Hansard Transcript 1987-Dec-09 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Daigeler: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Yesterday, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) asked you to determine whether it was a matter of public importance that the Premier (Mr. Peterson) be present at the historic opening of the new Nepean city hall. I just want to assure you and the member for Scarborough West that after 40 years of Toronto-centred provincial government, the people in eastern Ontario and in Nepean consider it a matter of great importance and urgency to have the Premier recognize, through his presence, our achievements and our equal place in Ontario.

Mr. Wildman: Boy, you haven’t done well in two days.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member did rise on a point of privilege. I would say that is not a point of privilege. The most appropriate spot would have been the members’ statements,

Mr. Harris: They won’t let him waste the time there, so he tries to slip it in here.

SPEAKER’S RULING

Mr. Speaker: Order. On the same subject, I would like to thank the House leader of the official opposition, the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke), for bringing to my attention yesterday the matter of how questions should be asked during our oral question period every day.

I have looked into this matter and it gives me the occasion to remind all honourable members that their questions to ministers should be direct, seek information, not be argumentative and be of an urgent and important nature. The supplementary question from the member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler) yesterday, in my opinion, does not quite fit that description.

I would just like to remind all members that question period will remain a valuable part of our daily proceedings if both the questioner and the minister replying follow the basic rules of addressing their questions and replies through the Speaker and making sure that they are brief and to the point.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I did hear you say that questions ought not be argumentative.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad the government House leader was listening very carefully.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Laughren: I know it will come as no surprise to members of the Legislature to hear me say that the Ontario workers’ compensation system is in a terrible mess and is getting worse. The injured workers of the province are not happy, and now we have a new group calling for a royal commission into the whole way in which we compensate injured workers in Ontario. The latest group is the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They join the Ontario Mining Association, the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus and Ontario New Democrats, who have been calling for it since 1972.

We feel very strongly that the system of compensation we have now, which has been in place since 1915, simply must be changed. We must put an end to the adversarial system, in which the injured worker is pitted against the Workers’ Compensation Board, which is funded totally by the employers in Ontario.

We believe it is time in Ontario for a universal sickness and accident system that compensates people regardless of the cause of the injury and regardless of where it occurred. Of course, employers would still pay -- or perhaps for the first time they would pay -- their fair share of compensating those injured workers.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mrs. Marland: This morning I met with the chairman, Bob Hall, and members of the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board and their administrative staff. We were discussing the underfunding to meet their capital needs. Simply put, their shortfall of capital funding is beyond a crisis. It is now a disaster.

In this board today there are 11,000 students in portables, which is about one fifth of their student population. In one school alone the projections are that, by 1990, there will be 300 students in the school and 900 students outside in portables. Without any new residential growth, the Dufferin Peel board today needs five new high schools and 28 elementary schools.

Two weeks ago I also met with the chairman, Margaret McKee, and members of the Peel Board of Education and their staff. This is the largest public school board in Canada today. Their shortfall in capital funding is just as critical in every way as that of the separate board. The Peel board requires $130 million in the next five years, and by 1988 they will be using over 500 portables.

In a government that says education is its priority, we would like to see it demonstrate this by recognizing that this is a unique growth area with unique needs. When they talk about good education for every student in Ontario, we had better look at Peel, because there is a double standard there for those students, and we cannot afford to consider class-size reduction without the schools being there in the first place.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Fleet: I urge the Ontario government to continue to promote the building of affordable housing. Increasing the supply of affordable housing means taking different steps to assist diverse groups of people. The plight of people with inadequate housing or without any shelter at all is intolerable. Increased hostels or other forms of emergency housing are required for both singles and families. Many of these people also require related social support and counselling.

This critical need demands immediate action. Affordable housing for other groups means increasing the supply of permanent housing. This government has taken positive steps, and we must now pursue massive and innovative reform of the municipal planning process. Government resources are important but cannot alone relieve the affordability crunch.

Our housing objectives should include the following: (1) effective tenant protection, especially for those most in need; (2) increasing the opportunities for ordinary citizens to buy their own homes; and (3) new development rules to expedite housing construction in both conventional and major commercial projects. Once again, I urge the government to accelerate reform and action on housing issues.

CHILD CARE

Mrs. Grier: In April 1987, the government pledged that every new school in the province would include space for day care. Etobicoke sought to take advantage of that promise by including a day care centre in plans for a new school building on the site of Seventh Street Junior Public School. Imagine our surprise when the Ministry of Education ruled that our new school was not a new school but merely a replacement school.

I ask the members of this House who represent communities with old school buildings to consider carefully the implications of the ministry’s decision. If you come from an older urban area, where the population is changing, you will be discriminated against by the Ministry of Education if you rebuild your school. If you come from a small town with a 50-year-old school, do not count on getting a day care centre included if you build a new one. Only your neighbours in the subdivisions on the outskirts of town qualify for a day care centre, according to the definitions of the Ministry of Education.

The minister has promised to review the decision of his officials. In response to a question from me last week, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) too said he would look at the decision. If the city changed the name of the school, would it then qualify as a new school? My plea today is that any review be expedited. Etobicoke hopes to call tenders for the new school by spring. I cherish the hope that the government will put common sense ahead of bureaucratic barriers and I urge the minister to make a quick and positive decision.

1340

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

Mr. Jackson: The spirit of détente has been revived. The signing of the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty in Washington was a bold and courageous act by the world’s two most powerful leaders. While the treaty by no means brings to an end the nuclear arms race, we must hope it is the beginning of the end.

The centrepiece of the accord is the unprecedented inclusion of verification mechanisms, and second, warheads in the accompanying delivery systems will be eliminated. Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev signed this treaty despite the intense lobbying of some interest groups in their respective countries to do otherwise.

These two leaders rose above politics and as such merit the title of statesmen. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) will recall that on November 13, 1987, a letter was delivered to his office which was signed by representatives of all three political parties in this House. We asked him to exhibit leadership and make a commitment towards ending the threat of nuclear proliferation by establishing an all-party task force to explore the means by which legal force could be given to the resolution declaring Ontario a nuclear weapons free zone. To date, his office has not replied to our letter.

I implore the Premier to rise above partisan politics and seize the moment for peace in the same spirit and the same manner as General Secretary Gorbachev and President Reagan.

LORI STRONG

Mr. Furlong: I want to draw the attention of members to the achievements of 15-year-old Lori Strong, a grade 10 honours student at Anderson Collegiate and Vocational Institute in Whitby. This remarkable young woman has been selected as the Canadian junior female athlete of the year by the Sports Federation of Canada.

Lori began competing at the age of five and by age 10 she had achieved the international distinction of being the youngest medallist in the history of gymnastics. In 1986-87, Lori participated successfully here at home, as well as at international events in Hungary, East Germany and Japan. Overall champion, gold medals and scores of a perfect 10 are the rule rather than the exception for Lori Strong.

Earlier this year, Lori was the overall champion at the world team trials in Toronto. In October, she competed for Canada at the world gymnastic championships in Rotterdam. Lori led the Canadian team and placed 15th overall, the highest finalist from a noncommunist-bloc country. At this event she performed a unique move never before performed. That move has now been named the Strong in her honour.

Lori Strong has won 90 gold medals in her career. She has won 20 medals at major international events, more than any other Canadian in history. She has won two major international championships. No other Canadian woman has won a major event.

I salute Lori Strong, the Canadian junior female athlete of the year. I compliment her on her achievements to date and wish her every success as she prepares for the 1988 Olympics.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr. Swart: I would like to address my comments to the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and just say that after many years of saying no, the Niagara District Health Council has now recommended an additional 75 chronic care beds for the Welland County General Hospital. As the minister must know, the overcrowding there has been extremely severe, much more than the average in Ontario.

Given that need and given the fact that the Welland hospital costs per patient are the lowest in the province for its category, as I am sure she is also aware, I would urge the Minister of Health to give favourable consideration to that request for 75 additional beds.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK AND FISCAL REVIEW

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am tabling today the second annual Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review. It is prepared by the staff of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics as part of our continuing efforts to improve the prebudget discussion and consultation process.

This document is designed to inform all members and to assist the standing committee on finance and economic affairs in its deliberations. It details Ontario’s fiscal performance to date and also contains a forecast for the province’s 1988 economic performance and a review of medium-term prospects from 1989 to 1991.

In 1988, Ontario is expected to enter its sixth consecutive year of economic expansion. In addition, job creation, which totalled roughly 300,000 over the past two years, will continue with another 105,000 jobs forecast for next year.

As members are aware, in the coming year the federal government will be bringing in legislation on tax reform. While it is not possible at this time to give a detailed accounting of the effects of reform, Treasury economists have provided a general overview of the anticipated impact.

In the light of Ontario’s economic ties with the United States, the Economic Outlook and Fiscal Review also provides an alternative scenario for Ontario should the United States enter an economic downturn.

I emphasize to members and others who study this document that the medium-term projections of economic performances made by Treasury staff are not targets. They are forecasts derived from reasonable assumptions about our economic environment.

I trust the information contained in the review will contribute to a better understanding of the context in which budget decisions are made. In the coming weeks, I hope members of the Legislature and the general public will take the opportunity to provide the standing committee with their views on the budget priorities for the province.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING

Hon. Mr. Riddell: In today’s highly competitive agriculture and food marketplace, it is a matter of necessity to establish efficient and effective administration and regulations concerning the marketing of Ontario’s farm products.

In 1985, my ministry conducted an internal review of the existing structure of’ the Farm Products Marketing Board and the Milk Commission of Ontario. One of the key recommendations of the review was to amend the existing legislation and to provide for one supervisory body to administer both acts.

As a result of extensive consultation with the relevant commodity marketing boards and processors’ associations and with their support, I am tabling legislation today to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act, the Milk Act and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act.

As recently as last week, my ministry and I met with representatives of all the marketing boards to finalize details. The amendment involves revoking the sections providing for the constitution and structure of the two bodies to administer their respective acts and amending the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act to provide for one supervisory body to administer both the Milk and the Farm Products Marketing Acts.

The new- body is to be known as the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission.

In addition. the amendments will include provisions which will allow for terms, conditions and penalties to be applied towards licences, to increase the levels of fines for both processors and producers contravening the act and to allow the appointment of a director to carry out the licensing responsibilities of the act.

The Ontario Vegetable Growers’ Marketing Board has asked that we make these changes and have them in place for the next growing season. I urge the speedy passage of this bill to ensure a fair and equitable business environment for Ontario’s food producers and processors and the continuing market success of Ontario’s agriculture and food industry.

RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK AND FISCAL REVIEW

Mr. Laughren: I would like to respond to the statement of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). We are pleased the statement was tabled before we adjourned, at least.

The Treasurer in his third paragraph states, “In 1988, Ontario is expected to enter its sixth consecutive year of economic expansion.” While those of us on this side take some satisfaction, as does the Treasurer, in the fact the economy in Ontario is expanding, and we do not think for a moment that the Treasurer nor we, for that matter, should dwell on the problems of the other Ontario, we wish that the Treasurer would at least acknowledge there are large sectors of Ontario that are having enormous difficulties, and this government seems to be prepared to do virtually nothing about it.

As a matter of fact, since this government took power a couple of years ago, the number of people on welfare has gone up by over 5,000 cases, and when they hear taunts from this side that it is 44 years of Tory rule now, they know now why it comes from this side.

The use of food banks in the province is an obscenity in a prosperous community such as Toronto. For example, this year the Daily Bread Food Bank will hand out 4.2 million pounds of food. We think that is simply ridiculous. Unemployment in certain parts of Ontario is not what it is in Toronto. Ontario is not Toronto, and there are regions in this province that are suffering, including virtually all of northern Ontario.

1350

The housing situation is terrible and, according to this statement the minister tabled today, it is going to get worse in terms of housing starts. There are 10,000 homeless people in Metropolitan Toronto and 20,000 across Ontario. It is extremely difficult for me even to picture or conceive the idea of 20,000 homeless people in a province as prosperous as Ontario.

The waiting list for assisted housing has never been higher than it is now in the province, and house prices in the last two years have gone up approximately 50 per cent in Ontario.

We know the minimum wage in Ontario is such that it is not even keeping up with the rate of inflation. The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) has admitted that it makes more sense for people on welfare to stay there, rather than work at the minimum wage.

We just wish on this side that from time to time the Treasurer and other ministers would acknowledge that there is another Ontario and attempt to do something serious about it.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to endorse very strongly the comments made by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and simply ask the House to focus for a moment on the statements that are contained in the report with respect to housing on pages 10 and 11.

The report notes that housing starts will be down by some 24,000 units this year. It notes that there has been an extraordinary rise in the cost of housing in the last two years. It notes that the cost of housing has increased by 25 per cent in 1986 and 24 per cent over only the first three quarters of 1987. It notes that housing affordability has deteriorated and will dampen demand. It notes that carrying costs, as a percentage of gross family income, have risen substantially, from 20.6 per cent in 1985 to an estimated 25.9 per cent in 1987.

Finally, it notes that there has been a steep rise in down payments, which has contributed to a deterioration in housing affordability, to use the words of the report. It says, “Assuming a standard down payment of 25 per cent, the minimum outlay for purchasing a home in Ontario has risen from 51.6 per cent of average family income in 1985 to an estimated” -- and, I might add, a whopping -- “69.7 per cent in 1987.”

What is contained in this report with respect to housing is damning information indeed. I am delighted the Treasurer has provided us with this information. We could only wish, however, that it was accompanied by a policy with respect to housing that would deal with the crisis of affordability, the crisis of access and the crisis of poverty that my colleague the member for Nickel Belt has referred to so eloquently today.

It is all very well to present us with these projections, but unless the government is prepared to accompany these projections, particularly in the housing field, with policies that are going to deal with the crisis of affordability and the crisis of homelessness that now plague this province, then all I can say is that we have a long way to go before we finally find some decent justice in this province with respect to the issue of housing.

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING

Mr. Villeneuve: In reply to the announcement of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) today that he will be opening up the Farm Products Marketing Act, the Milk Act and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act, I have been in contact with the Ontario Milk Marketing Board quite recently and we must ensure that the ripple effect of opening up these acts does not adversely affect the producers here in Ontario.

We must, for instance, be very careful that we do not wind up allowing for dairy products to be blended with other products and some of those things that are of very great concern to the dairy industry.

However, I am always disappointed that we look at agriculture as somehow something that is not that important here in Ontario. Heaven knows, agriculture is going through some very difficult times. In the Toronto Star, as recently as yesterday, in an article, Fighting for Their Farms, two ladies from the riding I represent, Dianne Harkin and Dorothy Middleton, were telling the world just how difficult things are out on the farm.

Since 1985, the present government has presided over a reduction of one third in the price received for grains by Ontario’s farmers. A reduction of one third is a real shame. Prices for grain now are what they were in 1967, and yet the input costs are at 1987 levels.

I am always amazed that the minister gets up in this House and tells us how great he has done. He does not talk about the reduction of one third in gross income that has occurred on our Ontario farms. Somehow or other he avoids that. The facts are right in this 1986 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food publication. The facts are there on page 53. It is a 33 per cent reduction in field crops. Grain producers have suffered even more. Yes, we must open up these acts. We must look after them.

What must be addressed is the income our farmers are not receiving. For instance, fuel ethanol would greatly increase the farm-gate value of our coarse grains here in Ontario. We must look at these things. It is a home-grown solution to a pollution problem. The Minister of Agriculture and Food must address the income problems faced by Ontario’s agriculture

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK AND FISCAL REVIEW

Mr. Cousens: The economic outlook is good for some, but it is bleak and very bad for others. When you talk about a crisis, it is a crisis in credibility when you are faced with a government that has made a promise that it is going to build 102,000 affordable rental units by 1989, to begin to address the needs of those who need housing, when in fact you are seeing all the statistics as now released in the Economic Outlook showing that it is going bad. It is going bad for the poor people and it is going bad for the lower-middle class. They are not able to survive. They are not able to live in a home of their own. They are not even able to rent in downtown Metro areas without some more support from this government. Average resale housing prices in Ontario are increasing. Housing affordability has deteriorated and will dampen demand.

We have a need in this province for honesty and integrity from this government, a need to come up with some answers and solutions. The Liberals came out during the election campaign with a promise to build 102,000 units. There has been no announcement from the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek). There has been no announcement by this government. This government has failed. It has not come forward with an answer. As part of those people who are looking for an answer, we have not seen it coming. It is time for something to happen. Those people are caught in the downturn. It is not all good for everybody. There are some who do not have a solution, and this government is not providing it to them.

Housing affordability has deteriorated and will dampen demand. The demand increases for those at the low end of the scale. Yet nothing has been coming from Ms. Hošek. Nothing has been coming from David Peterson. Nothing has been coming from Robert Nixon. These people have been given a responsibility. They have given the promise, and now they are failing to fulfil that promise.

We are increasingly concerned. Something must be done. There is still time to do it. The government has 25 months to come up with an answer, and we are not just going to sit back and watch nothing happen. We want to see something happen. As soon as there is something positive to say, we will tell the government. In the meantime, we are waiting for that answer Do something, will you?

