CONTENTS
Thursday 22 August 1991
Employment Standards Amendment Act (Employee Wage Protection Program), 1991, Bill 70 / Loi de 1991 modifiant la Loi sur les normes d'emploi (Programme de protection des salaires des employés), projet de loi 70
Agriculture funding
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP)
Vice-Chair: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich NDP)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia NDP)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP)
Substitutions:
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot NDP) for Mr Dadamo
McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East PC) for Mr Arnott
Wiseman, Jim (Durham West NDP) for Mr Wood
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North PC) for Mr Jordan
Also taking part: Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L)
Clerk pro tem: Manikel, Tannis
Staff: Nigro, Albert, Legislative Counsel
The committee met at 1005 in committee room 1.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION PROGRAM), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (PROGRAMME DE PROTECTION DES SALAIRES DES EMPLOYÉS)
Resuming consideration of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments.
Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 70, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les normes d'emploi par création d'un Programme de protection des salaires des employés et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.
The Chair: We shall resume our consideration of Bill 70. Ms Murdock, we are back once again to that portion of the bill which was stood down by you.
Section/article 1:
Ms S. Murdock: The first subsection is a technical one. It is simply to change the existing clause numbers to what will be, I hope, new clause numbers.
The Chair: Discussion about all of section 1 of the bill.
Ms S. Murdock: All of section 1? Well, subsection (2) is adding a new subsection (4) which is the section that shields the administrator from the requirement of holding a special hearing under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
The Chair: And that has obliquely been the subject matter of a considerable amount of discussion over this past week.
Ms S. Murdock: That is right.
Section 1 agreed to.
L'article 1 est adopté.
Section/article 2:
Ms S. Murdock: Section 2 is section 39c and that removes the $4,000 cap which currently applies to wages which may be recovered on behalf of workers by the employment standards branch. Workers previously would have had to start a civil court action to collect more than $4,000.
Mr Offer: In section 2, the explanatory note refers to an order that an employer must pay an employee illegally subjected to lie detector testing. There was some discussion around this whole principle, and I am wondering if the parliamentary assistant or staff might be able to explain the type of process that would go around this whole question of lie detector testing and what an order may result from.
Ms S. Murdock: Do you mean now with this change, or do you mean now under the existing Employment Standards Act?
Mr Offer: I could respond to your question by just saying now. I understand that section 2 would remove the $4,000 limit. But it is also referable to an order the subject matter of which might be lie detector testing, and I am somewhat unfamiliar with the type of order and the type of fact situation that might result in an order being made and the type of dollars that might be so awarded.
Ms S. Murdock: Peter Jenkins would probably know.
Mr Jenkins: In the present section 39c in the existing act, an officer can make an order for reinstatement, for example, or for loss of earnings or other employment benefits or for both. We have not had a lot of claims under the lie detector part in the last decade, I think maybe two or three at the most. It is a very seldom used provision in the act.
Mr Offer: That is why I am asking the question. What happens? Somebody is at work, that person is requested to take a lie detector test, the person refuses, and then what happens from that?
Mr Jenkins: They would file a claim with the branch, and the branch would assign it to an officer.
Mr Offer: Can we go back one? One day, somebody is asked to take a lie detector test. The person refuses. What does the employer do to the person that results in the inquiry having to take place?
Mr Jenkins: It could be a number of things. It could be a dismissal. It could be penalizing them in any way for not taking the lie detector test. It could be a number of sanctions that the employer could take against the employee for refusing to take the lie detector test, and the officer would issue an order where he found there was a violation of the act in regard to the employer's actions to the employee.
Ms S. Murdock: If I might add to that too, under the section just before that, 39b in the ESA, it says under subsection 39b(1) that an employee has the right not to take or be asked or required to take or submit to a lie detector test. So if an employer does any of those, they have recourse under the ESA. Does that answer your question?
Mr Offer: It is very helpful in that this is as a result of some employer asking some employee to take a lie detector test for some reason. Under the Employment Standards Act the employee is not required to ever submit to a lie detector test, the employer does not comply with the provisions, the protections of the Employment Standards Act, which results in the employer taking some punitive action against the employee. That action may be docking that person a couple of days or it might be firing the person, I would imagine, and the employee can then go to the branch to get an order --
Ms S. Murdock: He puts in a complaint and the employment standards officer then investigates the complaint.
Mr Offer: He puts in a complaint, and that complaint is investigated. I would imagine in a number of cases that as the complaint is investigated so it may also be resolved by the employer -- I would imagine that is just the nature of these types of complaints. If it is not, an order is made for either reinstatement if the employee has been fired, or for lost wages, notice provisions and things of that nature, if the person will not be reinstated, or if the person does not wish to be reinstated. Will that include that provision?
Mr Jenkins: That is correct, yes, in certain circumstances. The employer may have made the employment relationship so untenable for the employee that reinstatement is just not an appropriate remedy.
Mr Offer: So then the order could in fact, in terms of dollars, talk about the actual wages that the person might have lost, vacation pay, notice. He would have had to be entitled to some notice.
Mr Jenkins: That is right.
Mr Offer: And potentially some severance if he qualifies. So it could be that type of a dollar figure.
Mr Jenkins: That is correct, yes.
Mr Offer: What happens in the absence of this fund when an order is made? How is the order converted into money?
Ms Muir: If an order is made and the employer wishes to dispute it, under section 50 the employer is currently required and will still be required to pay the money that is owed, the amount of the order, into trust. So the issue of whether you are going to pay money from the wage protection program in such circumstances does not arise because the money will be in trust. If the employer loses the appeal, that money would be available outside of the wage protection program to pay the person what is owed.
Mr Offer: So if the employer wishes to dispute the claim, the only way the claim can be so disputed is if the employer pays in the money so claimed, thereby giving the employer the right to dispute the claim -- such as what happens in the Income Tax Act, I think.
Mr Jenkins: That is right. The employer can dispute the employee's allegations at the investigatory stage of course, but once the officer has issued the order the employer, in order to appeal that order, would have to pay the money into trust to get a hearing before a referee.
