Hansard Transcripts 1981-Jun-04 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: There was a point raised on June 2 by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) with respect to a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio tape on youth employment programs which was aired on Wednesday, April 22. For the purpose of clarification and the understanding of all members of the House, I will briefly outline the sequence of events as they happened.

On Thursday, April 16, the CBC asked for a tape to be delivered by Tuesday, April 21. With the Easter weekend and the opening of the Legislature pending, it was ruled out that a possible taping could be scheduled, so a copy of a tape I had just sent to the Peterborough radio station was indeed sent to the CBC. As I had not been named Speaker at that point, the CBC was given the usual instructions to introduce me simply as the MPP for Peterborough. However, on the news of my appointment on April 21, the CBC revised the introduction to include the title of Speaker.

I did not at any time during the recording of that tape refer to myself as the Speaker.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, later today I shall be introducing a bill to amend the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act, 1974.

The main purpose of the bill will be to transfer the agency for dealing with the objections of Gains applicants to the tax appeals branch of the Ministry of Revenue. This branch, which was established in 1980, handles all the objections to the tax acts administered by the ministry.

In addition, another amendment to the appeals provision will permit applicants to object formally to any act of the ministry to recover excessive Gains payments.

The bill will also contain an amendment designed to parallel a related feature in the federal Old Age Security Act. This amendment will prevent certain individuals from increasing their Gains benefits after it has been established that they are entitled to receive less than full benefits.

AGGREGATE PRODUCING INDUSTRY

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have two statements this afternoon.

In late 1979 I appointed Professor S. R. Ellis as an industrial inquiry commission pursuant to section 34 of the Labour Relations Act. Professor Ellis's mandate was to inquire into and report to me concerning the application of the dependent contractor provisions of the Labour Relations Act in the aggregate producing and road building industries.

As I advised the House at that time, the commission was appointed because of repeated representations made to me and my predecessor by persons and organizations in the trucking industry who took the view that the dependent contractor provisions of the Labour Relations Act, which came into effect on June 1, 1976, have had consequences to that industry which were not intended by the legislation.

I have now received part one of Professor Ellis's report dealing with the aggregate producing industry, which I wish to table this afternoon. As members will see, the report is a comprehensive one and deals in detail with the nature of the aggregate producing industry in Ontario and various arrangements for the transportation of aggregate from pits and quarries to customer locations.

The focus of the report, of course, is on the suitability of the current dependent contractor provisions to this particular industry, having regard to its unique characteristics. The commissioner's conclusions and recommendations in this regard are detailed and I do not propose to summarize them at this time.

This first part of Professor Ellis's report is being analysed by the staff of my ministry as well as the staff of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, who, because of the recommendations, have a clear interest in the report.

In the weeks ahead I have no doubt we will be receiving representations as to the appropriate response action from various interested parties and I will advise the House when we have determined the appropriate course of action.

I should add that the commissioner has advised my ministry that part two of his report, dealing with the road building industry, will be available by the end of the summer and I will be tabling that document when it is received.

SEVERANCE PAY

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing legislation which fulfils a commitment I made in this House some months ago. The bill makes provision for severance pay for workers terminated as a result of full or partial plant closures, subject to certain conditions to which I will refer in a moment.

The bill also contains provisions similar to those contained in Bill 191 which I introduced in the last session of the Legislature. The bill authorizes the Minister of Labour to require employers to participate in and contribute to manpower adjustment committees and generally to undertake any actions and measures deemed appropriate to facilitate the re-establishment in employment of terminated employees.

The previous bill referred only to participation in manpower adjustment committees. In our work over the past few months it has become apparent that in some circumstances such committees may not in fact always be the most effective mechanism for achieving re-employment; the revisions to the bill accordingly take into account the need for a degree of flexibility.

The bill also reintroduces the requirement that employer contributions to benefit plans must be maintained during the notice period required under the Employment Standards Act, both where notice is actually given and where pay in lieu of notice is given. For the purpose of the administration of the act, employer contributions to benefit plans will be included in the definition of wages so that employment standards officers will be empowered to collect such benefits on behalf of employees where necessary.

2:10 p.m.

While I believe these latter provisions are important components in our strategy for addressing the problems created by plant closures, I recognize that the issue of severance pay will be of immediate interest to members. I wish to turn, therefore, to the key elements of that portion of the bill. In general, protection is provided where 50 or more employees are terminated as a result of the permanent discontinuation of all or part of a business. The entitlement is one week's pay for each year of service to a maximum of 26 weeks' pay. Entitlement arises after five years' service with the employer.

Regular full-time and part-time employees are eligible for severance payment, but not those casual employees who have a right to elect whether to work when requested. Construction industry employees who work at construction sites will not be eligible. Their employment is typically irregular and intermittent due to the limited duration of most construction projects. The special nature of this industry is recognized by all jurisdictions in Canada, which have exempted construction workers from the notice-of-termination provisions.

An employee who refuses an employer's offer of reasonable alternative work will be ineligible for severance pay, as will one who refuses to exercise bumping rights or who elects to retain recall and seniority rights, as indeed some may wish to do, especially in the case of a partial closure where there is plant-wide seniority. However, the election may be made at any time. Employees who are entitled to receive their full pension upon the full or partial closure of a business will be excluded from entitlement, but those who take early retirement on a reduced pension will not be excluded.

The circumstances surrounding a closure will govern the applicability of the severance pay legislation in some defined situations. For example, a bankrupt or insolvent firm will still be required to pay severance pay to employees to the extent that assets are available to satisfy their claims. Similarly, those whose employment is terminated as a result of full or partial plant closure during a strike will be entitled to severance pay, except where the employer is able to establish that closure has been occasioned by the economic consequences of the strike. Where a business is sold, an employee of the vendor becomes eligible for severance pay unless the purchaser agrees to employ him, in which case he is credited with his service with the predecessor employer.

The Employment Standards Act will also be amended so as to permit the collection of unpaid severance pay. It is recognized that there are or may be arrangements negotiated or unilaterally granted by employers which provide severance pay. Accordingly, a contractual or other arrangement that confers a right or benefit equal to or greater than the legislative requirement will prevail. When such arrangements provide lesser benefits, they may be offset against the legislated requirements. Where supplementary unemployment benefits are available to employees, these may be deducted from severance pay entitlement, reflecting prevailing collective agreement practices. Pay in lieu of notice may not be set off against severance pay, the nature and purpose of these two rights being quite distinct.

Finally, the proposed severance pay measures will, as I indicated earlier, be retroactive to January 1 of this year. That retroactive provision, however, will not apply in those cases of bankruptcy and insolvency where the assets have already been distributed or where an agreement on a proposal to creditors has already been reached.

I believe these provisions of the bill represent a major step forward in ensuring a minimum standard of fairness and equity for persons who lose their jobs as a result of the permanent discontinuation of business in Ontario. I should add that I also believe they represent what the majority of employers in Ontario already regard as a fair standard of treatment for their employees.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GASOLINE TAX INCREASES

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will direct a question to the Premier regarding the ad valorem tax on gasoline. Does the Premier recall the speech he made to the Ontario Municipal Electric Association on Tuesday, March 4, 1980, when he said, and I quote, "We will continue to resist windfall profits for provincial treasuries and petroleum companies"?

If he remembers that speech, can the Premier tell the people of Ontario why he has now decided to arrange not only for such windfall profits to occur, but for himself and his government -- rather shamelessly, I feel -- to collect additional moneys, so that whenever the knife is being plunged in by a sheikh of Arabia, by another Canadian jurisdiction, by the fact that the Canadian dollar has fallen, or for any other reason, not only will the Ontario government get a bit of the blood, but it will also be there to push the knife a little deeper into each Ontario citizen to get a little more money?

What happened to the promise that was made on March 4, 1980, when he said he would resist windfall profits?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. Smith: To put the matter simply, he said on March 4, 1980, "We will continue to resist windfall profits for provincial treasuries and petroleum companies." Why did the Premier change his mind?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do recall that very excellent address to the Ontario Municipal Electric Association, at which time I made a number of observations, including our support of the Darlington commitment to nuclear energy and the use of electricity in lieu of oil, which is consistent with the approach we have taken and, of course, totally different from the policy and philosophy of the Liberal Party of Ontario. I recall it very vividly.

I think it is fair to state that the Leader of the Opposition can describe the tax in any way he deems fit; that is his right. We do not regard the ad valorem tax as a windfall profits tax; it is a form of taxation that is used on a number of commodities, in a number of areas and by a number of jurisdictions.

I have never felt that a tax was in fact a profit for a government. I am sure that before this session is concluded the Leader of the Opposition and many of his colleagues will find ways and means to suggest to us -- in the most constructive way, of course -- that we should spend far in excess of the modest amount that will be raised through the ad valorem nature of the tax.

Mr. Smith: Since the Premier himself said he would continue to resist windfall profits for provincial treasuries, and since that seems to have gone by the board a year later, does he not feel, as the people of Ontario are preparing to bear the burden of this latest increase in the price of retail gasoline and diesel fuel, that he acted hastily with his ad valorem tax and that it is not right for the Ontario government to gouge another $53 million or $54 million out of the people of Ontario simply because others are taking money from them?

Surely the Premier would like to reconsider and change the ad valorem tax to a straight tax, where at least he would be honest with the people of Ontario and would not, in a sneaky sort of way, add a little more salt to the wound every time the wound is opened by someone else.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear that the government does not intend to alter its tax proposals. That will come, I am sure, as no great surprise to the Leader of the Opposition.

I would only reiterate what I said in answer to the initial question, which is really exactly the same as the supplementary question: We do not regard, and I do not think any intelligent, thinking person regards, the ad valorem tax as being "a windfall profits tax." They are not the same in any respect whatever. The revenues from this particular increase may or may not be $45 million, because this figure is predicated only on whether or not the governments of Alberta and Canada reach some agreement on oil pricing. If they were to reach that agreement at the meeting between Mr. Leitch and Mr. Lalonde in some 10 days, and I am not suggesting they will, the amounts that have been referred to in today's press would not apply because the ad valorem tax will not move in until July 1.

One cannot predict accurately whether or not that will take place. I cannot tell the Leader of the Opposition; we would only be guessing.

I would also make this prediction once again: It is fine to say we should not be getting this tax revenue, but I will predict that in estimate after estimate, when we listen to the constructive advice from the honourable members opposite, we will find that for ministry after ministry they will uncover, in their view, quite legitimate ways in which we can spend 10 times the roughly $45 million.

2:20 p.m.

I will give the member the example of the university community. I heard what he said, not only during the campaign but since, as to how we should increase our funding for the universities. At his suggested rate of increase, that $45 million would not cover even 50 per cent of the amount by which he is suggesting we further fund the universities of Ontario. That is the reality of the way he does his mathematics.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since Treasury officials estimate the increase in provincial revenues arising from this federal increase in tax will be $40 million or $50 million on top of the money the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) already expected to get by the increase in the ad valorem tax at the time of the budget, and since there are liable to be further increases in Ontario's revenue if nothing is done because of the Petrofina surcharge and because of upward changes in such things as refining, distribution, dealers' margins or further federal increases, what steps does the government propose to rebate to the consumers of Ontario this unforeseen money coming into the provincial Treasury, so as to keep at least to the original $135 million in added revenue the government intended to collect?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the New Democratic Party will guarantee that during the course of this session and the estimates debates he will agree with the expenditure levels of every single ministry of this government, if he will not suggest to us the many ways in which we should, in his view, be spending far in excess of that --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What he is suggesting to us will far exceed the proposals of the Liberal Party of Ontario. He would have us spend hundreds of millions of dollars more. We have to have the revenue to meet that sort of --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, you are not on your feet yet, Mr. Speaker. I can only say to the leader of the New Democratic Party, it has been our experience in this House that we have never gone through a session where his party, even more than the Liberals, has not found ways and means to expend hundreds of millions of dollars more than either our anticipated revenue or the level of expenditure.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Premier care to explain what he meant when he said this additional tax will not be an imposition on the consumers until later in the summer? Certainly the bill calling for the gas tax, even though it has not passed the House, is being imposed on the consumers now, and if he is under the impression the increase levied by the government of Canada to make up for the additional costs of offshore oil is not going to be taxable, I do not understand that.

