role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

June 30, 1981

32nd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

MINISTERS' RESPONSES

REMARKS BY SPEAKER

WELCOME TO VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GO RAIL CAR ORDER

POSTAL DISPUTE

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAMS

INTERNATIONAL BALLET COMPETITION

ORAL QUESTIONS

EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS

TORONTO EAST GENERAL HOSPITAL

ASSISTANCE FOR HOME CARE

COVERAGE FOR PROSTHETICS

FORMER PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS

TREATY 3 AGREEMENT

LANDLORD AND TENANT DISPUTES

TILBURY FARMERS' CO-OPERATIVE

ASTRA/RE-MOR; CO-OPERATIVE HEALTH SERVICES

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ACT (CONCLUDED)

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONCLUDED)

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

House in committee of the whole.

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION ACT

Consideration of Bill 90,

An act to establish the Ontario Waste Management Corporation.

Mr. Chairman: Bill 90 -- at this early hour!

Mr. Nixon: Not for farmers.

Mr. Chairman: No, that is right, Mr. Nixon -- not for you farmers.

Mr. Kerrio: The sun has been up five or six hours.

Mr. Chairman: All right. I am sorry I opened up with any kind of remark. I am just a humble little lawyer in the village of Newcastle trying to find my way.

Are there any comments or amendments to any

section up to but not including

section 15?

Mr. McGuigan: After

section 15?

Mr. Chairman: No. Up to but not including

section 15.

Sections 1 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.

section 15:

Mr. Chairman: Are there any amendments?

Mr. G. I. Miller: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we would like to --

Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, Mr. Miller. The minister has given me notice for his amendment. We should carry on with the minister's amendment first.

Ms. Bryden: I have an amendment too.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Norton, you have an amendment, do you not?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, my amendment is to subsection 2 of

section 15. I believe that --

Mr. Swart: A point of order, Mr. Chairman: The amendment that the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) wishes to put refers to subsection 1. I believe the amendment being put by the minister refers to subsection 2; so I suggest to you that the member for Beaches-Woodbine should be recognized.

Mr. Chairman: You are right. In that event, Mr. Miller, your amendment is in regard to subsection 1 too; is that correct?

Mr. G. I. Miller: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart, since I had originally recognized Mr. Miller, and since his amendment is in regard to subsection 1 also, we might consider Mr. Miller's amendment first. Ms. Bryden, is that all right?

Ms. Bryden: I think I was on my feet first.

Mr. Chairman: I vaguely forget exactly who jumped up first. I am sorry, Ms. Bryden. In my mind I did recognize Mr. Miller. I think we will go on that basis.

Mr. G. I. Miller moves that

section 15(1) be amended to read: "The Environmental Assessment Act, 1975,

section 33a of the Environmental Protection Act, 1971, and

section 43 of the Ontario Water Resources Act do apply in respect of the following."

Mr. Swart: Are there copies of this, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Nixon: It calls for the deletion of the word "not" in the third line.

Mr. Chairman: I do not believe the table has a copy. There is some difficulty here at the table. We have a copy of your original amendment. Is this a new amendment?

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Chairman, it simply deletes the word "not" in the third line of

section 15(1) of the opening statement. I think that what we have presented to you is a copy of the complete

section without the word "not." Does that clarify it?

Mr. Chairman: All right. So we ditch that and keep the new one you gave me.

10:10 a.m.

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Nixon: No, Mr. Chairman. I am in favour of this.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, while this amendment may appear to accomplish the same purpose as my amendment to this section, which I presume will come next, it seems to me my amendment is a more clear-cut way of removing the offensive

section which takes the operations of the waste management crown corporation out from under the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

If we simply delete that section, as my amendment proposes, then there is no blanket exemption such as is provided in the present Bill 90. By just taking out the word "not," the rest of the

section is still left in there. It does not seem to make very much sense to leave the rest of the

section in there because, if the exemption is not there, those acts that are mentioned definitely would apply. That is what we feel very strongly should apply in this case.

There was no real justification for removing the operations of this crown corporation from the proper assessment acts and the Environmental Protection Act. The time saving, which was given as the reason, appears to have been exaggerated. In fact, it may take a longer time to carry on the present hearing process with the hearing officers, and there will be a great many disadvantages to that process from lack of precedents, lack of experience in assessment cases. On the whole, the public will be less well served by the alternative hearing process that has been set up for this particular corporation.

We simply want to ensure that a proper environmental assessment is held before this project goes ahead and that all future activities of the corporation shall be brought under the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act. Therefore, I will oppose the amendment in favour of my amendment deleting the whole section.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I am at a bit of a loss with regard to this, if I understand the amendment correctly. Is the amendment simply to take out the word "not," and does it not do anything to subsection 2?

Mr. Chairman: That is my understanding, Mr. Swart. That is right.

Mr. Swart: Then this gives me a real problem, Mr. Chairman, because subsection 2 states: "On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, subsection 1 ceases to apply except in respect of such activities, enterprises or facilities as may be specified in the proclamation."

Unless I am interpreting the amendment wrongly, it appears that the effect of this would be to immediately take out the exemption from the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act, but leave then within subsection 2 a proclamation whereby the Lieutenant Governor in Council could put that exemption back in again.

It seems to me that if the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, who moved this, wanted the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act to apply, then subsection 2 would also have to be removed. Perhaps he can speak to that.

If I am wrong, then of course I am willing to be corrected in this. But it appears to me that his amendment does not do what he wants to do and certainly not what we in this party want to do. If our

interpretation is correct, then we have to vote against this amendment, and we will be putting one of our own which would delete the whole

section and therefore have all projects of the corporation subject to these three acts and the hearings these acts provide.

I point out that this is the key to all environmental protection. Here we have projects that undoubtedly may pose the greatest environmental danger of any projects that will be proceeding in the province. Here we have the situation where the majority of the waste chemicals are going to be dealt with at this one disposal site, and we are going to exempt it from the protection that is given by these three acts and the hearings under these acts

We have to comment on the enormity of what the government is attempting to do here. As my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine has said, the government indicates there is some urgency in getting on with this. If there is some urgency in dealing with this -- I am not sure whether there is, but there probably is -- I want to point out that it is the government's own fault.

The government got a report a year ago last summer which indicated sites in this province where this kind of a facility should be located. Instead, the government went to two sites that did not conform, two sites that were not even named in the recommendation from MacLaren, one in Thorold and one in Harwich. Then the government had to back off those.

If there is any urgency now, it is the government's fault, and it is going to compound all of its errors by exempting this project from the effects of the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

If the amendment did make this site and this operation subject to those acts for all time until the laws were changed, I would support that amendment, even though I think deletion of the whole

section would be better.

Mr. Conway: Be reasonable then.

Mr. Swart: No; if the member for Renfrew North will read that, he will agree that it does not accomplish what he wants it to accomplish.

I wonder if the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, who moved this amendment, can explain that, if he understands what I am suggesting.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Chairman, the real reason we have brought forward this amendment is simply the fact that the region of Haldimand-Norfolk, the town of Dunnville, the town of Haldimand and the Haldimand-Norfolk Organization for a Pure Environment have been requesting that we follow the Environmental Assessment Act that was passed in the Legislature to protect the people of Ontario. The simple reason we deleted the word "not" is that we should be following that legislation.

The government is in the driver's seat, and what we are trying to point out to the minister is that it is his responsibility to make sure the people of Ontario are protected. That is the reason we have asked for the deletion of "not."

We feel that, if the Environmental Assessment Act were to be utilized, then the site would not fit the criteria, because it has been clearly pointed out by the MacLaren report that class one, two, three and four agricultural land should not be used.

If the minister is really concerned about the future of that part of Ontario, he will support the wishes of the people. They went to the polls on March 19, 1981, and clearly indicated they were asking for no more rights than anybody else in Ontario. They just want to use the legislation that is there.

It has been pointed out many times by the former Minister of the Environment, from the very beginning in 1975 when the legislation was brought in, that this was one of the finest pieces of legislation that existed in the world. I really believe that, but it has not been given a chance to work.

What we are saying on this side of the House, and what I, as the representative from the area, am also saying is just to give us the legislation that is there to protect the people.

Mr. Swart: But you are not saying that if you leave in subsection 2. That nullifies your amendment.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to have the minister respond to it. He has come in with an amendment. We discussed it in committee as recently as last Thursday; I hope he will respond as to how he views it, and we will leave it in his hands.

But again I want to point out that if we establish this along the valley of the Grand River it is going to be there forever, and if we bring all of Ontario's waste into one location it is going to be there forever. It is going to affect future generations no matter what happens. It is a historic moment that is taking place this morning.

We supported the principle of the crown corporation; that is fine, but now blot it out so we can look at other sites in Ontario. In my opinion we should be dealing with it not in one location but in regions, so that it is not a keg of dynamite that is going to be there for future generations but so that we spread the risk. I think it is important to assess it in that manner.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that the House does understand the effect of this amendment. If subsection 2 is left in, it will mean that on a proclamation the government is back in the driver's seat, because subsection 1 will cease to apply. Therefore, the government can then exempt all projects from the Environmental Assessment Act except only those that it chooses to specify by proclamation. Once again, the government would be able to exempt all the facilities at South Cayuga after that proclamation is passed.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, are you going to comment? Before you do, I am sure we will have a little bit of order between the minister and Ms. Bryden.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Ms. Bryden and I are not disorderly.

Mr. Chairman: A little bit of decorum over there, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I thought you were accusing the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) and myself of being disorderly. You wanted a little order between us.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to address my

interpretation of the concern that has been expressed by the members of the New Democratic Party in this morning's discussion. I think they are in error in their

interpretation of the effect of subsection 2, even if Mr. Miller's amendment were to be accepted. I do not think the proclamation that would render subsection 1 inapplicable would have the effect of putting the word "not" back in; it would eliminate the effect of that

section altogether. My suggestion is that if that were the case the acts that are stipulated would then apply as a matter of course in any event, because there would be no prohibition to them.

Mr. Chairman: I hate to be such a grump in the morning, but actually I find it very distracting when we are having a little caucus here. Could the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) not hide underneath the gallery over there?

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the members look at it again, I hope at least they will come to that same conclusion. I am sure it comes as no surprise to anyone, in view of the fact that we have had a number of discussions on this very point, that I am not willing to accept either the particular amendment or even the

interpretation of some of the members as to the need for it.