Mr Offer: And if the employer does not put the money in, then the order sits out there.
Mr Jenkins: That is correct.
Mr Offer: How is that order then potentially converted into dollars? How do we move a judgement to money?
Mr Jenkins: There are a number of collection proceedings the branch can avail itself of which are set out in the present act. One is a third-party demand; the other is filing a certificate in court which makes the order enforceable as a judgement of the court. There are a number of areas.
Ms S. Murdock: Before there would have to be access to the fund, but the employee, if that were the case and the employer was not paying, for whatever reason, the employee would be paid the order and the branch would then proceed against the employer using one of those methods.
Mr Offer: That is in light of the amendments we are talking about now.
Ms S. Murdock: No, we passed those in the previous amendments.
Mr Offer: No, I am talking about --
Ms S. Murdock: In light of what has been going on all week, yes.
Mr Offer: But otherwise, in regard to the enforcement procedure, what type of success was there by the branch in moving orders into satisfaction? Was it the branch that moved the order or was it the employee who had to move to enforce the order?
Ms S. Murdock: It would be the branch that would move the order. It would not be the employee, would it?
Mr Jenkins: The branch would institute collection efforts on the employee's behalf.
Ms S. Murdock: For your information, the employment standards branch actually has instituted a collection process over the years that is actually very good. Not that it is its function, but when the situation arises, it has become quite adept at collection procedures.
Mr Offer: One question on this matter, in light of the new section 50, if there was this fact situation, is it still necessary for the employer to pay the money in?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. None of the provisions have changed. You now have independent adjudicators and referees who were not there before, but the procedures and the requirement for the employer to pay the money in trust before a hearing has not changed.
Mr Offer: So if there is going to be an appeal, a reference of the order or an appeal of the order by the employer, the only way that can be heard is if the employer pays the dollars in. Can the employee get the money out of the fund prior to the matter being heard?
Ms S. Murdock: No. Now we have passed other amendments that said that if there is an undisputed section, that portion can be released, but for the disputed portion for the purposes of which a hearing would be held, no. No moneys will be released during an employer appeal.
Mr Offer: Also, under the bill, just to be very clear, because the branch does not have to exhaust all of its remedies against the employer, they do not actually have to take out these orders, do they, before going against the director?
Ms S. Murdock: That is true technically and in principle it is true, but in practice they are going after the employer first. But there are going to be some situations where they have gone down to the belt south of Texas or wherever it is, and you are never going to get the employer. In those instances, it will be a discretionary call, that is true, but it is not going to be an automatic thing, that you run after the directors the first chance you get.
1020
Mr Offer: I know this is somewhat speaking about some of the things that were brought clearly to our attention yesterday. What is the principle? Yesterday we spoke about the principle. What is the underlying principle that says the fund should be accessed not only by a worker who is out wages and does not have a job but as well by a worker who may also be out wages but still retains the job? I am just wondering about the principle that drives that, to allow the worker to do that.
Ms S. Murdock: It is all workers, regardless of whether they are employed or unemployed. I do not think there was any differentiation made. I know there was no differentiation made.
Mr Offer: Okay, that has answered my question. I thank you and staff for not only providing an explanation of this but also almost a course in Employment Standards Act procedure 1 and how to access and enforce an order in 15 minutes. I am not trying to be light about this. I think many of us have spoken very much in favour of the principle of the legislation and had in our mind what the principle was. I think it may be that the direction of the legislation was broadened yesterday. I recognize that it has always been in the legislation, but it became crystallized as the breadth and scope of the legislation.
Section 39c is an example of the expansion that I believe not to be the perception of many people in the general public as to what Bill 70 addresses. I think the general public feels Bill 70 addresses a worker who is out wages, vacation pay, termination and severance as a result of the worker losing the job. There is something right and proper about addressing that need. I think the general public appreciates and understands that principle. But section 39c is not that principle. It is a broader type of principle, and I am not certain how the general public will view that. We are going to have to make up our minds.
Ms S. Murdock: I just want to respond to that one point, though, because under the existing Employment Standards Act section 39c and the amendment we are proposing today, with the exception of the last few lines, are identical. There has been no change except for the $4,000 allowance.
Mr Offer: Of course, except for the fact, when I talk about the bill as a whole, that now the person in that circumstance can access a fund, whereas prior to this bill he was not able to.
Ms S. Murdock: They could not, true.
Mr Offer: And the fact is they are still potentially employed.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes.
Section 2 agreed to.
L'article 2 est adopté.
Section/article 3:
The Chair: Section 3 of the bill, Ms Murdock, I read as being very self-explanatory. Is there any discussion? I said "self-explanatory," not necessarily denying that there is going to be any discussion about it, because there has been a whole lot of discussion about it and I expect that some people might want to make comments, like Mrs Witmer.
Ms S. Murdock: This is not a lie detector test. This is Sunday work.
Mrs Witmer: This is similar to what was asked before, but why would an employee be dismissed, and is it necessarily dismissal?
Ms S. Murdock: It does not necessarily have to be a dismissal. Mind you, having said that, surprisingly there have not been all that many complaints, but that may change with the new legislation. We do not know yet. It may be a reduction of hours of work, and if the employee believes that because he refused to work on Sunday he was penalized in some way, he can put in a complaint with the employment standards officer. At that point, the same process kicks in. The employment standards officer goes and talks to the employer, the manager or whoever, whatever the situation is, talks to the employees and makes a determination. Again, the appeal mechanism kicks in as well.
I know there has been some discussion under the other bill that is going through on the reverse onus provision, because right now in that section if the employee says he has been fired because he did not work on Sunday, then it is left to the employer to prove that is not the case. There has been some discussion on that. That is the way it stands right now, though, and until that changes that is still the case. It would go through the same process that was discussed for the lie detector provision and the same thing again. If the employer appealed, he would have to put the money into trust; if the employee was not satisfied with the order, the employee could appeal as well.