Would he not presume as well that some of the additional costs of the programs we are proposing can be made up by a realignment of priorities, so he does not waste money on so many of the programs that have come into being as a result of the leadership the province has had for the last decade?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will not get into a discussion on that part of the question from the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that relates to the leadership of the last 10 years in this province. It has shown, I think, certain positive results of an economic, social and political nature. I will not get into that.

My understanding of the tax legislation is that the impact of the recent increases will not be felt in terms of the ad valorem tax until July 1. I was referring to the additional revenues that would flow as a result of the recent tax increase imposed by his friends in the national government in Ottawa, because of the lack of agreement between that government and Alberta. That is my understanding of the tax bill.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Premier square his statement today, where he justifies the ad valorem tax increases on the basis of raising revenues for this government to help pay for various programs or to cut the deficit, with the statement made by the Treasurer in December 1979 in which he said provincial taxation on gasoline was justified on the basis of subsidies to public transit, and in which he opposed the proposed budget increases by the then Tory government in Ottawa on the basis that those kinds of increases should not be imposed to help cut deficits but should be imposed on the basis of subsidies to meet the cost of foreign oil?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the exact phrasing used by the Treasurer some two years ago, whatever the date was. I do recall the general discussion when, as a government, we were opposed to the intervention of the government of Canada -- as we were with respect to the former government with its moving into the excise tax field -- in the field of tax on gasoline. This has been and still is, in our view, traditionally a provincial tax field and not one where the governments of Canada should be involved; but progressive governments -- I don't say Progressive Conservative governments -- have in fact done it. I don't think there is any --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Proceed with the answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say, in spite of the interjections from the member for Hamilton West, that there really isn't any contradiction between what the Treasurer said then and what is the policy of the government now.

Some hon. members: There certainly is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, there isn't.

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment on the matter of the Whitchurch-Stouffville dump. Does the minister not recognize the futility of a policy of basically allowing industrial wastes to be dumped at a certain point in the land form where the aquifer below this unprotected site runs right to the water supply for the citizens in the area, and then testing like mad, with tens or hundreds of different tests, allegedly to reassure the people of the area that their water supply is just dandy? Does he not recognize that it would make more sense simply not to use that geographic area for the dumping of toxic wastes? Does he not realize that as part of that area there was, at least in testimony, one so-called hole -- I think it was number six if I am not mistaken -- where thousands of tons of liquid waste were dumped and then just disappeared. It was one of these marvellous sink holes where the liquid went directly to the aquifer running towards the town.

Would the minister not agree that, rather than expand that area and then just keep testing repeatedly for whatever chemicals the ministry is now able to test for, it would make more sense simply not to expand that site but to close it down and put liquid waste only in those geographic areas that are suitable for the collection of it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that I clarify some of the misapprehensions under which the Leader of the Opposition is labouring. First of all, there are not and have not been, as I understand it, any liquid wastes going into that site since 1975. It is correct that during the period prior to that, there was the deposit of some liquid wastes on that site, but I think it is important not to perpetuate the impression that there are liquid wastes being deposited there at the present time or that there have been in recent years.

The other misapprehension that the Leader of the Opposition is labouring under is technical information relating to the aquifer. If he had seen any of the hydrological data and information that is available, he would understand that the aquifer in that area does not move in the direction of the wells for the town of Stouffville. In fact, the movement in the aquifer is in a westerly direction while the wells for the town of Stouffville are in a southerly direction. I am not suggesting that that in itself is enough to allay all of the apprehension that exists -- I am not taking that position -- but I do think it is important that the people not be told, either through questions or ill-informed answers on my part, that there are liquid toxic wastes being deposited there.

I think what the member has asked of me would be unwise at this point since there is a process that has been put in place to avoid the making of arbitrary decisions in matters of such critical importance as this. That process is under way and that is why the hearings are being held at the present time. I would intend to await the results of the hearing, the advice of the tribunal holding the hearing, and to weigh all the evidence that is available in order to make the most-informed and best decision I possibly can.

2:30 p.m.

The testing being done is being done very comprehensively. I want to reiterate that there is no evidence at this time of contamination of the municipal water supply and there is no evidence of contamination of the private wells that have been tested in that area. There was not even an indication of the normal kinds of leachate from landfill sites, harmless though they may be, found in the water supply, let alone anything that would be of a toxic nature. The levels of some of the substances that may be normally found in municipal water supplies in that area -- for example, trihalomethanes -- are lower than in almost all other municipal water supplies treated with chlorine in Ontario.

Mr. Smith: I thank the minister for correcting any impression I may have left that they are continuing to dump. Of course an expansion has been requested by the company; that was really what I was referring to.

Would the minister explain an answer given by one of his officials who, when asked by a local resident whether the local water supply could be used to mix with baby formula, suggested the woman consult her physician or the local health officer? Would the minister admit he has no idea whatsoever of what substances actually went into that dump during the 10 years or so of dumping prior to the regulation demanding some testing of material, and that the ministry can hardly even know what to test for -- other than its usual screening test -- since it does not really know what went in?

One last word: Would the ministry conduct a survey, in terms not only of birth defects or miscarriages but of the rates of cancer in that area, so as to be able to allay the fears -- it these fears happen to be groundless -- of the people in the area?

Hon. Mr. Norton: In response to the first part of that question, I can only assume the reason a member of the staff of my ministry would respond in such a way to the concerned parent about the use of the water in the formula with which she fed her child was based on the fact that he is not a medical doctor. Presumably he was suggesting that if she were seeking a medical opinion, the appropriate source of that would be either her family doctor or the medical officer of health.

I do not believe there is a single medical doctor on the staff of my ministry. The medical advice we receive is through the staff in the Ministry of Labour, as the Leader of the Opposition will recall, since the reorganization a couple of years ago. I think that response was perhaps wise on the part of my staff member. I do not think that my staff should start giving medical advice if they are not medical doctors.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I do not proffer legal advice either in my present position, although I suspect that when I was in a position to do it on a regular basis, I would match my advice against the member's any day.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: With regard to the surveys that the Leader of the Opposition suggested we might make, I think that would be more appropriately referred to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). It is my understanding that some discussions have taken place and are taking place at the present time between the local medical officer of health and the ministry with respect to such surveys.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us why the official of his ministry, who was at the meeting in Stouffville last night, would make such a strong statement, saying the testing showed nothing and the water was safe, but then when he was offered a drink of water from one of the local wells he refused to drink the water and he backtracked on his statement and said, "I did not mean to imply by my statement that there were no problems in the water supply in the Souffville area"?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot tell the member why that would be the case. I think the honourable member is obviously choosing what I would regard as a ridiculous example.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would suggest, if I were in a position to do it, that it might be more appropriate to ask the honourable member why he would choose to appear and make some of the statements he did at a public meeting, without first even bothering to check with the staff of my ministry to get any of the background information. At least the research staff of the Liberal Party has taken the trouble to get technical and background information from my ministry staff. The honourable member's staff has not.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment suggested that the Minister of Health might have some comments to make with respect to the survey and what might be included in it. Does the minister have anything to add?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear that portion of the question, but let me just offer a few remarks.

Staff of my ministry in the persons of Dr. Andreychuk and Dr. Khazen, the former an epidemiologist and the latter an expert in matters relating to childbirth and problems in childbirth, have been in touch with the associate medical officer of health, Dr. Hodgkinson, since the story first appeared last Saturday or Sunday. We have made available to Dr. Hodgkinson all the statistics we have for that county and that area to assist him in making an evaluation of this informal survey, which apparently was presented to the environmental assessment board last Thursday.

I might also point out that we made those statistics available to one of the newspapers yesterday. Unfortunately, they chose to print only one of the more distressing statistics. It pointed out that in 1978, for instance, the stillbirth rate for Stouffville was four times higher than the rates for the province or the region of York. What they did not point out was that in 1976 and 1977 the rate was below the regional and provincial averages and that in 1979 it was zero.

We are making all our staff and facilities available to the associate medical officer of health. Once they have completed the evaluation of the informal survey and the information available, if they conclude that an epidemiological study is needed, then of course we will make one, as we have in other similar instances elsewhere in the province. In this I am going to be bound by the advice of the associate medical officer of health and the epidemiologist. But if it is appropriate to include cancer or some forms of it, yes, they will be included.

SEVERANCE PAY

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour arising out of his announcement about severance pay legislation and his partial implementation of the commitment made by the government before the House rose in December 1980.

Will the Minister of Labour explain why it is that once again the ministry and the government have chosen to discriminate against certain workers by restricting the severance pay provisions to workers who have five years of service or more?

Why will workers who may be aged 30, 40 or 50 or more but who happen not to have five years of service not benefit from a nickel's worth of severance pay under the legislation proposed by the ministry, particularly when all three parties in the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment recommended that severance pay apply on the basis of a week for every year of service to all employees and not just to those who have served five years?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, just so the record will be accurate, this is not a partial fulfilment of the commitment. If the honourable member takes the time to read any of the material I issued or statements I made, this is a complete fulfilment of that commitment. So let there be no doubt about that.

I understand that nothing will ever be seen by the member for Ottawa Centre as being satisfactory, but let us recall what severance pay is all about, at least as I see it.

Severance pay has two elements to it. First, it is compensation for years of service rendered and, second, it is a recognition of the loss of certain seniority rights and other benefits that flow from long-term service.

From that point of view, and keeping in mind that we view this as pioneer legislation in North America, we feel we should take all those principles into account and ensure that severance pay is available for workers who have been with the company for five years, indicating a degree of permanence and commitment to that company. We feel that is a very logical approach.

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister explain why it is that the government kowtowed to the chamber of commerce by accepting the chamber's amendment to the original proposal, which was endorsed by representatives of all three parties who sat and listened to management and to labour. The original proposal was endorsed a second time by all three parties when they came back to the question.

Why is the government now backing and filling and trying to curry favour with representatives of employers? If it is going to pioneer, why does it not pioneer in a way that will protect all workers affected by severances and shutdowns and not just a favoured few?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It may come as a shock to the member for Ottawa Centre, but there are some of us in political parties and political parties in general who are able to take a balanced view. That view allows us to look over what is happening in other parts of the world.

Following the member's logic, he would say the damned Labour Party in Britain did the wrong thing and they should not have had a two-year requirement. He would say that Mitterrand will immediately obliterate the period of requirement that exists in France. He would have said that the only state in the United States that has anything, Maine, was wrong in setting out a period of work as a requirement to indicate a degree of permanence to the employment and a commitment to the company.

We happen to think that is a valid principle on this side. I think most thoughtful workers in society will agree with that.

Mr. Cassidy: The select committee was studying other questions in addition to the question of severance. The minister will agree that the question of adequate notice, the question of making companies justify plant shutdowns and the question of a community adjustment fund -- all proposals which came from the New Democratic Party -- are as important to the communities and to the workers affected as is the question of severance pay.

Will the minister now make a commitment that at least six months' notice will be required in the case of shutdowns of larger companies, that companies will have to justify shutdowns and that there will be a community adjustment fund? If the minister will not make that commitment, will he agree to allow the plant shutdown committee to be re-established to come up with recommendations on those very important areas of study?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The honourable member has overlooked a number of initiatives this government has undertaken to deal with some of the inequities for workers who are facing dislocation.

The member knows very well that Bob Joyce now has a very active plant closure committee that intervenes and becomes actively involved in plant closures. That committee includes representatives of the ministries of Industry and Tourism, Intergovernmental Affairs and Education to bring the resources of the government from various aspects to bear on particular problems.

The member also knows that this bill includes two other portions, both of which were rejected by this House last December but which in my view were very essential and very important. I think this government has recognized in a thoughtful and sincere way the true issues facing workers in dislocation where a plant closes down.