I can appreciate the anxieties that some people feel with respect to a new process that has been made available and put in place to meet a specific, pressing need in this province. I do believe, however, that the hearing process that has been established, which has just recently begun to evolve in terms of the preliminary meetings the hearing panel have held, not only will provide equivalent protection for individuals, the equivalent opportunity for individuals to participate in the decision-making process with respect to the specific site currently listed in the schedule, but also may have the effect of providing them with an even fuller opportunity to participate.

It is true that the process now in place and again reflected in this legislation would have the effect of eliminating a concurrent examination of multiple sites. It also would eliminate the necessity to hold a hearing to establish need, but I do not think that is a problem, because I think all members will accept the fact that there is a need to deal with the problem of safe destruction and disposal of liquid industrial waste.

However, I cannot accept the

interpretation that the present procedure in any way jeopardizes the rights of individuals, with the exception, of course, of the opportunity to look at multiple sites, and I think we have dealt with that on numerous previous occasions.

It has been the clear intent from the time my predecessor first made the commitment that we would do everything we could to protect the rights of individuals, but because of the necessity to move forward at this time alternative process would be put in place. I am not prepared to accept the amendment as it stands.

I also want to respond to the member for Haldimand-Norfolk in regard to the desires he expressed for the opportunity to have the facilities located on a regional basis.

Mr. Kerrio: Kingston.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Well, one of the proposals, as the member knows, is a depot in Kingston and, if this process were in place, I would think the interests of my constituents were well-protected by a hearing process such as the one proposed here. They might have other views, and I might have some difficulty. I am not suggesting that the life of the member for Haldimand-Norfolk is easy these days, and I think he is doing a conscientious job in attempting to reflect the concerns of his constituents.

The proposal to proceed on a regional basis probably would be unworkable because, for an effective destruction process for some of the materials we are referring to here, volume is very important. Once they have fallen below a certain volume of material available for the process, it is no longer viable to operate an efficient destruction process and, therefore, in certain other parts of this country they are having to look at a location that will bring together the waste from several provinces to have the volume that will result in an effective and efficient destruction process.

If the technology changes and an alternative approach becomes available, that is something we may well contemplate in the future. I do not think it is available to us at the present time; so I have to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. G. I. Miller's motion will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Are we going to stack the votes? Maybe we could work that out a little later between the House leaders.

Are there further amendments to subsection 1 of

section 15?

Ms. Bryden: Notwithstanding the previous amendment having been defeated, Mr. Chairman, I would still like to move my amendment to

section 15.

Mr. Kerrio: It has not been defeated.

Ms. Bryden: Pardon me. You are correct and, when that stacked vote comes, it will be upheld, we hope.

10:30 a.m.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that subsection 1 and subsection 2 of

section 15 of the bill be deleted and that subsequent sections be appropriately renumbered.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the reason I think this amendment is the one that should pass is that it makes a clear-cut removal of the exemption of the whole activities of the waste management crown corporation from the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act.

We have worked for many years to provide adequate assessment of projects of this sort before they go ahead, and we have worked to provide for hearings so there can be citizen input. When one is dealing with very dangerous substances, which may, if accidents occur, get into our water table or into our lakes and rivers, it is extremely important that there should be very careful assessment. That is why we feel this blanket exemption should be removed.

We particularly dislike subsection 2 as well, which allows the Lieutenant Governor in Council on proclamation to remove subsection 1 but still to have complete power to apply the acts to whatever activities, enterprises or facilities the government chooses. It gives them another power of exemption.

There is power of exemption under the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act, but it is hedged around in that they usually have to give reasons why they are exempting a project, and it then has to be passed by order in council and gazetted.

But in this case the government can, simply by proclamation, say that A, B and C facilities are not subject to those acts. This means they have control over all future activities of the waste management crown corporation and can bring them out from under the acts in the same way as this bill brings out the present proposal from these acts.

This legislation is destroying our whole environmental assessment system and is not giving the citizens adequate opportunity to see that any project is thoroughly examined as to its safety, its effects and the methods that are going to be used to dispose of the dangerous substances.

At some time or other, alternative facilities should be looked at if the facilities that are being proposed do not appear to be suitable for disposing of this very dangerous waste.

I urge members to support my amendment rather than the previous one.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak to the substance of this, because I did that on the previous amendment. But I do want to speak procedurally.

We have, I guess, three options before us, perhaps four. There was the amendment put by the party on the right; there is an amendment put by my colleague which would totally delete the section; there is the amendment by the minister; and, of course, there is the original bill, which we have before us.

We voted against the amendment by the party on the right, because we did not think it would accomplish what we wanted to accomplish.

In spite of what the minister says, I am convinced that if subsection 2 were left in it would override the Environmental Assessment Act and that when the Lieutenant Governor decided that subsection 1 would not apply, because this bill would be passed after those other acts, it would then not apply, and we would have total exemption at the will of the Lieutenant Governor in Council from all of those acts. That is the reason we could not support it.

However, I just want to say to our colleagues on the right that if we abolish this whole section, which is our proposal, these acts will apply indefinitely to all the projects in that area. I hope they will see fit to support this amendment put forward by my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Chairman, there is one thing I want to ask the minister. We have dealt with Bill 89, which we expect to be passed in the first session and which deals with the various boards on one basis. Will the minister not consider it possible to achieve that with this new bill by tying it in with Bill 90 so that the Environmental Assessment Act could be utilized and the fact that is going to be delaying or holding things up really is not a matter of fact any longer and they could be held in conjunction with one another?

Does he not believe that, to get the confidence of the people, it would be in the government's best interests at least to seem to be providing justice by leaving the Environmental Assessment Act, the Environmental Protection Act and the Ontario Water Resources Act, so they could all be fitted in and used under the crown corporation?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I do not think Bill 89, the consolidated hearings legislation, would be suitable to meet the purposes for which this bill is being presented, because Bill 89, even though there is a consolidated hearing, would still require that all the criteria in each of the bills would be met.

For example, it would be necessary for the procedures under the Environmental Assessment Act to apply, and that would mean looking at multiple sites which, as the honourable member is aware, is one of the concerns we have in terms of the time frame within which we have to work.

It might well be appropriate for any future projects that are considered by the corporation that it would apply, and we would therefore proceed by way of the consolidated hearings legislation rather than by the specific type of procedure that has been established under this bill for the specific site in South Cayuga. But I do not think that is a viable alternative at this time for the township of South Cayuga.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Ms. Bryden's amendment will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Norton moves that

section 15 of the bill be amended by deleting subsection 2 and substituting therefor the following:

"

(2) The corporation shall not establish a facility referred to in paragraph 1 of subsection 1 for the reception, storage, treatment or disposal of waste on any part of the property described in the

schedule unless a report is made under

section 16 and the board concurs that the part of the property is a safe place for the facility and that the proposal for the facility is technologically sound.

"

(3) On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, subsections 1 and 2 cease to apply except in respect of such activities, enterprises or facilities as may be specified in the proclamation."

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, following the hearings last week at which some local officials from Haldimand-Norfolk were present and were heard by the standing committee on administration of justice, at the request of the local member and at the request of the regional chairman, I sat down with the chairman to talk about some of the specific concerns they still had. Obviously we were not able to resolve all of them, but I think this amendment will resolve one of the major concerns.

There was concern that in the process as set out in this legislation there was no express reference to the necessity to establish the safety of the site. Obviously that was the intention and, in fact, I think the order in council makes reference to that. But their concern was that, even though we are committed to issue a new order in council that would be identical to the present one, with the exception of those changes necessary to identify the new corporation, their concern and some of the local concerns would be reduced somewhat if it were clear the corporation must have a positive report establishing the safety of the site from the tribunal before they could proceed.

10:40 a.m.

This really means there is a double opportunity to veto the site. First, before the site can be proceeded with by the board, they must have a positive report from the tribunal. Even if they get a positive report, the board of the corporation still has the opportunity to turn down the site. They are not bound to proceed on that site simply because the tribunal says it is a safe site and the technology is sound. If there is a negative report, if the tribunal says no, it is not satisfied that is a safe place for this facility, then they may not proceed.

With that sort of double assurance, and with it being enshrined in the legislation as well as repeated in the order in council setting up the tribunal, I think that goes some distance, although obviously not all the way, towards reducing the concern of some of the local citizens.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the thing that bothers me about this amendment is that it would appear the crown corporation is actually the judge and jury in the case. It is a proponent and then there will be interveners and then there will be a report which might be in favour or might be against. If it is in favour, the board still has the power of veto over it -- but the board a proponent.

It seems to me the findings of an independent body are what should be considered rather than the findings of the board, and the board should not have that power of veto. Otherwise, the hearings are more of a charade than an actual assessment of the environmental problems concerned with the project.

I will not support this amendment. I would have liked to have seen a proper environmental assessment hearing where the report of the board goes to the minister and then there is a possible appeal to the cabinet. This leaves the board entirely in the saddle as far as accepting or rejecting the report is concerned.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to that? I think Ms. Bryden is perhaps misinterpreting the intent of this

section as it is worded.

It is true the board under one circumstance would have a veto -- an opportunity to reject the report or not follow the report's recommendations. That is if it was a positive report; if the tribunal says it is satisfied the site is safe, there may be some lingering concern on the part of the members of the board of the corporation. This simply says they too must concur. They may also under those circumstances say: "No. We still have some concerns. We are not prepared to proceed on that site."

I do not think the honourable member would want to bind them to go ahead simply because the tribunal said it was a safe site. However, if the tribunal says it is not a safe site, the board then has no alternative. It cannot proceed if the tribunal has found it is an unsafe site or not a safe site.

If the member thinks about that for a moment, that is probably a good second-level protection to have in there. If we are talking, for example, about South Cayuga, the board of that corporation is composed of a variety of individuals from various walks of life and includes a couple of persons from the local community.

The board may have a technologically sound assessment that comes forward from the tribunal, saying, "We are satisfied it is a safe site." They may still choose not to proceed on that site. That is the only veto they would have, and it is not really a veto. It is surely an opportunity to exercise their judgement at a second level. They could not do that if they were told the site was not safe.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, this party has not had a real chance to caucus on this, but I believe we would support it on the basis that this is probably the best of a bad deal.