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if I could remind all members that when they are referring to another member in this House, they should refer to that member by riding or by ministry.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether he agrees with the Supreme Court of Canada that systemic discrimination requires systemic remedies.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: One of the key moves that we think should be made in the human rights commission is its ability to deal with the issue of systemic discrimination. Therefore, we would be moving on that area.

Mr. B. Rae: I am interested to hear that, because the minister’s colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has been telling people that the government has no plans to bring in any legislation with respect to employment equity or affirmative action. He has said that on several occasions. He said it in the House yesterday, when he talked exclusively of pay equity as the government’s approach and said that the government had no plans to bring in any legislation with respect to affirmative action.

Is the minister telling its today that there is going to be legislation, or is he telling us that there is not going to be any legislation?

1400

Hon. Mr. Phillips: The member may be aware that this government requested a consulting firm. We asked for a consulting firm. We wanted a consulting firm to tell us how the Ontario Human Rights Commission could deal with the issue of systemic discrimination. That report was completed in the summer and we are in the process now of making some moves in the human rights commission to deal with that very issue.

On the second part of the question, we have an employment equity commitment that we made during the election. It is a commitment to introduce a program on employment equity that would start first with the public sector, move to the bodies that deal with the public sector and then move to the private sector.

So we are moving on both those fronts. One is the issue of dealing with systemic discrimination via the human rights commission. We initiated that study to deal with it. Second, as we announced during the campaign, we are moving now on the employment equity program.

Mr. B. Rae: We are aware of that report. Indeed, it would be nice if the minister would table that report and make it public so that members could see what recommendations these consultants that all of us have paid for have made and which of the various choices the consultants have put to the government -- and I am sure they have put a series of choices in terms of policy -- have been selected by the government.

By way of final supplementary, I wonder if I might ask the minister, since tomorrow, we understand, he is going to be making an announcement with respect to human rights, is it his intention to announce a firm date for the proclamation of those sections of the Human Rights Code dealing with the disabled that have yet to he proclaimed? If not, why not? Does he not realize that this question is very important to the disabled community? I wonder why the government has been so slow to respond on that issue.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: On a couple of points that were raised there, I have already said the two consultants’ reports are a matter of public record. We asked for those reports. We wanted them to guide us. They are not private matters; they are matters of public record.

The second part of this question dealt with the proclamation. This issue, I must say, is probably my most important issue within the ministry. We are at this point spending a good deal of time to make absolutely certain that the basis on which we proclaim those regulations is right for the disabled community. We are seeking consultation with the disabled community and we are moving on it as quickly as possible. We will not announce a date for that tomorrow, other than to say we will move as quickly as we can. We are putting many resources behind it and we are committed to that in the very near future.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. The minister was waxing --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Eloquent?

Mr. B. Rae: No, I was going to say “thinking out loud.” I think he was just waxing. He was waxing arrogant, I think.

The question I have for the minister has to do with workers’ compensation pensions. He did not say anything in the House with respect to workers’ compensation pensions, but he did in response to some comments made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and he did have some things to say about plans the government has for changing the pension system.

When the minister says it is his intention to abolish the meat chart, I wonder if he can tell us when he plans to do this and precisely what he plans to replace it with.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: It may be a subject of debate as to whether or not I was waxing eloquent or waxing anything else. It is interesting, though, that after my comments to the Employers’ Council on Workers’ Compensation, we had a question-and-answer period. One of the members of the audience stood up and said, “For God’s sake, you are sounding far too much like Bob Rae.” I knew at that time that my remarks must have been far from eloquent, misinterpreted or something or other.

Mr. Speaker: May we have a response to the question.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have never been so complimented in all my life. I really enjoyed the comment.

In answer to the question of the Leader of the Opposition, what I said yesterday was that within the ministry we are simply at this point considering alternatives to the current system of providing compensation to those who have suffered permanent partial disability; that is, the loss of a limb or some other disability that does not permanently disable someone so that he or she cannot return to the workplace, someone who suffers a permanent partial disability.

The system has been reviewed extensively. The Leader of the Opposition knows that Paul Weiler, among his many studies done on the workers’ compensation system in Ontario, has done a rather exhaustive study on permanent partial disability. I cannot tell the member now that the recommendations Weiler makes and the options he presents are going to be the ones the government is going to adopt, but certainly we will be working along those lines.

Mr. B. Rae: Along what lines? The only person to benefit from Professor Weiler’s report so far is Professor Weiler. Surely we are entitled to ask, since it was on October 1, 1985, that Robert Elgie, who is now and was then the chairman of the board, said, and I am quoting, ‘‘It is our expectation that the new permanent disability rating schedule will go beyond clinical disability per se and take into account pain and suffering and the loss of enjoyment of life.’’

When the minister talks about abolishing the meat chart for permanent partial pensions, it is very important he be clear, because there are many injured people who listen and who read the papers and hear what he says and who want to know what he means and when he is going to do it. I would like to know what he means. Does he mean he is going to create a different way of assessing permanent pensions, but still make sure that pensions are permanent; or is it his plan to adopt Professor Weiler’s approach, which is to make everything comparable to what your wages could be, and which really means you never will have a secure knowledge of what your pension is going to be?

Is it the minister’s intention to move to a Weiler welfare type of scheme or is he determined to maintain permanent pensions as a feature of the workers’ compensation system?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Those are very substantial questions. I acknowledge to my friend that, as he knows, these are very substantial questions. If we had clear and precise answers today, we would be making an announcement today about the direction we are going to take. What I can tell my friend is that we are examining a number of different options, based on a number of different analyses, including the work Paul Weiler did. If my friend wants a very specific answer right now, I can only tell him I am sorry, the work has not been completed and it would be inappropriate for me to indicate at this time the specific direction we are going to take.

Mr. B. Rae: I have said the minister was a thinking out loud. I think I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, something the Workers’ Compensation Board does not do very often any more. Can the minister confirm that since he has become minister, the only change that has taken place with respect to workers’ compensation pensions has been the decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board to cut back on those supplements that were paid and have been paid to workers who are on permanent partial disability pension? That is the only feature of his ministry and of his administration so far. Can he confirm that?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The decisions the Workers’ Compensation Board has taken since September 29, 1987, are a matter of public record. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to go through them one by one, I would be willing to undertake that exercise.

In respect of my comments yesterday, it was not a matter of thinking out loud. Indeed, in my remarks I did not even refer to the meat chart or anything else like that. What I said to the group of employers who were gathered for that meeting and for that conference was that the government is undertaking a number of exercises. The most pressing one in my view -- referred to in the throne speech, referred to yesterday and I will refer to again today -- is the fact that the issue of a new form of compensation for those who suffer permanent partial disability is the first order of business, as far as I am concerned as Minister of Labour.

1410

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Premier. I want to bring to the attention of the Premier a rather disturbing trend that is occurring in the Ontario economy with respect to layoffs, many of which are permanent. Back in 1983, the number of layoffs in this province averaged about 5,500 for the year, and that continued on through to about the first year his government took of office. In 1986, those layoffs increased to over 7,000. They now, for the first nine months of this year, are in the range of 8,500, and the trend appears to be such that we will probably have something in the order of 10,000 layoffs in Ontario when this year has been concluded.

As the Premier is aware, two out of every five jobs in Ontario are directly dependent upon export and our international trade. Since the Premier has taken opposition to the free trade agreement that is being entered into between Canada and the United States, and since, as well, he is not overly enamoured with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade arrangement as it relates to a dispute settlement mechanism, could he tell us now what alternative he has for the need to continue the growth in the Ontario economy to secure the jobs which now appear to be at risk as a result of layoffs? What does the Premier intend to do?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The quick answer is, to continue to provide the quality leadership that this government has provided in the last two years.

My honourable friend was having some difficulty in asking that question, and I understand that. Perhaps it was written by the Prime Minister, with whom he met the other night when he was briefed on the details of the trade agreement. I am sure he put that question to the Prime Minister in his private meeting the other night He asked, “Prime Minister, what are you going to do for the layoffs that are going to be caused n this province as a direct result of your trade initiative with the United States?’’ I would be very interested if my friend’s supplementary would tell us what the Prime Minister has in mind in that particular regard.

I want to tell my honourable friend -- and I could take as much time as the Speaker will allow me -- that some 300,000 jobs have been created and that we have the lowest unemployment rate in the entire country at this point in this province. I am worried about layoffs that would be caused as a direct result of the free trade agreement and I believe it will accelerate that.

My honourable friend cannot have it both ways. I think he is using some of the same economics his federal cousin is using, and they are wrong; both of them are wrong. I say that as kindly and as respectfully as I can.

I believe the trade agreement is not the solution to the economic problems in this country. We put forward at the first ministers’ conference, in a very constructive way, things we believe in this province are important in terms of science, technology, training and a variety of other things that will go to the root of our competitiveness in this country.

Mr. Jackson: What did you spend on your technology fund? Was it $100,000?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps you might wait for the supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: I am looking forward to the response from the Premier to the supplementary. Perhaps the Prime Minister had a discussion with me on the question of the trade agreement because he wanted to speak to someone from Ontario who had not made up his mind on the negative aspects of the deal before he even saw the deal. That is the difference.

The Premier recognizes full well that Ontario is dependent on its trade with the United States to the extent of 90 per cent of all our trade activities. Yet he can sit there in his place and suggest that this trade agreement is the wrong one, when he knows full well, with the omnibus bill that is before the Congress, with protectionist measures that are currently in existence in the US, that the status quo is not an option that is before us.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: The Premier is going to have to choose between during something or supporting --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend accuses me of disapproving of the deal before I have seen it. My honourable friend campaigned on a platform approving of the deal before he saw it: now he tells us he has changed his mind. I have no idea where his party stands on the matter, but we do know, on the basis of the preliminary agreement, it is not in the interest, we believe, of this province or of this country. We have put forward very constructive ways, things that will address the competitive problems in this country.

My honourable friend raises the spectre of the omnibus trade bill in the US. Does he realize that this deal will not protect Canada from the results of the omnibus trade bill? Does he realize that future trade remedy legislation after January 1, 1988, in the US can still affect Canada if it is mentioned in that particular legislation?

I say to my friend as kindly as I can, and I am not sure if the Prime Minister told him this the other night, that the so-called secure access he sought in negotiating this trade deal has not been achieved. I invite my honourable friend to look at the details, because I suspect that after he studies the deal he will stand up and agree with the thoughtful members of this House who have rejected that deal as not in the national interest.

Mr Brandt: Let me just say to the Premier of Ontario that his position is a minority position as it relates to the premiers of Canada. More premiers agree with this deal than are in opposition to the deal, and he knows that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: Can the Premier --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not mind waiting.

Final supplementary, I hope.

Mr. Brandt: I have always recognized the absolute neutrality of the chair, so I will not comment on that last remark.

Let me say to the Premier, however, by way of my final supplementary on this subject for this afternoon --

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Keep going.

Mr. Brandt: I am. I want an opportunity to debate this issue anywhere, any time with the member, because we have a Premier in this province who recognizes that 90 per cent of our trade is dependent on our activities with the US. He has a deal that he does not like and he has absolutely no options, no alternatives, no other suggestions to put forward as to what we can do to continue on, keeping that level of trade with our American trading partners.

I ask the Premier again: in the light of layoffs that have occurred in this province and in the light of the possible future occurrences that will take place with respect to additional layoffs if we get protectionism in the US, which has been suggested --

Mr. Speaker: Your question is coming, is it?

Mr. Brandt: -- will the Premier indicate to this House very simply what his alternative to a free trade deal is?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My honourable friend accuses me of being in a minority among the premiers on the question of trade and, indeed, he is right. Surely my honourable friend would understand in very personal ways the problems of being in a minority. It requires courage, and one would know and one would have to carry on with the things that one believes are important.

I remind my honourable friend that this province stood alone on the question of softwood lumber, and he would have encouraged me to stand up and capitulate. I say to my honourable friend that it was his federal cousins who negotiated probably the silliest deal in the history of our trading relationship on softwood lumber, now ensconced on a government-to-government basis for ever, it appears. That is the quality of the negotiation.

My honourable friend may have faith in the negotiating power in Ottawa; I do not. I say to him that the deal we have is worse than no deal. We were doing very well, with a trade surplus running in the $20-billion range. I think history will say it was probably one of the worst times ever, from a strategic point of view, to enter into these negotiations.

In my view, and I will put it as mildly as I can, we have been taken to the cleaners as a country by negotiators who had a political imperative to make the deal, to shore up their flagging political popularity. I say to my honourable friend, who has the same kind of problems today that his federal leader does, cut bait before you sink with --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

1420

CHILD CARE

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

I would just like to say to the minister as I put this question that it is interesting how the federal government negotiates at times in such a way as to win the approval of the government opposite. As an example, there are occasions when the government negotiates deals like Meech Lake that the minister’s Premier (Mr. Peterson) finds to be of acceptance to this government.

There are times, as an example, when the government negotiates a deal with the provinces on day care services which, as I understand it, has also met with the approval of his government. With respect to a child care program that was announced on Monday, December 7, my understanding is that the minister intends to forward the funding to nonprofit day care services as of January 1, 1988, and that it is his further intention to provide the commercial day care sector with funding as of April 1, 1988, fully three months after he will provide the funding to the nonprofit centres. Why the delay of those three months to the commercial sector?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am sure my colleague will recall the document this government tabled last June. If he has not had a chance to review it, I would suggest he read it very carefully. It says that funding for nonprofit direct grants would proceed this fiscal year. Therefore, they will begin on January 1, 1988, which is part of this fiscal year.

It says in the very next paragraph I believe, or fairly close to that, that funding in terms of direct grants for commercial centres would begin when, and only when, we had an agreement from the federal government that we would be able to use the cost-sharing arrangements for that purpose. We do not have that arrangement now. It will not begin until April 1. At the very first opportunity when I am able to do so, as I have said I would, I will do so.

Mrs. Marland: I listened very carefully to the answer by the Minister of Community and Social Services. I am wondering if he really does realize the ramifications of the decision to allow the three-month delay. What is going to happen, quite frankly, is that people who are now employed in the public sector are going to be encouraging private sector staff to go and work for them, and obviously at higher salaries. They are going to be in a position to raise those salaries.

In a market where there is a shortage of qualified child care workers, and we know this already exists, the minister has made it possible for the nonprofit sector to entice these qualified child care workers out of the private sector jobs. For every one worker who is enticed into the nonprofit sector, eight children will be deprived of quality child care. Does the minister not realize the adverse affects this three-month delay will have 50 per cent of the child care places in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would find it very difficult to believe that somebody would change their job for a three-month period. I have no way of knowing that, but I would find that very difficult to believe. I would put to my honourable colleague that the alternative I have is to have everyone in the province wait for those three months. That does not seem fair to me.

If I now have an agreement I can move forward on, it seems to me I should move as quickly and as expeditiously as I possibly can, where I can. That just seems to be the most reasonable solution, given the alternatives available. I personally would find it difficult to defend not flowing the money where I am able to now, and then flowing it for the commercial sectors when I am able to.

I think I am being very fair. I just do not believe people are going to change their positions for three months. I would suggest to my colleague that for a very long time this minister stood almost alone in determining that those funds would flow the way they are going to flow. There was a strong body of opinion and there continues to be a strong body of opinion that funds to the commercial sector should not flow at all, at any time. I have resisted that.

Mr. Brandt: Those guys over here are the ones saying that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mrs. Marland: I would like to point out to the House that the federal child care plan allows the provinces to provide operating funds to existing and future commercial child care centres. The announcement this minister made in the House on Monday stated that future commercial child care centres would not receive operating funds. From that announcement, we can see that the minister is warping the federal guidelines to suit his own political purposes. This is exactly what this party has been fearing for some months now. The Meech Lake accord, as it stands, allows the minister to tamper with federal social programs. Will the minister appear before the select committee on constitutional reform to explain the effects the accord will have on social programs in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I detected two questions there and I will try to respond to them. Number one, I have made no secret whatsoever on behalf of my government that we are prepared to support those commercial centres that are in place now. I believe I said clearly -- and I stand to be challenged -- that regardless of what the federal government did, the new growth, the new initiatives would apply to nonprofit centres only. That was a philosophical, an ideological, a political decision made by this government. The member may or may not agree with it. That is our decision. What we asked Ottawa to do for us was to enable us to carry out that decision. They knew what it was. They have given us the support to do it.

With respect to the accord, the federal minister said clearly to every single provincial minister in this country that the Meech Lake accord does not -- underline “does not” -- apply to this agreement.

ENERGY FROM WASTE

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Energy and I am hoping to get a clear and precise answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am waiting for the clear and precise question.

Mrs. Grier: The clear and precise question relates to a speech the minister gave last week about energy-from-waste projects. The minister told the Canadian Institute of Energy that energy-from-waste projects were just too good a deal to pass up, but of course he went on to say he had no intention of solving one pollution problem by creating another.