Mrs Witmer: You have indicated that up until now there has not been much use of this. When you say there has not been much use, how many cases have the number of people who have brought concerns forward increased recently?
Ms S. Murdock: I will let Peter answer.
Mr Jenkins: Under the whole of part XI-B, which includes not only section 39f but other sections regarding Sunday work, we have had approximately 10 to 15 complaints.
Mrs Witmer: Are those recent?
Mr Jenkins: Since the legislation was introduced in 1988.
Mrs Witmer: When that legislation is finalized, is there an opportunity or is there a chance that the number of cases being heard would increase?
Ms S. Murdock: That is a very difficult question to answer, because personally in 1988 I thought the number of cases would have been significant and was quite surprised when I became parliamentary assistant to discover there were so few. So who is to know? I wish I could answer it more substantially than that, but I cannot. I do not believe the ministry officials -- if they want to try, that is fine, but I do not think they can either.
Mrs Witmer: Again, this is an expansion of the fund and it can apply to an employee who is employed or also to an employee who has been let go from the job.
Ms S. Murdock: The application is definitely to whether you are employed or unemployed. There has been no distinction made. An employee who has a complaint under the Employment Standards Act has the right, but "expansion" -- I do not approve or agree with that word. It is not an expansion; it is a fund that has been initiated now with this legislation. The rules have not changed; it still applies to all employees in the province.
Mrs Witmer: At the present time, with this wage protection fund not being in place, how would employees be reimbursed if the employer did not provide that compensation?
Ms S. Murdock: Civil action. But I should point out too that section 39f -- and I thank legal counsel for reminding me -- this particular provision is only for dismissal. Section 39f is only if you are dismissed, although that does not go with whether you are employed or -- in this instance you would be unemployed.
Mrs Witmer: Is there anything in Bill 70 at all that would allow an individual to be reimbursed if there was a simple violation, if, as you indicated his hours were reduced, that would allow him access to the fund?
1030
Ms S. Murdock: Just to make clear what your question is, if I said that my hours were reduced and an order was put forth and the employer -- I mean, either there would have to be an agreement with the employer as to what the recompense would be, whether it would be payment or more hours or -- I do not know how you would do that. Peter, could you respond?
Mr Jenkins: At present the answer would be no, but should the new Sunday work provision pass, there will basically be the right to get money from the fund where your employer is not complying with an order to stop penalizing you for refusing the Sunday work. If the employer, under the new Sunday work legislation, reduced your hours as a result of refusing to work on Sunday and the officer were to issue an order ordering the employer to make up for the loss of earnings and the employer would not comply with the order, the employee would have the right to get the money from the fund, but then we would go after the employer for the money to replenish the fund.
Mrs Witmer: So according to the new legislation then, an employee would be eligible for money from the fund.
Mr Jenkins: That is right.
Mrs Witmer: But that has not been passed yet.
Ms S. Murdock: The Sunday work legislation is in the standing committee on administration of justice going around the province.
Mr Offer: I have no comments. I believe Mrs Witmer has brought forward the points of this particular subsection. Many of the concerns that I have dealing with the breadth of the legislation are much the same as with the earlier section. I would have appreciated receiving from the government a more concise statement of principle as to this. I recognize that they do not have to do that, but I do recognize that the statement of principle as to the need for Bill 70 was very clear that people who are out of a job and out of wages, vacation pay, termination and severance should not and therefore you have this fund that is set up. That is a principle we all recognize.
But I did not hear the statement of principle as to why that bill should be expanded to include these sections. That will of course not be given, I know that, by the government in the few moments left on this bill. However, it would have been helpful, I must say, to hear why this bill is to be expanded to this degree and, through the use of regulation, to a much greater degree totally out of the control of us as legislators. It would have been, I think, quite helpful.
Mrs Witmer: Getting back to the expanded principle of the bill and the fact that we hear now that changes are going to take place as a result of the new Sunday shopping legislation, etc, I am just wondering what else might await us in the future. Yesterday, I raised some concerns about drug testing. What rules or regulations are there at the present time concerning drug testing in the workplace?
Ms S. Murdock: None. There is nothing under the Employment Standards Act regarding drug testing.
Mrs Witmer: Are there any plans to introduce changes? Since this is an area that is being discussed now, I am wondering if eventually this is going to be included within this bill as well.
Ms S. Murdock: To my knowledge at this point in time, and I cannot guarantee that is going to stay -- I am not the minister -- we are not discussing that. There are other things that are being discussed within the ministry. Drug testing is not one of them, but if it were to be included, it would have to be done legislatively; it could not be done on a regulatory basis. It would have to come in a legislative form with an amendment to the legislation.
Mrs Witmer: What else might be included in the future within the application of Bill 70 when there are violations of the Employment Standards Act? Does it enable people to apply to the fund?
The Chair: The parliamentary assistant can answer that if she wants, but I am not sure it is a fair question because she is not the minister, she is not the Premier's office, she is not Ross McClellan. How can she predict what is going to come down the road, short of reading Maclean's magazine?
Ms S. Murdock: Okay, but I will answer. I agree with what the Chair has said, but when the minister spoke in the House on this bill, and in the press releases that subsequently were put out the same day, I mean throughout it all -- I went through it last night just to double check what we have said, and the focus and the initiator of this legislation is the recession. It is a recession-driven bill, absolutely, but it was not thought up by the previous government in terms of the need for it. It just so happens it is philosophically very important to us that all workers have some protection. That is the predominant theme throughout all of the materials that have been put out. Hansard, when I checked that too -- same thing in all the debates the members made. It is the whole issue of workers being protected in this province.
I think it came as a surprise, as you may remember, that I did not understand what was not being understood because the existing legislation so clearly included everyone that it never seemed to be an issue. Had I known previously that there was going to be these concerns and that they seemed to be so heavy concerns, I would have put forth a statement but I did not expect it because of the existing legislation. For that, I do not think there is any apology necessary. But other than what is in the legislation now, I cannot think of anything that might be coming up. Actually, drug testing was a good suggestion in terms of things employees are asked to do, but nothing is in the works for this.