As we look at

section 15(2), it says, "an activity, enterprise or facility of the corporation approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under

section 14." Then one looks at

section 14: "Except with the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the corporation shall not establish, alter or enlarge an activity ... "

It seems to me that, with these two operating principles, they can go ahead and do almost anything. By adding the safeguards the minister has added in his amendment, it seems to me it improves that part of the act.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Norton's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section stacked.

Mr. Chairman: To refresh the memories of members who have just wandered in, especially those in the back row on the government side, and for the benefit of those who have joined us in the gallery, we are working on Bill 90,

An Act to establish the Ontario Waste Management Corporation.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, aren't you going to make reference to the members on the other side?

Mr. Chairman: You are behaving on the other side; so I am not making reference to you.

section 16:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. McGuigan moves that the following

section be added to the bill, that the

section be numbered 16 and that the subsequent sections be renumbered:

"

(1) In this section, 'fund' means the environmental hearing assistance fund.

"

(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may establish a fund to be known as the environmental hearing assistance fund.

"

(3) Where a fund has been established under subsection 2, the moneys required for the purpose of the fund should be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund in the fiscal year during which it is established and thereafter shall be paid out of the moneys appropriated therefor by the Legislature.

"

(4) Whenever a review is authorized under

section 16 of this act, any party or intervener may at any time make an application for financial assistance to those responsible for that review.

"

(5) A person may apply under subsection 4 where that person (

a) represents an interest representative of significant bodies of opinion if it is not represented at the proceedings and (

b) does not have sufficient financial resources to enable him adequately to represent that interest.

"

(6) Where a fund is available and those reviewing an activity under

section 16 are satisfied financial assistance is appropriate, they may order that a sum be paid to the applicant therefor from the fund in such manner at such times and in such an amount as they consider appropriate.

"

(7) No person is precluded from applying under subsection 4 by reason only that he has previously received financial assistance under subsection 5.

"

(8) Where it appears that several parties or interveners having identical or substantially similar interests have applied for financial assistance, those reviewing an activity under

section 16 may consolidate the application and make such orders concerning payment as is considered appropriate.

"

(9) In considering the sum to be awarded to any applicant, those reviewing an activity under

section 16 shall have regard to all the attendant costs associated with participating in the proceedings, including: (

a) legal fees; (

b) disbursements; (

c) conduct money; (

d) witness fees; (

e) fees for relevant reports and studies; (

f) any other cost that is relevant and appropriate to participation in the proceedings."

10:50 a.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is pretty well self-explanatory. It has been debated on a number of occasions concerning environmental matters, because it goes a long way to answer those needs that are felt by people who feel abused by an undertaking and who see a powerful government with all sorts of facilities and moneys and resources at hand to make its case. It is often made out that these people do this selfishly but I do not agree it is selfishly.

I think it is a principle of law in our democratic society that any person who feels he is aggrieved should have the opportunity to defend himself and on a somewhat equal basis, although we can never make it totally equal because of the huge amounts and huge resources of the government. This at least would go part way to balancing up that equation and to making it appear that people have a fair chance in what otherwise appears to be a David and Goliath situation.

I experienced this over the last couple of years in the Harwich township proposal to establish this very facility we are talking about, at least on a temporary basis in Harwich township. The fact there was not funding really angered those people and I believe caused them to go out and put together an organization and put together a sort of political body that gathered strength as it went along. More people donated through bake sales, auction sales, direct donations and so on the more they became part of that anti-organization.

I feel that in a large way it was responsible for the switch that the government made in changing to the Cayuga site from the Harwich site, and that governments hurt their own cause by refusing to allow funding.

I do not think there is a great deal more I can say about it. It is rather self-evident, and I just hope that all members will give it serious consideration.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of comments on this proposed

section 16.

I want to support the amendment and maybe make a couple of points in regard to the input that has been provided in my area. Going back to 1975 and 1976, when they were going to establish the deep-well disposal system, the public had a tremendous amount of input, and again at Nanticoke with the proposal of 1979 and again in 1980. The Haldimand-Norfolk Organization for a Pure Environment was established because of the fact the proposed facility was going to be located in South Cayuga.

I think the minister has had an opportunity to meet with those people. They have a tremendous amount of information. They want to be part of the process. They want to have input and they have given a lot of free time. I think the minister would be wise to harness and utilize that information and again get the confidence of the people, because they are extremely good citizens, they want to be helpful and I think they deserve some consideration.

I know he has indicated that is in place through the process that has been established to deal with this particular site, but if it were put in legislation I think it would be more meaningful and people would realize they would have some financial support to bring out the best evidence possible so that the citizens generally can be protected.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. McGuigan, the amendment that is on the floor indicates in subsection 3 that "moneys for the purpose of the fund should be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund." In my view, this is a commitment of expenditures that is being made by you outside the jurisdiction allowed in the committee. Therefore, subsections 1 and 2 will stand, but subsections 3 and onward are not allowed to be made.

Mr. McGuigan: Can I speak to that, Mr. Chairman?

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, you may. I would like to clear this up immediately.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, we considered that matter, and I believe that by saying in subsection 2 "the Lieutenant Governor in Council may establish a fund" puts it back in the government's hands, which I believe is the intent of the ruling you just gave. The fact that the government may establish this fund makes it their prerogative.

I understand that the Speaker made a ruling a few days ago in regard to the private member's bill of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), the bill regarding the Ontario health insurance plan, supporting what I have just said.

The Deputy Chairman: Are you prepared to make the "shall" discretionary as well?

Mr. McGuigan: If that satisfies it, yes, Mr. Chairman. I still believe that the previous "may" takes care of the situation.

The Deputy Chairman: I want to be absolutely clear myself, and I am not until I see a revision in the wording.

Mr. McGuigan: We will accept that.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, there is a slight technical problem with this amendment that I wish to draw attention to first; that is, it is to be a new

section 16 but it refers to hearings under the old

section 16. It seems to me it would have been more appropriate to make it a new

section 17, since it can then refer to hearings established under existing

section 16.

I do not know whether you want to rule on that technicality or whether that can be --

The Deputy Chairman: In the next few moments, thank you. Ms. Bryden, have you finished your point?

Ms. Bryden: I did not finish my remarks on the proposal, just on that technicality.

With regard to this amendment, certainly this party has been supporting the principle of public funding for interveners in environmental hearings for a great number of years. I moved a motion in 1977, I think it was, to provide for public funding through a fund. I left it to the government to decide how the fund could be established, partly because of the complication that private members cannot initiate expenditures.

But, of course, a fund could come from a variety of sources. The actual proponents could be asked to put up a percentage of the costs that they themselves would be putting forward, or there could be a levy on the generators of toxic substances, which could go into a fund for such hearings. So it is not impossible that a fund could be set up with or without tapping the consolidated revenue fund.

My environmental Magna Carta bill, which I introduced a year ago and which was debated, included specific provision of this sort for a fund. I have moved similar motions in several committees, several meetings of the standing committee on resources development, and I do not recall that the Liberals supported me on that particular proposal. This seems to be a rather late conversion. Now that they have found some groups are having great difficulty presenting their cases to the environmental hearings in Harwich, Ajax and --

Mr. Kerrio: Why don't you speak to the amendment?

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I believe Ms. Bryden is speaking to the amendment.

Ms. Bryden: It seems to me that this amendment is a recognition that these groups do need help. I am glad to see it coming in, but it must be the left wing of the Liberal Party that is bringing it in, and I am not sure whether that is a majority.

Mr. Kerrio: Next election there will be 10 of you over there.

11 a.m.

Ms. Bryden: I think the principles are good in that the funding would be done by the review agency, which perhaps would have a subcommittee to decide how much out of a total pot should be allocated to individuals and to groups, and would ask groups to come together if they had common interests to save funds and to use their funds more efficiently. These are all principles we would support.

I think the funds definitely should include legal fees, because hearings that go on for a long time do require somebody who is knowledgeable and who could cross-examine there, on behalf of the interveners, and not many volunteer groups can provide the monitoring that is necessary for long hearings.

There should also be included funds for doing research studies and for hiring technical experts. The government, so far, has stonewalled on this question. The only place where it is giving funds to interveners is where the waste disposal crown corporation has been allowed to give funds out of some money that will be granted to it by the government. I think Dr. Chant is probably the moving factor in this, because he believes very strongly in this principle.

When I asked the minister in committee if this principle would be extended to other environmental hearings in the province, he said flatly, "No." So we are still a long way from having a policy in this respect; and even if it goes into this particular bill, I am afraid it will not be a general policy. I am not sure whether it is a part of the new Ontario Environmental Rights Act introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) yesterday, but it certainly was not in his original act of two years ago.

If this principle is not in that act, I hope he will amend the act to put it in. It is a principle whose time has come. It has been recognized in the Mackenzie Valley hearings, in the Porter commission hearings and in the Hartt commission hearings, but those are about the only cases we know of. It is a principle that should be extended to all environmental hearings.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I will support the amendment wholeheartedly and enthusiastically but, as sort of the dying glow of the right wing of the party, I just want to make another comment based on some observations I have had in my own constituency.

When it was the wisdom of the minister's predecessor that the final solution to these industrial liquid waste problems was to put them into big tanks in my constituency, I was extremely impressed by the phenomenon of citizen participation in opposition to it.

While I am sure if the government policy had been more or less to have some group registered and then have access to money that would have provided it with legal and environmental technological advice, I am not at all sure that the strength of their opposition would have been improved.

I was deeply impressed, however, at the ability of the citizens to raise funds in support of their opposition, which turned out to be successful. I cannot say for sure that it was the citizens who persuaded the then Minister of the Environment to turn his attention to South Cayuga and away from Middleport.

I just want members to know that, while it would be extremely convenient to have government funds readily available for a registered group in opposition to, or even in support of, some government initiative, we should not lose sight of the fact of the tremendous efficacy of aroused citizenry when they want to bring to the minister's and public's attention that there is something wrong with the policy.

That group in Onondaga township was successful not only in getting the minister to change his policy but also in raising the funds necessary to do that. There was always the feeling that the group -- and I was part of it in a way; I was very glad to provide what assistance I could and attended many of the meetings -- wished it could afford competent legal representation. In many respects, I thank the good Lord that they did not have "competent legal representation," because I feel it would have diluted and maybe even vitiated the strong personal thrust of the citizens who felt they were protecting, and I believe they were right, their own community and their own family.