I would like to ask the minister about a project that is presently being reviewed by an environmental assessment board in Brampton. The proponent is Petro-Sun, looking for an energy-from-waste project. It is being assessed on the basis of the existing air pollution regulation 308. Yet just last week the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) told the House this regulation “is outdated and provides inadequate protection for the people and the environment of Ontario.”

I would like to ask the Minister of Energy how he can reconcile his enthusiasm for energy-from-waste projects with his concern for the environment in the light of the Minister of the Environment’s acknowledgement that there are no effective air pollution regulations in this province?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The reconciliation is clear in my mind, in that from an energy standpoint we realize that of the many options this government and the people of the province have with respect to generating energy, energy from waste is one of those options. However, the environmental concerns are a part of this integrated world that we live and work in. That is one of the concerns that has to be met before we would fully endorse such a project, so much of the answer would come from my colleague and the regulations and standards that are set by his ministry.

1430

Mrs. Grier: Can I take it from the minister’s answer that he agrees with the Minister of the Environment that air pollution regulation 308 is outdated? If so, will the minister guarantee that his ministry will not fund or support any energy-from-waste projects until there is an effective air pollution regulation in place in the province?

Hon. Mr. Wong: I would definitely agree with my colleague the Minister of the Environment. I think the operative word that the member used is “effective,” and as practical people in both the energy and environmental fields, if we can find effective standards I think then we could proceed.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

Mr. Runciman: I would like to take a chance and ask the Premier another question.

Mr. Breaugh: Remember you believe in human rights. Be careful.

Mr. Runciman: That is right, yes.

I would like to ask the Premier about the recent appointments to the Social Assistance Review Board, and I hope in his answer he will not try to introduce red herrings the way he did in his answer last week.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) told the House that no patronage would be involved in that process, meaning the selection of board appointees, and that the appointments were based totally on merit. Yet at least four of the 12 recent appointments, which according to the chairman, Joanne Campbell, the Premier personally approved, are known and very active Liberals.

Will the Premier finally acknowledge that partisanship played a major role in these appointments, and can he give the House an assurance that he will restrain himself from engaging in this kind of blatant patronage in the future?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not agree with my honourable friend’s assessment at all. I think my honourable colleague the minister has dealt with this question that the member has asked several times now. It went through a completely objective assessment by Miss Campbell and a variety of other people. Recommendations came forward and they were approved by the cabinet, as all order-in-council appointments are. They were not altered at cabinet; they were the recommendations of the dispassionate board, and I am very comfortable with them.

Mr. Runciman: The Premier’s attitude on patronage reminds me of three monkeys -- see no patronage, hear no patronage, speak no patronage and, therefore, there is no patronage -- but the truth is the minister’s special assistant attended all final interviews. She had no legitimate right to be there and there is no way the Premier can reconcile that fact with his comments or his minister’s comments.

The Ontario standing committee on the Legislative Assembly has recommended that all order-in-council appointments be subject to public scrutiny by a legislative committee, as is already done at the federal level. Is the Premier prepared --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Had you completed your supplementary?

Mr. Runciman: They did not give me a chance.

Mr. Speaker: I was just asking.

An hon. member: They would rather not hear it.

Mr. Runciman: I just remind the members opposite of that old saying about glass houses. They had better clean up their own act first before they start laughing.

Is the Premier prepared to let the light of day shine on all his appointments and immediately adopt this procedure in Ontario, as recommended by a committee of this House?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I appreciate the point that the honourable member makes. I think he probably ruins his own credibility when he invokes the model of the federal government in order to assist us in this matter. I am not sure whether my friends opposite had a hand in appointments like Fednor and that kind of thing, but I think they will see that our process is very much different from that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) smiles about that particular one. I cannot help him on that.

I ask my honourable friend to look at the different appointments that have been made by this government. I stand very proud of those appointments. I ask him to compare it to any other government or to any other record in this province, any one he might know personally.

I say to my honourable friend that we have made unbelievable progress in reflecting the real face of Ontario in our boards, agencies and commissions. We have appointed on the basis of merit. We have appointed them for political activity from all parties. I say to my friend who continues to root around on this particular question that I think his prodigious energy is misdirected in this case. I stand by the record of this government in terms of appointments. I think it is one that is second to none in our system.

PROPERTY TAXES

Mr. Polsinelli: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. The minister will know that Metro council yesterday showed once again the need for direct election by abdicating its responsibility in deciding that the best way to deal with the issue of property tax reform is to do nothing. As a result of Metro council’s failure to act, will the minister inform this House whether this government is prepared to act?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I think Metro had an opportunity last night to put the tax reform issue to bed and it chose otherwise. They would like to come back to council with another solution in March. I will wait until a final solution is found by Metro council.

Mr. Polsinelli: The minister will know that the provincial government in 1969 froze assessments in this province and promised there would be property tax reform. Eighteen years later, the overburdened property taxpayers in my riding, many of them seniors, are still being asked to subsidize much wealthier land owners, many of them in the west end of North York and many of them in the city of Toronto. When can we expect some leadership on this issue?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I realize that back in 1969 we took back reassessment from municipal governments and we expected municipalities to make a decision on tax reform. I am very proud to say that 76 per cent of all our municipalities in Ontario are now under section 63 or section 70. I will remind the member that Metro has a responsibility. It is their responsibility at the present time and I will await their final decision in March.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister has commented a number of times over the course of the last couple of months about his interest in finding mechanisms to make Ontario Hydro more publicly accountable.

I raised with him last week the 17 recommendations of the select committee that were tabled in July 1986, all of which dealt with Hydro’s accountability to the government, the Legislature and the public of this province, and with mechanisms to control Ontario Hydro. Recommendation 17 from the committee report says, “The Ontario Energy Board should conduct a public review of the results of Ontario Hydro’s demand and supply options study.”

First of all, has the minister made himself familiar with these recommendations and this specific one? Is he prepared to tell the House this afternoon that he will allow a public review of the demand-supply options study from Ontario Hydro, when it is ready, by the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon. Mr. Wong: The answer is yes, when the demand-supply options study is made available. We have examined five or six alternative vehicles through which this three-year study could be reviewed to provide proper input on the part of the public as well as government members.

1440

Mr. Charlton: I take it that the yes was for the Ontario Energy Board, but I am not quite sure whether it was for the Ontario Energy Board or one of the five options. However, there were, as I suggested, a number of other recommendations in the select committee report which dealt with various aspects of Hydro’s future direction.

Recommendation 2 suggested: “In view of the established” – I emphasize the word “established” because the committee used that word for a particular reason -- “potential of other supply options and the apparent potential for pursuing demand management initiatives, no further commitment should be made for additional nuclear power stations at this time.”

Will the minister assure this House that his government will not approve any further nuclear development in Ontario until the demand-supply options study has had a thorough public review?

Hon. Mr. Wong: First of all, the yes was with respect to one of the many alternatives, and we are in the process of selecting the best one.

With respect to the second question, we have to look at the long-range supply and demand picture first. I do hear the concerns on the part of people with respect to environmental matters and with respect to the nuclear option, so we will consider all the other alternatives first. When the time comes when we have to make the important decisions, we will consider all of the factors.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I presume she can listen on her way back.

Nurses employed by the Sudbury and District Health Unit have been on strike since October 27. The president of the Ontario Nurses’ Association wrote to the Minister of Health on November 2, I 987, asking her to invoke subsection 82(1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act. This section allows the minister to direct the chief medical officer of health to ensure the provision of a health service or program if the board of health is not providing that particular service or program. The nurses’ association outlined several important services and programs that are not being provided. The minister has not yet responded to its letter. Will the minister invoke subsection 82(1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me say very clearly to my critic from the third party that this is a local labour issue, that I prefer and expect the local employer will exercise its responsibilities in resolving the situation as soon as possible and that the ministry is monitoring that situation closely.

Mr. Eves: All the minister has done just now, obviously, is to read an answer out of the appropriate page in her briefing book, which she was furiously trying to find while I was reading the question. Furthermore, she did not answer the question I asked.

Interjections.

Mr. Eves: I will challenge her reading abilities --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps all honourable members would allow the member for Parry Sound to ask a supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am just going to wait. Supplementary.

Mr. Eves: The Sudbury Star outlines two cases. One is the case of Mr. Dumont, who has cataracts and some serious breathing problems. He has been in hospital for two months when he should have been discharged, and he has not been discharged because the local health unit cannot provide the service. There is also the case of Mr. Brunelle, who has Alzheimer’s disease, who previously was receiving home care. He is now in hospital. He cannot get out.

Those are just two examples of many cases. They are occupying beds that should not be used for elective surgery and should be used for emergency patients in the Sudbury area. The minister talks about the responsibility of the local health unit. When is this minister going to exercise her responsibility to invoke subsection 82(1) of the act for the people in the district of Sudbury?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: One of the things my critic has mentioned is that, in fact, services are being provided by the local hospitals and in emergency situations. The ministry is monitoring this, and it is my preference and my expectation that the local authorities will assume their responsibility and resolve this issue in a locally acceptable manner.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. McGuigan: I have an urgent question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Farmers at this time of the year --

Interjections.

Mr. McGuigan: I know the members do not care about farmers.

Farmers at this time of year are lining up their credit needs, and increasingly they are finding that bankers will not take into consideration the stabilization and deficiency payments coming from both provincial and federal governments. These payments make up about 15 per cent to 20 per cent of their gross income. Would the minister take this up with the federal Minister of Agriculture, who hopefully would then approach the Minister of Finance and the bankers to see if they cannot correct this situation?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I believe the concerns the honourable member has expressed were taken out of an article in Agriweek. Coincidentally, I happen to have a copy of that article. It states, “Some banks and other lenders are not currently considering government deficiency and stabilization payments in farmers’ income for establishing loan repayment capacity.”

I am certainly not aware that the bankers have that concern. They certainly have not expressed that concern to me. As is my custom, I will be meeting with the executive members of all the banks in the new year and I will be endeavouring to ascertain exactly what their agricultural portfolio will be for the next year or two.

I do find such behaviour somewhat contradictory, because some of these same lenders have requested that we send stabilization payments and crop insurance payments directly to them so they will not miss out on this farm income. So there is a little contradiction in what the lenders are supposedly-

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. McGuigan: I have been taking my information from my constituents. I have a number of farmers who are complaining about this practice, so I wish the minister would take it up, as he said, with the federal people, but also, when he meets with the bankers himself, put this to them and let us try to remove this impediment to farm financing.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We have been trying to make headway with our federal counterpart for some period of time, but for some reason they turn a deaf ear to the concerns of the agriculture and food industry, not only in this province but in this country.

I have asked the federal minister to change the role of the Farm Credit Corp. so there will be more credit made available to the farmers to fill in the void the banks are leaving, but to this time the federal minister has refused to change the role of the Farm Credit Corp.

Yes, I can assure the honourable member I will be pursuing this matter with my federal counterpart. One of these fine times maybe he will do something for the betterment of the agriculture and food industry of this country and this province.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Last year, her ministry donated $3.5 million to the firm of Huang and Danczkay under the convert-to-rent program, supposedly to provide affordable market rental units. These units are now on the market at in excess of $1,000 a month. This surely cannot be what she meant by affordable rental accommodation. Is the minister going to try to get her $3.5 million back from this firm?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The project the honourable member refers to was a convert-to-rent project which was going to produce and has produced 502 housing units. The convert-to-rent program is meant to increase the supply of rental housing. Of those units, 126 or fully one quarter of those units are set aside for rent-geared-to-income, and those are indeed affordable housing units which will be there for everyone who needs help through a rental supplement to pay their rent.

1450

Mr. Breaugh: I have never heard a ripoff described in quite such polite language before.

While the minister is mentioning the 25 per cent of rent-geared-to-income units that are in this building, I should mention this is a very ingenious group of folks. They have decided it is going to cost $185 a month to park in there. How do the rent-geared-to-income folks get in the building when it becomes mandatory to pay $185 a month for a parking space? It seems to me they are going to have a little problem getting to their subsidized units.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I agree with the member opposite. The amount of money that was requested for the parking was not appropriate for the rent-geared-to-income people. For that reason, I have discussed this matter with the people at Huang and Danczkay and I can assure the member that the cost of parking will not stand in the way of affordability. An arrangement has been made that will make sure that will not stand in the way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait a moment.

TRANSMISSION LINES

Mr. Sterling: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Energy some questions in relation to the decision by the cabinet to turn down the appeal by the residents with regard to a corridor going through a very highly urbanized area of the city of Kanata.

I want to draw his attention to the consolidated hearings board decision dealing with the southwestern Ontario main power lines from Bruce to Barrie, Bruce to Nanticoke and Bruce to London. On page 15 of that report, recommendation 22, it says, “A property owner whose residence is within 75 metres of the edge of a right of way for either a 500-kilovolt or 230-kilovolt transmission line shall have the option of having either the said residence relocated at the expense of the proponent” -- which is Ontario Hydro – “or having the entire property purchased by it.”

Will the minister give the same opportunity to the residents of Kanata in eastern Ontario that all of the people along the southwestern route were given?

Hon. Mr. Wong: That is a very good question the honourable member has asked. I think the important thing is that we be fair in this whole process. The joint board reviewed all of the information, as I indicated yesterday. This was an independent board decision and it made its decision with respect to the route and with respect to the mitigation measures. That is what it decided; that is what it wanted to deal with. For whatever reasons it considered, this was not a part of its decision.

Mr. Sterling: In the southwestern Ontario decision, we are dealing not with a couple of residences or a couple of farm houses; we are dealing with thousands and thousands of proper-ties. With regard to the Kanata situation, we are talking about 80 houses of people who are concerned about the installation of twin 500-kilovolt towers. Why should the people of eastern Ontario be treated any differently from the people of southwestern Ontario, in spite of whoever decided it? Ontario Hydro must be seen to be consistent in what it does and how it deals with the people of Ontario. Why should the people of eastern Ontario be treated differently from the people of southwestern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wong: People should be treated fairly. I would like to point out to the honourable member, although he probably does know, that the right of way, the transmission corridor. was established in the Ottawa West area in 1971, well before any houses had been situated there. The people who have acquired and purchased houses and live there came in after that point in time.

JOHN DAVID CARNIE

Mr. Faubert: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. It has been reported that J. D. Carnie, former president of the Argosy Financial Group of Canada, has just returned not only to the business world but to the world of finance. Can the minister report to this House on exactly what financial activities Mr. Carnie has involved himself in?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Since the matter was raised publicly in the newspapers and elsewhere a few days ago, I have consulted with the officials in the Ministry of Financial Institutions. Their review of the activity of the man under consideration is that he is not undertaking activities that come under the purview of the ministry, by inspection or any other type of control.

Mr. Faubert: Can the Minister of Financial Institutions advise what steps can be taken or are being taken to protect public investors, by assuring that Mr. Carnie can no longer participate in the securities investment market now or in the future?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The person in question, I understand, is dealing in real estate. While the usual requirements of the statutes of Canada and the province apply, through the usual enforcement processes, the Ministry of Financial Institutions has no specific responsibility for what he is undertaking.

CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Premier. Last Thursday in this House, the Premier answered a question I had previously asked regarding agreements that ministries of his government may have reached with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The Premier stated at that time, “There have been negotiations concluded...They deal with police forces and others, between the ministries directly. They basically involve law enforcement and exchange of information.”

I want to focus on the Premier’s reference to “ministries directly” and to “exchange of information.” Which ministries of the government have concluded agreements with CSIS to provide CSIS with information from their files and what is the general nature of the information that is being provided?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If I may, I think the Solicitor General could give the honourable member a very full answer on this, if he does not mind.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: There is some confusion existing here in the questioner’s mind. We have to regard the role of the ministry as a ministry per se and then as the ministry which is in charge of the Ontario Provincial Police.

As a ministry per se we have no agreement with CSIS whatsoever. But CSIS has concluded agreements with the Ontario Provincial Police and with the municipal police forces of Ontario and these agreements stand completed.

Mr. Hampton: I believe at the time when the Premier answered my question he stated “ministries.” I will state my question over again. What other ministries of the government have concluded agreements with CSIS to provide it with information and what is the nature of that information? Or, what other agencies of the government are providing CSIS with information?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The only agreements that exist are between the police forces of Ontario and CSIS, and these agreements are in the nature of an exchange of information which is useful in the safety and protection of the people of Ontario.

CONTINUING EDUCATION

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education. Today there was a press conference in this building, and the final report to the minister of the Ontario Association for Continuing Education’s task force on the implications of Bill 30 on adult and continuing education was tabled. We understand the minister has had that report in his possession for two weeks.

As he knows, his predecessor initiated funding and made a promise in this Legislature on November 26, 1987. I would like to quote briefly: “For 1987, that fixed dollar amount will be $1,900. The grant is designed to cover the full cost of providing continuing education programs and will not require any taxes from local ratepayers.”

This report today confirms that the full costs for 1988 will be $3,075. When will the Minister of Education honour the promise his predecessor made? What funding will he provide? What are the 1988 dollars he will provide?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is four questions.