Mrs Witmer: I appreciate that response, Mr Chair. We also did some reading last night. This is the type of thing I was looking for but I could not find it, and I appreciate that it was understood by the government but it certainly was not understood by us.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chairman, I would just like to serve notice that before we adjourn, but after we complete our clause-by-clause proceedings of Bill 70, I would like to be recognized to bring up a point of new business.
Section 3 agreed to.
L'article 3 est adopté.
Section/article 4:
The Chair: Section 4 of the bill is self-explanatory but might none the less attract some debate. Is there any discussion regarding all of section 4 of the bill?
Mr Offer: I am wondering if I might be informed as to how the settlement is to be set aside? What is the process?
Ms S. Murdock: If there was an agreement between the union and the employer for a package that was, say, less than the full statutory entitlement and at that point for whatever reason the event occurred and the employer then did not live up to the settlement, and there was no collusion in getting to the settlement, then it would not be paid. The employee would have access to the fund and would be able to apply to it and the settlement agreement would not come into it. If it was less, the employee would still be eligible for the maximum of $5000.
1040
Mr Offer: My question relates to the investigation to determine whether fraud or coercion has in fact taken place. It is on one hand evident, if not simple to determine, whether an amount that is owed under a collective bargaining agreement under the Employment Standards Act is due and owing and has been paid, and that I think is capable of almost an empirical type of analysis. However, I would like to know when one talks about fraud or coercion if that invites a different type of investigation, a different type of inquiry. It is something that is not mathematical, it is more evidentiary, and I am wondering if you might want to share with us how that type of inquiry can be carried forward.
Ms S. Murdock: This section deals with severance pay. I should also point out that it just deals with that one provision. We got into this discussion in the provisions on the administrator's powers, if you recall, and the situation would be that the employment standards officer would issue an order based on whatever the actual figures say. But if that employment standards officer had some sense or suspicion, in looking through the books or whatever, or just did not feel comfortable with it, at that point it would be brought to the attention of the administrator and the administrator then would or would not proceed on the basis of whatever information would be there. I would have to ask Peter what kinds of information the employment standards officer would be looking at, because I have never done an investigation on that.
Mr Jenkins: The employment standards officers, I should say, do not always limit their investigations at present to, as they say, an empirical type of analysis. Employment standards officers at present have to evaluate matters other than just purely empirical ones, so they do have some experience in these types of issues. The types of evidence they would look at in determining whether there was fraud or not would be whether the employer provided some false financial statements during the negotiations, or provided some false or misleading statements as to the financial picture during the negotiations. Hopefully, in most cases, there will be some hard evidence they could evaluate.
Mr Offer: Are all the parties given the opportunity to present their case?
Mr Jenkins: The investigation of the officer would be conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Should he make an order and one of the parties is dissatisfied with it, there will be an appeal, in which case there will be a full, formal hearing. But at the investigatory stage, notwithstanding the absence of a full formal hearing, there is still a hearing of the issues in the sense that the officer gives both parties the opportunity to present their cases to him and gives them an opportunity to rebut the evidence of the other side.
Mr Offer: This type of inquiry could eventually get into the court system, could it not?
Mr Jenkins: Yes, on a judicial review it could.
Section 4 agreed to.
L'article 4 est adopté.
The Chair: Bill 70 is entitled An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments. Shall the title carry?
Title agreed to.
Le titre est adopté.
Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.
Le projet de loi, modifié, devra faire l'objet d'un rapport.
Ms S. Murdock: For some reason I think trumpets should be blown, but in any case I just want to thank --
Mr Ramsay: Have you got a trumpet?
Ms S. Murdock: I do not know. I cannot play one.
I just want to thank the committee for being so helpful, the Chair and all the members for the discussion and the debate. But I especially want to thank my ministry staff, especially Cherith Muir and Pauline Ryan. They have been in from the beginning, many night hours spent. Also legal counsel, although I have gone through three of them in terms of pregnancy leaves and everything else, and my staff, Alan Ernst. Everyone has been very helpful and I thank everyone for the co-operation.
The Chair: Thank you. We have other matters to deal with briefly, but I should mention the assistance of Ms Manikel, the clerk of the committee, Mr Nigro, the counsel, and of course Hansard and Adrian Jeffrey who has so capably handled the controls and made sure that all of the profundity expressed over the last several days is documented for your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren to read with interest.
Mr Ramsay: We have not seen the transcripts yet.
The Chair: I also thank the committee for its patience and tolerance of me in doing my humble best at keeping things rolling, and I thank you very much for your co-operation.
1050
AGRICULTURE FUNDING
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chairman, I would like to move a motion before the committee.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay moves that in consideration of the state of emergency and the income crunch in Ontario agriculture, especially in the oil and grainseed sector, caused in part by the 35% drop in cash-crop commodity prices, the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development request an emergency debate and hearings by the said committee at the earliest opportunity under section 123 of the standing orders.
Mr Ramsay: The Chair will notice also we take this situation in Ontario agriculture in the gravest sense, and not only is John Cleary, our critic, here but also Murray Elston, our new interim leader, has joined the committee for subsequent discussion that might pursue from this motion.
The Chair: May I, before giving Mr Cleary the floor, indicate that obviously a section 123 application is as of right. The issue in the motion would be the matter of earliest opportunity and emergency debate and hearings. I trust you will be addressing that and expanding on that in terms of what your motion would entail, in your mind at least.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chair, as a result of this grave situation, in fact crisis situation, that the different commodity councils across the province have stated, it is excellent that we have one of the parliamentary assistants here in Mr Klopp at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I know he is obviously very concerned, coming from Huron county, with the situation, that we request the House leaders to find at the earliest possible date a time slot for us to pursue this debate.