Another instance in my own experience had to do with the hearings of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs. When we were deeply involved in assessing the safety of atomic reactors and the future of atomic energy in the province, there were many groups and individual citizens who came forward with recommendations based on their own expertise.

When citizen groups band themselves together and give themselves an attractive acronymic title and then have access to large amounts of public funds to buy technological advice and representation and spokesmen, I think there is some danger that you are going to set up a new industry which would probably be one that would attract me, for example. One could establish himself as a spokesman for these groups and use research that was usable in one dump to defend another community from another dump or whatever the minister has in mind that week, month, year.

Probably the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) is correct, the time for this idea has come, but I would look back with some yearning for the days when the initiative and the ability came from citizens who were truly aroused in defence of their families and their communities and not simply going through the motion whereby they buy advice at no expense to themselves, and buy a spokesman at no expense to themselves. If that were to happen, I think we would be in danger of losing some of the strength of community reaction that we have experienced so effectively in this province in the past.

You can see that I am heartily in support of the amendment.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I want to concur with the comments made by my colleague from Beaches-Woodbine, and for that matter with those others who have spoken in support of this amendment that we have before us to provide funding for citizens' groups to participate in any hearings taking place under this act.

There can be no question that if there is going to be fairness in the decisions then there has to be some equality in presentation. Irrespective of what the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said, in today's society and in highly technical hearings, as most of them are at this time, you must have some expert advice and in fact -- forgive me for saying this, Mr. Nixon -- you must even have lawyers representing you if the job is going to be done properly at those hearings.

I agree entirely with his comments that an aroused citizenry taking leadership is a great thing but they do have to have this technical assistance. I hope, Mr. Minister, you will rise in your seat and say: "Yes. We are willing to accept this." I hope you will say that in spite of the fact that the party on my right over the months and the years have opposed this principle, spoken against it and voted against it. Their leader brought in the Environmental Rights Act which didn't have any provision for this.

This is probably part of the new image they want to present to the public to have this rapport with the citizen groups. Even though they may change that at their next leadership convention, right now it happens to be the line they want used.

11:10 a.m.

However the principle is very sound. Although we in this corner of the House would prefer a comprehensive bill that provides for all kinds of public hearings across the province on a great variety of matters, this perhaps is a good place to start. Because it only deals with one type of disposal in one area it could be sort of a pilot project. The minister should go for this now even though he might not be willing to accept a comprehensive principle at this time. I am looking forward to you rising and accepting the amendment.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, I do not think our amendment here in any way is at variance with the feelings of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. As I have said on two or three occasions -- and I am going back to the experience in Harwich -- I believe the local people should be required to put up some money on some sort of a matching basis. If the undertaking is not worth defending from personal funds it is probably not an undertaking of great consequence. I fully support the efforts of local people in raising money to defend what they see as an invasion of their rights.

I am no expert in international law but we often wonder why we have these planes flying up in the Arctic. Surely it is not to look at the polar bears or the walruses. It is to establish a presence up there, to say to the Russians: "We are flying over this area of sea and ice and a little bit of land on a regular basis and therefore it is ours. We are protecting it."

I think it comes right down to the individual; he must be willing to protect his own land. In the matter of livestock getting on to another person's property, that person must have a fence around his property to protect himself. It is not altogether up to the livestock owner to fence in his animals. It is up to the property owner also to fence his land against the animal.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I would be upset too if I were blubbering about this bill and the other party moved it and took a responsible position on a very important matter. I imagine that is what has upset these Socialists today.

Mr. Swart: You're always upset, Vince.

Mr. Boudria: That's what happens when you have only three members in the House.

Mr. Kerrio: I guess that says something about the bill as well.

I hope the minister will look with favour on this amendment as it shows the very responsible position this party takes about inequity at a hearing. This is something that is not new to the government. Those members have gone to great lengths to be sure people are represented in a courtroom with legal aid so that they do get a good hearing. Regardless of to what degree they may be guilty of some crime against their fellow man, they get a good hearing and they get legal aid supplied to them.

I bring that into focus because here we have citizens who are protecting themselves and others across the province from inequities the government might heap on them. The government can have research and all kinds of experts trying to prove their case. On the other side there often are only the people who can get to these hearings, who are not tied up with their jobs. They are thus at a very distinct disadvantage.

If the minister truly wants democratic hearings I am sure he will give thought to accepting this amendment -- in fact putting it in place. Then as we start down the road towards doing something meaningful to clean up our environment, he would be giving the citizens who are grossly concerned about the inadequacies a way to protect their interest in all these matters.

It is not something new. The Indians were given the right in northern Ontario to have funding to represent themselves. If I am not mistaken, the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society in the Niagara Peninsula was given a substantial amount of money to make its case. I think if the minister is going to do what is fair for those people who would stand up for their rights he will give them the means to be able to present themselves in a fashion that will make it very even and equitable in the argument placed before him.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to address myself to the amendment here, as put forward by my colleagues the members for Kent-Elgin and Haldimand-Norfolk. I think it is a good amendment. There are good reasons for it. As my colleague the member for Niagara Falls has mentioned, PALS in the Niagara region received substantial assistance, I believe, through the Attorney General's office to assist it in bringing forward strong opposition to reduction of farm lands in the Niagara region, good agricultural lands.

I suggest this is the right approach to take to it. I have found an area of particular concern to me in the town of Fort Erie, where people were objecting to a particular lagoon that was going to be located in the city of Niagara Falls and were getting red tape and the runaround -- the hearings were held in Niagara Falls, for example. There was not much chance for those people to put up a strong argument and give the reasons why they were objecting. For one thing, the region had all their expertise before the Ontario Municipal Board, and the environmental assessment hearing too, I understand.

Knowledgeable persons from the ministry staff were supporting the program of promoting a lagoon in that area.

I feel people were shortchanged in those hearings, one reason being that they did not have sufficient funding to go out and hire the professional talent required to put forward their objections. In that particular area in the town of Fort Erie, the lagoon in the Stevensville-Douglastown area, these people were shortchanged. They never did have a fair hearing. Now, all of a sudden, there is talk about having another hearing. These things can be costly.

I suggest some funding should be provided. People do have a right to a fair and just hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board or even under this particular bill we have before the Legislature now. People should be entitled to some assistance. In fact, all the information related to such a hearing or objection to a program or industrial waste site should be available to all the people.

There should be an impartial body there, and this is what the Minister of the Environment staff should be. They should be impartial, and they should be able to supply needed information for both sides. But they should not take a particular stand as witnesses to say, "We support this." The information should be available to all parties so that they can have an independent study, an independent review of the decision and let the board, whatever board may be appointed, arrive at a fair and just final decision.

I feel people have been shortchanged in a number of these hearings. I support the amendment put forward by my colleagues. It is a good reasoned amendment and brings out some equity within the hearings. I feel in this particular area there must be changes made. I often think, when I look at this whole industrial waste issue about the Cayuga site, we have municipalities crying about promoting industrial development in their municipalities. I think these municipalities themselves have a responsibility in this area.

If a municipality wants a particular type of industry that will have a large amount of industrial waste, I think it has an obligation to look after that, without dumping the waste on to its neighbour's property.

This is the point I feel the people in South Cayuga are really concerned about. The objections are there for that reason. I suggest that when new industrial sites are permitted to go into the municipalities there have to be assessment hearings relating to the types of industry going in. Do they want that type of industrial waste and who will look after it?

11:20 a.m.

When I look at the MacLaren report, one of the suggested sites was the town of Fort Erie and that is just about a mile north of my place in Sherkston. It was unknown to me they were discussing or had done some studies on that area. The reason we came upon it was because my colleague and myself were on the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs when these matters were discussed in regard to uranium waste in the Elliot Lake area.

This was when the MacLaren report came forward. In that report there were 10 to 15 sites they thought would be most suitable for this type of industrial waste disposal. Why South Cayuga was ever chosen, I do not know. There are areas I feel can be used for industrial waste.

Interjection.

Mr. Haggerty: Yes, I quite agree with what the minister is trying to tell the chairman; but the whole point is you are agreeing with me that people are not aware of these studies. Open the books so they can see what is going on in these communities, can see whatever studies your ministry is doing.

I support the amendment. It is a reasonable amendment and hopefully all the government members over there will support it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the arguments from the members opposite on this amendment. I must say the longer I am around this House, the more I realize there are certain members of the House who have been here a little longer than some of the rest of us, who perhaps reflect in their views a longer experience of life and of living in a community and, thereby, the kind of wisdom some people develop as a consequence of that breadth of experience of life.

I think the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk --

Mr. Nixon: Blame me for making a bad decision.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, I was just reflecting upon your wisdom and insight into human nature, community life and those important things we all want to preserve and protect.

I listened to his balanced arguments, so balanced I was not sure which side he was on in this particular issue. I found some parts of his argument more persuasive than others and more persuasive than some of the other members when he spoke of the importance of voluntary action and of not underestimating the power of citizens' action on a matter which involves protecting their rights and their children's future in that community.

I really do concur with the view we must not fall into the trap of assuming that for effective community action and effective presentation of the views of the citizens of a community, some source of funding from other than their own collective resources is going to make their position significantly stronger. However, there may well be some situations where by virtue --

Mr. Kerrio: You could make that argument about legal aid.

Hon. Mr. Norton: One could, yes. The only thing is, in that area one is most often dealing with an individual case as opposed to a collective response from a community. That is a significant difference. Some communities have rather well-off citizens like the member for Niagara Falls who, if he were a member of a citizens' group, could fund the whole thing.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is right. He could do it just out of his own pocket. But if some poor individual was accused of a crime and was trying to defend himself in court alone with limited resources, unable to afford the services of a lawyer, that is a little different from the --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is right, except in the collective sense there is a greater strength than there is for that individual in court before the powerful forces of the state.

The one person whose argument has left me quite disillusioned is the member for Beaches-Woodbine. I recalled as she was speaking her stout defence of the right to independent, individual action under the consolidated hearings bill when it was before us yesterday and previously in committee, specifically against what she perceived as being an offensive section, which would allow the tribunal to appoint someone to speak and require a group or class of individuals to work collectively. She very articulately opposed that concept.

However, one might say that everybody has his price, because I notice that this particular amendment states quite clearly in subsection (8) that in order to be eligible to receive funding assistance, "Where it appears that several parties or interveners having identical or substantially similar interests have applied for financial assistance, those reviewing an activity under

section 16 may consolidate the applications and make such order concerning payment as it considers appropriate."