Mr. Martel: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary. Mr. Cassidy with a new question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just by way of explanation, I have been allowing the leaders of the parties one supplementary in addition to the question, and then we go back and forth. It was the official opposition's turn to stand up when Mr. Cassidy asked his second supplementary, but nobody did and therefore I allowed Mr. Cassidy two supplementaries in a row.

URANIUM PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch), about what action the government intends to take to protect Ontario Hydro consumers from the consequences of the uranium cartel, which has been under study in Ottawa for the past several years.

In view of the fact that Hydro is buying uranium today at a price that is about $20 more than the prevailing world price, and in view of the fact that the contracts for overpriced uranium which Hydro has entered into were entered into with the companies that were a party to the cartel under study in Ottawa, the purpose of which was to drive the prices up, will the Premier say what the government is going to do and what the government has done to protect people in Ontario against that gouging by the uranium companies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I only go by press reports and what has been speculated upon by the press. As I mentioned to the very distinguished member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), this government is not aware of any, quotes, cartel. I think it is fair to state that the contract between Ontario Hydro and Rio Algom and Denison reflected the market conditions that existed. I can just tell the leader of the New Democratic Party that I know nothing of a, quotes, cartel. I think that was stated last Wednesday or Thursday.

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier seems to be as blind to this as the Prime Minister, who is trying to pretend no investigation has been under way over the course of the last few years by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.

In view of the fact that at today's prices Ontario Hydro is spending at least $50 million more a year for uranium than it would have to spend if it were buying the uranium in the world market, will the Premier say whether the government has taken any legal advice about how to break the contracts it now has with Rio Algom and Denison Mines to get uranium at the cheaper world prices and to benefit the consumers of electricity in the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am of course delighted to see the leader of the New Democratic Party has now become so committed to nuclear energy. I am not aware that the government of Ontario has sought any legal advice whatsoever in this matter.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: As a result of the discussions in Ottawa, the Premier must know that because of the cartel the price of hydro in Ontario has escalated to a great degree because of the cost of uranium. I want to ask him a simple question that he should be able to answer.

If there is a parallel set by Westinghouse breaking its agreement with the cartel, why the hell can he not go to bat for Ontario and try to break this contract with Denison Mines? We have to live with the $7.5-billion contract until the year 2010. We are stuck with it, but he can break it if he goes to court. With all the powers he thinks he has, why does he not try it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would rephrase the latter part of the honourable member's question: it is all the powers he thinks we have.

Mr. Sargent: Come on. Get down to it. Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will get down to brass tacks. I will just say what I said to the member the other day. Other than what I read in the press, I do not know anything about a, quotes, cartel. I should also point out that, according to what I read, a good part of the nuclear generation existing in Ontario took place in terms of the energy capacity or the fuel source prior to the possibility of a, quotes, cartel. I make that abundantly clear.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Did the Ministry of Energy, Ontario Hydro or any of the Premier's staff not draw to his attention testimony about the cartel by one Sinclair Stevens, a person with whom I assume he has some passing acquaintance, before the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs when the select committee was considering the uranium contracts with Rio Algom and Denison?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is quite correct. I have a passing acquaintance with that distinguished member of the federal Progressive Conservative Party caucus in Ottawa. I think it is also fair to state I do recall some discussions related to that matter before the select committee.

VAUGHAN LAND USE

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to a question asked Tuesday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Smith) concerning the official plan amendment number 95, Purpleville in the town of Vaughan. The opposition leader has taken up considerable time on this matter. I hope a rather detailed response to the whole issue will not be objected to.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, a point of order: The minister seems to have about -- Mr. Speaker, are you going to listen to my point of order?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Roy: Thank you.

Interjections.

Mr. Roy: If the Speaker is up, I have to sit down.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Settle down. Show some respect.

Mr. Roy: What has happened to him since he became a minister? He gets so excited.

My point of order is simply this: The standing orders of this Legislature require that, if an answer is going to be of some length, it be made in the statements preceding question period. The rules clearly state that.

I am suggesting -- and the minister has opened his statement by saying he is going to give a long and detailed answer -- that it should have been done in statements. If it is allowed, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you to give more time to the question period so that minister does not abuse the rules of the question period.

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea, obviously, of the length of the answer.

Mr. Roy: I saw five pages there.

Mr. Speaker: They may have been empty. I will listen to the answer and make a decision later.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: May I say that over the last few days there have been at least five or six questions in relation to this issue.

The Leader of the Opposition has intimated quite clearly that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson) and I overruled our respective staffs' opinions at the call of some mysterious developer.

As the minister responsible for planning in Ontario, I believe it is my responsibility to listen to the opinions of any individual or group that wants to comment on official plan changes. This includes developers, members of this Legislative Assembly -- including Liberal MPPs -- municipal leaders, lawyers, the general public and staff of various ministries of this government.

I also want to state for the record that this amendment was submitted to me by the town of Vaughan, not by a developer or a land owner. When a proposal to amend the official plan is received by my ministry, it is a serious matter and is treated as such. The opposition often complains about the length of time it takes for an official plan amendment to come about, particularly if it is favourable to one of their friends. I try to explain that the time needed is because of some very thorough circulation in the review process.

When we receive the comments of the many agencies involved in the review process -- and in this particular case there were 12 agencies involved -- the ministry staff has the job of trying to analyse them and put them into some sort of perspective. When they come across a point that is unclear in a comment, they try to clarify it to be as fair as possible to all parties concerned. In this particular case, there were no comments or objections received from seven agencies, comments from two, objections from one, and there were two outstanding replies at the time of my referral to the Ontario Municipal Board. These were received in my ministry from July 1978 until October 1978.

During that period, we also received notification of two objections to the amendment. The first was represented by Mr. Webb and the second by Mr. Chusid, representing another adjacent land owner. I want to point out to the House that during the questioning on this subject it always appears that Mr. Webb represented the owner of the land within the amendment area. Mr. Webb represented people who were opposed to the ministry approving the amendment and had asked that it be sent to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The letter from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food had objections to parts of the lands affected but no objections to other parts. For this reason, on November 29, 1978, my officials asked that ministry to clarify its position.

I know the Liberal staff was very interested in looking for a personal letter from myself to the Minister of Agriculture and Food; so it may have missed the staff letter. I will be glad to send it over to the Leader of the Opposition for his files if he wishes.

My staff did this, because this ministry tries to be fair to all sides. If there is any doubt in the meaning of the recommendation, then we are certainly not embarrassed in any way in trying to clarify it.

The week after my staff asked for clarification, Mrs. Santo of my plans administration division visited the site herself. This was still in December 1978. The memo the Leader of the Opposition quoted from on Tuesday was from January 25, 1979.

On December 11, we received the reply and clarification from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food that my staff had requested. In mid-January 1979, the consultant representing the owner of the affected lands wrote to the ministry requesting that we refer only part of the amendment and approve the rest.

On January 25, Mrs. Santo wrote the memo the Leader of the Opposition quoted from on Tuesday. Unfortunately, he omitted to quote the recommendation at the bottom. It said, "The ministry should talk in terms of total referral because of Agriculture's objections."

About a month later, on March 8, 1979, I did exactly as my staff recommended and referred the entire amendment to the OMB for its consideration. The Leader of the Opposition's allegation that I overruled my staff is totally false. The only recommendation I received from my senior staff was that I refer the official plan amendment from Vaughan, number 95. This I accepted and acted accordingly.

I must say at this time that I am a little tired of the sanctimonious position continually taken by members of the second party.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed, Mr. Bennett.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: My ministry prides itself in trying to be of help to its client group; that is a very large group of all the people of this province, and not just developers, as other parties would like the press to think. The members of the opposition are among the first to come to me or my colleagues to try to find ways of assisting their friends or constituents, but evidently they feel that only they are able to take that privilege.

As an example, last fall the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) asked the Minister of Housing to intervene on behalf of a developer in his area whose subdivision plan had been objected to by the same Ministry of Agriculture and Food. We were pleased to support his request for a further review and, as a result of some give-and-take on both sides, the draft subdivision plan has been approved. I am sure that when the member returns to this House he will be glad to attest to that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: A few weeks ago the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) asked for the Ministry of Housing's support against objections by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food on a development by one of his constituents in Ancaster. I am sure he will remember that particular case as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Proceed, Mr. Bennett.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I certainly hope and trust that the Leader of the Opposition will remember his letter to me in August 1978, when he requested -- excuse the expression -- "a much more liberal view of what has been classified as fruit lands around Hamilton-Wentworth." He felt that the fruit land designation was holding up needed industrial development.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He specifically stated that we should support changing the zoning because it was "the wish of the municipality." Members will recall that Purpleville amendment was submitted to me by the municipality of Vaughan. The Leader of the Opposition is well aware that the fruit land designation was indeed changed; the area has been zoned as industrial land and will never again grow fruit, owing in part to the Leader of the Opposition's intervention.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Continue, Mr. Bennett.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I apologize for the length of this response, Mr. Speaker, but my ministry and I responded in each of these cases. If these letters had been from the back benches on the Conservative side of this House I am sure they would have been waved around this House by the Leader of the Opposition and others as living proof that this government was not committed to the food land guidelines of the province.

As Minister of Housing, I make absolutely no apologies for responding to requests to expedite or conciliate decisions on matters that come before me. Whether these requests come from developers, municipalities, municipal politicians or even from members of this Legislature, I will use my office as best I can in this regard in the future.

Mr. Speaker: That was indeed a lengthy and detailed answer. I will extend the oral question period by six minutes.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, obviously there will be time to respond to some of the alleged cases brought up by the minister. But to deal with the single matter under discussion right now --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now.

Mr. Smith: I am quite prepared to do it now, but this is the question period.

I ask the minister, despite the smokescreen, to focus back on the main issue, which is that the Minister of Agriculture and Food stated that the reason he sent his parliamentary assistant, the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil), to overrule his own people in the ministry was that he was asked by the Minister of Housing to withdraw the objection of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

3 p.m.

If the Minister of Housing says his only action in all this was to refer the entire parcel because the parcel was in violation of the estate guidelines, as Mrs. Santo suggested in the memo the minister has just quoted, then why did the Minister of Agriculture and Food say that the reason he sent his parliamentary assistant out there to remove that objection was a request of the Minister of Housing?

If the Minister of Housing was prepared to leave those objections and let them stand on the record, why did he request the Minister of Agriculture and Food to overrule his own officials?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not ask the Minister of Agriculture and Food to overrule his official. I very clearly asked him to review the situation. I think I made that point already --

Mr. Smith: If you agreed with Mrs. Santo, why did you have to ask the minister to review it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As the minister representing the planning of this province, when I have a number of requests and reviews then it is my responsibility to try to clarify the position if we are going to send it onto the Ontario Municipal Board because obviously, if we do not, the municipal board has the right to come back and ask for further clarification.

The fact is that in the House this afternoon I quoted in complete detail those that had responded to the request of our ministry in relation to official plan amendment number 95. I indicated clearly that there had to be some unclearness in the letter that was sent by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and we asked for it to be clarified for our purposes.

The honourable member should not sit there shaking his head. His research people brought him the memo out of the file; they duplicated it. It says very clearly that part of the land was not of use for agricultural development and that there were other parts of it that would be. So we asked for a clarification, because to us the letter was not that specific.

Mr. Smith: The letter was absolutely clear. There was nothing unclear about the letter.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition as well that if he looks at the estate guidelines -- and they are just that; they are not policy -- they are to give municipalities of this province some indication of how they should try to judge situations.

Mr. Smith: You said you agreed with Mrs. Santo. Make up your mind.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I read what Mrs. Santo said, and I did exactly as requested in the advice given to me by Mrs. Santo, who is very well received for her planning expertise in this province. I sent it on to the municipal board, which has made its ruling and decision.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since it now appears that the official opposition is trying as hard as the government to undermine the food land guidelines, which are meant to protect farm land in the province, does the minister agree that it is time the government of Ontario brought in legislation that will protect farm land and keep it in farming in perpetuity?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker.

DATING OF GROCERIES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Will the minister advise whether he is familiar with a survey made by the Ottawa Citizen and published in the June 3 Citizen? The survey concerns the process whereby grocery stores and major food chains are obligated to stamp a "best before" date on packaged meats and other items with a shelf life of 90 days or less.

