoba. Capital investment is increasing; key manufacturing is up four times the national average. Once again, this is no accident. Government policies, including policies related to labour relations, have contributed to solid economic progress. Overdue actions at all levels of government in Canada to contain deficits and bring down total government indebtedness have helped to create a climate of lower interest rates and greater investment confidence.
All this is good news, but it does not make the necessity for change to go away. But healthy, growing enterprises operating in a stable fiscal environment are better able to manage and change and adapt to new kinds of relationships, just as the unions who represent the employees of such enterprises have an opportunity to take a longer view and begin to develop new goals and strategies to serve their members' long-term interests.
That is the purpose of the main amendments to The Labour Relations Act that I am proposing today. These changes aim to strengthen, simplify and make more visible the essential democratic nature of union organizations. They aim to make sure that union members believe and understand that they control their unions and not vice versa and they aim to hand more responsibility rather than less responsibility to unions and managements to address the challenges of a changing workplace and a changing competitive environment.
I am proposing six significant amendments to the act today. The first deals with votes relating to the certification of a new union. In the past, like much of labour relations law in Manitoba and elsewhere, these provisions have been relatively complex. At some levels of support for certification, a vote of all employees has been required and at others it has not. We are going to make it simpler and more open by saying that in any case where an application for certification meets the threshold level of 40 percent of employees, there will be a government supervised secret ballot vote conducted under the auspices of the Manitoba Labour Board, and the vote must be held quickly. From the union standpoint, this new regime will ensure that all newly certified unions will be seen as fully legitimate. From the standpoint of employees, unions and management, the quickness of the process will minimize disruption and uncertainty. The basic reference point here is clear. When in doubt, union members should decide in a fair and open way. That is the basis of democracy. It is accepted by people around the world and it reflects the values that Manitobans share. There should be no objections to this amendment from anyone, because that basic reference point is clearly and patently democratic and fair.
* (1520)
The second amendment we are proposing may on the face of it seem somewhat more controversial. We are proposing to amend The Labour Relations Act to require that all unions file full financial disclosure with the Manitoba Labour Board each year, disclosure to their employees, which must include the salaries of all officers and employees of the union, the benefits paid to officers and employees, political contributions, all advertising and publicity expenses, all gifts and grants. Any employee in any bargaining unit of the union will be able to obtain that information from the Manitoba Labour Board. Now, I say that on the face of it this amendment may appear to be a little more controversial than the requirement for certification votes, but all of us in this House have to live with the reality that the community knows how much we earn and they have a right to know that because our earnings come out of their money. Public Accounts put total spending decisions of government clearly in front of our electorate each year in great and sometimes uncomfortable detail. If those who elect us, either as private members and as members of governments, are displeased with the way we are rewarding ourselves and the way we are husbanding their money, they have access to that information so that they can vote us out of office. It is a useful discipline and it is as it should be. The people who put up the money have a right to know how it is being spent.
Madam Speaker, the same principle should apply to union leaders and employees. Their salaries and other expenses the unions incur are made up of money that belongs to the people in their bargaining units, including union members and nonunion members alike. Under the Rand Formula employees and unionized bargaining units are legally compelled to pay union dues as a condition of employment, and the principle applied, those who put up the money and are legislatively required to pay that money have a right to know how it is being spent when the Legislature gives that money to third parties, and their members have a right to know how that money is being spent by ensuring that this financial information is available to union members and all members of the bargaining unit.
This amendment will strengthen the legitimacy of unions as key institutions in our society, institutions that have obligations of openness that compare to those that other organizations have to meet. I think the reasoning is clear and that it is beyond argument, so I really do not anticipate a great deal of controversy around this amendment. The main reason for that, of course, is that I do not believe that there is systematic or widespread abuse within the union movement.
There will certainly be some discomfort among union leaders as they move to comply with this new requirement. Like you and me and the rest of us in this House, Madam Speaker, they will feel a certain reticence at the thought of making what they consider personal financial information available, but like me and the rest in this House, they will realize the essential fairness of the proposition, that when you are spending someone else's money, the people who have been compelled by legislation to pay their personal money to a nongovernmental agent have a right to know.
I suppose the fair question might be can they not find out now, and if they can, why change the law? Well, in theory, union members can find out all of this information, Madam Speaker. They merely have to go to union headquarters and ask for it, but that is an illusion. Unionized workers are dependent on their membership in good standing for continued employment. Even if we assume, and for the most part I do assume, that unions will not abuse this power, we have to acknowledge that the imbalance in power between those who spend the money and those who pay it is too great for this situation to be transparently fair.
It is the same basic reason that has led governments to require publicly traded companies to file extensive financials with government. In fact, it is interesting to note that publicly traded companies have faced far higher disclosure requirements than unions, despite the fact that unlike bargaining unit members who are legally compelled to pay union dues, shareholders are always free to sell their stock.
It is not the government's job to tell unions how they can spend their money, and that is not our intention as we bring this amendment forward, but we do want to make sure that union members and bargaining members can control how their dues are spent and are seen to be able to do so. So let us make it transparent; let us make it open. As all of us in this House know, it is a useful and sobering discipline, and it is a discipline that union members and other employees in bargaining units across Manitoba deserve to be protected by. It is simple. In a democratic organization like a union, the people who put up the money have the right to know how it is being spent. They also have a right to a significant degree of control as to how that money is spent.