Hon. Mr. Ward: As the member has indicated, the ministry did fund studies, not only in conjunction with the task force on continuing education but, in addition, with the Ontario Association of Education Administration Officials and Professor Lawton at the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education to ascertain the actual cost of continuing education in Ontario.

1500

I want to assure the member that the government is strongly committed to the provision of continuing education in Ontario. We will assess those reports to the minister and we will make a determination very early in the new year as to the level of funding that will be forthcoming.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Fleet from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills, as amended:

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting York Fire & Casualty Insurance Company;

Bill Pr71, An Act respecting Conrad Grebel College.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on Bill Pr71, An Act respecting Conrad Grebel College.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Fleet: I might also draw to the attention of the House the historic occasion to be attached to this bill because it was today in committee that in respect of Pr14, which involves York Fire & Casualty Insurance Co., we witnessed the surely amazing event that the insurance company was favoured by the support of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), as he had the good humour to point out at that time.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to give notice under rule 30(a) of the standing orders of dissatisfaction with the response of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) with regard to --

Mr. Speaker: I think the member understands what the next procedure will be. We just were not quite finished with the previous item we were dealing with.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988:

Ministry administration program, $5,323,400; Treasury program, $3,691,000; budget and intergovernmental finance policy program, $4,902,200; and economic policy program, $133,720,000.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend certain Acts administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Are there explanations?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: There will be no further explanation on that bill, as I gave a statement earlier on.

AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 66, An Act respecting Agricultural and Horticultural Organizations.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The intent of this act is to combine and replace three existing acts. They are the Agricultural Societies Act, the Horticultural Societies Act and the Agricultural Associations Act. The proposed act will streamline and update legislation affecting agricultural and horticultural societies and provincially based agricultural associations.

The act will designate corporate status for organizations, define objectives for the societies and allow financial assistance programs to be maintained under the regulations. The drafting of this act was done in full consultation with the affected organizations and their provincial associations.

KINGSWAY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

Mr. Cousens moved first reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting Kingsway General Insurance Company.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Eakins moved second reading of Bill 46, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The legislation provides for three amendments to the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act. Two of the three amendments are housekeeping and, therefore, I believe they do not require extensive discussion.

The first housekeeping amendment simply removes a redundant reference to a grant rate of $47 for the per household police grant. The rate has been prescribed by regulation at $50 per household for the past three years and the removal of the reference to the lower rate will eliminate possible confusion.

The other housekeeping amendment removes a redundant reference to the matter in which the district welfare boards and homes for the aged boards share the cost of their services among the participating municipalities. As with the first amendment, the cost sharing is prescribed by regulation.

The third amendment ensures that only the more needy regional municipalities and counties receive a resource equalization grant. Under the previous system, a county or regional municipality automatically received a share of the grant if any of the constituent municipalities qualified for the grant. This allowed some counties and regions with substantial resources to receive the grant irrespective of need.

These changes will not affect the grants that are payable to any municipality, district welfare board or homes for the aged board.

Mr. Breaugh: We will oppose this bill. I was tempted, in looking over the bill, to get out all the old speeches made by the now Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) on how evil it was for a government to do this very thing; that is, to set grants to municipalities by means of regulation. The argument is a very straightforward one. That takes away all of the legislative power of this chamber. Each and every time we provide for the setting of grant levels by means of a government regulation, it really means the Legislature itself has given up on all its responsibility to oversee this grant structure.

I was tempted to read all those old, boring speeches made by the Treasurer so open and so regularly in here, but I will not do it because I have a heavy committee schedule this afternoon. I do want to put on the record some concerns I have. I think the best way to do that is simply to read the explanatory notes that accompany this bill:

“Section 1: The effect of this amendment is to make the grant per household payable to an area municipality to be prescribed only by regulation. At present, the amount payable is set out in the act but can be varied by regulation.”

I have no idea what that means, and neither does anybody else in here.

“Section 2: The amendments to section 8 of the act alter the formula for the resource equalization grant for upper-tier municipalities so that it is now based on equalized assessment per household for the whole upper-tier municipality. Currently, it is based on the grants to the lower-tier municipalities.”

I have some faint idea of what is being talked about there, but it is only faint.

1510

“Section 3. The effect of the amendments to section 9 of the act is that the equalized assessment of the lower-tier municipality will no longer be increased by an amount that would have produced the resource equalization grant.”

That is really a crapshoot at work there, and there is no other way to describe that.

“Section 4. This amendment is consequential to the changes made in section 8 of the act.”

Those explanatory notes really do explain the process, in their own wonderful way. The process is one which no one in Ontario really understands, and that includes people in municipal treasuries all across Ontario. What they do understand is that there is a kind of basic structure for grants for municipal government in Ontario. But the reality also is that there is a begging process under way and a very strong influence of the political process as well. That remains as true today as it ever was, despite the fact that when they were in opposition members of this current government were absolutely vicious in describing this exact same process done by the previous government.

I think the unfortunate fact of life is that, having now formed a government, they realize there are just a lot of political opportunities to be exploited in this field. It serves the government’s purpose to have a very complicated, almost incomprehensible process at work. It means that municipal governments will continue to have to come and beg at Queen’s Park for additional funding. It means that they will not know in advance what their funding from the province will be for the forthcoming years.

It is a longstanding problem in Ontario municipal politics that although when the municipal council is putting its submissions to the province it is expected to know its financial needs four or five years ahead of time, it does not work the other way around. There is no clear message given to municipalities as to what their funding in total will be for next year. Instead, in its place is this kind of hodgepodge of rather interpretive freelancing that goes on, and each and every year there will continue to be a succession of delegations arriving in the minister’s office here at Queen’s Park begging for funding for various purposes.

We know that funding for municipalities is a difficult, complicated process not clearly understood by anyone, with good reason: it is not that they lack the intelligence to understand it; it is really that it is designed to be incomprehensible; it is designed to be one which cannot be readily understood; it is designed to be one which puts the municipalities across Ontario in a mendicant position. They have to beg for money. It is designed to keep them in the dark. They cannot be told what they will be getting in next year’s allocations from the province. There is a bewildering array of funding formulas put in place, all of which have an impact on municipal governments.

I believe many of the speeches made by the former opposition member, now Treasurer, were true, and they are still true today despite the fact that he is in government. There is an alarming trend in funding bills coming forward from the government now that follow this pattern, where it is all done by government regulation.

What that really means is that, for all intents and purposes, the Legislature of Ontario has lost control of this process. It will be done solely by people within the ministries setting regulations independently of this place, and we have no mechanism to explore what all of this really means. We do have a standing committee on regulations and private bills, but it is solely restricted to looking at whether the regulations are legal, not at the content of the regulations themselves.

For those reasons, I recommended to my caucus colleagues, and they agreed, that we cannot support this particular bill. Further than that, I find the trend of government legislation which does this by means of regulation to be a disturbing one. In fact, it flies directly against the stated intentions of our Treasurer. The Treasurer has said repeatedly that he wants more openness in the process. He wants to notify everybody in Ontario of the broad, general financial terms of Ontario. He does so by means of tabling, six or eight months in advance, discussion papers in here. He does that by means of announcing what some of the grants will be for municipalities now, as opposed to the previous practice of doing that well after they had struck their budgets.

I thought we were on the way to a bit of a conversion here, frankly, and I welcomed his stance to table major financial statements and to refer them to a committee of the Legislature. I thought that was a good move. I welcomed him having his ministers stand up and tell us now what the grants will be for next spring.

That is why I regret so deeply the practice that is now becoming just imbued in every one of the ministries of doing this by means of regulation, because it thwarts the obvious intent of the government to provide more information to the people of Ontario and a clear, reasoned response to municipalities in Ontario. I think he does us all a great disservice when we revert back to the previous practice and in fact make it just a little bit worse.

I am not arguing that the actual legislation which this is amending was perfect -- it certainly was not -- and I am not arguing that the previous government did not from time to time make changes in regulations -- it did -- and I am not arguing that this is totally a bad thing, but I am arguing as strenuously as I can that this funding mechanism ought to be clear. It ought to be understandable. It ought not to require municipalities to get a general statement of what the unconditional grants program will be and then come begging to meet their specific needs, and those needs should not be addressed by means of government regulations.

I search for the answers. I thought in fact we had turned this process around somewhat. I thought in fact we had a Treasurer who was committed to giving as much accurate, clear, straightforward information to municipalities as he could.

That is why I am somewhat angered today that we are debating a bill which will remove -- not a dramatic removal at all; I am not making that argument -- the legislative amounts and replace them totally with amounts set by regulation. It is simply that we, as members of the assembly, have no effective means of finding out what that will be or having an impact on it. Neither members of the assembly nor legislative committees themselves can make changes in these regulations. We can address whether the regulation is legal or not, but that is not the point of the exercise.

So I oppose this. My caucus opposes it. I am not suggesting this ought to be a big front-line battle, but inch by inch I see a pattern forming, and that is a government that was committed to more openness and more advance notice and more stability in municipal financing retreating from that.

I know there is a tremendous tendency to kind of do it the easy way, which is what is being proposed this afternoon in this bill. That is to simply wait until, at its leisure, the government is allowed to set these funding formulas by means of a regulation, and it does so in a very complicated way. I believe that really is the traditional, complicated, incomprehensible system of funding municipalities that we have always had.

I think the government does us all a great disservice when it brings forward bills of this kind, and we have no intention of supporting this one.

Mr. McCague: Just on the comments of the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), I did take the opportunity to read some of the old debates and I must congratulate the member for Oshawa: he is consistent over many years in his approach to this bill, although I am a little surprised that he would compliment the Liberal Party on its approach to it. On November 26, 1984, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) said these words: “We support the amendment. It is in keeping with what we would like to see anyway, so I will leave it at that.” That does not prove to me that the Liberal Party was vehemently opposed to the bill that was introduced in those days.

Second, to the member for Oshawa, as the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman) pointed out to his leader yesterday, if there was something they did not like why did they not have it in the accord or why did they not do it when there were so many years of minority government in the last 12?

Mr. Fleet: I would like to direct a comment to the member for Oshawa with respect to regulations and the purview of authority for the standing committee on regulations and private bills to deal with these matters. I would point out that it has gone on for many years in this place and that none of the parties, frankly, put a lot of importance on the review of regulations.

As far as I can determine as the current chairman of that committee, there has not been time spent there. Even today, as I attempt to persuade the House leader -- and I presume the other House leaders have been approached -- to get time to meet between sessions to deal with the reform of regulations, there is still no great push, and if there is any seriousness in the point of view expressed by the member for Oshawa, then surely there would be greater consistency coming out of the decision-making process that all three House leaders are in.

1520

I would certainly be one to say that reform might well be in order, but I do not think the criticism expressed now is really terribly well placed. Clearly, in my view -- and I would urge other members in this vein -- this bill should proceed. It is a sound bill in the circumstances, and the larger issue of reform of regulations is quite a legitimate one. I hope we will see the member for Oshawa, possibly, eagerly making comments or a presentation to the standing committee on regulations and private bills. I would personally welcome that.

Mr. Neumann: I listened with interest to the comments of the member for Oshawa indicating that he cannot support these particular amendments. I would like to inform him -- perhaps he does not know -- that there was full consultation between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario on these matters and that the evolutionary changes that have been occurring in the unconditional grant structure have had the full support of that association, its executive and its fiscal committee.

While not 100 per cent of their recommendations have been incorporated, the province has gone a considerable way towards implementing the recommendations suggested by that association, which represents a large majority of the 839 municipalities in this province. I would like to know whether the member was aware that this direction on unconditional grants has widespread support among the official representatives of municipalities.

Mr. Dietsch: I would like to point out to the member for Oshawa that I had the distinct pleasure on behalf of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, in my capacity as a vice-president on that board and in my capacity as a fiscal policy representative, to chair the unconditional grants committee. I can assure the member that this particular group did have extensive consultation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. There was a very strong feeling of co-operation by the members on the committee in terms of the members representing other municipalities across this province.

Since my election to this House, I have discussed at length with the members of the fiscal policy committee and with members of the association of municipalities and have in fact been assured by them that the modifications that are being made to the unconditional grants program are positive steps. They wholeheartedly support these presentations, and I would urge that the members of this House carry on in a very expedient way the passage of this particular bill.

Mr. Breaugh: I appreciate all the free advice I am getting here this afternoon. I note fervour, and I will remind all of the delegations who come in from municipalities across Ontario of all the wonderful things that were said this afternoon here about how much consultation went on and how all the municipalities are going to be real happy this year and will not have any financial problems. I will also introduce them to some of the new members here, and they may have some comments they want to make to them as to just exactly how happy they are.

I note we are beginning to discover that there is a regulations committee; that is for a start. The next thing is that members might read the rule book and find out just exactly what the regulations committee is entitled to do, and that might explain why there is such a lack of fervour. There are not many people here who want to spend a whole lot of time sitting in a committee deciding whether a regulation is legal or not.

If members really want to get people excited, if they really want to do something of a positive nature in here, why do they not convince their caucus colleagues to adopt some of the committee recommendations that we put in here more than two years ago, which would give something like a regulations committee the power actually to do something. Then they might find the House leaders a little more interested in trying to do something with that committee.

I was interested, too, in the lecture on why we did not put this in the accord. The truth is, it is because I have in the middle of my research here a copy of a bill known as Bill 28, put forward by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Claude Bennett, and you cannot tell a whit of difference between this bill proposed by a Tory and this bill proposed by a Liberal. It just goes to show that it is 44 years of the same malarkey.

Mr. McCague: I am not sure that the argument put forth just at the last moment by the member for Oshawa would convince me that this is a good reason not to put it in the accord. However, he did not succeed in doing it.

Mr. Breaugh: That’s why you are where you are now.

Mr. McCague: That may well be, but it does not explain why I have been over there and the member has always been over here.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes, it does.

Mr. McCague: It is nice to move around a little.

The minister will not be surprised to know that we will be supporting this bill. The point the member for Oshawa makes is a valid point. The chairman of the standing committee on regulations and private bills is attempting to get some input on regulations. The member for Oshawa is correct that unless the input is meaningful and not an exercise in which we are simply looking at the legal feasibility of them, it will be meaningless. The member is quite correct in that.

There are some winners and losers in this bill, as I guess can be said every year. Just for the record -- I know the minister would want me to do this -- I can put on the record the counties that are proposed to lose. Any members who happen to represent an area I mention will be interested in this. The losers will be the counties of Oxford, Brant, Dufferin, Elgin, Essex, Huron, Kent, Lambton, Middlesex, Perth, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and Wellington. Those may be the delegations the minister will be seeing in the next few months. However, we will be supporting this bill.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I appreciate the comments of my critic the member for Oshawa and the support of my critic the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague). I simply want to point out to those who have raised certain issues that the grant rates are already determined by regulation. A reference was made to the municipalities not being fully aware. I want to tell members that the municipalities are fully informed of the grant details each year and are very familiar with the details.

The member for Oshawa said many of the municipalities will come begging for funding. Through the third amendment, the eligibility for the resource equalization grant is intended for municipalities with weak tax bases and it is paid to those municipalities whose equalized assessment is below the provincial standard of some $57,000 per household. This is going to ensure that many of the municipalities which in the past have not received their fair share will now be able to do so. This amendment is with the endorsement and full support of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as recommended to the minister in October 1986.

Some reference was made by my critic the member for Simcoe West to some of those who are losers. I point out that while there are some 19 losers, there are also 19 winners. If some of the losers want to come and see me, I hope the 19 winners will also come along and say that they are delighted with the change here today.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Mr. Eakins has moved second reading of Bill 46.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

1530

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved second reading of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The bill we are debating now in second reading is a short and rather simple piece of legislation. I just want to point out to you and to the other members of this House that for me it is a rather historic occasion in that it is my first opportunity to shepherd a piece of legislation through this House as Minister of Labour and, indeed, in my former capacity as Minister of Colleges and Universities and Skills Development.

There is a saying that good things come in small packages. I hope my colleagues in this House will agree that Bill 51, this amendment to the Employment Standards Act, is a sound, good piece of legislation that is timely and appropriate.

Just to point out some of the provisions within the bill: the bill is, as I said, a simple piece of legislation. It does two things.

First of all, it provides employees a clear right to refuse any work that is in contravention of subsection 2(2) of the Retail Business Holidays Act.

Second, and perhaps more important, it provides clear remedies for employees against any reprisals by employers who are opening premises in contravention of the Retail Business Holidays Act. It provides a remedy, in fact, of reinstatement of any employee who is dismissed for exercising that right. In addition, it provides compensation in lieu of or along with reinstatement up to a maximum of some $4,000.

This is, as I said in a statement a few days ago in the House, an interim measure. The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) has announced that changes will be made in the area of Sunday shopping to provide for municipal option. In the meantime, the Retail Business Holidays Act remains in effect.

Store owners who violate that act are obviously subject to the full rigour of the law. We decided as a matter of policy, however, that it was important as well to make a clear statutory statement that employers would not be in a position to strong-arm employees to work on Sundays in contravention of that act.