The Citizen survey clearly indicates that, at least in the Ottawa-Carleton area, customers are being cheated, misguided and misled by these stamps. According to the survey, there is evidence that some shelves are filled with packaged meats that are sometimes two weeks past this "best before" date. When a clerk was asked about this, he stated very simply: "We wrote the old ones off today but forgot to throw them out."

Will the minister undertake to review this situation, possibly with his federal colleague, to assure that the consumers of Ontario -- because I suspect what happens in Ottawa-Carleton may well happen right across the province -- are protected and that the grocery chains or stores are not allowed to mislead the consumers with these tags?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the member for Ottawa East correctly, what he is saying is that the dates have long gone by and that there is a report relating to that in the Ottawa newspaper. I would appreciate receiving a copy of that report, if he has a copy today. I have not been made aware of that.

However, I think that where it does say the product is best before a certain date and that date has then been passed, the average consumer would take a look at that and say, "I am not going to buy this item because it is stale- dated." That would seem to me to be a logical answer for the benefit of the consumer, although perhaps there may be some people who would not pay any attention to the date and they might pick up the article.

Fortunately, most people shop by checking the dates. Whenever I do the shopping I look at these dates and I know my family does. Probably every family looks at the dates to make sure the products are not stale-dated. That is why the labels are there.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister's supposition would seem to have logic except that in many of these grocery stores the stamping on the packages is made in very minuscule type, and in some cases with white ink and it is not visible.

The other aspect of this is that in some grocery chains they are mixing stale-dated items with items that are not past the date. The consumer thus is misled into thinking that all the packages on a particular shelf are within the proper date. That is why I am suggesting to the minister he might review the situation. I intend to let the minister have a copy of the story.

I appreciate this is a federal responsibility, but I would ask if the minister is prepared to get in touch with his federal colleague to ensure that the regulations are followed in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Once I have the details I would certainly like to look into the question. The honourable member is quite correct that it is a federal responsibility, and we would not take over their responsibility in that area; but we will certainly look at it, and if there is a matter to be raised with them we will draw it to their attention very quickly.

Mr. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I suggest to the minister that any time meat products are on the counters after their given date the store should be required to put on an additional tag of a different colour, preferably in some fluorescent colour. The purchaser then would know he is buying meat that is older than the period it was originally tagged for.

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think in many respects we have to develop the philosophy that a consumer has to be self-reliant. If the store puts a message on a roast of beef that says it is best before a certain date and the person finds that roast is stale-dated and still goes ahead and buys it, there comes a point where the consumer can be protected only so far. I do not think the member would want us to stop the consumer from stepping out in front of a car should he choose to do that.

It is up to the consumer to satisfy himself. When a particular grocery item is seen to have been stale-dated, surely to goodness the consumer should have the responsibility and the capacity to figure this is not the item he really wants.

Mr. Newman: You have the responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Walker: No, I do not have.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would ask all members of the House to refrain please from private conversations. It is very difficult for both the questioner and the minister involved to hear either the question or the reply. Thank you very much.

STOUFFVILLE DUMP

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. With reference to his response on the supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton), can the minister tell us, especially in the light of what he said in his response, why his ministry staff would not do some follow-up when they saw that in the study that was done in 1978 the rate of stillbirths in Stouffville had all of a sudden jumped to in excess of four times the provincial average, while in 1976 and 1977 it had been below the provincial average? Why would they not go in there and find out the cause?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am told by the epidemiologists that in dealing with that size of population a one-year aberration is not something that is significant. It is something to be taken as a sign and to be followed up. The year after that, the rate in that area dropped to zero -- none whatsoever. The epidemiologists advise me it is a one-year aberration which does not, from their experience, indicate a problem.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Charlton: Presumably then, the minister has now decided to do a study or see that a study is done as a result of the survey that was done by the citizens, which I believe shows a rate in 1980 in excess of 30 -- which tends to substantiate, even if it is an unscientific study, the high rate in 1978 and shows something may be wrong. Is he prepared to advise the Minister of the Environment that no approval should be given for the expansion of that dump until such time as there is some kind of confirmation from that study that the problems that appear to be in Stouffville do not emanate from that dump?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is not at all clear at this point whether the medical officer of health will find there is a need for a further study. As I indicated to the honourable member, the statistics we have available and which we provided to them would indicate that the year 1978 was an aberration. In the two preceding years the rates were about half the rates for the region and the province. As indicated, in the year following that, 1979, the rate was exactly zero.

Mr. Cassidy: What an attitude.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The attitude, Mr. Speaker, is very simple.

Mr. Cassidy: If the figures go up they say it is an aberration and they ignore it. That's irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The point is, we are dealing with a science. If there is a need for a follow-up study based on not just that one, we will participate. I just pointed that one out because I was concerned that the newspaper was given all the facts but chose to highlight only the more sensational of them -- not the fact that the rate had dropped to absolute zero the year after and had been only half the provincial rate in the preceding two years. If there is a need for a follow-up study, I have already said we will participate and assist the local health unit to do that.

Of course, one of the things we will be considering is that informal survey. To my knowledge, we have not yet received a copy of that informal survey, but they will be looking at not only the questions but the definitions they were using to see if they were appropriate and how they would fit with the other facts we have. Then they will make a decision on what is in the best public interest. That is our main concern.

Mr. Charlton: Since Dr. John Hodgkinson, the assistant medical officer of health, seemed to be saying to the public last night that he was negotiating with the ministry to see that a study occurred, and he certainly gave the public in Stouffville the impression that he felt it was necessary, will the minister see that it occurs? Will he see that no decisions are made on expanding that dump until such time as there are some definite conclusions?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is my understanding that the hearing is in the early stages, so I doubt they would make a decision one way or the other for some time. But I have already answered the honourable member's question. If Dr. Hodgkinson has made that determination we will work with him. As I said earlier, two eminently qualified people in the Ministry of Health have been in touch with him since the story first appeared in the press. If he has made the determination that there is a need for a follow-up survey, then we will work with him to see that it is done.

STOL SERVICE

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. It deals with the introduction of the Toronto Island STOL service. As the minister is no doubt aware, the transportation of people is a vital government responsibility, and perhaps the most important factor in providing for the development not only of the north and the wellbeing of its citizens but of all of Ontario.

The introduction of a STOL service to link the downtown business district of Toronto to the city centres of Ottawa and Montreal has been adopted by all three levels of government in this province. There is no question that STOL will provide a valuable service to the travelling public, including the business community in this country.

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not agree?

Mr. Piché: I am concerned that the minister has not considered how vital such a service would be to the citizens of northern Ontario. I would like to know if the minister has consider just how valuable a STOL service would be to the many small communities in northern Ontario that are not served by a regular direct flight to Toronto International Airport, and when we can see a priority in getting this most important project under way. Regularly scheduled flights using the DASH-7 aircraft from northern communities would allow greater accessibility to the unique services provided by this government in the city of Toronto, particularly in the fields of health care, education, government and so on.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Who wrote that question?

Mr. Piché: I did.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Mr. Piché.

Mr. Piché: I believe we must look beyond the obvious benefits to the city of Toronto and --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Piché: -- to the benefits such services will provide for all the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister not agree?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I got the total content of that question. Perhaps I should ask for it to be repeated but --

Mr. Speaker: Please do not.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Perhaps it would be better if I accepted that statement as notice and replied to the honourable member. I do agree with the basic concept, of course, that a STOL service into Toronto is very important. I have supported it for a number of years. I understand the vote is being taken at city council today to deal with the recommendation of the executive committee. If there has been a result of that vote, I have not heard it.

I certainly agreed with the member's support for STOL service and the STOL service supplied by norOntair to 20 communities in northern Ontario. Two new DASH-8 aircraft have been ordered to expand that service, and I am sure there will be new DASH-7s there some time.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: My question to the minister is, in view of the fact that I believe the honourable member who asked the question has an airplane, would the minister satisfy himself there is no conflict of interest on behalf of that member?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I did not know the honourable member had an airplane. I have an airplane and I do not think there is any conflict of interest.

MULTICULTURAL ARTS BUREAU

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Culture and Recreation: In view of the fact that the Ontario Arts Council has established a Franco-Ontarian bureau in order to develop and promote the arts and culture within the francophone communities of Ontario, is the minister willing to establish a multicultural bureau to promote arts and culture within the multicultural communities?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Parkdale well knows, we have already established the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship, and it is certainly doing a lot of the things that a division like that within the Ontario Arts Council might possibly be doing. There is also a Multicultural Folk Arts Council operating in this province. In addition to that, the Ontario Arts Council, as it is now constituted, is very sensitive to the fact that many of its members and the people who participate in it are drawn from all the ethnic communities within the province. So I think that in terms of what I suspect is at the back of that question, that need is now being quite fully met.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Ruprecht: The minister has indicated just now that he and his department are sensitive. May I point out that the only cut in his budget in terms of culture and recreation was a part of multiculturalism. I am asking the minister, if he wants to be sensitive, would he please tell this House how he can be sensitive when the only part being cut in terms of multiculturalism is in the citizenship branch?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: No, not cut; as I tried to explain about four or five times, and as my staff tried to explain to the honourable member for Parkdale during our estimates, there are no cuts in the multicultural activities of my ministry. In fact, there is an increase. We tried to explain that to the member four or five times. If the member for Parkdale wants me to, I will try to draw a diagram for him to show that there are no, repeat no, cuts in the multicultural program of my ministry; none whatsoever.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr10, An Act to incorporate London Baptist Bible College and London Baptist Seminary.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr10, An Act to incorporate London Baptist Bible College and London Baptist Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Shymko from the standing committee on social development presented the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Social Development policy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982: Social Development policy program, $2,754,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ramsay, first reading of Bill 94, An Act to amend the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Ruston, first reading of Bill 96, An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to broaden the criteria used for the Workmen's Compensation Board in assessing the impairment of earning capacity resulting from an injury that causes permanent disability. The act currently states that the impairment of earning capacity shall be estimated on the nature and degree of the injury. The board is authorized under the act to compile a rating schedule of percentages of impairment of earning capacity for specific injuries that may be used as a guide in determining the compensation payable in cases of permanent disability.

The bill repeals the provision that authorizes the board to compile a rating schedule, and directs the board to estimate the impairment of earning capacity in the light of all the circumstances of each individual case.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have three bills to introduce. If it is agreeable to the House and to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) I will give the explanation for all three at the end of the third bill.

FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 97, An Act to amend the Funeral Services Act.

Motion agreed to.

FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 98, An Act to amend the Funeral Services Act.

Motion agreed to.

FUNERAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. Swart, first reading of Bill 99, An Act to amend the Funeral Services Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I introduced them as three separate bills because when I first introduced the package as one bill it was defeated by the government. I thought they might be able to take one of the ideas at a time. The legislation makes it compulsory for a funeral director to provide an itemized price list to a purchaser of funeral services. Second, it prevents a funeral director from embalming a dead human body unless he is specifically instructed to do so by the purchaser of the services, or unless the body is to be transferred out of the province. Third, it permits people who are not funeral directors to provide funeral supplies.

More and more people are looking for simplicity and dignity in funeral services. These bills are designed to provide that, and to provide consumer protection at a vulnerable time in the purchaser's life.

3:30 p.m.

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I rise before the orders of the day to move that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the increased tax burden imposed on the people of Ontario by means of the devious ad valorem gas tax, particularly as a consequence of the new retail gasoline price increase announced on Tuesday, June 2.

Mr. Speaker: I advise all honourable members that the notice of motion was received in time and complies with standing order 34. I will be pleased to listen to you, Mr. Smith, for up to five minutes as to why you think the ordinary business of this House should be set aside.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, few people in Ontario could have foreseen a year ago, six months ago or even on budget night that there would be massive increases in the price of gasoline over and above those that had already been agreed to under the national energy program at that time. In fact, the government of Ontario, having taken a lead in trying to prevent increases in the price of gasoline, had gained a certain prominence. It can honestly be said that its fortunes at the polls were going down until it took a very strong stand against Mr. Lougheed and those others who wanted to increase the price of gasoline drastically.