The only difference between the effect of this

section and the one we were debating yesterday is that there are some dollars attached to this one. I am surprised the honourable member did not check on the grounds that there is potential blackmail in this particular section.

Ms. Bryden: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: Did I hear the minister say that everyone has his price? Was he suggesting that I was speaking in favour of withdrawing that

section in the bill about class actions for some pecuniary advantage?

I made quite clear that my advocacy of the withdrawal of the

section in Bill 89 relating to class actions did not preclude class actions; it simply restricted the ability to form classes, and left the joint board considerable power to determine what kind of class actions could take place. But I certainly never said I was not in favour of class actions.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, my point was simply that in this

section which the member for Beaches-Woodbine is now endorsing there appears to be absolutely unfettered power for those reviewing an activity under the

section to require a group, in order to get any funding, to come together and act as a class or a consolidated group. The point I was trying to make was that yesterday very eloquent arguments were made against vesting that strength in a reviewing body, but today, when there is a dollar figure attached to it or the possibility of receiving money, it somehow does not seem to be offensive.

I think if the member looks at this and looks at her arguments yesterday, in order to be consistent she really must be offended today as much as she was yesterday by the effect of this subsection.

I think the proposal that we go ahead with any such amendment under this particular bill at this particular time flies in the face of equity, if nothing else. There are many other pieces of legislation in this province where hearings are required, the Ontario Municipal Board being one such body that is established to hold hearings, the Environmental Assessment Board being another.

I am sure the honourable members would say, "Well let us make it apply to all of them." You cannot make it apply under one bill to all of them. I think as well that there are still many issues, philosophical and otherwise, to be sorted out before we jump in on all fours to provide such an amendment, even though the poor honourable member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk is somewhat isolated from the other members of his party in the wisdom he has brought to bear in his comments on --

Mr. Nixon: I am supporting this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Norton: He is supporting it, but he is supporting it in such a balanced way.

11:30 a.m.

Mr. Nixon: Its time has come. After all, the minister is paying money out, and he is doing it without legislation, as far as I know.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, we are looking after that. However, as the member knows, in the specific hearings that will take place under this bill there has been an expressed intent by the proponent to make some funding available. We will see how that works. At this point I must stand in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Kerrio: You are hard hearted.

The Deputy Chairman: We have before us the public interest funding amendment moved by Mr. McGuigan.

All in favour of this amendment please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

section 16:

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that subsection 1 of

section 16 of the bill be amended by adding thereto, after "Council" in the fourth line, "and to the minister, and the minister shall then lay the report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session."

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment is that

section 16 gives the Lieutenant Governor in Council the power to appoint one or more persons to review any activity or proposed activity of the corporation, but the reports under the present

section 16 go only to the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the cabinet.

When there are such reviews and inquiries it seems to me that the public is entitled to know the results. Once again I say that, lacking a freedom of information act in this province, we have to continue to try and amend individual acts to make sure reports of this sort are made not only to the Lieutenant Governor in Council but also to the minister and, through him, tabled in the Legislature so that we can then all know what are the points at issue, what was the reason for the inquiry and what are the recommendations, if any. Therefore, I would urge support of this amendment.

Mr. Swart: Surely, Mr. Chairman, all this amendment can do is enhance democracy. It is an innocuous little amendment as far as causing any problem to the government, and I expect that this time for sure the minister will get up and say, "I accept this."

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear under

section 15 as amended that the report will be a public report. I do not think there is any question about that. There need be no concern. I think the

section is unnecessary.

The Deputy Chairman: Those in favour of Ms. Bryden's amendment to

section 16 will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Sections 16 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.

section 21:

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to

section 21. Again it is to open up accountability to the public.

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Bryden moves that a new

section 21 be added to the bill to read as follows:

"The corporation shall, after the close of each fiscal year, file with the minister an annual report upon the affairs of the corporation signed by the chairman or the vice-chairman of the corporation, and the minister shall submit the report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and shall then later report before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next ensuing session."

Ms. Bryden further moves that the present

section 21 and the subsequent sections be appropriately renumbered.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, this

section was lifted from the Power Corporation Act, I believe, and is the kind of report that Hydro is required to make. There is no reason why this new crown corporation should not make a similar report annually which will be tabled in the Legislature. When this does happen under this amendment, I hope there will be full opportunity for the Legislature to review and debate that report in order that it may have input in determining the policy directions for the corporation.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Chairman, perhaps to assist here and to abbreviate some further discussion, I will simply indicate that I am quite willing to accept that amendment. It makes good sense.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Ms. Bryden's motion will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Section 21, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 22 and 23, as renumbered, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: This bill is set down for stacked division later.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 95,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that

section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"

(1) Clauses a, b, c and d of

section 40(1) of the Employment Standards Act, 1974, being

chapter 112, are repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"No employer shall terminate the employment of an employee who has been employed for three months or more unless he gives,

"(

a) four weeks' notice in writing to the employee if his period of employment is less than two years;

"(

b) eight weeks' notice in writing to the employee if his period of employment is two years or more but less than five years;

"(c) 16 weeks' notice in writing to the employee if his period of employment is five years or more but less than 10 years;

"(d) 26 weeks' notice in writing to the employee if his period of employment is 10 years or more and such notice has expired."

And that subsections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of

section 1 of the bill be renumbered as subsections 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I do not imagine I have to speak to the amendment because of its essential and inherent reasonableness in the modern conditions related to notice of termination. Perhaps the minister will indicate, in the interest of saving time and because of its reasonableness, that he will accept it. Otherwise, I will have to speak to it.

11:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I don't accept that amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Back to you, Mr. Renwick.

Mr. Renwick: I am surprised. The proposal is a modest one, and I am a modest person. Perhaps it is because the minister is not a particularly modest person, nor should he be really. He is not --

The Deputy Chairman: Dealing with the amendment, Mr. Renwick.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I may be some time.

The Deputy Chairman: We will get some water to you.

Mr. Renwick: I have some water, thanks. I am not used to water.

I want to make certain that I am talking about the same documents the minister is talking about. I am looking at the Employment Standards Act, 1974, the pamphlet copy dated December 1980, which includes regulation number 251. I believe that is the up-to-date bill.

I am not talking about mass layoffs; I am talking about an individual employee. That bill provides now, and has provided for some considerable period of time, the following termination notices: One week's notice in writing to the employee if his period of employment is less than two years. Surely to change that to read four weeks' notice in writing to the employee if his period of employment is less than two years is an essentially reasonable and necessary amendment at this time. I do not believe the minister can say that one week's notice for employment up to two years is adequate notice for any employee in the province at this time.

Similarly, the second item is two weeks' notice if the employment is two years or more, but less than five years. I can say to the minister that he could not possibly go to the court in the absence of a statutory requirement and find that was held at this time to be reasonable notice. What we are proposing as an alternative for that provision is eight weeks' notice.

The next item is four weeks' notice in writing to the employee whose period of employment is five years or more but less than 10 years. We are proposing 16 weeks' notice. For eight weeks' notice in writing to the employee, if his period of employment is 10 years or more, we are proposing 26 weeks' notice.

The minister has to understand that the time has come when the ordinary working person does not have to lag behind the law in other cases such as where it applies to provide supervisory and executive employees with adequate notice. The minister must be up to date. His ministry seems to follow the law as it relates to employers very closely, because they always give the employee something less; so they must understand the law that relates to employers.

Let me just draw the minister's attention to a couple of comments that have been made about this question in the light of the modern development of law. Then I ask the minister and other members of the House to ask themselves, are we to perpetuate these ancient notice provisions, which may have been adequate as a minimal basis at the time when they were introduced, but are now no longer adequate?

Anyone knows the questions that must be asked by an employer in an ordinary instance of an employee to determine what notice he is entitled to are twofold. The first one is, what is a proper, fair and reasonable period of notice to accord the employee? The second question is, how long will this employee take to relocate successfully?

Can anyone at this time state that one week's notice for a person with less than two years' employment is fair, reasonable and proper notice or that an employee will be able to relocate successfully within that period of time?

Those are the tests and those are the questions the minister has to ask himself. The present statute is totally inadequate to meet those two tests.

Let me go on a little further. The minister knows full well that a few years ago a maximum of six months' notice for persons holding executive and managerial positions was about the maximum that could be obtained. It is now commonplace to have much longer notice provisions or salary in lieu of notice in the event of termination without cause. The minister knows that.

What is his response going to be to me and to this House on the two questions? Does one week in the case of employment of less than two years, two weeks in the case of employment from two to five years, four weeks in the case of employment from five to 10 years and eight weeks in the case of employment over 10 years, meet the present-day tests of what is reasonable, proper and fair notice?

Is that the period of time within which the employee who has received that notice can successfully relocate? I wish the minister to answer those questions and to engage in some dialogue as to whether he has any concern about the adequacy of the provisions as they stand at present.

I also want him to say he has been persuaded by the points I have made and he is now going to accept the amendment. Will the minister respond?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I always find the member for Riverdale persuasive, reasonable and sometimes accurate, but I have to tell him the position of the government is that its present termination notice provisions, which are for individuals when it is not a mass layoff and which are quite different in a situation with regard to mass layoffs, are seen by this government to be equivalent to or better than those of most jurisdictions in North America, particularly when one realizes no comparable notices are required in the states of our neighbour to the south.

No matter what the member may say in terms of argument with regard to the adequacy of these provisions, taken in the context of the North American climate where we live -- that is the reality of it -- our provisions are equal to or better than most. We feel they are appropriate for the time being, having that in mind.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, we in this party have looked carefully at the amendment as proposed by the member of the party to our left, and we have examined the impact it would have. Regrettably, we are not able to support his proposed amendment because of the extremeness of the position.

I remind the member for Riverdale that in some cases the change proposed is a change that would quadruple the present notice provisions. We believe the present provisions, in spite of what the minister suggests, are inadequate and should be doubled.

We cannot see that the quadrupling effect proposed by the member for Riverdale would be a reasonable change. For that reason, we will be opposing this amendment.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I am not surprised in the least by the comments of the last speaker. It was interesting when we sat on the select committee looking at plant shutdowns that the large corporations told us they plan five or six years in advance. If companies are planning five to six years in advance, tell me what the cost is to them to notify their employees six months in advance to give them an opportunity to find a job elsewhere.

It seems to me the only people who ever get screwed in this system are working people, and we are never prepared to apply laws to them that --

11:50 a.m.