I anticipate that the act will be passed quickly and readily by the House. I note, indeed, that when this bill was presented to the last parliament just about this time one year ago, members of the then third party, members now of the official opposition, although they had perhaps some concerns and comments, had stated on the record and in Hansard that they felt this would be a useful bill.

I noted as well that during discussions of my statement in the House a few days ago on the approach of the Ministry of Labour on this issue, members of the third party, the Progressive Conservative Party, indicated that they would be supporting the bill.

The impact of the bill is simple. It strengthens the rights of retail workers and gives them a right to continue to have a day of rest on Sunday where the stores that they work in are prohibited from opening. In addition, it provides an expeditious remedy, a resolution that can be dealt with quickly and expeditiously by an employment standards officer. A complaint that there has been a violation of the act can be taken to an employment standards officer and that officer can order reinstatement and/or compensation. If the employer wants to dispute the order of reinstatement or compensation, he or she will have to act quickly in that there is a period of 15 days in which an appeal can be made to the director.

Not all retail workers are in a situation that is covered by this bill. Members will know that, under the Retail Business Holidays Act, a number of stores are permitted to open. Obviously, the workers in that sector are not affected by the bill; but a very substantial number of workers are covered by the provisions of the Retail Business Holidays Act, and we found it appropriate, particularly at this time of year, to make a clear statement, to say to the employers of this world covered by that act that they must respect the right of their employees simply to respect the law and not to be coerced or strong-armed into working in businesses that are required by statute to remain closed on that day.

I simply close by pointing out that section 5 of the bill provides that it is deemed to come into force on December 2. I look forward to comments from members of the official opposition and the third party on the bill. I reiterate that I hope it is a piece of legislation that can be supported by all members of this House.

Mr. Mackenzie: The stated explanatory note in the bill, “The purpose of the bill is to protect employees who refuse to contravene subsection 2(2) of the Retail Business Holidays Act,” sounds good. We do not see any particular harm in the bill, and this caucus will support it.

But let me tell the minister that I really wonder how much he is learning in terms of the labour field. He did not really think he was selling us on the kind of protection he is talking about for workers in this particular bill, I hope, because he is pretty naïve if he thinks it is going to offer very much protection for retail workers in Ontario.

I do not know anybody in the field, I do not know any of the unions involved -- and this is a field also, I must point out to the minister, that is largely nonunionized and they do not even have the backup of a union -- I do not know of one of the unions I have talked to that has any confidence that this will give them, for this particular day, any real protection.

The move to part-time work and the destabilization of the full-time workforce in the retail field has become a fact of life, and a lot of it is the pressure that is brought on employees. The move from full-time employees to part-time employees and the move to “You come in on our terms” -- and if you are in the ministry very long or if you spend any time at all talking to workers in this trade, you are soon going to find out that the hours are being cut all over the place or they are being told, “You have got so many hours to come in on this day.” They are changing the days.

The number of full-time workers in most of these establishments is going down drastically and the number of part-time workers is going up. There is the threat to benefits under certain hours in this field, and there is even a fear that is substantial in terms of what you might call management staff -- they are usually not that well paid -- or managers of operations or managers of departments, that they have not got any protection either.

I ask the minister, how many workers in this field does he really think are going to say, when they are asked to work on the Sunday, “No, we won’t”? There are a few dedicated people who will not, and some of them may get away with it. But there are just as many who, if they take that action, are going to feel that it means their hours -- that they are the next ones to go on part-time; or if they are there already, their hours are going to be cut and they do not have the protection. You make that stick when it is not done too openly: just all of a sudden, you find that the next week you are working a day or two less. That is happening on a regular basis in this particular trade.

I guess what I am saying to this minister as clearly as I can is that it is an almost useless bill. It seems to me that even one of his colleagues, the Solicitor General, in April of 1987, in the committee examining this issue, said, “Any law protecting the workers” -- her quote – “is to some extent meaningless.” That is one of the minister’s own colleagues.

1540

I hope the minister understands that, having got themselves into a bit of a jackpot for something which apparently was planned to begin with, or something they intended to do but certainly were not making public in the last election, and that is the whole issue of opening up the store hours or tossing it over to local option -- I do not want to get into that debate now; I think the move is ridiculous and I think it is a real copout -- but having done that, the government has opened up workers to this additional exploitation.

Just saying that you have the right to refuse -- as I say once again, in a field that is largely unorganised -- to work on a Sunday, in an industry that has been moving rapidly into part-time work and all of the other things that destabilize a full-time workforce, is giving them literally nothing. It is even more so where you happen to be management or a department manager, and even more so where you do not have a union; and the majority of these stores do not have a union. We saw what workers at Eaton’s went through in their desperate attempts to organize and the kind of pressure that was exerted on them and some of the results of that since.

I am simply telling the minister: the words sound nice; it is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

Mr. Harris: I do want to say a few words on Bill 51 and really echo some of the comments that have been made by the critic for the official opposition. Indeed, the bill, if not totally useless, is almost useless. We indicated in our party that we would support it in the off chance that it may be slightly better than totally useless. We see no reason to oppose the bill for the sake of opposing it, but it does give rise to the ridiculous situation that we find ourselves in.

I was surprised that the minister mentioned that this is a bill that was before us at this time last year and that all parties indicated they would pass it last year. Why has it been sitting for another year? Why is it that this government waits until a crisis is on the doorstep before it acts with something?

It was introduced a year ago. All parties agreed a year ago we would pass it. We could have done it in a very thoughtful and timely and unemotional way last January, February, March, April, May, June, July, September, October. Once you get into November, the crisis starts to hit, and this government does not anticipate very well. This problem started in a major way, I think the minister will recall, in 1985 -- in a minor way in 1984 -- but in 1985 the pressure really heated up for Boxing Day and for Sunday shopping as you got close to Christmas.

He will recall that our party raised questions in 1985, asking the government what it was going to do: was it prepared to act, was it prepared to look in a meaningful way at what should be done here? The government did nothing. As a result of that, our party set up a task force on its own that started to explore the whole issue. Then finally we ended up with an all-party committee; and of course as members know, the all-party committee recommendations, which were supported by the Solicitor General at the time, have been rejected by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and by Mr. Goldfarb as not being what the people want at this particular time. It might be right, it might make sense, it might be the best thing to do, but Goldfarb says, “If you want to get re-elected and stay popular, don’t do it,” so that is the way this government acts. I understand that, but I wanted to relay a little bit of the circumstances in there as well.

We have a couple of amendments from our party that we plan to move to this bill, and we would ask the minister and all members of the House to take a look at them. I want to tell members why we are moving a couple of amendments that we think may make the bill, perhaps, a little more meaningful if still a little silly. We still do not think there is any meaningful way you are going to be able to come back on an employer who insists that a worker must work.

Second, I guess what concerns me is that the impetus for this bill, that it is coming at this time, is the old December 27. The minister is shaking his head. It sat on the books for a year, and all of a sudden the proverbial something hit the fan, and then the minister changed her mind and she said this. Then, of course, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said: “I am above the law. The law may be on the books, but I will tell you in advance whether we are going to proceed.”

At the same time we had this bill, so it is presumably to cover December 27. I think that was the intent and my amendment will make it the intent, because it does absolutely nothing for the workers who have to work on December 27. That whole area appears to be a nebulous area of what is legal and what is not.

The government is doing nothing to address managers. It is doing nothing to address stores that are in malls, regardless of whether it is a chain with a manager or an independent store in the mall. They are given no choice under this but to open on Sunday, December 27, if the mall says they must.

I would like to tell the minister the response from an employee, Mrs. Cooper, who works at a store in North Bay Mall in North Bay, who has called me two or three times on this in the process of garnering petitions protesting what is going on with the government and the way the government has been handling this affair. We have had several discussions.

When she first called me, she told me she is an employee working at a small shop in a mall, and said: “We had all planned three days off: Friday, Saturday, Sunday, the 25th, 26th and 27th. Now we are starting to hear –” We get the news a day late, I guess, in North Bay, and there were some mixed signals, although I do not think anybody really understood what was going on in Toronto, either. “We heard notice of this bill and the government statements,” she said, and I said, “My understanding is that the government plans to introduce a bill that will allow employees the option whether they work on December 27.’’

Obviously, I was in error on that. I had to explain to her and apologize to her that that was, in fact, not the case. She got a rude shock when she called the employment standards branch at Queen’s Park this morning and called me right after. Here is the answer she got. She explained the situation. She said: “I do not want to work on Sunday, the 27th. I understand the government is introducing a bill that will protect me and allow me to refuse to work on the 27th without any fear of reprisal.” The employment standards officer she talked to said: “No, sorry, that is not the case. Because you have been working in a store that can legally open on Sunday” -- I may be paraphrasing, but clearly these words would not be misunderstood – “David Peterson has said it is OK to open on the Sunday. Therefore, the employment standards branch cannot act on your behalf, and it will not apply.”

Mr. Haggerty: You’re stretching it, Mike.

Mr. Harris: I am telling the honourable member what was said, and I am telling him what the lady said to me. If he is calling Mrs. Cooper a liar, then I would like that on the record. He should be man enough to stand up and say it.

Mr. Haggerty: I said you’re stretching it.

Mr. Harris: That is calling me, and Mrs. Cooper by inference, a liar. That is what was said.

1550

I looked through the act. I thought: “Somebody is wrong. This employment standards officer is wrong.” But then when I read the act, I said: “No; in fact, he is right.” The only protection offered there is going to be determined on whether that store is illegally open.

The Attorney General has said: “I cannot win a case on that. The law is a joke. It is not enforceable. I cannot win a case.” One of the most arrogant lawyers I know in this whole province says, “I am not capable of winning a case.” How is anybody else going to win a case?

Second, he said it was not fair. I do not know whether it is fair or not, but nobody is going to be able to proceed with this and prove whether this store is legally open on Sunday or not. That is the problem. We are talking about a store under 5,000 feet that meets the conditions we are dealing with in the act. Because that store is closed on Saturday, as it has to be, it can legally open on Sunday. Or can it? Nobody seems sure.

It is for that reason that I will be moving an amendment, which I will circulate. I do not have legislative counsel’s authority that it is actually the way it should be drafted legally, but I will give members the gist of it so they can think about it. When we get into committee on this bill, I will have it in a formal way.

“That section 1 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause to section 39e immediately following ‘Act’: ‘or on any Sunday which is the day after a statutory holiday.’”

If members truly want to provide protection for workers on December 27, if the intent is that it be optional whether they work, then I would suggest that my amendment will indeed do that, as it will do it in the future whenever Sunday follows a statutory holiday like Boxing Day. That is the purpose of the amendment. It was my understanding that was the intent of the government. It certainly is my understanding of what workers felt they were getting from this government, because December 27 is the day when stores may be opening legally or illegally; who knows?

I think that will also clarify the problem the employment standards branch and the officers have. They are saying, ‘We cannot do anything because they are open legally.” The Premier said it is OK and the Attorney General said: “It is OK to be open. We will not prosecute.” How then can that particular day, the 27th, be considered anything other than a day in which businesses can all open? I throw that out to members.

I want to serve notice while we are in second reading of the bill that this is the amendment we intend to move and we would like to hear some reaction from the minister as to whether he feels that does in fact meet the intent of what people in this province understood.

Second, I want to touch briefly on section 39f and what protection it really provides. It says: “Where an employer dismisses an employee who refuses any work that is a contravention of subsection 2(2) of the Retail Business Holidays Act.” As I understand this, this would apply on any Sunday that a store opens illegally -- which is not the 27th, as the minister will acknowledge, because the Premier said it is OK.

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: That is what the ministry, the minister’s experts say; maybe the minister has a different opinion.

I think my amendment would tighten that up and cover the 27th as well. All this is saying is that if he dismisses an employee, there is going to be an action. Let us say I am an employee in a store and I say, “I’m sorry, when I took this job it was clearly understood that there would be no Sunday openings; I understood the law in Ontario at the time that I would not be required to work on Sunday and I do not wish to work on Sunday and” -- after members accept my amendment, “I do not wish to work on Sunday, December 27.” The only thing this bill covers is if an employer says, “You are fired.” It applies if on a Sunday an employee says that and the employer says’ “If you’re not going to work this Sunday, I’m sorry, you’re fired.” There is no protection from any other sanction. As has been pointed out several times, since a lot of them are part-time people, nonunion people for whom there is no protection, there is no sanction against any other action.

I do not know what it is that the minister is trying to cover here. My understanding is that the intent is to provide some protection, to live up to his stated intent that it will be a voluntary day. So I will be moving another amendment that I think helps to clarify that a little more. Again, I will have to get the wording clarified, and I will circulate it to everybody, but let me read what I have drafted in my unprofessional, nonlawyer way:

“I move that section 39f of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor: ‘Where a employer dismisses, reduces working hours or takes other disciplinary action against an employee who exercises his rights under section 39e, an employment standards officer may order the employer to reinstate in employment or to compensate the employee in lieu of reinstatement for loss of earnings’” -- and it carries on.

I think that amendment, although not perfect -- I do not think we are going to get a perfect piece of legislation; we are dealing with a rather ridiculous situation -- will send out a signal to employers that more accurately reflects what I think the government is trying to do here. The government, I believe, is trying to say that if an employer wants to open on a Sunday it is illegal for him to open on, no employee should be disadvantaged and be forced to work that day, it should be a voluntary option.

If that is the intent, I would think that the minister may consider accepting that amendment, which mentions something a little more than just outright firing of the employee. That is not going to happen. What will happen is you reduce the hours or you bring somebody else on and you have to give him more hours. Let us face it: two or three weeks or whatever it is later, all of a sudden that employee may no longer be employed.

I also want to say that I do not think we are talking about the majority of situations. I want to get this on the record as well. It may be peripheral to the bill, but I do not want my comments, and the amendments I am moving and our party on this bill, to relay the impression that we are talking about the majority of the employers and employees or, in fact, that we are even talking about a significant percentage. But there will be some.

It would be my view that most employers and most employees will be able to work out this problem among themselves. But we know there will be some, which is what we are trying to protect against. Particularly, there will be problems in malls, where indeed the store owner himself does not want to open and will be forced to open by his contract with the mall. There will be problems with some managers in some of those stores, in the chain stores in the malls. It is the subtle problem, which none of us is going to be able to address in any way, of potential mall managers and what impact that may have on those in a decision-making capacity who indicate for religious reasons or family reasons or whatever reasons that they do not want to work on that day.

We will support the bill. I reiterate that we do not think it is a particularly effective piece of legislation. I would ask the minister and the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) to consider the intent of the amendments that I am proposing be put into this bill. As I have said, they have not been through legislative counsel; they are my own jottings and musings. I would be interested in the minister’s thoughts on those two amendments.

1600

Mr. Mackenzie: Very briefly, I have no real difficulty with the amendments as I heard them from the member and I have no difficulty in supporting them. I just do not think the bill is worth either time or effort in terms of trying to improve it.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I have enjoyed, really, listening to the debate and the comments of the critic from the official opposition and the critic from the Progressive Conservative Party. I do want to say just a few things about each of those comments and comment on the amendments that the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) has proposed.

First of all, the comments made by the member for Hamilton East: in many respects I appreciate where he is coming from in part, particularly his opening remarks talking about the changing nature of the workplace and some of the challenges facing retail workers and the changing dynamic in retailing operations, which often can be extremely hard.

We see a lot of additional part-time workers. My goodness, sometimes if you visit, particularly a regional mall on a Thursday night or a Friday night or a Saturday, you would think the entire place is being run by teenagers whose average age is about 17 or 18. Most of those young people are working part-time -- they are also full-time students -- and one wonders the degree to which this is generally of benefit to our young people.

If I can paraphrase his remarks, if he does not mind, he also mentioned in many instances the lack of bargaining power that some retail -- and other workers, of course -- in our society have.

I recall it was not too many days ago that the same member was insisting during the course of question period that I, as the Minister of Labour, simply ensure that workers in an industrial environment who have a right to refuse to work are allowed to exercise that right and that a clear message come out from the government that that right could be exercised in those circumstances -- a simple right to refuse work where an employee has a bona fide concern for his own health and safety. That matter was resolved, I think even to the satisfaction of my friend the member for Hamilton East.

I am not proposing within this bill to solve all of the problems of all of the workers that my friend the member from Hamilton East has referred to during his remarks, but I do regret the fact that it was one year ago in this House that the same member, looking at the same piece of legislation, said in statements to this House that he thought the bill was a useful bill. I think he would have agreed at that time as well that it did not do all of the things that he would have liked to have seen done, that there are other things that could be done and that there are other things that need to be done.

We need to do more -- I think he and I agree about that -- but I think it is a little bit of a sad commentary that because his party does not agree with the government’s position on changing the dynamic of Sunday shopping, he decides that a bill he considered to be useful a year ago is today somehow, as he said, almost a useless bill. I think he said, “Not worth the powder to blow it to hell.”