It could not have been foreseen even when the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) presented his budget here that with this new tax he would be digging his hand so deeply into the pockets of ordinary Ontario citizens less than a month later. Because of a combination of circumstances in which the Premier of Alberta followed a policy of reducing supply and the federal government was obligated, in view of the low Canadian dollar, to increase drastically the price of gasoline in order to keep the import compensation fund in balance, it could not have been foreseen that there would be such a rapid increase in the price of gasoline.

The Treasurer's own figures indicate he did not foresee that kind of rapid increase in price. His estimates of what he expected to derive from this new gas tax are far lower than what he will derive from the gas tax as a consequence of these increases in price.

In the short time we have available, we are not debating whether the increase in price is a justifiable matter or not. The simple fact is that the Ontario government has felt for some years that Ontario citizens -- and I believe the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) himself said that Ontario industries -- are hurt by rapid increases in the price of gasoline. Therefore it seems inconsistent in the extreme to have a policy that complains on the one hand of rapid increases in the price of gasoline and then magnifies every such increase by piggybacking upon them in a manner to gouge all the more money out of the citizens of Ontario.

Not only is this unfair to our citizens, it has also certainly weakened our posture in any federal-provincial negotiations on the subject of energy pricing. Surely every logical person can see that.

The interesting thing is to see the contrast with the government's stated policy before the election. If this government itself was not engaging so frequently in false advertising, it might take itself to court on the basis of the amount of false advertising done in this election campaign.

Not only did the Premier (Mr. Davis) ask for a mandate to avoid tax increases and then come up with a tax upon a tax upon a tax, in addition he said that increasing the price of gasoline represented a raid on the taxpayers of Ontario, a raid he now not only has joined but magnifies at every opportunity. It was the Premier who said, "We will continue to resist windfall profits for provincial treasuries and petroleum companies." In fact, a windfall is now going to occur into the provincial Treasury of Ontario. Whether he wants to call it a profit or not, it is a windfall for that Treasury based on the fact that the price of gasoline has gone up more than we expected it to in recent days.

What has happened is that the ordinary taxpayer is now being forced to bleed for an extra $53.6 million on a yearly basis simply because in other jurisdictions the price of gasoline has been affected so that it increases. The Premier of Ontario is piggybacking upon those increases at the expense of ordinary citizens.

It was the same Premier who said in 1979 that large oil price increases were "tantamount to restoring bleeding as a medical cure-all." Not only is the bleeding going on, we now have that same person squeezing the veins for every bit of extra blood he can get. Whenever the knife is being plunged into the taxpayers of Ontario by oil companies, other provinces, world events or people in other parts of the world, there is the Ontario government plunging the knife in more deeply.

The ordinary business should be set aside because of this unforeseen event which will bleed the taxpayers unfairly.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join in urging you to permit this emergency debate despite the fact the gasoline tax is now being debated before the Legislature in a separate bill.

By virtue of an action of the federal government we have seen a sudden increase in provincial taxes which Treasury officials estimate at $40 million or $50 million dollars. That has been done without any participation as far as this Legislature is concerned. That will continue every time there is some other increase because of Alberta, the sheikhs of Arabia, Marc Lalonde, the Petrofina surcharge, increases by refiners, or because of increases in the cost of gasoline at the retail level. That is going on and on; and that kind of hidden tax increase, brought about without involvement of the Legislature, is not only wrong in principle, it will have very destructive economic effects on our province.

Taking the terms of the national energy program, there would be an additional $100 tax on the average family in Ontario because of the gasoline tax. We have seen only the beginning of this; this is on top of that increase already mandated because of increases under the national energy policy.

We have to have a means of discussing what is happening in terms of energy pricing in Ontario and every means conceivable should be used by this Legislature because of the importance of the issue.

The Treasurer made a statement on December 13, 1979, a time when the Ontario government was busily destroying the stay in power of Joe Clark and when it was making it perfectly clear it was opposed to the policy of higher energy taxes. The Treasurer said, among other things, "The federal government is not proposing to ease its budget deficit with those revenues."

That is precisely what is happening here, and now we have a windfall addition to the resources with which the Treasurer can ease budget revenues, something that two years ago he said he was adamantly opposed to.

At that time the Treasurer said he was greatly dismayed the federal government intended to levy a tax on fuels used in public transit. We have today seen a further increase in the federal tax which will result in a further increase in the provincial tax which will go on public transit. This service surely should be encouraged rather than discouraged by this government. At that time, the Treasurer said the government of Ontario was strongly opposed to price increases on petroleum that went beyond the current federal-provincial agreement. Now it appears they have reversed their position completely.

This is an issue which goes far beyond one bill which is before the Legislature. We have graphic and dramatic proof that, either through his crystal ball or through his forecasters, the Treasurer anticipated what was going to happen in Ottawa and decided he wanted to ride with it. He decided to get unearned revenues for the province in a way he himself was saying a year or so ago would lead to higher levels of inflation, to a drop in consumer and business incomes, to an increase in the price people would have to pay for heating oil and gasoline, which it is doubtful would lead to any increase in energy conservation and which for many reasons, according to the Treasurer himself, are unfair.

3:40 p.m.

If the government believed that in 1979, I ask myself why do they not believe the same thing today and why do they not act on it, if it is a matter of high policy going far beyond the one bill? When the government opposed the actions of the Joe Clark government in 1979, then we need an explanation which we can only get from an emergency debate today as to why the government is prepared to go along under Liberals with what they opposed under Conservatives back in 1979. That is why I believe we should have the debate, and that this is a matter of urgent public importance affecting everybody who drives a car, or rides a TTC bus, or an OC Transpo bus, or rides public transit in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the very enviable position today of being able to present a solution to both parties opposite who wish to dispense with private members' hour and debate the matter of the just announced federal increase on gasoline tax instead. We can do that, I submit to you, and still preserve the integrity of the standing orders of this House.

I think I have spoken many times before on motions to suspend routine proceedings and proceed with an emergency debate. I think we have all agreed that one of the criteria, and I think I said this a few weeks ago, is if there is a possibility of the matter being brought before the House in time by some other means. That has always been, I submit, one of the criteria for this particular standing order, 64(a), coming into effect.

In other words, a matter under this standing order should be one upon which there is no opportunity for this House to debate, at any other time and by any other means, certainly within a few days or a week or so of the matter being raised in this House.

The comments I have just heard from the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party to my mind do not differ very greatly from comments that I heard during the debate of second reading of Bill 72 in this House on Tuesday evening. They probably are not substantially different from what we will hear in this House tomorrow morning when the order of business, of course, is to continue the adjourned debate on Bill 72, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

What is my solution to you, Mr. Speaker? The solution that I would suggest, and the government would suggest, is first that this resolution does not fulfil the requirements of an emergency debate. In other words, the matter does not fall within the purview of something that cannot be discussed by this House at some other time and by some other means.

I would further like to suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, to both parties opposite that since they have already indicated through the proposing of this motion that they are willing to give up private members' hour today in order to discuss this matter, I would be very happy to move, as soon as this matter is disposed of, with the unanimous consent of both those parties that we dispense with the provision of order of business under standing order 64(a) today and I will call order 23, the second reading of Bill 72, and without any limitation on debate or time we will proceed and discuss this full matter.

As I say, the matter can be brought before this House with the agreement of the parties opposite and we can have a full debate today by merely moving to call the twenty-third order.

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I assume the government House leader is offering to have the private members' hour that would take place now take place as soon as that debate on Bill 72 is over. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on this particular point I would be willing to sit down with the House leaders and discuss whether they would wish to have private members' hour tonight in place of the debate on the plant shutdowns report if the members wish to do that.

Mr. Cassidy: You weren't making an offer at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would point out that in moving this motion my friends have given no indication they are willing to make provision somehow for private members' hour. If this motion were agreed to by you, Mr. Speaker, and that of course is your decision, we will not have private members' hour this week.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Since the government House leader has referred to the possibility of House leaders arranging this, I naturally think you should be aware that he was well aware of the intention of my leader to bring forward this motion, as is required under our rules. He made no such proposal at the time. With the uncontroverted argument put forward by my colleague, with the support of the New Democratic Party in this regard and with the views of the government House leader before you as well, I would hope that in your wisdom we can go forward with the emergency debate as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: You are aware of the difference in the rules for an emergency debate as opposed to the rules for debating the bill. If we move ahead with the debating of the bill, a bill which as far as I am concerned should be debated for the next 10 years and never passed by this House, people are entitled to speak only once and for a very long time.

However, in emergency debates our tradition has been to hear from each side and to limit members' remarks to allow the debate to be completed by the appointed hour. I think these are totally different. I have remarks to make on the bill which may take considerable time indeed. I intend to speak in the debate on the bill at considerable length.

To have an emergency debate today is to have a debate of all three parties. It is to hear from members of the government, not just from the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) and whatever two or three people he has to keep him company, but to hear from members of the government repeatedly, as well as from members of both parties opposite to discuss the issue, which is the impact of this new, insidious and sneaky tax on the people of Ontario. The debate on the bill will go on at great length under the usual rules of this House starting tomorrow morning.

Mr. Speaker: The government House leader has put forward a suggestion as a compromise, provided he has unanimous consent of the House to discuss the bill in question.

Mr. Nixon: Emergency debate.

Mr. Speaker: All right. I have listened intently and with great interest to the remarks. Obviously, the question before the House is whether this debate will proceed and I will put the question: Will the debate proceed?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, is it not necessary for you to make a determination?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I did not hear your point of order.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, you have to make a determination.

Mr. Speaker: I have already made that determination. I thought I had said that in my opinion it does meet the criteria. I thought I had made that abundantly clear when I got up and put the question: Will the debate proceed?

4:33 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Smith's motion to suspend the ordinary business of the House, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Cunningham, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Haggerty, Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mancini, Martel, McClellan;

McEwen, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Smith, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bemnier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson;

Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kolyn, Lane, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Piché, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson;

Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Ayes 44; nays 64.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to ask you, now that the government has demonstrated it does not have confidence in you, will you continue as Speaker?

Mr. Hennessy: That's a cheap shot.

Mr. Speaker: That was not a legitimate point of order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think that is a very unbecoming comment coming from a former chairman of the procedural affairs committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I am not finished. My point is that it is a very unbecoming comment from a person who has held that position. I and most members of this House believe that when these rules were rewritten they were deliberately rewritten so that the question "Shall the debate proceed?" could be put in so that the vote we took in no way was questioning the ruling or opinions of the Speaker. It was an opportunity to vote on the question "Shall the debate proceed?" That is what we were voting on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. As has been pointed out many times, although it was questioned just a few days ago, I do not represent any party but all members.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear that the House understands what the government House leader has said. He did not mean in any way to object to your ruling; he merely meant to object to the notion of debating the matter that was proposed. He is not objecting to you, sir; he is merely stifling debate.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As usual, Mr. Speaker, in his convoluted way, I am not sure the Leader of the Opposition knows what he is saying. He will have full opportunity to debate this matter tomorrow morning.

4:40 p.m.

ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answer to question 93 standing on the notice paper.

If I may have the unanimous consent of the House, I wish to propose a motion.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BALLOT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding any standing order of the House, the ballot item of Mr. G. W. Taylor be deferred for consideration until next Thursday, June 11, and that the scheduling according to the order of precedence be revised accordingly.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved second reading of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, all of us recognize the need for certain people in society to do shift work. We talk about nursing and how we could not close the hospitals down and so on. We are cognizant of the necessity to do some shift work. However, in our society there has been almost a sweeping move towards shift work. The number of people who have moved from regular work to shift work in the last number of years is truly astounding, and there is a reason for that.

I would like to quote this reason from an article entitled "Shift and Day Work: A Comparison of Sickness Absence, Lateness and Other Absences," which appeared in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine:

"The increase in shift work results from the changing nature of industrial production. Some processes where highly automated machinery is used, such as iron and steel making, computer operations and oil refining, are so expensive that, according to management, they must be operated continuously to be efficient. In management terms this means that machines and workers operating them must pay for the cost of equipment with increased earnings from increased production. Therefore, a portion of the work force must work during time other than the day."