We feel it should be done as soon as possible. I know the parliamentary assistant and others here who have rural constituents are cognizant of the incredible situation, specifically a cash shortage that is hurting and is going to, I think, bring to an end some of the farm operations in Ontario. It is an emergency and it is a crisis. We would request that the committee request the House leaders to slot the earliest possible venue, even if it is before the return of the Legislature. We would like to see it happen as soon as possible.
Mr Elston: I appreciate the invitation to speak. I want to underscore the necessity, and of course I will be working along with our House leader to get an agreement from the House leaders of the government and the third party to get this matter before us right away.
It is of concern to us, because although the oil and other grainseed producers are noted primarily, it is also a very difficult time for producers of livestock in the farming communities, because oftentimes you will see them also into producing grains. Everybody is having difficulty dealing with the lack of cash support at the moment to get them through the 1991 year.
We have had some other climactic problems. The member for Huron has had his own brush with hail and wind damage in McKillop township and other places. I have areas where there have been a lack of rain. In Essex, Kent and Lambton there are areas where it is described as a drought situation. I know that the Minister of Agriculture and Food has been invited to address a meeting of some three or four federations of agriculture tonight down in the Essex area of the province to familiarize himself with the very bad situation that has attached to folks in those local areas.
The reason I have come here today, it seems to me and the members of my caucus, is that we wish to alert the members of the committee that although they have finished with Bill 70, we would like them to carry on with just a few more days of activity in the committee before we get back in September, because of the very serious nature of bridging the year's cash flow problems for our farm communities.
There is also another interesting piece of information, and I would hope the committee would be happy enough to vote unanimously in support of my efforts to get both the third party House leader and the government House leader to provide us with a time for sitting. The federal agricultural committee has agreed on an emergency basis to listen to the farm commodity groups on August 29 in Ottawa, to talk about the very same problem from a national perspective.
My point is that if all the members of the committee voted by way of resolution as a reply to the motion by my colleague to have this done before we get back on September 23, then the House leaders would have much more obligation to come up with a satisfactory date to have the farm people come in front of this committee as a legislative forum to discuss in detail some of the problems and to pursue some of the options which might be available.
My colleague the member for Timiskaming with my colleague the member for Cornwall were both recently in Wellington county and came up with what I thought were some pretty interesting options which are not costly in the full scheme of things, but which I think should be considered and probably supported from a legislative backbench point of view and then moved on to the Agriculture and Food minister so he can go to the new Chairman of Management Board and suggest that perhaps with just minor changes it could assist in funding agriculture in the province.
That is why we are here. We understand the motion is as of right to have it discussed at some point, but we believe that the emergency is so critical that we hope we can get everybody's support for bringing the farm communities here to Queen's Park and having an emergency deliberation to see if we can get some more positive options from those people. I appreciate having the opportunity of chatting with the committee about our concerns.
Mr McLean: I am pleased to support this resolution here this morning. The first of last week I had the opportunity to travel in southwestern Ontario, and when you look at some of the drought situations around Tilbury and in and around those areas where the corn is like three feet high, it certainly gives the impression there are some real problems there.
In Chatham last weekend and Monday, the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association was meeting and on their agenda was this very issue. There is a crisis out there. We had a very important member of the National Farmers Union and co-operative development association make a presentation to us in Windsor with regard to the farm problems that are taking place. There is a great concern out there with regard to the cash flow that farmers are having a problem getting.
I would hope that the House leaders would agree to an emergency debate and have the farm community come in and make some presentations, and it would also give the Minister of Agriculture and Food the opportunity to come before the committee and indicate his concern with regard to the farm community. I do think it is important, and I will certainly urge my House leader to agree to a meeting. It may take a week or 10 days, but at the earliest opportunity I think it would be important to have it.
Mr Cleary: Just to add to what the previous speakers have said in their support, I too have travelled in a lot of areas in the province and met with agricultural people. With the falling prices and 35% reduction in some prices, unless we get our act together in the province of Ontario, many of these farmers will not be in operation next year.
There is also another very serious issue that has not been touched on earlier: dead livestock removal. I know some of the companies have closed, and the farmers are working together to try to come up with some type of recommendation to bring to the province, and I think this is a very serious issue too. I do hope that the House leaders will be able to get together and at least bring some of these agricultural people in and listen to them because it is probably one of the most serious years they have had in many.
The Chair: Thank you. It has been indicated to me that other members of the committee want to participate in the discussion and debate surrounding this motion, but it has also been indicated to me that there is a request for a brief recess of 10 minutes. I suggest to the committee that is not inappropriate. We will have a brief recess for 10 minutes.
The committee recessed at 1058.
1118
The Chair: We are resuming with Mr Klopp.
Mr Klopp: I too have been worried for some time and so has the Minister of Agriculture and Food, with regard to this business of agriculture and how it has been done over the years -- the state of emergency, as many farmers have told me over the last number of months. What do you mean the state of emergency? It has been a problem for 10 years. I wonder what now all of a sudden the excitement is about. But I guess it is never too late. The minister is also very much concerned. He has been dealing with this, as some of you know, the gross revenue insurance plan, GRIP, and net income stabilization account, NISA things have been dragged through, but we are actually looking at the ministry to make sure we can get those payments out as soon as possible.
With regard to the drop in commodity prices, that is very true in all commodities. Hog prices are down, and yet we have the lowest number of hogs. So for this to be brought forth by the Liberal members is good. I can assure you that from this side, speaking on behalf of myself and as parliamentary assistant to the minister, it is a concern that has been brought up to our caucus on a number of occasions, and I would like to recognize that the critic for the Tory party has also been in contact a number of times and I appreciate that. I can see that this motion is fairly well put forward.
Mr Waters: I understand there is a procedure for a section 123 which you are asking for here. It is also my understanding that it is not normal for us to be voting on anything in committee of the whole, that it is automatically referred to the subcommittee to deal with. Because of the way you have worded it, and after talking with the PA and knowing in my area about the agricultural needs, what I would like to suggest is that the subcommittee convene immediately upon the ending of this meeting to discuss this and get this process moving along the way.