The third amendment I am proposing goes to that principle. This change may, I suppose, have some potential, again, for controversy. It relates to union participation in politics. Let me make it clear. This government does not object to such participation if it represents the will of bargaining unit members. In fact, Madam Speaker, the party I belong to would be pleased to receive support from any union that chooses to support us if their members wish to provide us with that support.
The amendment I am proposing will provide any union member or other member of the bargaining unit with the right to say that his or her dues may not be used for political purposes but rather be redirected to a registered charity of the employee's choice. We are not altering the compulsory check-off system. We are not limiting the ability of union organizations to contribute to support political parties that they believe share their views, but we are strengthening the ability of individual bargaining unit members to say, yes, I agree with that, or, no, that is not how I want my money spent.
Once again, this amendment goes to a redress of the balance of power between union membership and bargaining unit members. Will many people use this new right? Frankly, I do not know, but it is a right that any working man and woman in Manitoba ought to have because the money being spent is their money, and, again, this is the same reason that the fourth amendment I am proposing.
The amendment will require that members of the bargaining unit vote in a secret ballot, government-supervised vote, conducted by the board on the employer's final offer prior to any strike where it is in the public interest to do so. Ontario and British Columbia both have that legislation. In fact, when the Ontario Federation of Labour asked the New Democratic government to repeal that provision in Ontario, the New Democratic government said about the same provision, no, we will not, and in fact used it in a very effective case where the union leadership had lost touch with its membership.
Will this amendment lead to fewer strikes in Manitoba? Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I do not know, but I do know that it will create a situation in which there will be no strikes, in which the decision is made by anyone other than the people who ought to make it, the rank and file members of the bargaining unit.
The last two amendments I am putting before the House today could be viewed as simple housekeeping, but I think they are both important as examples of the tradition of civil labour management relations and free collective bargaining that has evolved in Manitoba over the years. The Manitoba Labour Relations Act provides for a process called expedited grievance mediation arbitration. This process allows either party to refer a grievance to the Labour Board rather than working through the normal grievance process established in their collective agreement.
In these cases, the board moves quickly to settle the grievance through mediation and/or arbitration. The original reason, if you go back to the NDP briefing notes of the day, was that time-sensitive agreements should be handled in that way. That is why provisions of a collective agreement should be overridden, but we know that in too many cases, parties are calling for expedited process rather than working things out through the collective agreement, even though there is no particular urgency to the matters being referred.
We continue to believe that in truly urgent cases governments should continue to be involved, through the board, to provide a speedy resolution, but we also believe that in the vast majority of disagreements between employers and unions, they should work that out through their own collective bargaining situation.
The final amendment I am proposing relates to Section 12 of the act dealing with reinstatement after strike or lockout. The intent of this provision has always been clear. It aims to ensure that no employee is exposed to punishment for exercising their legal rights under The Labour Relations Act, but this section was never intended to mean that people would be unaccountable for illegal action simply because those actions occurred in the course of labour management disagreement.
* (1530)
Recently, however, there has been a decision of the Labour Board that interpreted the provision in precisely that way. That decision seemed to say that if there was a strike in progress, people were free to break the law. That is not the intent of this section. It never was, and it offends the values that Manitobans share, so we are simply amending the legislation to make it clear that this protection extends only to apply to legal activities and does not provide a licence to law breaking. If you break the law, you pay the penalty whether you are in labour or management, whether there could be a strike in progress or not. That is the kind of legislation Manitobans want, and I believe it is the vast kind of legislation that bargaining member people want as well.
I said, as I began, that organized labour plays a significant and largely positive role in our economy. The generally responsible history of Manitoba unions, like that of Manitoba employers, contribute to a stable labour-relations climate, and that, in turn, helps to make Manitoba continue to be an attractive place to invest and create jobs and opportunities and a good place to be either an employer or an employee. As our economy changes, unions face new challenges to learn to innovate, to provide leadership in the evolution of new relationships in the economy. Manitobans believe that kind of leadership can be provided by organizations that are clearly and transparently accountable to their members.
The amendments I am proposing here today, by ensuring that unions are more open, democratic and accountable to their membership, will enhance their ability to meet those challenges and to serve the interests of their members across Manitoba. Thank you very much.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I believe as has been my experience in past years in this House to have the opportunity to ask questions of the minister pertaining to legislation, so I am requesting leave for the opportunity to ask those questions.
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Transcona have leave to pose questions to the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews)?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Reid: I do not know why the members opposite are refusing to give leave. I thought it was a practice of this House where this would be second reading of the bill--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Transcona has the right to request leave. It is up to the House to decide whether leave will or will not be granted. I posed the question and leave was denied.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I move, seconded by the member for Transcona, that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Madam Speaker: Prior to recognizing the government House leader (Mr. Ernst), I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery, where we have this afternoon--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Now, do I have the attention of all honourable members? Good. I would like to draw to their attention that there are thirty-five Grade 6 students from Melita School under the direction of Mr. Paul Witt. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey).
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a commitee to consider of Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) in the Chair for the Department of Highways and Transportation and the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship; the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) in the Chair for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Urban Affairs.