The article says quite clearly that, because of the tremendous cost of equipment, people are forced to work a schedule they are not suited for. I will come back to that in a moment.

Not only are people being forced to work shift work, but companies are also now playing around with shift schedules such as the honourable members would not believe. The purpose of my bill is to try to end some of that. Companies like Falconbridge and Inco have adopted shift schedules that reduce the number of workers required and consequently reduce the cost of production while maintaining roughly the same amount of production -- schedules that pay little attention to the health and the social life of working people and are designed to avoid or circumvent the Employment Standards Act.

The Employment Standards Act has two provisions in it that say a worker should not have to work more than 48 hours in any given week and that after 44 hours of work he is entitled to overtime pay. It sounds good, except companies have found ways to get around that particular piece of legislation. As my friend Ray Duhaime from the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union says, "They beat you with the calendar," not with the act.

Let me tell members what happens at Falconbridge. This is confusing, but I ask the members to listen carefully to what is happening. Falconbridge starts its work week at 8 a.m. on Sunday. Let me just describe their schedule. If a worker has a long weekend off -- that means Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday -- it is then followed by this type of schedule: The workers start graveyard -- one of the most difficult shifts going; all the health studies say there are problems with this -- and they work seven continuous days.

Members may say: "But they cannot work seven continuous days. The act says 48 hours, and after 44 hours they get overtime." But they work five days in one calendar week, which just happens to end on Sunday; so they are working seven graveyards in a row. At the end of the fifth day, the company uses the act to get around giving men time off. It says it is a new work week; so then they work two more graveyards.

The company has circumvented the act. The employees are working more than 48 hours in a row and they are not getting overtime. Because of the new work week, they are starting a new schedule. In part of Falconbridge, men are now being forced to work in the mechanical department some 10 shifts in a row. There is no overtime and there are no days off. So the company is playing around with the act.

Let me give the schedule for the second week. The workers get off Tuesday at 8 a.m. Having worked graveyards, they are going to have to sleep all day Tuesday. So they get Wednesday off, really the only free day, because they go back in on Thursday afternoon and work from 4 p.m. to 12 midnight; then they work Friday and Saturday. Some men get Sunday off, one day off; some do not get Sunday off, so they are short-changed. In other words, they go from 4 to 12, from graveyard to 4 to 12, then back to days. Some get Tuesday off that week; everybody gets Thursday.

On Friday morning they start seven more day shifts -- seven straight. They work Friday and Saturday, then they start a new work week. When they start that new work, they can run five more consecutive shifts. Again, the act is circumvented.

As I said, the company uses the calendar to beat the workers. Despite efforts over the years, this has not changed one jot. That schedule is perverse, not only because the company beats the act but also because the Ministry of Labour has a document entitled Shift Work: The Problems and Approaches, which says, "An example of a phase-delayed schedule of rotation" -- which should be used so that a person's body might adjust more quickly -- "is that of morning to afternoon to night."

My friends do it in reverse: night to afternoon to day. But the Ministry of Labour says: "Wait a minute. It's just the opposite. We are going to make it somewhat easier." They should be doing it in reverse, but they do not do that either. So they circumvent the act. They ignore the recommendations from the Ministry of Labour on how such shifting could occur. If we look at people who travel, we know there are lag times necessary when they are travelling in certain directions, but that does not happen either.

If one puts that whole schedule together, one finds out that a worker in summer gets one long weekend off with his family. If it happens to be miserable that one long weekend, the worker does not have a weekend off with his family. Some workers are lucky; they get one Monday in the second week of their schedule or Tuesday, and everybody gets Thursday. In fact, it is bad that the days are split off; the two days off are not even consecutive.

The purpose of this act is to try to prevent this, because there are some serious problems. If one looks at Inco, it has a different type of schedule. Their employees work seven graveyards, seven afternoons and then six days. In one of those, what happens is they go from four to 12 to a short change; that is, back at 8 a.m. So if a worker lives 30 miles from the plant, by the time he gets off work at midnight, showers, goes home, gets a few hours' sleep and gets back up at six, he has had less than five hours' sleep and he is back on the job to work days. Then the whole process begins all over again. In view of what the Ministry of Labour is saying and in view of the intent of the Employment Standards Act, this cannot be tolerated.

4:50 p.m.

Let me tell the House what happens to workers. In one of the medical studies I looked up, it says: "Man is a daytime animal. Almost all bodily functions are periodic. Hormone levels, body temperature, the chemical reactions through which the body produces energy, pulse rate and blood pressure all fluctuate on a 24-hour schedule with peak activity in midday periods. These internal rhythms, plus the external rhythms of daylight, night, temperature and social activities, regulate a wide range of body functions and thereby affect fatigue, sleepiness, rest activity and alertness. The biological fluctuations continue with only slow changes of adjustment to time changes."

Before the body even has time to acclimatize itself to one shift -- and it is just starting to at the end of the seven-day schedule -- it changes again. The Ministry of Labour recommends shift scheduling that is much more rapid, perhaps two, two and three in a row, but with some rest time so that the body is not affected nearly as badly. However, that is not happening. The consequences of this are great. All the studies indicate there is a problem with sleeping. For example, workers who are on shifts tend to smoke a good deal more, use more caffeine and more alcohol. All the studies indicate this. Consequently, there is a problem for workers.

Let me go back to the Ministry of Labour's own report, which says, "Investigation of 3,058 workers found that shift workers had twice as high a rate of fully developed ulcers as day workers." As we look through the medical evidence, we can find more and more people being affected. This same report also says that people with diabetes, epilepsy and heart conditions should be excluded from shift work. That does not happen. What is happening is that rather than looking at the recommendations of this report, industry flies off in a different direction. It goes counter to what shift scheduling should be in terms of what time of day employees start work. Companies try to beat the Employment Standards Act by lengthening schedules. The whole thing is a real mess and companies are going in the opposite direction.

Let me indicate what happens to diet. A case study found: "Shift workers ate more animal protein and drank more liquids, including alcohol, than day workers. Total caloric intake is not affected by shift work but the distribution of intake is changed over a 24-hour period. Night workers also tend to increase their intake of caffeine and indulge in heavy smoking in order to increase their wakefulness during the shift."

But what we find happening are attempts to circumvent the act. In addition to sleepiness, digestive disturbances, people who should be excluded, and the problem with diet, the social lives of workers on shift work are not taken into consideration. In an article several years ago, entitled Shift Work, it says: "Shift work also interferes with an individual's role as a companion to his spouse and as a parent to his children. Some studies show higher than average divorce rates among shift workers. Women with children have been found to call in sick more often and abandon night work earlier than men do, because of the strain it puts on them in their role as mothers. Where both parents are working, shift work may have solved one problem at the expense of another, but there is no time for the family to be together."

We can conclude that there are really serious problems developing. For example, a study of nurses indicates: "Whereas fixed shift workers" -- those people who are on a fixed shift -- "tend to take time off for relatively minor ailments, rotating shift workers more often stay home because they are suffering from disorders such as acute respiratory infections in the upper GI tract." In other words, if one is on shift the type of illness one suffers from is more severe than if one works regular days.

More people are being forced into shift work and, in my opinion, companies are subverting the Employment Standards Act. They are trying to avoid the act by increasing the amount of work workers are forced to do without time off. The act is being circumvented and people's health is being affected. By the way, this same Ministry of Labour document indicates there is a higher accident rate during night shifts than on day shifts and that they are more severe. Socially, family life is totally disrupted.

Before the province allows shift work to increase, studies should be undertaken to determine what is happening to people. I remember Elliot Lake, as my friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) does. Everybody told us, "Pooh, pooh, there is nothing going on there." But we now know the number of fatalities.

Using the Ministry of Labour's own documentation, before we allow this to expand we should not tolerate this situation much longer without knowing specifically what the effects are on working people. If there are going to be some shift workers, we should prevent the schedule from being elongated by circumventing the bill.

Let me quote one other section to try to put it into perspective: "Systems of weekly rotation are most common, but they are not the most advantageous for the individual circadian system. The rhythms cannot adapt in less than seven consecutive night shifts." They cannot adapt in less, yet just as they reach the seven nights, they are then switched to another shift.

"The individual accumulates fatigue in the early part of the schedule due to the lack of restful sleep and, just as he is starting to adapt, he is switched again. This schedule places the person in the position of constantly being in a state of transition, with the night-shift period placing the greatest physiological cost on the individual." This is from a document of November 1980 from the Ministry of Labour.

I urge my friends across the way to consider what is happening to workers before they willy-nilly vote against the bill. It is not an attempt on my part to bring in a 40-hour work week via the back door. Based on the tremendous amount of material available to us, I am trying to prevent the act from being bastardized by corporations in this province to the disadvantage of the workers. I urge the members to look at that before they willy-nilly vote no.

The Deputy Speaker: You have approximately three minutes remaining of your 20-minute allotted time, if you would you like to have those three minutes at the end of the debate.

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, as the newly appointed parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour, I welcome this opportunity to discuss working conditions in Ontario with my colleagues in regard to some of the questions raised by the member for Sudbury East.

At the present time, as the member stated in his address, the Employment Standards Act provides the hours of work of employees shall not exceed eight in a day and 48 in a week. It gives employees the right to refuse work beyond these hours. Bill 17, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, which we are considering today, would, in addition to the daily and weekly maximum hours of work provision, effectively prohibit an employer from requiring employees to perform work on more than five consecutive days without two days of rest. That is the intent of the bill.

5 p.m.

As one disincentive to employers requiring their employees to work excessive hours, the Employment Standards Act already provides for a mandatory overtime premium pay of not less than one and one half times the regular rate of an employee for each hour worked in excess of 44 hours per week.

Mr. Martel: It cannot beat the calendar, that is the problem.

Mr. Brandt: I am going to get to that in just a moment.

The act establishes only minimum standards of employment. Many collective agreements, as we well know, have more generous premium pay provisions. Generally, under private collective agreements there is a provision that allows for two consecutive days off, usually Saturday and Sunday, within any period of seven days, and hours in excess of 40 hours in the week are worked at premium rates.

Under collective agreements, seldom does the employee have a complete right to refuse to work hours in excess of the specified standard hours, but overtime can usually be turned down when an employee has a legitimate reason and, in some cases, after a certain number of hours have been worked. In most cases there is also some method for sharing overtime hours among employees when overtime hours are required in a plant. Let us not make any mistake about it, there are plants that require that kind of flexible overtime shifting.

Therefore, there is a considerable amount of flexibility in arrangements negotiated between employers and employees and that has worked out rather satisfactorily in our province to ensure that overtime work requirements are met.

Bill 17 could potentially result in rigid work schedules developing, and the necessary flexibility in scheduling hours of work would be lost. Consequently, the proposed legislation could have serious implications in certain situations that must be taken into account.

While the majority of employees in Ontario work a standard five-day week and eight hours or less per day, this is simply not possible in some industries and businesses. A variety of working time arrangements are required, particularly where establishments operate on a continuous basis. A number of examples come to mind, such as hospitals, computer operations, metal processing, chemical plants, pulp and paper processing plants and that type of thing, or where service to the public is needed on weekends as well as other days of the week in the service industries, such as hotels, restaurants and places of recreation.

In these types of operations it is necessary to have flexibility in scheduling the hours of the work day. The potential loss of flexibility arising from Bill 17 causes great concern to this side of the House, and could result in increased costs of production. Furthermore, it must be noted, and the gentlemen opposite should take note of this, no other jurisdiction in North America has legislated such a provision. These factors will undoubtedly lead to a deterioration of the competitive position of Ontario firms. I am sure that concerns them.

Mr. Foulds: If they have to be competitive at the expense of the health of the workers, it is not worth it.

Mr. Brandt: No, we are talking about being competitive in order to retain some of the jobs about which the member has indicated such concern at various times during the debates in this House.

Mr. Foulds: Yes, like the pulp and paper grants that lost us how many jobs.