Is that the message he is sending out to the workers who will be afforded protection under this bill? I do not think so. I think that is the wrong message. If the member for Hamilton East were to rethink and reflect a little bit on the message he would want to send out to the workers who are given additional protection by this bill, I think he might want to say that he and his party expect that the employers in the retail sector, the employers of the province, will respect the Retail Business Holidays Act and will ensure that when the act says their stores are not to be open, they are not opened. Virtually all the employers and owners of those stores do respect that bill. I think the member for Nipissing made comments to that effect and I endorse them.

Where there is abuse, I think he would want to send out the message that he is not entirely satisfied with what the government has done, and from my perspective I told him in my statement in the House a few days ago that we will be looking into enhancing the protection of workers who may be affected by a change in Sunday shopping, but I think he would want to send out the message that surely this degree of protection is appropriate at this time.

That brings me to the remarks made by the member for Nipissing. I was glad to hear from him, as a critic for the party, that his party was going to be supportive of the bill. I will discuss the amendments he is proposing in just a moment or two. He said that workers would not be taking advantage of this bill. I suggest to him that workers clearly will be able to take advantage of this bill because it provides a simple and clear remedy.

He suggested there was some confusion as to the application of the bill, particularly in respect of December 27, which is the Sunday following Boxing Day. I do not think there is any confusion. If I can just clarify for him and for the members of this House what the regime is, it is this: this bill applies where retail businesses would not be permitted to be open under the Retail Business Holidays Act. If a premises is permitted by law to be open on December 27, this bill does not have any effect. If a business premises, a retail operation, is not permitted to be open under the Retail Business Holidays Act, then this act applies. There are certain businesses that are permitted under law to be open on Sunday, December 27.

My friend the member for Nipissing says there is some confusion, but there is no confusion. Certain stores, he will know, will be able to take advantage under the law -- a loophole, some would call it -- of remaining closed on Boxing Day, Saturday, December 26, and then as a result of that will be permitted under the law to remain open on Sunday, December 27. Under those circumstances, Bill 51 does not apply and for that reason I must tell him that I am not able to support his first amendment.

Finally, he proposes an amendment to broaden the remedy and circumstances under which the remedies provided in section 39f of the act would be applicable. I understand the reason he has proposed that amendment. He is suggesting, in short, that it is not just dismissal that might be the kind of reprisal an employer might take. Although I know his intentions are good, I think the principles of this act are directed specifically at ensuring that an employee who might otherwise risk losing his or her job as a result of a violation of the Retail Business Holidays Act ought not to be put in that situation.

The primary premise of the act and the primary objective of the act is to protect against dismissal and to provide quick, fair and easy remedies for employees to exercise their right to refuse to work on Sunday, and at the same time have the remedies available under the Employment Standards Act and quickly get back to work.

Although I understand and sympathize with the thinking and principles behind the amendments that are being proposed, I must tell the member that in committee of the whole our government is not prepared to accept that.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

1610

House in committee of the whole.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Harris: I point out to the government House leader, who does the notices, orders of the day and what not, that in order for this order to go into committee of the whole to be in order, it should have said “second reading of Bill 51 and committee of the whole as required.” However, we will give unanimous consent to proceed without any notification that we were going to go there.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Harris moves that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following clause to section 39e, immediately following the word “act,” to read “or on any Sunday which is the day after a statutory holiday.”

Mr. Harris: The reason I am moving this amendment is to meet the intent of what the public of Ontario understood the government was trying to do, and that was to protect workers or make it voluntary for workers who will have to go in and work on the Sunday following Christmas Day and Boxing Day.

Retail workers who work in those stores did not anticipate until very recently that their stores would be open and that they would be required to work on that Sunday. I do not know whether it was three or four weeks ago that some stores actually took a look at the situation and said, “Gee, if we have to close on Saturday because it is Boxing Day, we will also count that ‘having to close’ as being ‘wanting to close’ and on that basis we will get around the Retail Business Holidays Act and go ahead and open on the Sunday.”

Really, the only problem that causes is that some stores can open and some cannot. The reality of Boxing Day sales is that whenever Boxing Day sales come, it is the biggest shopping day of the year. So if, in fact, all the stores in Ontario could agree that maybe it makes some sense for family and for other reasons that they not be open either Saturday, the day after Christmas, or Sunday, and in fact they will all open Monday, they can all have their boomer of a Boxing Day sale then and it will all be on the same day.

This is a situation that really arises only once every seven years, I guess, when Christmas comes on a Friday, Boxing Day on a Saturday, and then on the Sunday, through this technicality, they can open. I think the minister called it a loophole, so to speak. I would have preferred if the government had just said: “It is a loophole. It exists there. We are having difficulty with this whole Sunday shopping issue. We are really not sure how we are going to address it.” I would say they have dragged around for two years, but I would not expect the government to say that. It is just to say, “We are really going to have a serious look at it next year, so this does not happen every November and December and every Christmas.”

If they would just say -- and we would help you pass a simple piece of legislation -- that no store will be allowed to open in Ontario on December 27, that would have really solved the problem. It still could. If the government wants to bring it in later today or tomorrow, I would give unanimous consent for that as well, because I really think that reflects the feeling of what we in Ontario would like to see happen over this. Every seven years you get one three-day period. It does not appear that it is going to happen.

My little amendment at least extends this little bit of protection, that has been described as pretty minimal by anybody who will be affected by it and certainly by both opposition parties. My amendment will allow those employees who do not want to work on December 27, regardless of what store they work in, whether it is a big store or a little store, to have protection. The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has said it is ridiculous that through this loophole big stores are going to be treated differently than little stores. I guess I am saying it is ridiculous that employees who work in little stores are going to be treated differently than employees who work in big stores.

This amendment would kick in once every seven years. In theory, it kicks in this year. That is all I am trying to cover, because I am confident that if this government does not solve it in the next four years, there will be a new one that will do it before seven years come up and it will not be a problem.

That is the intent of the amendment. I do not think it is out of line with what would be fair. As the Attorney General has said, if it is fair to allow the big stores to open with the little ones, then I think it is fair to protect the employees of the little stores the same way the big ones will be protected.

Mr. Chairman: Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Mackenzie: I probably would not have if it had not been for some of the remarks of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara); that is, his inference or plea, whatever it was, not to send out a false message to workers in the province of Ontario. I trust he will include in that admonition his own Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), who made the comment I referred to, that it is to some extent a meaningless action to try to protect workers. I was a little stronger, and I feel a little stronger, about it. That is why I said it the way I did to him.

I do not think I am sending out a wrong message to workers in the province of Ontario. I think I am sending out the message that it is time honesty in this province demands -- workers do not feel they have always got the straight message when it comes to what protection they thought they had under much of our legislation. I think safety and health was probably the classic example. There is a real cynicism. If the minister does not realize it I suspect in the first couple of delegations from the trade union movement, he will find out there is a real cynicism about the intent to enforce an act or what protection is actually there in legislation.

1620

I think it is time we just tell it the way it is when we see something wrong with legislation. If the minister was going to make those kinds of comments stick or try to make them stick, then he should be telling us why we are not looking at things that would have really had some effect in this situation. They were in a couple of the questions he was asked in the House, at least one of which I noticed one reporter in the Toronto Star picked up in a column recently. If I can quote them, it is three very short paragraphs:

“Retail workers need protection against exploitation once Sunday openings are allowed, but in all consistency they cannot be protected against Sunday work itself.

“First” -- and she names the minister – “Sorbara should amend the Employment Standards Act stipulation that employers do not have to pay overtime until after 44 hours’ work to reduce it to 40 hours, or better, 35 hours.

“He should make overtime voluntary, not compulsory, and he should cancel the special permits that his ministry has granted the retail industry, which allows stores to work employees an extra 12 hours above the legal maximum of an eight-hour day and a 48-hour week.”

I think that would have begun to give us some protection for workers in the situation we are talking about, and it is a point we have been trying to make in this House for a long time. Passing the kind of bill that the minister has before us now really is not going to give them the protection, given the state of the industry. That is simply the point I am making, and I do not believe we should pussyfoot around it and tell them we think we have given them a big package when it is just not going to provide that kind of protection.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just to respond very briefly, I am aware of and obviously have read the same column that my friend the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) read. I simply say to him that when I referred in my statement the other day to the fact that I would be introducing Bill 51, I said at that time and I say to him now, it is an interim measure.

The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) said: “This thing has been going on since 1984, 1985. Why now? Why are we doing it now?” The answer to that question is fairly simple and straightforward. Our government has made an announcement that it intends to bring about a new regime in respect of Sunday shopping, which would entail, I presume, some amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act. There might have been a sense within the retail businesses of the province that was some sort of signal to open up in this rather busy shopping time of year, so it was all the more imperative to take an interim step now to provide enhanced protection for workers -- perhaps far more so than in 1984, 1985 or 1986.

I simply say, particularly to my friend the member for Hamilton East, that I acknowledge to him that this is an interim measure. I acknowledge that the nature of protection to retail workers has not been altered so as to grab headlines around the world, but he did say a year ago it was a useful piece of legislation because of changes contemplated in the province. It is even more imperative and more useful now, and I just asked him to send out the signal to those who are in his constituency, even if he wants to condemn the government for not going as far as he would have wanted, that there is some protection and that if an employee is dismissed as a result of his or her refusal to work, an attempt should be made to utilize this protection. Our employment standards officers understand what this means and understand the extent to which protection is provided there.

He and I are going to discuss, I imagine over the next months, the kinds of other reforms to the Employment Standards Act we may want to bring in, including revisions that arise from Arthur Donner’s work, but I simply say to him again, this is an interim measure; it applies to certain facilities, I tell my friend member for Nipissing, on December 27; and it applies to all workers right up until the time amendments are made to the Retail Business Holidays Act and should be supported.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Harris: I was intrigued with the comments from both the minister and the member for Hamilton East. However, neither one of them talked about the amendment. Actually, I think the amendment really made a considerable amount of sense. It followed from what the Attorney General had said, that it does not make sense that one store can open and another cannot because of a technicality. I do not understand why the same logic is not acceptable to the government, that some employees on December 27 will be protected and will not have to work, but the majority who work in the stores under 5,000 feet have no choice and will have to work on December 27. It seems silly to me and I do not think that was the intention.

For the minister to say there is no confusion out there, he does not live in the real world. There is confusion right in here. There is confusion among a lot of members. There is massive confusion out there on section 39f, about which we are talking right now. The confusion there is unbelievable because the impression -- actually, I had better move it.

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: Nobody else spoke to the thing I was talking about. In all my many years of experience in fighting on behalf of the workers of Ontario in my Labour critic role, I have never seen a situation where speakers did not address the topic.

I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by striking out section 39f and inserting in lieu --

Wait a second. I have the official copies now. They have just arrived. Are there any changes on it? It has changed?

Mr. Chairman: Will you please read it and I will compare it to what I have.

Mr. Harris: OK; here I come. I have only one copy. If I read it, I will give it to you right away.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Harris moves that section 39f of the act as set out in section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“Where an employer dismisses, reduces the hours of work or otherwise disciplines an employee who refuses any work that the employee has the right to refuse under section 39e, an employment standards officer may order the employer to reinstate in employment the employee concerned, with or without compensation, to compensate the employee for lost hours, to take or refrain from such action as is necessary in order to constitute compliance with this part, or to compensate the employee in lieu of reinstatement for loss of earnings or other employment benefits in an amount not exceeding $4,000 that may be assessed by the employment standards officer against the employer.”

Mr. Harris: Had the Orders and Notices paper indicated that we would be doing committee of the whole House today, I would have had the amendments ready. As the government House leader really did not plan very well for today and it was with unanimous consent that we are proceeding in committee, then I hope you will appreciate why it took me a few minutes longer to get those amendments properly drafted.

This amendment is designed to strengthen --

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Hurry up, Mike.

Mr. Harris: I am not going anywhere. I have three more bills here to do, so it does not matter to me which one I do it on.

It is designed to strengthen, in a very modest way, the very modest sanction that is already in this bill. I believe it meets the intent of what is intended by the government. I believe the message the government wants to send out is that no employee should be disadvantaged in his or her employment if he or she does not want to work on a Sunday when it is illegal, in effect, to be open.

1630

That question of interpretation will be a difficult one for those large stores. I doubt that any court in the land, after the statement of the Attorney General, would uphold that it was actually illegal for that store to open. However, even if that is the case, this will be the intention on December 27, and it will stand up, I believe, on all other Sundays where it is normally illegal for a store to be open.

Instead of saying the only sanction in this bill is that if somebody loses his job if he says, “I am sorry, pal, I am not going to work on the 27th at Eaton’s --” Well, Eaton’s does not have to worry. Enlightened company that it is, it has decided not to open on the 27th, but there are some other large ones. If the employee says, “Listen, I am sorry. I do not believe in working Sunday. Until the Attorney General adjudicated the law and took it into his own hands and said, ‘Go ahead and break it; I will not prosecute,’ I had no reason ever to think I would have to work on December 27;” the only sanction in this piece of legislation is if one is fired.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Or dismissed.

Mr. Harris: Or dismissed, right.

Obviously, once employers realize they are not going to be able to dismiss somebody without redress, what else can they do? They can reduce the hours of work. They can just not call him back in quite so often. They can wait until a week later when he is a minute late and fire him then. Really, there are too many ways if somebody is going to be unscrupulous. I said earlier in my remarks on second reading that I do not think there are many unscrupulous employers, but there are some.

What I am proposing here is basically what is in effect as far as dismissal, where there would be some redress; but here, if hours are reduced or other sanction is taken against that employee then there would be some redress as well.

I do not think that is an unreasonable amendment. I think it would be the government’s intention that if an employer did take some other form of action against an employee who refused to work on the 27th or on an illegal Sunday, it would not want the employer to do that and it would want some form of redress. It is far from perfect -- the bill itself is far from perfect -- but I think it does strengthen the bill in a small way, and I would urge members of this committee to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Would the minister wish to respond?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I responded to the proposal for the amendment when we were discussing the bill on second reading. I simply want to reiterate that I understand where my friend the member for Nipissing is coming from. I think also he did a marvellous job at drafting. The legislative counsel has not had to improve on it too much. His first amendment was not quite as effective. In fact, if he looks at his first amendment, it would have created a broad right to refuse for anyone who was required to work on any Sunday, no matter whether it was a retail operation or otherwise.

This amendment that the member is proposing goes well beyond the original intention of the bill. The original intention of the bill was to ensure that there was a right for reinstatement. “Reinstatement” is really a meaningless word if there has not been dismissal, so although I know where he is coming from, I simply inform him that we are not prepared to support that amendment.

Mr. Mackenzie: Speaking to the amendment that is before us, I will support it.

As I said in the earlier comments, the second amendment makes more sense and is more important than the first amendment, specifically because the member has taken a look at the fact that it is a question not just of dismissal but of reduced hours. That is usually what happens. I know people who have had their hours cut so drastically because they have had disputes with their employers that they finally had to quit. It was not worth it for one or two days’ work a week in what they were doing.

If this amendment was carried, they would have the right to some protection, for whatever the bill is worth, if that was the line. That is the most likely line that a not-so-sympathetic employer is going to take. I think the minister, by his very statement that he is not prepared to go this extra step, gives us a good indication of just what his bill is worth.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to respond? Do other members wish to comment?

Mr. Harris: I am disappointed in the minister’s response. I agree that it does indicate that he is not particularly serious. He should understand, after not having accepted the first amendment, that all we are talking about are stores that are open illegally, against the law. All we are talking about is employees’ rights on a Sunday, on a family day off or on a Sabbath. The store is open illegally and is not supposed to open. It is against the law.

I am surprised that the minister is not willing to be a little bit stronger in protection of rights for those workers. I am also a little surprised and alarmed that everybody liked this amendment better than the first. I was prouder of the first amendment. I just want to be on record with that.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Harris’s motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee reported one bill without amendment.

RACE TRACKS TAX ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 19, An Act to revise the Race Tracks Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The bill redefines the application of the racetracks tax to keep up with the changes that the federal authorities have made in the parimutuel system in Ontario and across Canada. The present act levies the tax on the holder of a winning ticket and assumes that the bet and the race take place at the same Ontario race track. However, the parimutuel system now also permits bets to be placed on races that are run elsewhere in Ontario or outside Canada.

To simplify the application of tax to these bets, the proposed act will impose racetracks tax on the person who places the bet and will tax bets placed in Ontario regardless of where the race is actually held. The tax rates will remain the same as under the current act.

Ms. Bryden: This bill appears to be a complete rewrite of the Race Tracks Tax Act, which dates back presumably to the time when the tax was imposed in Ontario in 1965. Bill 19 before us is a reintroduction of Bill 2, November 1986, and Bill 84, June 1987, which indicates that this revision of the act was not exactly a high priority for the Liberal government.