Mr Elston: I thank Mr Waters for the suggestion. The reason I would ask for the committee's endorsement of this is that you have all of the people here and we are all in support of it. A motion from the entire committee to get on with it would obviously take away the necessity of the subcommittee meeting. Everybody is here. We have some time, and if we are all in agreement, then I think we should be prepared to approach each of our House leaders to get the day for these people to come in and speak to us. From my point of view, that is the only reason for bringing it here, so we can have all of the committee just say, "We want to do it." I hear it from Mr Klopp and now from you as well, Mr Waters, that you are in favour. If we are all in favour of doing it, you do not really need the subcommittee.
The Chair: I appreciate your comments, but I should indicate that standing order 123(b) would appear to require the subcommittee to report back to the committee, not just with the reference under standing order 123 but with a number of other matters, including proposed time frames and proposed witnesses, and that is the function of the subcommittee. The requirement is that the subcommittee shall make a report to the committee. I agree that the subcommittee is not a necessary prerequisite to standing order 123 or to this motion, but it is a necessary prerequisite to the development of the process after the 123 as-of-right notice.
Mr Ramsay: I would request that, because of the emergency nature of this, we could go into subcommittee hearings right now and have a discussion, with the understanding that we would immediately go back to committee once the subcommittee has had this discussion so that we can conclude this matter today and we can get a request from this committee, after subcommittee consideration, to the House leaders and get this on as quickly as possible.
The Chair: Mr McLean will have the floor in just a minute. Let's first deal with the matter of the motion which is before the committee. Is there any comment on dealing with the motion? Mr Waters has already indicated that the subcommittee may be or is prepared to meet immediately after this committee. In terms of reconvening, I appreciate what you are saying and I would like to hear comments from people, because the subcommittee would have to have something to report back, and in a period of 30 seconds or two minutes it is not going to have anything to report back. Mr Elston has already made it quite clear that there is going to be a need to consult with House leaders and for them to exchange views. I am concerned about what you say in view of the fact that subcommittee will meet. Mr Waters has already indicated the government is prepared to do that, but to come back to the committee this morning I am not sure would be particularly fruitful.
Mr Offer: Just a friendly suggestion. It could very well be that the motion could be passed. We then could send that off to the House leaders to discuss it. At the same time, the subcommittee could be meeting to determine, in the event of agreement by the House leaders, who is it that we would invite and then report back to the committee and have that passed. That could all be done and wrapped up very rapidly, I believe.
Mr Waters: The problem that I would see with that is getting a list together of people to do presentations before us and getting the time. There is no way we are going to get that from all three House leaders, because I do not even know where our House leader is today. I know he is not in his office, because I just left there. I do not mind convening a meeting right after, but I cannot see how we can report back to committee as to where we are going on this today.
The Chair: In any event, can we deal with the motion, which is more properly to be dealt with now than the matter of when a subcommittee meets and when it reports back, which can be dealt with after the motion?
Mr McLean: The committee can do what it likes, with unanimous consent, with regard to whether you have to have a subcommittee or not. I think the important thing is that this motion is passed now and then referred to the House leaders for their consideration. It may be that the House leaders will not agree to proceed, and if that happens, then there is no point in going into a lot of detail as to whom you are going to have before the committee and whom you want to have before the committee. I would think the simplest thing to do would be to have the motion put and then referred to the House leaders.
Mr Waters: If you are asking for a vote in support of standing order 123, I can understand that, but there is no need to have a vote, because I just did one on the Workers' Compensation Board. Once Mr Ramsay or Mr Cleary presents this to the Chair, the process automatically starts and it goes to the subcommittee. You are entitled to one standing order 123 in a year and the process is already there. I do not think there is anybody around here who is not supportive of this, and if you want to vote on support, fine, but the process is already there.
Ms S. Murdock: I am just not understanding this. I am reading that what this motion is doing is requesting an emergency debate and hearings by this committee at the earliest opportunity under section 123 of the standing orders. I just need to be clear on this. That means that if we took a vote on this and it was passed, then section 123, the 12 hours, starts and the subcommittee sets the time. Is that what happens?
Mr Ramsay: I beg the patience of the other members on the committee. I understand in normal circumstances how section 123 works in that it is an automatic right. Mr Waters is correct, you do not have to vote on this to get approval, because it is our right as a caucus to have one of these during the year. I understand that.
Why I am bringing this to the committee today is because this is an emergency situation. What I would like to persuade the other members of the committee to do is to pass this motion, though normally it is not necessary, so that we could expedite a request to the House leaders, who may or may not agree that we do this. We would like our committee to request that the House leaders consider this as quickly as possible so that we could get on with this as quickly as possible, if we can get on with it at all.
We will some time, I guess, because it is our right, but we are asking to try to expedite the process somewhat, because as Mr McLean says, the committee, with unanimous consent, can do whatever it wishes. The point we want to make is that it is imperative that we get on with this as soon as possible, so we are asking for something maybe a little unusual, that we all support this so that we can get the House leaders informed that it is our desire to have some sort of hearings on the agricultural commodity situation in Ontario.
Mr Waters: If that is what you want, I still have a concern, but what I would suggest is that we convene a subcommittee meeting right after here, get the Chair to go to the three House leaders and try to get some consent from them and some time. But I cannot see us reporting back today, because there is no way in two or three hours that I am going to be able to come up with a list. You might already have your list put together, but there is no way in two or three hours that I am going to come up with a list. I would like to expedite this and get it moving.
The Chair: I will indicate again that it is my view as Chair that this committee, once it decides how to resolve this motion, can give its subcommittee whatever direction it wishes by way of motion, once this motion is resolved. Right now this motion is here. Mrs Witmer wanted an opportunity to participate.
Mrs Witmer: We are speaking to the motion.
The Chair: I hope so.
1130
Mrs Witmer: I would just like to remind the government that in its Agenda for People, it did promise to the agricultural community $100 million in aid. They have also promised to consult with those individuals, and I think we have before us today a letter which we have received from the agricultural community indicating concerns about the operations, about some of the hardships that they are experiencing. They are looking for the government to take some quick action.