Mr. Brandt: In this time of difficult and intense international competition we have to be looking at ways to contain costs and to facilitate increases in production and employment opportunities in Ontario. The proposed working arrangement under Bill 17 could restrict the ability of employers to respond quickly to increased orders and changing market conditions. To have this flexibility, employers should be able to schedule overtime work after a regular work week of five days. Where a number of employees opted not to work overtime in an establishment, the employer could have serious problems in obtaining appropriate additional staff to meet his production needs.

In this situation the employer would be faced with hiring part-time employees for one or two days per week. It would often be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to find part-time workers with the necessary skills and experience to fill those jobs. I might suggest production bottlenecks could also result.

It has come to my attention that part of the concern of the member for Sudbury East over this particular amendment has come about as a result of the dispute between the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union and Falconbridge Nickel Mines regarding overtime pay. I believe that was one of the key thrusts of what he said.

Mr. Martel: No, it wasn't. You weren't even listening.

Mr. Brandt: It is a great deal of the member's concern. It is my understanding that the conflict involves the interpretation of section 25. I realize the member is concerned about the health of the workers, but also there is a very real concern on his part about the whole question of the hours.

The union has launched an action on behalf of the affected employees in small claims court. I understand this action has now been transferred to the Supreme Court of Ontario and is expected to come to trial in September of this year. In addition, a tribunal has been established under section 51 of the Employment Standards Act. It will begin hearings on this matter in June. If the root cause of the concern is overtime entitlement, which is certainly part of the whole debate with respect to Bill 17, the meaning and application of section 17 of the act should be authoritatively determined before considering further statutory changes.

I am convinced that the possible repercussions of Bill 17 would interfere with the arrangements that seem to be quite satisfactory to both employers and employees in Ontario. The Employment Standards Act already provides for maximum hours of work per day and per week.

Under collective agreements there is sufficient flexibility to allow for scheduling of overtime work. In addition, I would like to mention that the government of Saskatchewan, that government the members opposite hold out as such an indication of the great social causes of Canada --

Mr. Foulds: You are here to govern Ontario and we're here to keep you honest.

Mr. Brandt: Let us talk about the government of Saskatchewan for a moment, because they did exactly what is suggested in Bill 17. The Saskatchewan bill provides that if there are more than 10 employees in an establishment, employees must receive two days off in seven.

Mr. Wildman: That's revolutionary.

Mr. Brandt: It is revolutionary, but wait until members hear the ramifications of that great bill. It should be noted that this legislation has not yet been proclaimed in Saskatchewan -- for good and valid reasons, I might add. The government of Saskatchewan has encountered strong criticism from both business and trade unions. To date, more than 600 petitions have been received opposing the unproclaimed legislation.

Bill 17 would likewise be opposed by many groups in Ontario. I would urge members of this Legislature to consider very carefully the full ramifications of what is being proposed. I believe they will come to the conclusion that it is wrong and ill conceived on behalf of both employees and employers to consider amending the act as suggested by the member opposite.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on the legislation as proposed by the member for Sudbury East. I noted with great interest the comments the member made which drove me to read the bill. At one point I thought I was looking at another bill, because his whole speech was on shift work and a problem he seems to be facing up there, not on the general principle of whether we are going to move to a 40-hour five-day work week as a standard.

I also noted with interest the comments of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour. I would suggest to him if he does not agree and believes these changes may be a little too radical, perhaps he should be looking at more moderate changes the minister may wish to bring in, but it is simply unacceptable in this year of 1981 to have standards in terms of hours of work and length of work week which are as antiquated as the ones we have now under the Employment Standards Act.

5:10 p.m.

I want to say that I have some concerns about the total impact of the legislation as proposed by the member for Sudbury East and the problems it could cause for some employers. There are some legitimate concerns that employers and indeed some trade unions may have. However, on balance I think it is necessary to move us out of the provision we now find in part IV of section 17 of the act, which literally forces workers without exception to work 48 hours a week each and every week as long as the employer deems that that work is necessary.

As a member for a riding in the city of Windsor, I can say that caused great hardship and problems for the employees and ultimately for the employer during the time when car sales were booming and when the companies wished to be building cars literally seven days a week.

Let me say what would happen. The employee would come in and work his 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. shift from Monday till Friday, and during that week the employer would inform the union and the union would inform the worker that the company wished to have an overtime shift on Saturday and that was not a voluntary overtime shift, that was a required overtime shift, and that on Sunday he would also require a shift but volunteers were being accepted.

What happened to the workers was that after eight or 10 six-day weeks in succession, there was a burnout problem. Employees literally began to get burned out. You cannot work six days a week, eight or nine or 10 weeks in a row because business is booming. While that may be fine for the employer and it may be fine for his profit margin, it ultimately is not very good for the employee. It is not very good for his health; it is not very good for his family; it is not very good for his children, his social life or for any number of things.

After all we are not here on this earth only to work for a living. We are here to enjoy our leisure hours as well. So what happened was absenteeism went way up. Absenteeism became a real problem in the auto plants. In addition, we had large amounts of illness and real problems with the workers. I do not think, as the parliamentary assistant to the minister indicated, the factor of premium pay, the one and a half times the regular rate of pay, ought to be the only guiding factor. I say with some reluctance I think it is then less incumbent upon us to move somewhat in the direction of a five-day week. If this bill will get us moving in that direction then I shall support it.

I want to raise a couple of other matters that I would hope the member for Sudbury East would look upon in terms of this legislation. In the first few words he has "notwithstanding anything in this part." It seemed to me on a first reading that we would have some problem in that that would also remove the flexibility of part IV of the act under section 19. Section 19, as the members will know, is a section that allows the employer to bring in workers for urgently needed work to plant or machinery so that it may avoid interference with the ordinary working of the establishment. I would see that this would be a problem. I address that to the member for Sudbury East.

One of the positive things that I think could come out of a shorter work week -- and that is what we are talking about; we are talking about a 40-hour work week as a standard -- is that this does not remove the right of employees to work overtime. Since the bill does refer to "the employer shall not require," that means he simply may ask and all overtime then becomes voluntary.

First of all, with our serious unemployment problems in a lot of working communities and indeed a growing unemployment problem in all of the province, we could find ourselves with new jobs being created -- perhaps not full-time jobs; perhaps just part-time jobs. For example, jobs could be created in my community of Windsor for auto workers who might start working on a part-time basis, with the plants booming, who might work on Saturdays and Sundays and who then, as normal attrition takes hold, might move into full-time jobs as time passes.

In addition, workers who have put in their time -- men or women who have reached their late 40s or 50s, who have worked perhaps 20 or 25 years and who, with their families growing up or grown up, do not need all the overtime -- might be allowed to begin to enjoy the leisure time they will have coming in their retirement years. It might also allow them to begin to prepare properly for their retirement years rather than at the age of 55 having to look at going into a plant and working six days a week with one meagre day off to relax and enjoy themselves.

On balance, what we have here is an attempt on the part of the member for Sudbury East to move us forward and into the 1980s in the employment standards area and, while it may be a little too extreme -- I understand it is only a private member's bill -- I think the principle of the bill is good and as such I shall support it.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will just pick up where the previous member ended and attempt to point out a number of things to the parliamentary assistant.

I will pick up first on the point that the member for Windsor-Sandwich made about the fact that this bill deals with a principle and an employer's right to require. It does not preclude many of the things the parliamentary assistant suggested; it just precludes the employer's right to demand them.

The member talked about the problems it could cause for shift workers. I think it is paramount that we first talk about the problems caused for people who work shift work by the present process under the existing Employment Standards Act.

My father is a steelworker in the city of Hamilton. He has worked shifts for some 30 years now, and it has had a particularly detrimental effect on his health. In 30 years my father has never been able to become totally accustomed to the continually changing schedule of his shift-work life.

The parliamentary assistant talked with great ease about the flexibility provided by the present Employment Standards Act. Unfortunately, that flexibility is in reality the problem, simply because the flexibility is all there on the part of management.

As the parliamentary assistant well knows, or should well know, most of the collective agreements in Ontario have not been able to deal with the whole question of consecutive days of work and voluntary overtime. The parliamentary assistant also knows full well that there is no requirement on the part of management to deal with that issue at all.

The parliamentary assistant spent some time at the end of his speech commenting on Saskatchewan. Let us talk for a moment about some of the flexibility in the present act in Ontario and this government's attitude to the flexibility presented by that act.

5:20 p.m.

Two years ago, we debated a bill in this House which would have given coverage under the Employment Standards Act to domestic employees in Ontario, a bill which I sponsored. At the time the minister said they were studying the problem and promised they would bring in changes to cover domestics. Last Christmas after the House recessed the minister brought in changes, but not to the Employment Standards Act. He has not given domestics any legal right to the things the rest of the people in this province have. He brought in some regulation changes.

I would like to talk for a minute about the humanity of this government in terms of dealing with real people and their ability to perform in their jobs and in their personal lives. The minister, in his regulation changes to cover domestics under the Employment Standards Act, gave them some very limited protection for hours of work. But instead of regulating the hours they can be required to work -- and we just heard in the debate that the regulated hours for most people, 48, are too excessive in this day and age and that we should be reducing those hours -- the minister chose to regulate the time off they are allowed. What he gave them under his regulation change was a regulated 36 consecutive hours a week off.

What does that mean about the attitude across there, Mr. Speaker, about people's ability to work and to handle their jobs and to have some private life? It means not only that those people only have the right to one and a half consecutive days off in a week but it also means there are 132 hours left in the week, all of which, theoretically and legally, those employees could be required to work.

The minister, in that set of regulation changes, also tried to create the illusion that he was granting those employees the minimum wage, a demand which was made repeatedly by this caucus. But not so. What he granted domestic employees in Ontario was a minimum wage of $132 a week. If an employee happens to work only 40 hours a week, then the $132 is the legal minimum wage. If that employee is required to work 70 or 100 or 132 hours, which under law their employer has a right to demand, he need still only pay him $132. There are no provisions for overtime for them in the regulations. They are not allowed those special provisions for overtime the parliamentary assistant was referring to -- those special rates he so proudly flaunted. So domestic employees in Ontario can be paid anywhere from $1 an hour to the $3.30 minimum wage that is law for everyone else in Ontario.

This is the kind of attitude this government has and it reflects their view of the flexibility of employment standards in Ontario.

Even more than the previous speaker, I want to emphasize that the laws in this province are antiquated. They are not even in this century. I am distressed by the attitudes across the floor and the bragging of the parliamentary assistant about the effective way in which the laws of this province work. They are out of date and far out of reality in terms of people's ability to cope, which is what makes this kind of legislation come forward.

That is what makes it necessary -- the way in which not only employers but also the government of Ontario abuse the present Employment Standards Act. They run through the loopholes it presents and allow the kind of thing I have just discussed, where an employer is allowed to require an employee to work as many as 132 hours in a week. This is no longer acceptable. If we have to put in place this kind of legislation to protect the working people of this province from those kinds of abuses by both employers and the government --

Mr. Brandt: Do you know where this is happening?

Mr. Charlton: We have lots of names and they have been presented to the member's ministry over and over again.

Mr. McLean: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this afternoon to address this House on an issue relating to an important foundation of Ontario's social and economic structure -- that is, employment standards in our working world.

Bill 17 deals with the question of adequate rest periods during the work week. This is a matter of interest to us all as we depend on these rest periods, not only to enjoy leisure activities but to face the responsibilities and pleasures of family life. While I acknowledge the intent of Bill 17 I have serious doubts with respect to its efficacy. The amendment, in its limitation of five consecutive days of work with two days rest, proposes a very structured set of arrangements for a situation in which greater flexibility is required.

I must support my colleague, the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), in his comments regarding the possible disruption caused by such a provision. In addition, I am concerned about the fact that Bill 17 in its substance implies that employees are not adequately protected under current legislation. This assumption must be challenged.

I propose to focus my discussion today on provisions and practices that now govern hours and days of work in Ontario. The basic minimum legislative standards dealing with matters of hours of work and working periods are set out in the Employment Standards Act. Among the provisions of the act are maximum levels of working hours. At present an employee shall not work hours exceeding eight in a day and 48 in a week. The employee has the right to refuse work beyond these levels. In effect, the provision ensures a maximum of six days work in a week and affects the majority of working people in the province.