1640

In passing, I might say I am disappointed that it does not include my private member’s bill, Bill 12, which would ban Sunday racing at Greenwood Raceway and would change the makeup of the Ontario Racing Commission and make it more representative of nonracing interests and more responsive to the concerns of the residents. However, since this does not seem to be within the purview of this bill, I hope the government will consider the matters in my Bill 12 and the lack of democracy in the operation of the Ontario Racing Commission, which the residents have constantly pointed out, and that this will be dealt with by additional government legislation in this field.

The objective of the bill, as the minister has told us, is to tighten up procedures for collecting the parimutuel tax so that no penny or loonie is lost in the process. Naturally, we would support that kind of tightening up, but I hope that perhaps it might also be accompanied by savings in administration costs in collection of the racetracks tax.

I understand that since the federal government also collects a tax -- although the racetrack owner may remit it to the Ontario government, which remits it to Ottawa -- there are inspectors on the racetracks from the federal government, from the provincial government and from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. It seems to me that this many bureaucrats might be able to work in closer co-operation to ensure their collection of tax proceeds as it should, whether we need that kind of collection process or whether there can be some streamlining.

The minister tells us that the updating of procedures was long overdue, and I hope that no revenue loss has been suffered by the delay in tightening up procedures. Perhaps he can enlighten us on that.

One interesting change, as he mentioned, is that the tax is now imposed on the person who places the bet. Before it was imposed on every holder of a winning ticket on a bet at a race meet. The tax was collected by the person holding the race meet, acting as agent for the provincial Treasurer and deducting the total amount of the tax from the total amount wagered. In both cases, whether the tax was on the holder of the winning ticket or, as now, on the person who places the bet, the same amount of money was collected.

The tax was nine per cent on a triactor bet and seven per cent on other bets. It is calculated by reference to the gross amount bet. This is why there is no difference in the revenue received under the two systems. As the minister pointed out, if a person places a bet at Greenwood on a race at Mohawk Raceway, it is more difficult to calculate and collect the tax if it is just on the winning ticket. That is a useful change.

The change in collection methods was also necessary because of the extension of betting to intertrack events. That meant, of course, that the holder of a winning ticket and the operator of the race might be at different tracks and in different jurisdictions. Intertrack betting started in Ontario in 19B0 and, interestingly enough, the racetrack tax has been collected since its inception despite dubious legality. The new forms of betting, the triactors, the separate pool and other new forms, also require specific mention in the law to ensure that collection of taxes on them was not challenged.

Under the new law, I understand the tax could be collected even on races in foreign jurisdictions if betting occurred in Ontario on those races. It could also apply to offtrack betting. However, federal permission is required before these kinds of activities are legal in Ontario. Therefore, the fact that the collection procedure could collect such taxes is still not going to permit extension of betting to those activities without federal approval.

I feel that the extension of betting opportunities is not the way we should be going in this province. Racetrack betting has been increasing at a substantial rate year after year, and the province also operates six lotteries. Some will say that we have a super lottery or casino in this province in the stock market. Its recent performance would seem to indicate that it, too, is a form of gambling. I would hope the ministry would not apply to the federal government for the extension of the betting to offshore racing or to offtrack betting.

The question of how racetrack revenues are spent is another matter we should consider before we add to the tax. However, I think that should be the subject of the budget debate, where we consider the overall allocation of revenues and see that they fit in with the budgetary plan of the government and are not earmarked for specific activities.

We are prepared to support this bill in the interests of making sure that the entire amount that is owing to the province is collected in an efficient way. Perhaps some modernization of the collection methods is possible, but I think we should look carefully at where the revenue goes and should not consider extensions of the opportunities for racetrack betting without bringing it to this House and discussing the whole question of whether we should be relying as much on betting and lotteries for taxes or working on the principle that taxes should be paid according to ability to pay and according to the kind of programs and priorities that we want to put into effect through the budget.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The previous speaker, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, has just given us a lesson in horse races. I have known her for about three years now and she has been trying to get amendments, especially with the parking situation around her home. I know she is dead against Sunday racing, but the amendments, the changes brought about by this bill, do not address those problems.

1650

This bill really complies with or reacts to the federal Department of Agriculture, and I can assure the member for Beaches-Woodbine that no taxes have been lost, I can assure her of that. We will continue to improve the system as the Department of Agriculture requires us to do.

Let me assure the member we will continue to do our job to supervise what goes on at these tracks and outside those tracks. I want to thank her for her support. She attended my briefing, and I have learned a few things from her about horse races and I want to thank her very much.

Ms. Bryden: Madam Speaker, I wish to comment on the comments.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Under standing order 60, there are no comments allowed after the minister

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 20, An Act to provide an Incentive to Ontario Employees of Small and Medium Sized Corporations to Purchase Newly Issued Shares of their Employer Corporation.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This is not a new bill. It came before us under Bill 210, Bill 11 and now Bill 20. What this bill is all about is to provide an Employee Share Ownership Plan Act, 1987. It is designed to implement a program first proposed by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) in his 1986 Ontario budget.

The Ontario employee share ownership plan will provide grants to employees who purchase shares in their employer corporation under an employee share ownership plan that has been registered by the Ministry of Revenue. The grant to employees is equal to 15 per cent of the purchase price of the shares to a maximum grant amount of $300 with respect to shares purchased in any one calendar year. Grants are also available to corporations and to employee groups to offset a portion of the cost they incur in implementing a share ownership plan.

In the case of an employee group, the grant is equal to 50 per cent of eligible costs incurred in negotiating or evaluating a plan to a maximum of $5,000. For a corporation, the grant is one third of eligible costs incurred in establishing a plan with a $10,000 grant limit.

Mr. Runciman: I wonder whether the minister could indicate if the government has any firm idea of what the program might cost on an annual basis.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am told the program would cost between $500,000 and $600,000 annually.

Ms. Bryden: As the minister mentioned, this bill also has been around a long time and has gone through various incarnations. The Treasurer’s budget in 1986 was the first one. This is the third time this bill has been introduced in the House following that budget. Once again, it appears either that the government is not very serious about the idea or that it keeps looking at it and trying to decide whether it is a good idea or not.

To me, it looks rather like one of the half-baked ideas that became part of the Liberal election platform, and the fact that it has never been dealt with or debated in the House indicates that it really has not had a thorough examination. But it became an election promise without that examination. That is why I say it is half-baked.

When you look at the terms of it, you will find it does not achieve the objectives which the notes indicate are the objectives of the bill. Those objectives are, first, to promote an enhanced environment of co-operation and participation in the workplace by employers and employees and, second, to provide a new source of equity capital for small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario.

We have looked at this bill very carefully and have come to the conclusion that it does neither of those things. In fact, it appears to be an attempt to put in what might be called profit-sharing or incentive to invest in the company as a substitute for a trade union or progressive labour relations between the company and the workers.

If a company decides it wants to participate in this, would the workers be pressured into investing in their company or would they be considered not to have faith in the company and perhaps not be as well regarded for promotions if they refused to participate in the program?

It is also telling the workers that this is an investment that may be a good investment for them without giving the workers the chance to decide where they want to put their investment dollars. It really tells them that this may be a good, safe investment, whereas most investment counsellors would say you should have a balanced portfolio.

To pressure workers into putting whatever savings they have into the company stock is to ask them to have an unbalanced portfolio, and then it may be that the investment is a double jeopardy for them. If the company should go bankrupt, not only do the workers lose their jobs but also they lose their investments in the company.

I think the bill would do the opposite of promoting an enhanced environment of co-operation and participation in the workplace by employers and employees. I submit that there are far better ways of promoting enhanced co-operation in the workplace, such as the development of systems of giving the employees more say in decision-making, giving employees the opportunity to actually share in profits and giving them the opportunity, as a collective group in a trade union, to participate in the decision-making and the voting of the shares. Those things are all lacking in the bill.

As far as providing a new source of equity capital for small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario, we really should be providing all sorts of sources of equity capital for such businesses, but this is providing a source only to those who are willing to participate in this plan. It certainly will not answer the needs of most small businesses that have much greater needs for easy access to equity capital, rather than just getting it from their own employees.

1700

There are also problems with the bill as to whether it really does cover just small businesses. It says their assets may not exceed $50 million in the previous year to be eligible. Of the Financial Post’s list of the largest 500 companies in Canada, only 430 have total assets greater than $50 million. That would mean there are 70 of the largest 500 companies that would qualify.

The corporation may lose its eligibility when both gross revenues and assets exceed $75 million or its salaries and wages in Ontario fall below 25 per cent. This means that a corporation in this scheme may lose its eligibility if there is any change in its gross revenue and assets, which means the employees have started investing in it and then the corporation is no longer eligible to receive the employees’ investments.

I notice too that the legislation will be deemed to have come into force on January 1, 1987. I think this is an extremely bad principle to have in this kind of legislation. It is saying that for the income tax year 1987, which is practically past, employees who have invested in shares of a company, or companies that come into this plan and have received investments in the past year, may benefit from the grant. It is a retroactive benefit for which the terms and conditions had not been set by this Legislature for that year. It may be that the terms and conditions for 1988 that would come out if the legislation should pass -- which I hope it will not -- might be quite different.

I think it is a very bad principle to permit this House to pass legislation which would already be almost a year out of date or behind the effective date. That clause in the bill should certainly be struck. I intend to move that it be changed to January 1, 1988.

To give a little background which our researchers have dug up for us about this kind of investment, which is known as an ESOP, an employee share ownership plan, government-supported ESOPs were first introduced in the United States in 1974. However, in the United States the tax incentive is directed to the employer, whereas in Ontario the financial incentive is provided to the employee.

Alberta, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Saskatchewan currently have stock savings plans in place. These plans provide tax credits or tax deductions to individuals who purchase shares in eligible corporations. They are not specifically designated for employees of corporations but for the population as a whole. In fact, in Saskatchewan, employees are specifically excluded from a credit on purchase of shares of their employer.

This indicates that the other plans in other parts of Canada are quite different from this plan and it is obvious that the government does not seem to have taken any of the parts of those acts into account. I am not suggesting they should, but our plan is quite different from what is in any of the other provinces.

In Alberta and Saskatchewan, companies with up to $500 million in assets are eligible investments, provided they are incorporated in Canada and 25 per cent of their wages and salaries are paid in their respective province. In Quebec, individuals who purchase shares of Bell Canada and the National Bank have been eligible for tax deductions. So one can see that in Alberta and Saskatchewan it is not small business they are trying to aid; they are trying to encourage investment by the general population. Now, that may be a laudable objective, but this bill will not do that.

One would also wonder whether this kind of incentive can be justified under tax reform, which we are supposed to be getting shortly from the federal government. It is giving an additional incentive to a very small group of employees whose companies become eligible and whose companies decide to participate in the plan. It is, in fact, a highly discriminatory tax benefit.

I had thought that the purposes of tax reform were to make our tax system neutral as between taxpayers and not to build in additional tax credits or tax refunds, which is what this amounts to. It is a straight cash grant from the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître). I think it is highly vulnerable from the point of view of being discriminatory as between employees who happen to be eligible or not eligible and companies who happen to decide to go into the plan. It is also not the kind of incentive for investment that we are really looking for, because it is not helping small business and it is not really encouraging employees to develop a balanced portfolio.

We do support the idea of providing new sources of equity capital for small and medium-sized businesses in Ontario, but the ESOP bill does not achieve that and does not meet this objective. ESOPs, in fact, are a concept based on the inaccurate assumption that economic coercion is necessary in order to get workers to do their job and be productive. It is like some of the old piecework rates or profit sharing, which depend on the employees reaching a certain level of productivity.

In fact, productivity is often a result of management processes such as production quotas and lack of quality control, or the result of inadequate health and safety protection, or job insecurity due to insensitive corporate decisions and lack of worker participation in corporation decision-making, so the bill cannot really be considered an incentive to employees to become more productive. What I am saying is that the other conditions in the plant which management puts in are the raison d’être behind increases in productivity or the lack of such increases, which is more often what happens, and then the employees get blamed for low productivity.

In actual fact, Louis Kelso, who is called the father of American ESOPs, envisaged that ESOPs would replace labour unions with “voluntary associations of capitalist workers...as agencies for the economic education of the newly made capitalists.” That is really what is behind USA ESOPs, and we are not sure whether that is not behind what the government is after in this bill, because certainly we do not see it as contributing to labour-management co-operation and labour-management participation in the operation of our businesses and the development of our productivity.

1710

The US magazine Business Week has also concluded that employee share ownership plans are “great tools for management to reduce wages, undermine unions and protect against hostile takeovers.” The ESOP bill does nothing to foster worker involvement in corporate decision-making or to encourage economic democracy. While there is a proviso that the shares must be common voting shares, there is no requirement in the bill that a union may vote the shares collectively for the employees if the employees designate the union as their collective voting person and put the shares in a trust with the union.

We all know how much influence individual small shareholders have on companies. In addition, there is no minimum level of employee ownership of a corporation nor any requirement that employees or their unions be represented on boards of directors, or that employees have any other involvement in corporate management and decision-making. This is one of the greatest weaknesses of the bill. It does not really encourage good labour-management relations and good worker participation in decision-making in a corporate management. This is the kind of economic democracy that society should be working towards and that our party certainly has been working towards over many years in this House, but we do not seem to be making very much progress.

In my opinion, this is a backward step towards that goal. In fact, a bill of this sort, instead of bringing force to bear on the idea of sharing corporate and economic decision-making, may mislead employees to think that their interests as citizens and employees are the same as those of shareholders and management.

Moreover, we do have to look at the recent happenings in the stock market. ESOPs offer a risky way to share in the profits of a company in an already risky economy. It seems unreasonable that the government should be encouraging low-wage earners to take high risks by investing in the shares of their employers, often as substitutes for wage increases and pension plans.

The recent stock market crash -- if you can call it that; some people just call it a collapse -- reinforces the volatility of the financial markets and the risks involved in share ownership, particularly where the equity is just in one company and not a well-diversified portfolio.

Those are some of the reasons that make us give this bill a very jaundiced view. A further difficulty arises in those companies whose shares do not trade publicly. Such shares are not very liquid. What will an employee do if he leaves the company and wants to sell his shares? Where will he market them?

If the goal is to provide new capital to business, it is difficult to see why the bill limits potential investors for new capital to employees only. This government should be encouraging all investors in this province to invest in small business. We all know they have great difficulty at the bank and have great difficulty marketing their own shares if they go public, but this is not a way of giving them any significant increase in equity capital.

I understand that when the bill was tabled last year, it had an estimated cost of $25 million. Now the minister has said the estimated cost might be $500 million to $600 million. I find it very hard to understand the discrepancy in these estimates. Perhaps the $25 million was part of the fact that it was a pie-in-the-sky election promise, so it looked as if it would not cost us very much. Most of the election promises were also brought out as only going to cost us so much because it would be spread over three years, five years or 10 years. This was supposed to be a first year cost of $25 million.

This money, or the $500 million or $600 million the minister mentions, could perhaps better be spent on direct assistance to small business and to worker co-operatives. As a matter of fact, one questions whether this legislation is needed because there are currently no impediments to a company setting up an employee share ownership plan for its employees, and indeed, many have. The issue is whether government should be encouraging these plans through the provision of grants and other preferences.

I submit that this money could be much better used in promoting better small business assistance, better labour relations and more democracy in industry, as well as better health and safety regulations which are far more serious hazards in the way of increased productivity or in the way of employee wellbeing than the fact they do not have a share in the plan.

I might draw the minister’s attention to the fact that there is something in Sweden that may be loosely compared to an ESOP and was devised by LO, which is a Swedish confederation of trade unions. As of January 1, 1984, Swedish employers are required to contribute funds to five government-established wage-earner funds. Union nominees control each of the funds, and income from the funds is used to buy shares in Swedish companies. This was set up in 1984. By 1990, when the funds will cease getting new money from employers, it is estimated that workers will collectively own 10 per cent of Swedish industry, bringing to bear a significant public influence on Swedish corporate policy. This is the sort of influence that individual share ownership could not achieve under any conceivable plan.

By law, in Sweden all but the smallest corporations must have employee reps on their boards of directors. This is another way in which having legislation to improve the employee’s participation in the operation and decision-making could be brought in, but once again that kind of legislation is lacking in this bill. The bill does not move one step towards the democratization of corporate decision-making.

Members have probably gathered from my comments that we intend to oppose the bill. It is completely unnecessary and really wrong-way legislation to improve small business investment and to encourage good labour relations. We plan to introduce a few amendments, if the bill should get through second reading. After the members of the House have heard my comments, it may have great difficulty getting through.

1720

Just to give you some warning, the sort of amendment I am planning to bring in is that the retroactivity clause will be changed to make the bill effective January 1, 1988.

There will be a clause requiring employee representatives on boards of directors, proportionate to their shareholdings.

There will be a clause proposing that if this kind of credit is to be available to eligible firms, it should also should be eligible to credit unions, co-operatives and caisses populaires that might like to participate in this plan or whose employees might like to have the opportunity to get the tax credit.

I think we will also consider an amendment that would eliminate the incentives to firms if less than 25 per cent of the total voting equity is held by employees, because with a very small equity held by employees, the fact that they own a few shares makes absolutely no difference in the way they can participate in the decision-making in the industry.