Unfortunately, to date this year, the government has only committed about $50 million for interest rate relief and participation in the GRIP, and we are hearing today about farmers who have had disastrous prices for their crops. They are experiencing severe financial hardship. They have indicated that they do need much more, and at the very least they were looking for Ontario participation in the national NISA plan for this year. They are very disappointed that this did not happen.
Certainly, given the current situation, which I do support and believe is an emergency, it is imperative that this committee support the motion that has been put forward and that we hear from the agricultural community as quickly as possible, not in October or November but right away. I believe that we could very quickly put together a list of individuals to appear before us and hear their views on what this government can do to help them over the current crisis situation.
Mr Offer: I think we all realize the workings of rule 123, that it is a rule as of right. The reason for this motion and the necessity for its immediate passage is that this committee has been allocated a certain amount of time to sit from now until September 23. This is in fact the last day, and so what we must do is pass this motion so that we are not only asking for a rule 123 inquiry, which is our right, but also allowing the House leaders to discuss giving us the time to sit from today at some point until September 23.
We are saying that this matter is of such a critical and emerging nature, that it is a matter of such an emergency, that not only do we want the 123, but we also request that the House leaders consent to this committee discussing this matter prior to the House reconvening. That is the critical nature of this issue and that is the reason why the motion, as posed, must be put and in fact passed. Without that, we will not have the opportunity to discuss the issue prior to the House reconvening, so we on this side ask that the members of the government vote in favour of this motion. We can then call a subcommittee meeting, but it is absolutely necessary that the House leaders be given the opportunity to give us the time. If you vote against this motion, you will not allow the House leaders to give us the time.
The Chair: Prior to recognizing Mr Elston, then Mr Wiseman and then Mr Waters, I might indicate that it has been ordered by the House, on motion by Miss Martel, that, "With the agreement of the House leaders and the whips of each party, committees may meet during the summer adjournment at times other than those specified in the schedule tabled today with the Clerk of the assembly to consider matters referred to them by the House or to consider matters designated pursuant to standing order 123." I am advised that that order requires as a prerequisite the agreement of House leaders and whips before this committee may meet beyond the hours and days that it had already been directed to meet.
Mr Waters: Could I put a motion on the floor to that that might help everyone?
The Chair: Not right now, unless it is an amendment to the motion that is here.
Mr Elston: Mr Chair, first of all, thank you for clarifying the position. It looks like the 123 can be brought in any event under the auspices of that motion of the House. The House has seen fit to provide the flexibilities to the committees to request such, and I think the only thing I am asking for is a unanimous vote so that the House leaders understand fully that each of the parties is in favour of doing it.
The other point that I wish to raise -- actually, it is more of a point of order in a sense -- we have referred to the letter which I brought in, a copy of a letter that was given to me from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Soybean Growers' Marketing Board, the Ontario Corn Producers' Association and the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board. It was sent to Mr Rae and to get it on the record as part of the material for our consideration, I am going to have to read it. I ask for your indulgence for doing that, unless you can somehow take it as read.
The Chair: Far be it from me to ask you not to read something. Do you want it to be deemed to have been read? Everybody has it and filed it. Do you want to read it?
Mr Elston: I have given it to everybody, but there is no role to make it an exhibit, since we are not talking about any official piece of business. I think it should be on the record, just to give us the backdrop. If there is any other way of doing it I would be prepared to let it stand on its own.
Mr Klopp: We all have it in front of us.
Mr Elston: But Hansard ought to have it as well.
It is dated August 21, 1991, and addressed to the Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of Ontario, with the rest of the address.
"Dear Mr Rae:
"Ontario agriculture, particularly for the many thousands of farmers whose livelihood depends on the production of corn, soybeans, wheat and other grain and oilseed crops, currently faces about the bleakest conditions which it has ever known. Crop prices have plunged in recent months from levels that were already at an historic low in real worth to values which are now 20% to 30% lower. And in substantial areas of southern Ontario, a 1991 summer drought of near-unprecedented severity has intensified the misery.
"Although the myth persists in downtown Toronto offices that financial disaster exists for only a small number of farmers, the reality is far different. Debt loads continue to mount for thousands of producers; the search for off-farm employment, rendered more difficult in a recession-afflicted economy, grows; retirement reserves and other forms of life savings are cashed in a desperate attempt to pay crop bills and secure family needs; municipal taxes go unpaid; participation in debt review hearings grows; and bit by bit, family farms, sometimes those which have been in the family for more than a century, are sold off to speculators or to those seeking country estates as a means of staving off formal bankruptcy.
"How do you think government would react if it was the income of civil servants, union workers, doctors or teachers which had been eroded by as much as 50% or more in recent years? Would this simply be dismissed as a problem of the few?
"And lest you be advised that the farm problem is simply a case of Ontario farming inefficiency, we remind you of the international trade war which is the cause of present depressed prices, and of ample information showing that (1) Ontario farm efficiency, especially in the grain and oilseed sector, is about as high as anywhere in the world; and (2) Ontario grain and oilseed subsidy levels are substantially lower than in most other developed countries of the world -- indeed, lower than in other major grain-producing provinces of Canada as well.
"New safety net programs will be in place to provide for reasonable income support for grain and oilseed farmers beginning next year. As farmers, we appreciate the financial contribution which the government of Ontario will be making to these new programs in future years. However, the prospect of future support is of little comfort to thousands of Ontario farmers facing immediate financial disaster and no means of paying the bills in the days ahead. Why has the government of Ontario chosen to ignore the need to support grain agriculture during this critical time of transition? For, with all due respect, we submit that your government has introduced not one new measure to assist grain and oilseed farmers ravaged by unprecedented low crop prices in the present calendar year.
"The Ontario farm income stabilization program, which is a legacy from previous governments, provides for price/income support at levels which have long been recognized as being far too low to be adequate. This is why the new safety net programs are being introduced for next year. Even at present absurdly low corn prices, for example, it is far from certain that the Ontario program will provide for any cash assistance at all. And even if it does, the Ontario government will subtract one third of the calculated quantity before making payments to farmers.