In the situation in which an employee works for an employer in excess of 44 hours a week, the act stipulates that the employee shall be paid for each hour over and above the 44 not less than 1.5 times the regular rate. These provisions have traditionally controlled the periods of work, rest and overtime entitlement.

Complementing these sections of the act are several pieces of legislation which particularly limit or prohibit work on specific days. I will not discuss these laws in detail, but I would like to mention them briefly at this point. The Retail Business Holidays Act prohibits, with exceptions, a retail business from selling or offering goods or services for sale on a holiday, including Sundays and eight specified days in the year.

5:30 p.m.

Various exceptions to the act come to mind readily, since many of us have patronized pharmacies and convenience stores. The federal law, the Lord's Day Act, prohibits the conduct of one's business, or the employment of any person to work in one's business, on Sunday. The exceptions to this law are, for example, any work essential to the continuous operation of an industrial process, public utility, newspaper or dairy.

The One Day's Rest in Seven Act prescribes, for application in communities with a population of 10,000 or more, 24 consecutive hours of rest in every seven days for employees of a hotel business, restaurant or café.

Finally, the mining and mining plant regulations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act limit the time an underground miner can work underground to eight hours in 24. This section also limits the work of a mine hoist operator to eight hours in 24. Again exceptions are made in both instances.

Under US federal legislation there are no provisions that specify maximum hours of work in a week. The experience in provinces other than Ontario in the legislation of rest periods has not indicated that there is support for the concept of rigid rest period provisions.

Legislation of the type outlined in Bill 17 has been passed by the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. While this legislation has not yet been proclaimed, there has been aggressive opposition from both business and labour groups to severe limitations on scheduling requirements.

In addition to public legislation, private collective agreements can also govern hours and days of work. Under collective agreements there generally is provision for two consecutive days off within any period of seven days. However, under these agreements the employee seldom has the unqualified right to refuse to work overtime hours. Overtime can be turned down if the employee has a legitimate reason. There is usually a method of sharing the overtime hours among the employees. Under collective agreements, of course, hours of work are paid in premium when they exceed 44 per week. As a result, there is a strong economic incentive for the employee not to refuse overtime work.

Throughout labour-management negotiations various shift schedules for compressed work weeks emerged, so that work periods and leisure time have been balanced to the mutual advantage of employers and employees. I am not convinced the lack of sufficient rest periods in a given week has been expressed as a significant problem in Ontario's working economy. The basic structure of our legislation and the negotiated amendments have, I believe, established satisfactory working agreements for both labour and industry.

Therefore I have great confidence in the standards established by this government that are now in place. I also have confidence in the abilities of the parties involved to negotiate agreements on this matter so that employees ultimately enjoy the leisure time they deserve without any disruption of the smooth operation of the firm.

The blanket approach of Bill 17 would, I believe, be detrimental to the existing balance, since it is inconsistent with the effective provisions that control periods of work at the present time.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a couple of moments to make some comments on Bill 17, introduced by the member for Sudbury East. I am quite concerned about the bill, and I thought some of those concerns were going to be alleviated during the member's address. Unfortunately he spent his whole time addressing the subject of shift work and explaining how in certain parts of Ontario -- the area he represents, I assume shift work is being abused to the detriment of the worker. I guess shift work is in use in the Sudbury area and is being used in such a way that the workers are not getting proper time to rest themselves and to enjoy and partake in many social activities in family and community life.

Being the representative of an area that has quite a few industrial workers near the vicinity of Windsor, I do not believe I have seen the blatant cases pointed out by the member for Sudbury --

Mr. Martel: Sudbury East.

Mr. Mancini: Sudbury East, excuse me; I do not want to confuse the member with the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon).

Possibly the member's intention and the bill are really not one and the same. I am concerned that, in the member's eagerness to bring about a better quality of life and better working conditions, he wishes to use an amendment to the Employment Standards Act which would impose a standard all across Ontario which may not be wanted by either business or labour.

I was quite intrigued when the information was brought forward by the parliamentary assistant, the member for Sarnia, that they passed this type of blanket legislation in the Socialist Utopia of Saskatchewan. However, the good Premier, Allan Blakeney, after having received representations from many labour and business groups, decided he should possibly give that bill more consideration.

I want to assist the member for Sudbury East and help him correct some of the injustices he talked about. I am afraid, with the small amount of information he presented in his address to the House and with the small amount of information we have received up to this point, none of my reservations have been alleviated.

Now that I have the opportunity to talk about work scheduling, overtime and that type of thing, I believe it is incumbent on the Ministry of Labour when it issues these overtime work permits for which corporations must apply to give serious consideration to the need for the overtime permit. They should not, as appears to be the case now, give out an overtime permit every time a company asks for one.

In areas where there is high unemployment, it might be better for the community as a whole that not as many overtime hours be allotted to a particular company. More workers could then be hired. At the same time, the stringency of the overtime permit should not be such that workers who wish to put in overtime, who look forward to the extra money and who have no physical or emotional problems with putting in extra hours, should have the opportunity to continue to work a reasonable amount of overtime if they wish to do so.

I am also concerned that the bill is vague. With the three minutes the member for Sudbury East has left to address the House, I wonder if he would give a fuller explanation as to what he wants to accomplish other than possibly to correct the two or three injustices he pointed out in the elegant manner for which only he is known. We would probably then give the bill more consideration.

5:40 p.m.

With the lack of information that has been presented to us, and with the information that has been presented to us by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour I could not support this bill. In the future, if it was brought forward again, more fully explained and with more detail, we would certainly consider it.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time available to me.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think you are a bit premature, Mr. Martel. Ms. Bryden has the floor.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward to the windup comments of my colleague, but I would like to add a few words in support of this bill.

This bill addresses one of the many serious deficiencies in our Employment Standards Act. The 11 other private members' bills brought in by our labour critic (Mr. Mackenzie), highlight some of the other serious deficiencies which I will not enumerate at the moment.

This province has the reputation of being among the lowest in employment standards among all the provinces in Canada. This deficiency is a very serious one because it threatens the family. It prevents workers from sharing their leisure time with their families, although the government spends a great deal of time telling us how much it supports the family.

The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) got out a 55-page booklet called The Family as a Focus for Social Policy. It says: "Think about the family." Further on it says, "Conditions at work and wages undoubtedly affect families."

This is just so much bilge if we have labour laws that require families to spend their leisure time apart, and prevents workers from spending their leisure time with their children when their children are not in school, or with their spouses when their spouses are not working. Therefore, this legislation is extremely important to preserve the leisure time for our families and for all workers. Without this sort of legislation, workers are prohibited in many cases from attending two-day conventions, or from travelling any distance from their homes in their leisure time. All of these things add to job dissatisfaction. Job dissatisfaction leads to lack of productivity, which leads to labour turnover and can lead to industrial grievances. Therefore, it is very important that we have humane labour standards.

There is a branch in the Ministry of Labour which is concerned with increasing job satisfaction. I submit that there is no point in studying the effects of job satisfaction if we are not prepared to guarantee it in our Employment Standards Act.

I believe this government is showing it is basically an anti-people government by its labour standards. It is allowing the corporations to fit people to the job instead of fitting the job to people. It is not providing for job satisfaction which, in the long run, will increase our productivity and will increase the employers' profits if they just looked at it from that angle. Therefore I think we need this legislation very greatly and I would hope that all members will vote for it.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I am really amazed that the two people who responded for the Tories chose to ignore the problem totally. They both enunciated what was in the present act. They did not want to address the fact that this problem continues to prevail and the act does not prevent it.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie), knows the problem full well. My first letter to a Minister of Labour on this problem was back in 1972. It is not something that came overnight. We have been trying to break this shift schedule for eight years. When people tell me it can be negotiated, they are crazy. It cannot be negotiated, because the corporations are using the act to their own advantage. The companies work employees five days one week and two days the next, or three or four, as long as they do not work them beyond five straight shifts in one week. They either give them overtime pay or they give them time off. The act does not address that problem and the minister does not want to talk about it. He tells me what is in the silly act now. If the act was good it would have eliminated the problem eight years ago.

What it really boils down to is health versus the economy. I have comments from Bob Sass on the Saskatchewan piece of legislation. Let me tell the minister what Sass says. He advocates a one-in-three package of rights for workers' health and safety, and the right to know as much as possible about the potential harm or threat from the work they are doing.

The Minister of Labour's own documentation indicates that the health of workers on shift is jeopardized. Their ability to sleep adequately is gone. Their diet is gone to some degree. There are more severe accidents on graveyard shifts than on any other shifts. The problems of people with ulcers, epilepsy and heart trouble are all documented in the minister's book in 1980. He continues to choose to ignore it. He tells the workers to negotiate. They cannot negotiate something in a matter where the act is used and circumvented. He would not talk about it.

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour chose to ignore totally an eight-year problem. It is an economic problem but he spends most of this time talking about flexibility. Well, let us negotiate the flexibility. It should be a two-way street. It should not be flexibility on just one side. I am prepared to see overtime providing the employees themselves determine they are prepared to work it. Like my friend from Windsor-Sandwich, I am prepared to see overtime in an emergency. No one has ever denied there should be overtime in an emergency to keep an operation going, providing it can be negotiated. But it is all one-sided and my friend knows it. He knows it and chooses to ignore it.

He talks about health and that is what we are worried out. I have been here a number of years and I have watched the government's concern for the workers at Elliot Lake. I have watched this government's concern about the fellows who died from cancer in the sintering plant in Copper Cliff. He should not tell me about my concerns.

I did not mention overtime because that is not the primary aim of those workers at Mine Mill or at Inco. Their primary concern is to get the time off because they feel, as most of the studies show, their health is being jeopardized. That is paramount. That is why I did not spend much time on overtime, just to show that even with overtime, by using the act, it can be circumvented. Employees can work as many as 10 shifts in a row without any time off and without any overtime. The parliamentary assistant chooses not to deal with that. It is unfair, the little game he plays when he gets up to respond.

As I said earlier, even something as basic as the shift -- if there is going to be shift work -- it should start in the morning, then go to afternoon, then to midnight. In fact the corporations do it in reverse, contrary to all the documentation which says there are time lags and that for the bodily functions to operate properly it should be in that order. They do it in reverse. That is how concerned they are about health.

I know the Denisons of the world and the Falconbridges and the Incos, because I have been dealing with them for 14 years. They have never put health first. It is time this government bloody well did.

5:50 p.m.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 17:

Baetz, Barlow, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Dean, Drea, Eaton. Elgie. Eves. Gregory, Harris. Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, McCaffrey, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton, Pollock, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Shymko, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Williams, Yakabuski -- 39.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Several members have come into the chamber after I thought the doors would be closed. I believe they should be included if they so wished or at least referred to in the vote, should they not?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the members that the food processors are down in the committee room and they are all invited.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the members of the House the business for the rest of this week and next week.

Tomorrow morning we will continue with second reading of Bill 72. On Monday June 8 in the afternoon and the evening we will continue with legislation in the following order: Bill 72, if it is not finished tomorrow morning; Bill 73, Bill 77, Bill 78, followed by Bill 70.

On Tuesday June 9 in the afternoon and evening we will continue with legislation, again in the same order as I indicated -- that is those bills that have not been concluded.

On Wednesday, June 10, three committees may meet in the morning -- resources development, administration of justice and general government. There is a possibility the House may sit in the afternoon of Wednesday June 10 but agreement on that has not been come to yet and we will announce that next week.

On Thursday June 11 in the afternoon, private members' ballot items 7 and 8 standing in the names of Mr. G. W. Taylor and Mr. Haggerty. In the evening of next Thursday we will continue with legislation, again in the same order as has been previously announced.

On Friday June 12 we will also continue with legislation in the order as announced for any bills that have not been completed. That will be followed by Bill 67, Bill 69, and Bill 59.

The House recessed at 5:54 p.m.

June 4, 1981