Mr. Kerrio: I am glad you are out of the classroom.

Mr. Martel: Why don't you crawl in your hole, Vince? Is that your leadership challenge? Go out and challenge in the boys' room. You should go out and --

Mr. Kerrio: That is very unparliamentary procedure and you know it. You teach our children.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Martel: If you have a filthy mind, that is not my problem.

Mr. Kerrio: Your speech here is gross.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, will you throw him out or shut him up? One of the two.

The Deputy Chairman: Carry on, Mr. Martel.

Mr. Kerrio: Hurts, doesn't it?

Mr. Martel: Nothing you could say would bother me, Vince. You are not even in the right league.

Let me go back and start again. The major corporations told us they plan five to six years in advance. The only advantage to them is to do what people like Bendix Automotive did. We are allowing that to continue. Bendix came in, went to its subsidiary in the Windsor area -- I hope my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) is listening -- and called in the Canadian management. I believe they were given a week, if that, to try to persuade the corporate board in the United States that the decision should be altered. I think it was Bendix, and I think the time was a week.

Workers have no defence, absolutely none, against that sort of decision. Even the Canadian management had no input into a decision of that magnitude. Workers were left in the lurch. I believe it was right in the middle of negotiations in Windsor, and I believe Bendix rented a room one Saturday. The news media learned from the United States that they were shutting the doors before the Canadian workers did right in the middle of the negotiations. What protection was there for working people in that operation? None.

What defence is the minister prepared to build in? That someone with a year's service gets a week? Where or how does someone find a job in Ontario or in Canada in a week? The longer one has been involved in a particular company, the more difficult it is to relocate and to have the funds necessary to relocate. It takes time to go out and look for a job and a home. If you have some lead time, at least that eases the task to some degree.

We do not even want to take into consideration the economic factors of today. There is massive unemployment. There are areas where employment traditionally was good. Look at the Windsor area; look at St. Catharines. People in those communities do not find jobs overnight.

It was interesting that in the Armstrong Cork case the committee found one job for one employee of Armstrong Cork. Does the minister know where they found that job for that fellow from Lindsay? With 20 per cent of the people of Windsor unemployed, the committee found a job for one worker in Windsor, where 20,000 people were already unemployed.

There is something loony about what we are doing here. We are not giving adequate protection to the workers. We leave all the economic levers, all the economic decisions, against which the workers cannot protect themselves and from which unions cannot protect them, in the hands of the corporate board and in the type of economy we have, which is branch plants of the multinationals.

Over and over again, we saw those decisions made. We saw the decisions even with respect, I guess, to McDonnell Douglas where the Canadian firm of McDonnell Douglas could not even bid for some of the contracts in a more competitive sense than people outside. They did not have an advantage.

Those decisions made in corporate boardrooms never take people into consideration. If the minister wants to say, "Well, to the south of us they do not have it," that might be right. Maybe they are cavalier in the way they treat people and do not give a damn about people. Maybe if we kept our resources in this country we would have all kinds of jobs.

If the minister wants to wave his finger at what other people are doing, I can make a comparison with Japan, which has no resources and leads the world economically. In Ontario, we have all the resources in the world and, with this government, we have sold them off. We do not have jobs, and we have a branch-plant economy that leads to this type of problem.

If he wants to deal with the real problem, he had better talk to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) and start to do some planning that is going to provide work in this country. Then we will not have to worry about what our friends to the south are doing or what they do not have in legislation.

In another vein, the Minister of Industry and Tourism gets up and says our tax rate is better. Remember that book he sent around last year? What was the name of that? He bragged in there that we have a lower tax rate for industry; he said our wage rate is not as high as those states we compete with in the United States.

What do we do for Canadians that is to our advantage, using what we have here? Nothing. In times of high unemployment we will not even build in protection so that workers are not faced with the whims of some decision made in the United States some day, without even involving Canadian management.

I keep hearing these silly comparisons that are always made. We are either the best or they do not have it somewhere else. So what? We have a lower tax rate. That is supposed to bring them here. Why are the advantages always to the corporate sector? Why are they not made on behalf of working people?

When I hear my friend the member for Windsor-Sandwich say he will not support it, I remind him of what Bendix did. They decided overnight, in the middle of negotiations, that they would close their doors and go home. They did not worry about the employees -- not a jot --

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Martel, coming back to the amendment.

Mr. Martel: -- or the time on the bill we are proposing so that workers have protection. Then I hear this nonsense about how it is so radical. When we talk about six months of planning ahead, why is it so impractical, why is it so demanding to force these beggars to give employees enough lead time to find adequate employment without going down the tube? That is what we are talking about.

When the corporate sector appeared before the select committee it was very candid. In fact, when we tried to get Haig, the president of Bendix, before us his company would not come. That is how gentlemanly they are; they would not show up. We had to subpoena the records of their auditor by Speaker's warrant. Finally they found someone, after two months of negotiations, to come and talk to us. They sent a couple of characters they should have left south of the border.

When I hear this type of gobbledegook, when I hear from the minister that somebody else does not have it, I have to say, "So what?" If the minister wants to improve the economy of this province, maybe the government should get involved in some sound economic planning that would see resources remaining here and turned into finished commodities so there would be jobs for Ontarians. At that stage we would not have to worry about what goes on in the United States; we could protect the employees here adequately. We are not prepared to do that in this bill.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to this amendment and to point up some very obvious shortcomings in some of the arguments that have been made.

I hear the Socialists talk of the corporate board and, at the opposite end of the spectrum, the worker. But in this great province of ours there are many small business people in between, many small companies that are affected by the bill. They do not plan five years ahead. They do not have the capacity to do some of the things that are being discussed here. They do not even direct themselves to the fact that the persons who are given notice under the rules of the Canadian scene are not unfunded after one or two weeks.

We do have unemployment insurance. If that is inadequate, I would argue in favour of increasing it in the face of the costs of living as they are today. But to turn an argument around and make it appear as though notice that is given an individual is all the time he has to look for a job is certainly not the truth. People do have time and they have coverage that is very meaningful to them and helps them find a new place. If that is inadequate, that is another argument; it has nothing to do with this amendment that is before us.

12 noon

There are many small companies that do not plan five years in advance. When they go to renegotiate their mortgages, they might find they are out of business -- not five years from now, not one year from now, maybe not even one month from now. The realities of the marketplace today have changed to the point where it is time people considered having something besides the boards we are talking about here running this province and this country.

The fact is, many small businesses are affected by this amendment, and they have to be considered. Many of them cannot put the costs through. Many of them cannot give the kind of notice we are talking about here. It is unrealistic. There are other areas that should be addressed that would help people in the transition period. It is very easy to stand here and make determinations when someone else picks up the responsibility.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, it is not easy to stand here and make determinations when someone else is going to pick up the tab. That is an outrageous statement. What should be made clear is that legislators in all three parties are responsible legislators who are trying to make improvements in the laws of Ontario, and that kind of nonsense has no place in this debate.

The examples that are being used do not make sense. The previous speaker, the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio), does not seem to understand that there are employers with fewer than 50 employees who can well provide adequate notice. In my own constituency there is a lumber company that last fall shut down its operation -- about 35 employees -- and said it would open up in the spring. In the spring, they said: "There are problems. We do not know what we are going to do." The next day -- bang -- there was a notice of total shutdown. They hired back almost none of those 35 employees.

There is absolutely nothing in this amendment that is not reasonable. I do not know of anybody who plans his life on shorter notices than this. It is time the private sector was served notice that they too have to plan their lives in a better way and to allow the working people of this province to plan their lives in a better way.

There is nothing at all unreasonable about this amendment. To refuse to accept this amendment is to continue to believe there is a master-servant relationship in Ontario and that is the way we want to keep it. The minister is saying there is still a master-servant relationship and he has no intention of changing that.

These amendments would not remove that totally, but they would give the working people of this province a sense that they had to be considered when decisions of this import were being made. The minister is saying: "You, the working people who create the wealth, are not part of that process. You will do as you are told. It is the decision the employer makes that will determine your future. You are not really part of this. You are fodder out there. That is all you are. We will deal with you in the private sector as we see fit."

That is what the minister is saying by refusing to put in these amendments. Yet he sits there in his comfortable pew and continues to bring in legislation that does not even allow basic dignity for people who should have the right to this kind of notice.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I could not believe what I heard from the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), that the extravagance of this proposal of ours was such that it offended him and he could not support it. I cannot believe if the member for Windsor-Sandwich asks himself, "What is reasonable, proper and fair notice for me as an employer to give an employee who has served me for five years?" that he would say two weeks.

Let me comment a little bit about my friend the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio). When we were discussing the Workmen's Compensation Board amendments he raised the same point last night: what about the small businessman? I am as concerned, and we are as concerned, about the impact of the laws on small businessmen as anyone in the chamber can be. This amendment does not talk about a dollar outlay. This is a case of a business that, because of its business circumstances, good or bad, must give an employee notice of termination of employment, and it must be fair, reasonable and proper.

It does not matter what is happening south of the border. I cannot believe they are any more unreasonable south of the border than we are when it comes to answering those questions. The same question is how long it will take that employee to be successfully relocated. I am not going to have our proposed amendment attacked on the grounds that the small businessman cannot cope with this amendment. He can cope with it in two ways.

He can give the notice, give the employee a chance to turn around and find himself another location, having relation to the periods of time we have set out in the bill; or, as happens in many cases, the employer can say, "I am giving you notice of termination of your employment, but I am going to give you your salary for that period in lieu of notice." He has the options and he has the choices involved in that.

At some point the minister has to come back into this assembly and make some adjustment to the notice periods that are in

part 12,

section 40(1) of the Employment Standards Act. We are talking about unorganized workers; we are talking about workers who have an individual contract of employment, and I defy the member for York East (Mr. Elgie) to say that anywhere in his riding the notice presently set out in the bill would be accepted as fair, reasonable and proper, or that an employee in Ontario can be relocated successfully in the period of time for which notice is being given. The minister knows we are correct. The minister knows the amendment is reasonable, fair and proper, just as the proposal contained in the amendment is reasonable, fair and proper.