"The interest rebate program announced in early 1991 is largely a continuation of the program operated by the previous government and fails in large part to address the grain and oilseed problem because (1) it compensates only for previous year debt; (2) it provides compensation only for those who have been able to secure substantial credit: thousands of farmers are now operating with essentially no access to bank credit; (3) it provides no help to those forced to sell off farm assets or cash in life savings, generally retirement provisions, to keep the farm going; and (4) it does not address critical income/cash-flow needs in 1991.
"We note also with disappointment the fact that your government deliberately chose not to contribute to the new NISA, net income stabilization account, program for grain and oilseed farmers for the current year, thereby denying farmers access not only to about $16 million in badly needed provincial assistance, but also to an additional $8 million in federal funds.
"This decision is particularly frustrating because it occurred at the same time as the federal government gave you a rebate on 1991 Ontario governmental contributions towards another program, the gross revenue insurance program, scheduled to provide additional income support next year. In essence, you chose to pocket the money from the government of Canada rather than to use it to help Ontario farmers in desperate need.
1140
"Mr Rae, it is critical that you and your government re-evaluate quickly your policies with respect to family farm agriculture in Ontario. We see, for example, your efforts to increase operating costs and reduce competitiveness: higher labour costs; the prospect of greater costs and restrictions relative to environmental considerations; emphasis on, and reallocation of resources to, higher-cost organic agriculture; discouragement of larger, competitive farm sizes, and the prospect of greater restrictions on the sale and use of agricultural land. Yet we see no comparable commitment towards supporting farm income. In fact, your actions of late demonstrate the opposite.
"It is critical for your government to decide whether it really wants to maintain a viable family farm agriculture in this province, for indeed almost all Ontario farms are family owned and operated. No self-esteemed corporation would tolerate the low profits and high risks which characterize 1991 agriculture. It is critical for you and the government of Ontario to decide whether it is important to support farm-based rural communities and whether Ontario citizens should eat Ontario-grown food.
"And the place to start in these deliberations involves 1991 support for Ontario grain and oilseed producers. If you continue to ignore their plight there will be many hundreds, if not thousands, fewer of them to be concerned about in a few months' time.
"Two decisions which should be made immediately are: (1) the reversal of your earlier decision not to contribute to NISA in the first, ie, current year; and (2) a waiver of the one-third deduction under the Ontario stabilization payments for the 1990-91 crop year.
"We would also encourage you to follow through on the commitment which you made soon after your September 1990 election to meet early with various farm groups. This would enable you to learn first hand of the economic carnage which is occurring at this moment in rural agricultural Ontario."
It is signed by Roger George, president, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Frank Anthony, president, Ontario Corn Producers' Association, Larry Miehls, chairman, Ontario Soybean Growers' Marketing Board and George Dmetriuc, chairman, Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board.
This sets out the full nature of the current concerns of these people. To that, of course, we have added in other discussions the concern of our livestock producers who are equally being faced with low prices, and also the conditions of inclement weather in some parts of the province which prevent them from producing the feedstocks necessary to reasonably carry on their business. This is why it is so critical we do it early. I appreciate the support from both Mr Klopp and Mr Waters in support of the desire to have this thing heard.
I have taken a positive message from the deliberations to this point in any event and I will be writing -- I think I can get at least one House leader to see my point of view. I suspect Mr McLean has his House leader on side and I would only ask that when we find Mr Cooke -- and Mr Waters, I presume, is going to be in hot pursuit of Mr Cooke, his House leader, whose assistant was here at one point -- perhaps we can get an early delivery of a date and names for people to come and talk to us about agriculture in crisis in Ontario. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Wiseman first.
Mr Wiseman: I am going to waive, thanks.
The Chair: Okay. This is an invitation to members of the committee to express their concern about the wording of this in that, although titled a motion and moved as a motion, it does not express any distinctive resolution on the part of the committee. Mr Waters.
Mr Waters: As stated before, there is no need for a motion. Once you present a 123 it is in. But further to that presentation, because we are all agreed of the urgency of the matter, I would like to make a motion that the Chair immediately approach the House leaders and whips of all parties to request additional time prior to September 23 to accommodate the Liberal request for a section 123 dated August 22, 1991. Does that resolve this?
Mr Elston: That is fine.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay, having moved a motion, what is your position now with respect to a motion you moved? Do you incorporate the comments of Mr Waters into your motion by way of the resolution the committee is to vote upon, your earlier motion being tantamount to a preamble to that resolution?
Mr Ramsay: I would accept, Mr Chairman, that my motion be downgraded to a request, as that is all that is required under section 123, and I would certainly support the motion by Mr Waters now before the committee.
The Chair: You are withdrawing your motion?
Mr Ramsay: Yes.
The Chair: Treating it as mere notice.
Mr Ramsay: Not as a motion, but as a notice, yes.
The Chair: There is a motion on the floor. There being no indication that anybody wants to discuss this further, all those in favour please indicate. Opposed?
Motion agreed to.
Ms S. Murdock: Unanimously.
Mr Ramsay: Thank you, yes, that should be noted. Mr Chair, is it necessary to have a subcommittee meeting now, or can we do that at a later date?
The Chair: In view of the motion that has been passed, with the direction that is inherent in it, and in view of the fact that House leaders' consent and whips' consent is a prerequisite to this committee doing anything with this before the House sits, perhaps it is premature to have a subcommittee meeting, subject to what people might say.
Mr Waters: On that topic, though, I know Mr Ramsay and myself -- is it you, Mr McLean, who is on the subcommittee? It used to be Mr Arnott, but are you going to take over?
Mr McLean: No, Mr Arnott will be at it when it is called.
Mr Waters: Okay. I think over the next few days we should keep Mr Chair or our House leaders' offices informed as to where we are so we can convene a subcommittee meeting at the earliest possible time.
Mr McLean: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you, people.
The committee adjourned at 1147.