Another factor is involved in these matters which must be calculated. I am not going to stress this now, but I want the minister to understand clearly that another element enters into the question of the termination of employment of employees. For the sake of the circumstances as they are coming about I am going to indicate what the court in Ontario had to say recently about a 42-year-old regional service manager earning $15,000 a year. He was dismissed from his employment after 17 years of service. He was able to turn around and get another job, but he said, "After that length of time, in the circumstances in which I was dismissed, I am entitled to damages for the upset that was caused."

12:10 p.m.

Notwithstanding his success in finding another position in short order, he advanced a claim against his former employer for mental distress resulting from breach of contract on the part of the employer when his employment was terminated. The court found the employee's dismissal had caused serious mental distress and that the method by which the employment relationship was ended aggravated that distress.

In awarding $7,500 to the plaintiff, the presiding judge found that it was in the contemplation of the parties at the outset of the employment relationship that if the employer discharged a man whom it had led to believe was secure in his job, there would be the likelihood that this individual would suffer vexation, frustration, distress and anxiety.

It may well be a departure from a traditional way of looking at the relationship, but I know, and the members of this House know, the distress, the frustration and the anxiety caused by the plant shutdowns in this province when large numbers of men with mutual collegiality and a community of interest are laid off.

What happens to the individual employee with a reasonably long term of employment who is given this pittance of notice in having his employment terminated? Do you think he is free from frustration, anxiety or distress? Do you think that is not a factor which must be taken into account in determining what is fair, proper and reasonable notice?

We are obviously not going to be able to change the view of the minister this morning, but I want to say to him that he must at some point make the decision. I refuse to stand here in my place and listen to the minister, this minister particularly, make excuses for the inadequacy of the law of Ontario by comparing it to something called the northern tier of states or the sunshine strip states. Those are not criteria on which Ontario has ever founded its position.

To have the minister stand in his place last night and talk about Sir James Pliny Whitney being the first, and today say that those provisions for notice are adequate: when is the minister going to be first? Or is he saddled with a bureaucracy in his ministry and a bureaucracy in the cabinet that make him more and more testy whenever he introduces any bill into the Legislature, and less and less capable of both receiving criticism, accepting criticism and coming up in a public forum with reasonable solutions?

I can only believe he is saddled with a bureaucracy in his ministry that does not understand modern working conditions. It is certain to be that unless he is strong in the cabinet, you can be assured there are very many members of the cabinet who have no conception of the conditions under which people work in this province.

I say to the minister what we have proposed is reasonable; I say to my friends in the Liberal Party what we proposed is reasonable; I say to the government that it is going to have to introduce this because it is behind even the courts in an adequate assessment of the problems that are created by notice of termination in employment when it is not for cause.

The minister ought to understand that, the minister ought to respond to it; and the minister ought to have the graciousness to indicate that perhaps he will look at it, that perhaps there is something wrong in the Employment Standards Act as it is presently written.

He knows as well as I do that he can come down the Danforth with me and speak to employees with the length of service and the notice which this act requires, and ask person after person after person; and does he think they would say it would be reasonable? He knows the situation as well as anyone else in his own riding. We are not talking about people who have the benefit of the protection of organized groups within their society for collective bargaining; we are talking about the individual employee working in many shops and businesses across the city and across the province. One day we will get this amendment.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of actually partaking in this debate because my colleagues in the House have had the opportunity to express their points of view. However, I would like to bring to the minister's attention that quite a few years ago we had problems in the labour field with various types of industries.

It was brought to the attention of your government -- you were not here at that time -- but there was no action.

Had the government taken action back in 1970 -- April 27, 1970 -- when 142 individuals lost their jobs as a result of the shutting down of Erie Flooring and Wood Products Limited -- at that time the Honourable John Robarts was Premier of this province, and I asked him then to look into the situation, asked him why the government did not examine the company's books to determine whether there was a legitimate excuse for the shutdown -- 11 years ago, we would, in that period of time, have been able to develop some legislation that would have been much better than that we are presenting here today, and we might have avoided a lot of the problems we have had in our own community over the last half dozen years.

I know you want to rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, but I want to indicate to the government that it has been asleep at the switch for many years, and because of that disinterest in acting we are confronted with the situations we have today.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I may have missed something, but I am not sure. Was the previous speaker speaking in favour of or against the amendment?

Mr. Chairman: It was hard to fathom. I think we will have to look at Hansard within the next few days to establish exactly his stand on the amendment.

Mr. Cooke: Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I might point out that if we are ever to get to the point of having justification for plant closures, we certainly have to relate that in some way to notification for layoffs. The only way we can have proper justification is to have long notice, and the Liberals have already indicated they do not want to support our amendment.

Mr. Renwick: I just want to draw to the members' attention one example. I am indebted to my colleague the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande). We happened to learn on January 29, 1981, that the Royal Ontario Museum -- I am talking about severance pay -- settled upon an amount of money to be paid to an employee in lieu of notice to work out his contract. Mr. Harvey had 12 years of dedicated service to ROM. They worked out negotiations and offered one year's salary for that employee. For 12 years' service, he was to receive the equivalent of 52 weeks' notice to terminate his employment.

He retained a lawyer and did considerably better. He got 18 months' pay in lieu of notice after 12 years' service. His annual salary was $30,000, so presumably he got $45,000 after 12 years' service, the equivalent of 18 months' notice.

What is special about that category of person? What is special about that body that it can provide that kind of arrangement for an employee? Then we have the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr Wrye) saying that our amendment in regard to salary in lieu of notice is extravagant. How unreasonable it is.

12:20 p.m.

I can quite understand why the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) is exercised by the position which her colleague, the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) has taken, and I can well understand why the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman) tried to disengage himself gently from the position of the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I don't know where the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) has gone, but perhaps now sanity will prevail in the Liberal Party and they will support our amendment. I trust that you will support the amendment. It is a reasonable, fair --

Mr. Ruston: For some sanity from your party we might.

Mr. Renwick: Oh, the other member from Windsor is agitated now, as well. Perhaps he would get up.

Mr. Ruston: Little sanity there.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps my friend the member for Essex North would get up. Certainly down in the Windsor area it won't go very well --

Mr. Ruston: It didn't go very well for you in the last election down there.

Mr. Renwick: Perhaps you had better rethink that -- and it won't go very well in the Hamilton area any more than it will go well in the east end of Toronto or in East York. It will be a problem --

Mr. Ruston: Your problem.

Mr. Renwick: -- so I hope that you would rethink your position. We would be delighted to recess for a few minutes while the Liberal Party has a caucus over the position it has taken on this matter. I trust we will have your support.

Mr. Ruston: Maybe your members would like to have a caucus meeting.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Mr. Ruston, I have never seen you so agitated.

Mr. Renwick: I trust we will have the support of all thinking members of the chamber on this particular amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Renwick's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick moves that subsection 1 of

section 40a of the act, as set out in

section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out "and who has been employed by the employer for five or more years" in the ninth and tenth lines and by striking out "to a maximum of 26 years" in the thirteenth and fourteenth lines.

Mr. Wrye: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: You never asked if there were other amendments to

section 1, and I was simply waiting for you to do that so I might begin to move amendments to

section 2 of the bill. Perhaps you could tell us when you have completed each section.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, unfortunately the new boy got scooped at the starting gate, and you recognized my colleague. He wants his amendments to be moved and voted on, but whoever gets the chairman's eye is the one who gets recognized. It is a tough lesson to learn, but it will serve him in good stead in the years ahead.

Mr. Renwick: In the spirit of charity and in the hope that it will soften the minister's heart and my colleagues on the right, I would be quite happy to defer our amendment to the amendment proposed by the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick, that is very kind. Actually, I was just about to rule in his favour, but you very graciously acknowledged Mr. Wrye could continue. Unfortunately, Mr. Renwick did catch my eye first because sitting in this chair your focus tends to be this way, not that way. So I did miss him.

Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Since the House leader for the NDP seems to be so ably cognizant of the rules of the House, perhaps he could instruct members on his side who are moving said amendments to provide the members on all opposition sides with copies of those amendments before proceeding. I do not have a copy.

Mr. Chairman: One last chance, Mr. Martel.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, if the member wishes to raise a point of order she might inquire as to whether or not her colleagues have received copies of the amendments.

Mr. Cooke: The acting critic has a copy.

Mr. Martel: The acting critic --

Ms. Copps: The critic did not receive a copy of the amendment.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The point is well taken from all sides.

Mr. Martel: Should we provide -- how many? Would they like 34 copies? We will adjourn for a few moments so we can get copies for them.

Mr. Chairman: Now, Mr. Martel. Order please. The point is well taken on both sides. It is straying from the problem we originally had.

Mr. Wrye, any further amendments?

Mr. Wrye: I have two amendments to

section 2 of the bill, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martel: Have we got copies of this amendment? I do not have a copy. I would like a copy.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, we could run off 30 copies, one for each of the members to our left -- or is that 21? I am not sure.

Mr. Chairman: All right, all right.

Mr. Wrye moves that

section 40(a)(1) of the act as set out in

section 2(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "five" in the tenth line and inserting in lieu thereof "one."

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, perhaps at the outset I could ask if the minister is prepared to accept the amendment. He did not leap to his feet to accept it, so perhaps I ought to attempt --

Mr. Chairman: Why do we not go into clarification of the amendment and at that time the minister may respond?

Mr. Wrye: We have said quite a bit on this portion of the bill on second reading. I want to remind the minister briefly that in setting out the criteria to establish minimums and maximums the minister himself suggested that the criteria were a degree of permanence involved in the employee and a degree of commitment to the company. It seems to me that any employee who has spent a year at a company has indicated in a very real way a degree of permanence and a degree of commitment, and he should not be discriminated against in severance pay.

I remind the minister that as the bill now stands many employees who would otherwise qualify for severance pay would be eliminated.

In addition, the bitterness that would be engendered by having employees who have spent four and a half years, or four years and 10 months or four years and 11 months, and who would fall just under the very arbitrary five-year stint that is established by this bill, would linger in the final days at the company. It is a very unrealistic level for the government to have set. One year, as I suggested, does establish very much that degree of permanence and commitment on the part of the employee, and as a result I hope this House, with support from all sides, will agree to that amendment.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the amendment put by the member for Windsor-Sandwich and, I believe, the next amendment he is proposing to put, were covered by the amendment I inadvertently placed before he had an opportunity to place his. Therefore we will support his amendment. We think one year is too long, but it illustrates the principle we are concerned with.

12:30 p.m.

The regulations with respect to mass layoffs under

section 40(2) provides for three months and I don't see why we shouldn't go to three months. Our amendment was simply to eliminate that particular five-year restriction on the grounds that it was not going to make any difference whatsoever to the company which was required to pay severance. It makes no difference whatsoever if it had to pay those short-term employees the kind of dollars that we are concerned about.

We have some examples, but my colleague is going to speak to the matter and if necessary I can speak further. We just think the period should not exist at all and we would support it down to the one year, if that is the best the minister can do, but I think we will move the elimination of that particular clause and I will leave that to my colleague.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Renwick, although I appreciate that you haven't placed your amendment, do I understand you won't be proceeding with your amendment?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, my sense is our single amendment which I placed before the assembly and then withdrew in deference to my colleague, covered the two aspects of the two amendments which he is going to put. Let us await the event.

Mr. Martel: It is pretty radical stuff, I must say. I am not sure I can support it. It is so radical it bothers me.

Mr. Chairman, you must be embarrassed with this particular hunk of junk because you happened to be a member of the select committee which adopted as its recommendation -- the only recommendation the committee made in fact -- one week's severance pay for each year of work.

What bothers me is that on second reading of this bill not one of those six Tory members rose in their place to object to this

section of the bill, having voted on it not once, Mr. Minister, but twice. We not only moved it once, it was brought back to the House as a report and we then reaffirmed the position based on some of the minister's answers at that time. We took it back to the committee and with six Tories voting, the committee all voted for a week's severance pay for each year of work. We certainly did not include that you had to be employed for five years before you would qualify.

I might say to my friend, when we discussed that particular resolution we had to change our original motion because the Liberals would not accept the resolution as proposed because it was going to affect too many small businessmen.

Ms. Copps: Business people.

Mr. Martel: Pardon me, small business people. We went along with that in order to get it through. But here we see the spectre raised again today in the last amendment, when we know it will not affect small business people because they are excluded. We are talking about the Bendixes of the world, and you and your colleagues continue to play the game. You weren't really too interested in the beginning so why should you change now, except that you are forced to the wall on it and it would be rather embarrassing if you didn't.

Not one of my six Tory friends who voted has risen in his place. I believe there are two who are now cabinet ministers, one is the Deputy Speaker, one is the Chairman.

Mr. Wildman: It's called the majority gag.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The chairman has to be impartial.

Mr. Martel: He doesn't when he is speaking from his seat, when he is not in the chair. Not one of those six Tories managed to get up and say that this was a bit of nonsense. Why should someone with five years and a day be entitled to benefits and someone with four years and 11 months be excluded? How silly and how unfair and how unjust to decide that one only has four years and 11 months and, therefore, doesn't qualify.

What the hell is the difference between four years and 11 months and five years? What is the difference if one only has four years? He has given four years of dedicated service. The minister says, "Well, it has to do with his allegiance to the company." I think that was the terminology he used. Does someone with only four years not have any allegiance to the company, or someone with three years or two years?

It is such a foolish amendment. You will remember the reports in the Star and the Globe and Mail. The chairman recalls them well because he questioned some of the witnesses. The chamber of commerce said the figure was $700 million a year. That is what severance pay is going to cost us. Everybody is quitting his job at the same time tomorrow. No one is going back to work. All the plants are closing down and we would have to pay $700 million.

When we got the chamber of commerce before us, we questioned them about their figure. Go back and read the Hansard transcript of those hearings and you will read about the backpedalling they did. I didn't think a bicycle could go backwards. When they were confronted with their figure and asked to explain how they calculated it, they couldn't. Obviously, the cabinet bought the argument. I guess what is so frustrating for me is that we stand here and get severance pay and 700 or 800 employees of those laid off are going to get it this year. Whoop-de-do I

Most of the people who are out on the street because of plant shutdowns this year do not benefit by this act. It is a small handful; it might be 7,700. I'm not sure what the figures are, but I am not very far out. Why are we putting this terrible five-year period in there? Can you imagine the consternation of somebody who has been there for four and a half years? Aren't his problems as big as someone with five or six years? In fact, they are probably greater today. He is probably younger in age; he probably has younger children; he is probably paying for a home. His needs are every bit as great, but we don't see fit to do it.

We have to put on a limit and I can only assume it is because the chamber was able to --

Mr. Villeneuve: You are a lovely man. Now hurry up.

Mr. Martel: Then I had better take some nasty pills. I want to know if people with four and a half years have less difficulty than people with six years because that is what we are talking about. We are talking about a small measure when people are faced with unemployment and having to relocate somewhere else.

If you only have four and a half years, your problems aren't as great. I guess you could walk away from your mortgage. You haven't got as much invested.

I know that my friend the minister saw that when he was good enough to come to Sudbury and to the town of Capreol. He knows well the case of a young man who only had four years in and he walked away with his wife and two kids from his investment in his home. They went down to the Nanticoke area, but he had to walk away from his investment of three or four years in a new home. Maybe some of you in your grey and blue business suits can afford that, but most working people can't. In fact, in that town there are still homes for sale that they have not been able to sell.

Even worse, after they have left the house for a year the federal government insists that when they sell that house and purchase another one down here, there is a capital gain on the house they have up north.

12:40 p.m.

There has been talk about putting it to them, and we know how. In this piece of legislation, in this particular section, we really are discriminating against some and we are causing rancour. It is just unfair.

I would urge at least one Tory who voted for one week's severance pay, without specifying any number of years, to have enough courage to get up and oppose this five-year requirement. Six of them not only voted once, but voted a second time to uphold that amendment, and not one has had the courage to say it yet.

I would like to hear from the minister how he can rationalize five years as opposed to four. Maybe he can tell me why someone with six years or four years has less of an economic problem than someone with six or seven years. In the interests of working people, maybe we should start looking at what the effects are when someone is wiped out because his job is gone. Maybe we could accept an amendment like this if some of the Tory back-benchers would have the courage to get up and say that it is wrong to discriminate in this fashion.

That is what it is. It is discrimination at its finest. Maybe one, just one, would have the courage to say that it is wrong, particularly one of those six who served on that bloody committee and voted twice for it.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I support wholeheartedly the amendment put forth by my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) with regard to the one-year limit instead of five years. It is a very worthwhile amendment and should have the support of all the House.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I do not accept the amendment for the reasons I have given on two or three occasions. I am surprised at some of the members suggesting that this is done for any ulterior motive when they know full well that this legislation, when passed, places this province in the forefront in North America. I am quite surprised at that approach.

Even the suggestion that it is some sort of new idea is surprising, when their colleagues in Ottawa in their feeble legislation with regard to layoffs have a five-year floor. It is intriguing that these members have a position different from theirs. It is also interesting to note that a variety of other European countries which have taken this approach -- and not all have -- have chosen to put in some sort of a floor in recognition of the fact that severance pay is paid in recognition of years of service and commitment and also for loss of future benefits.

For instance, in Great Britain there is a two-year floor; in France, a two-year floor; in Ireland, a two-year floor. It is not unusual in collective agreements.

Mr. Martel: The minister is very selective. Why did he not choose Germany or Sweden?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I did not say they were all that way. The member has to stop being perceptively selective. He likes to do that. He likes to say, "You are all bad and we are all good." My friend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) likes to use that phrase as well. But responsible people, looking at the actions of this government, will see it as a progressive government. Let there be no doubt about that.

It is not uncommon in collective agreements bargained for by the parties to have a floor, nor is it uncommon to have a ceiling. The government is perfectly justified in this area, in which it is pioneering, in accepting a definition of severance pay which requires some commitment over a few years to a company in order to be eligible for severance pay.

On those grounds, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Those in favour of Mr. Wrye's amendment to

section 2 of Bill 95 will please say "aye."

Those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Amendment stacked.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Wrye moves that subsection 1 of

section 40a of the act as set out in subsection 1 of

section 2 of the bill be amended by striking out "to a maximum of 26 years" in the thirteenth and fourteenth lines.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Chairman, I know my friends opposite have combined the amendments, but if there is anything that is mean-spirited about this so-called pioneering legislation -- fortunately, the pioneers of yesteryear were a lot bolder than the minister has been -- it is the cap put on the severance pay in this so-called legislation.

Speaking to this amendment, it seems that if the minister wants to talk about a commitment in establishing a floor at five years, a floor we disagree with, surely he then cannot turn around and forget the commitment of employees, many of whom may have worked 28, 30 and 32 years.

Mr. Martel: I have not got a copy of that.

Mr. Wrye: I am sure the member has a copy.

That is why we are proposing to drop the cap of 26 years from the bill. The very least that can be done for those who have worked beyond 26 years, probably a lifetime for the company, given the difficulty they will probably have in relocating, is to give them one week's pay for each and every year they have worked with no top to that. That seems to us to be only fair.

Someone who has worked 35 years should not be receiving the same amount of severance pay as somebody who has worked 26 years. It seems to fly in the very face of the overall intent of the act. I would hope those members opposite would support this amendment. My friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has referred to the two votes that were taken. I guess we would call them the gang of six, who voted yes twice. In remembering those earlier deliberations of the committee, I do not remember seeing a cap of 26 weeks on the legislation.

I certainly hope at least one of that group of six this time around, will have the courage of the convictions he had back in December and January and will be supportive of the amendment.

Mr. Renwick: I will be interested in how the minister gets out of this amendment, considering he said a few minutes ago that the whole question of severance pay was a kind of reward for long service in a company. I wish I had jotted down the exact phrase, but the substance was, somehow or other, the old paternalistic view that the employee, having served for a long period of time, is deserving of some additional pittance, now to be supported in law in the province.

How does the minister decide that the twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, twenty-ninth, thirtieth and thirty-first year of service do not count in that particular world in which the minister and the bureaucracy of his ministry appear to dwell?

Mr. Martel: I would like to say to the chairman I am prepared to take his place for a few moments if he wants to speak on this bill. I would be very accommodating to him if he wants that opportunity. I would be more than prepared to occupy that chair for a few moments. I am intrigued by what my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) says. It would be interesting to hear the minister on this one. I can almost hear it though. In contracts, there are caps. We talked to the unions about negotiating severance pay and pensions. They found in most instances it certainly was not what they wanted, but that was all they could get.

12:50 p.m.

I suppose he will say, "In North America, we don't have it anyway, so we are pioneering and it is great stuff." Then the other one he will give us is, "In Europe, they have a ceiling." I suppose they might be able to find the