We tried to bring in a few amendments that would improve the bill if the House should be so misguided as to pass it for second reading. Basically, I think it is beyond saving if you want to have a bill which aims at the two chief objectives the government has mentioned. They should go back to the drawing boards and bring in some sort of incentive bill for share purchase which would be available to the whole population and which would increase equity capital for small business and would also promote democratization of the workplace.

Mr. Runciman: I have just a few brief comments. We are going to support the bill. I understand and it is not surprising that the official opposition is opposing it. I guess when you take a look at the impact this may have -- and I say “may have” -- in respect to improvement of labour relations, they are not too enthused about those kinds of things which may have the effect of drawing management and labour together, improving the atmosphere within the small to medium-sized businesses. That goes against the grain of the people who really pull the strings of the NDP, the labour leaders in this province.

I think the Treasurer indicated very well the other day that he had seen the party in some respects deteriorate over the years because of the increasing influence of the labour leaders in this province. That is a view I share as well. Certainly, in my view, as a former union president myself, that party does not speak for the rank and file union members in this province. That is clearly reflected in every provincial election.

If we take a look at this particular piece of legislation and talk to rank and file union members across this province, I suspect we will find, if we care to undertake that kind of a survey, widespread support for the concept. I think this is something the former leader of this party, the Honourable Frank Miller, when he was Treasurer of the province, talked about at length. It certainly was something that he very strongly supported in respect to profit-sharing and the concept that we have before us today.

If there is any drawback, and it may be a minor one, I guess it is perhaps the quality of issues and the fact that some businesses may be encouraged to enter the market rather than borrow from the traditional lending institutions because of this legislation. Perhaps the bill does not touch on those kinds of areas that would discourage businesses which perhaps should not be going public, should not be going to the market, from being encouraged to do so by this legislation. That is a rather modest concern, I would admit.

Our party does have some concerns in respect of the overall state of the economy. Looking down the road a few years, we think the current government is failing to take into account some of the economic indicators that are pointing out clearly to some economists that we have significant concerns ahead. I think Black Monday, as it is referred to, is perhaps a precursor of some negative things that we may have to look forward to.

This government has not been indicating by its actions or deeds, let alone its rhetoric, that it is prepared to meet those challenges. We are in unprecedented good economic times, and they are not doing the significant things that they should be doing in terms of reducing the deficit and preparing for those downtimes that are surely going to occur, perhaps sooner than later.

We have talked about the health and welfare payments, up $222 million over predictions. We have a total provincial debt of around $29 billion, plus $8 billion for Ontario Hydro. This government is on a spending binge. I guess we always get the argument, “We’re making up for past sins of omission.” In the last few years of Conservative government, we were in difficult economic times. We certainly did not have this kind of flexibility.

What I would suggest to the government is that if it cannot significantly reduce its deficit during these good times, it is never going to do it. Everyone is sitting back at this stage, enjoying the unexpected revenues that have been flowing the government’s way and making all kinds of promises. I think in some respects there is no question the government is on a spending binge. Its spending has been averaging increases of 10 per cent per year since it has been in office. We are talking about times when inflation has been running between four and 4.5 per cent, and the government has been increasing spending around 10 per cent on average. I have to sit back and take a look at that and take a look at what that means in the near term, let alone the long term, for all of us and our children and grandchildren.

We think that perhaps the government should be looking at a number of things. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) did mention some stock savings plans that are in place in some of the other provinces. We are supportive of the minister and his government taking a look at those kinds of plans and reviewing the desirability of putting something like them in place in this province.

The Quebec stock savings plan has been encountering some difficulties of recent times, following Black Monday, and I think essentially that has been because of what I talked about earlier, firms entering the market that should not have been allowed to enter the market in the first place. But certainly in the first number of years of operation, the Quebec plan operated with a great deal of success and brought a lot of new entrepreneurs into the market in Quebec and has been of strong benefit to the Quebec economy.

I think the government should be looking at doing those kinds of things, and I think there is no question that it is time for the government to display strong leadership and introduce some very upbeat initiatives. I do not believe I have anything further to add to the debate, other than to indicate that we believe this is a good first step. There is time for assessment over the coming couple of years. We think there are other things the government has to be doing in the near term that are going to have a significant impact on the economy.

I have mentioned the stock savings plan. I might mention Mr. Miller’s tax holiday for small business, which was tremendously successful, tremendously popular with the small business community. That is another area that the government should be looking it. I know it was pulled essentially because it was a Conservative plan. I think we have seen that occur too often with this government -- good programs pulled simply because they have a Conservative label attached to them. I hope this is another area the minister and his government will take a look at.

1730

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Does any honourable member wish to comment on the remarks of the member for Leeds-Grenville?

Mr. Farnan: I found the honourable member’s remarks to be almost completely off topic and I believe his rambling, partisan comments to be unworthy of reply. I believe better preparation can save him the embarrassment of resorting to cheap, partisan remarks. It would be much more effective if he were to stay with matters of substance.

Ms. Bryden: I share the sentiments of my colleague that the member did not appear to deal with the issue of whether this bill is going to do anything for small business. I certainly think the Progressive Conservative government brought in all sorts of paper programs to assist small business, but when you got down to talk to small businessmen, most of them found they did not qualify or they did not get sufficient funds to enable them to develop and expand. The government seemed to be far more interested in helping big companies than small business.

The other thing is that the member did not deal with the question of the democratization of the workplace because his party does not believe in that kind of democratization. Management rights always come first and the workers can take whatever crumbs management is prepared to give them. I think that is what a new, fresh government should be looking at and I am disappointed it is not looking at anything more than the Progressive Conservatives were looking at in this field.

Mr. Runciman: As a first step, I hope the member for Beaches-Woodbine, in talking about democratization, would look at democratization of the big unions and support secret ballots rather than the kind of intimidation that now takes place. It is rather laughable to hear them trying to portray themselves as the saviours of small business. Just talk to any small business person about having those people represent them and you will get a pretty accurate response as to how they feel about that.

The Acting Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to speak to the bill. I had my notes all handy here and then I got so excited with the comments made by the members of the New Democratic Party that I lost sight of some of them. I am sure if I start rambling here, I will get into the swing of it.

Where is my bill? I have an amendment I want to talk about that I know will be acceptable. Here we are; here is Bill 20.

I myself also want to commend the member for -- is it still Leeds-Grenville or just Leeds?

Mr. Runciman: Yes, Leeds-Grenville.

Mr. Harris: Leeds-Grenville. I think he pointed out some of the things our party has been very disappointed this government has not been involved in.

The comments from the members of the New Democratic Party -- every business benefited from the tax holiday for small business. Every business, large and medium-sized, was pretty excited about it.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That would raise the deficit, wouldn’t it? Would that raise the deficit?

Mr. Harris: It would if they spent the $9 billion the other way and had that. Sure, it could raise the deficit. I would not waste the other $9 billion the way they do. I would not have done a lot of things they are doing.

Anyway, with respect to the bill, we are going to support this piece of legislation. We agree with the principle of the bill. We agree with the concept the government is trying to achieve. I am disappointed it has not been brought forward sooner.

I might also say I am disappointed -- I know it has received fair circulation and the government has not accepted many of the suggestions put forward by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the small business associations, which I thought made some recommendations that made a good deal of sense. I am told that because of that consultation, and I guess probably the fact that the government has been so slow bringing it in, it is not prepared to accept any of those amendments at this particular time.

I want to comment on them briefly. I also have an amendment that I think may be acceptable to the government to add something to the bill, that this bill receive a very thorough review by a standing committee of the Legislature in its fifth year. It is not as strong as a sunset amendment, but in my opinion, it would at least provide an opportunity for this legislation to be reviewed five years hence. It would be a mandatory thing. It would go before a committee. It would force a look at the legislation to see whether it is meeting the objectives it was intended to do and whether some of the amendments and changes that have been proposed by a number of groups right now perhaps ought to be incorporated at that time.

There have been a number of interjections too by the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine): “It works in Quebec.” “It works in Quebec.” “It works in Quebec.” We wish this was the Quebec bill. We think the Quebec bill would be very appropriate here. This is a long, long way from what they have in Quebec and I think the minister would acknowledge that. I am not faulting per se this bill, but this is not what they have in Quebec.

I guess by way of serving notice, and I think the member for Leeds-Grenville has indicated it, we would look favourably on working with the government on implementing a similar plan to what is in Quebec that we think would raise substantially more money and would allow participation by substantially more Ontarians in small and medium-sized Ontario companies.

I wanted the member for Cochrane North to know that I listen to every interjection he puts forth in this House, in French and in English, and I just wanted to add those comments.

One of the questions the minister could clarify for sure is that I think I have been informed and my understanding is that the grants paid to both the companies and the employees are to be nontaxable. They are not to be treated as taxable income. The minister could just confirm that for us when he responds on the bill.

The amount allocated was asked by the member for Leeds-Grenville and the indication, maybe the minister will confirm, is 50 companies a year. I wonder if the minister has any projections the ministry may have beyond that year. Is that 50 a year for X number of years, so that in the fourth year we may have 200? Have they any projections beyond the first year?

1740

A number of organizations commented on this bill when it first came out, and some of the concerns were particularly for small businesses. Incidentally, I think this will work for medium-sized businesses; we will have to see. I totally reject the arguments of the member for Beaches-Woodbine that it may not work. If nobody takes it up, it will not have cost us much to put it in place and put that opportunity out there. I do not know why -- probably because Jim Foulds wrote out a bunch of garbage before he left that the member has repeated back to this House now that the bill has come back -- for some doctrinaire reason she is opposed to allowing the opportunity for some employees who may want to participate. That just does not make sense to me.

When you get into small firms, of which we are talking a significant number -- Is it 80 per cent of the firms in Ontario that have fewer than 10 employees? The startup costs are in the range of $20,000 to $40,000 and the grant to the company will be $10,000, it is my understanding. Let us say the startup costs are $40,000. Eighty per cent of the firms in this province will be looking at having to finance $30,000, and if the limit is $2,000 per employee, they are looking at three or four years before they even get enough money back from this to cover the costs of the startup. So I think the minister would acknowledge that the program for some of the very small firms is effectively impractical and there will not be much of a takeup on it.

The Canadian Organization of Small Business expressed that concern. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business expressed that concern and indicated that it thought there should be some form of graduated support so that some of those small companies would get more support from the government and, as they got larger, less support. I am not talking about the employee part; I am just talking about the grant to the employers.

I am disappointed that since those responses came into the ministry and the former minister about a year ago, none of the recommendations that were made appears to have been incorporated into the new legislation. We would have preferred that some of that had taken place.

I guess 84 per cent is the figure; 84 per cent of Ontario firms have fewer than 10 employees. Based on those startup costs, I think the minister would acknowledge that 84 per cent of the firms are unlikely to participate in this program. However, that still does leave a significant number of employees in those larger firms, the firms with more than 10 employees, and when you start to get into some of the medium-sized firms to which it will apply, I think it will make some sense.

They also recommended that the figure of $2,000 be increased. That figure in itself, if it went, say, to $4,000, would help the smaller companies particularly overcome the early startup costs. They made several recommendations on the resale side of it.

I could read into the record, but the reality is that the minister has those recommendations. They have come in from the various associations. The members would have all of those, and I do want to say we are disappointed that some of them were not taken into consideration.

I do intend in committee to move an amendment. I will not read it now, but the gist of the amendment is that in the fifth year of the program commencing, this legislation, this whole incentive program and the act, be referred to a standing committee of the assembly, that the committee must review the act and the program’s effectiveness to see whether it is indeed meeting the goals established by the act, and that those findings should be reported to the Legislative Assembly along with a recommendation as to whether the act and the program should be carried on.

I think this is a reasonable proposal to make. It is saying: “We have some reservations. We would have liked to have seen it done a little differently, but we agree in principle. Let us go ahead with it, but let us have a time frame, at the very least some check so that this thing does not just sit around on the books for 50 years if it is not working or if it needs an overhaul.”

It is not per se a sunset clause, although I guess it is the next thing to it. It at least ensures a committee will have a look at it and it ensures the Legislature will get a report from that committee on whether this bill and the incentives should carry on.

I will just say at this point that when it is in committee, I will move that amendment and speak to it at that time. I indicate that we will be supporting the legislation.

Ms. Bryden: If the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) cannot be persuaded that the five years of experimenting with this bill is not worth the cost, I would say that his idea of a review at the end of five years is worth supporting, but I question whether it is worth putting the province to the expense of a five-year experiment on this bill to see if it is meeting its objectives and if it is worth the money. The minister mentioned $500 million to $600 million annually.

Mr. Harris: Thousand.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: It is $500,000 or $600,000, not millions.

Ms. Bryden: I am sorry; $500,000 or $600,000, but that is at least half a million.

The thing is that that money comes out of the pockets of the other taxpayers. If we need that money for this program, we have $500,000 or $600,000 less for other programs. Since we are running a deficit, it does mean an additional cost that has to be made up by other taxpayers or some other program cut. I just wonder why we should be encouraging a program that is going to cost this amount of money and that seems to be a half-baked program that has not been worked out as to what its real benefits will be and whether it will really assist small business or employee-employer relations.

Mr. Harris: Very briefly, I appreciate very much the strong support I just received from the member for Beaches-Woodbine for the amendment I propose to put when we get into committee.

If $500,000 or $600,000 does any little wee bit of good, it is peanuts the way this government spends money. They dribble that much just walking into cabinet meetings: from the limousines, up the stairs, out of the briefcases, into the cabinet meetings. Every one of them does that. We have already seen there is absolutely no control by this government on most of the spending programs. They overspend by $250 million here and $200 million there and nobody seems to think very much of it.

I am surprised by, but I appreciate, the concern that I have not sensed before from too many members of the New Democratic Party. I appreciate the concern of the member for Beaches-Woodbine to make sure that we do get value for money, but I think $500,000 is not very much. I certainly would --

1750

Mr. Runciman: It is about one minister’s expense account.

Mr. Harris: Yes, that is right; it is about one minister’s expense account, half that of the member for Cochrane North. Where is he? There he is.

I think it should be more money. The fact that the money has been brought up at all allows me to reinforce that I would rather see more money put into the program, a little more generous benefits in some of the areas. I mentioned that earlier: increasing the amount the employee can put in, which would cost a little more, and increasing the share to the very small employer.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: One thing I would like to clarify from the outset. The member for Leeds-Grenville asked me the question about the cost of this program. My answer was that it is between $500,000 and $600,000, and I would like to correct this. In the initial year, 1987-88, with the startup costs, the cost would be $1 million.

Mr. Breaugh: Ah, well.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: One million dollars.

Mr. Breaugh: What’s half a million among friends?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: What is half a million? But I must say that after the initial startup costs, the cost would be between $500,000 and $600,000 and not $1 million.

Mr. Breaugh: Just starting off.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: The starting-off costs, Mike. What is $1 million?

Mr. Breaugh: Now we have gone from a half a million to $1 million in three seconds.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Also, the member for Nipissing asked me if those grants would be taxable, and the answer is no, they are not taxable.

I am surprised at the member for Beaches-Woodbine not accepting this program, because I think this government has been criticized on all sides for doing very, very little or nothing at all for small businesses or medium-sized businesses. I think this is a step in the right direction. It is a welcome program, and I think it will meet the objectives of the program to promote a co-operative environment in the workplace between the worker and the employer, and also provide a new source of equity capital for small and medium-sized businesses. This program will meet these two objectives.

I am very pleased to introduce this bill, because I can tell members that I have been around, in this ministry anyway, for only two months or two and a half months, and I think it is a great program. I think it is a step in the right direction and I am pleased to see that the third party will accept the program in principle. Whenever the member for Nipissing brings his amendment, he can rest assured that I will support his amendment. I think it is only reasonable. We are a responsible government, an accountable government. I think every program should be reviewed after five years, and I will welcome his amendment.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine also asked the question, what if an employee leaves the company? Well, the agreement between the employer and the employee could respond to that type of question. They could work out an agreement that if he leaves the business, his shares should be repayable or whatever, but this could be worked into the agreement.

Another question was, can the union vote, if I am not mistaken. Well, I can tell the member that the union can vote the employee’s shares if the employee signs over the voting rights by proxy. Yes, a union can vote. I think it will encourage employees in small businesses to take part in and be proud of their companies and invest money for their future.

I think it is a great program, but again I will admit, with the member for Beaches-Woodbine, that it is not the end of the world. I think it is a good start and I am very surprised to see that the New Democratic Party does not support a program that would help small and medium-sized business.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: This might be an appropriate time to indicate the business of the House for tomorrow, because there are a couple of slight alterations, since the House has been very expeditious in discharging the business sheet.

We will tomorrow, then, continue in the committee of the whole with Bill 20. We will proceed then to Bill 21, An Act to amend the Ministry of Revenue Act, standing in the name of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître).

We will go then to Bill 25, the Travel Industry Amendment Act; Bill 54, the Theatres Amendment Act; Bill 55, the Upholstered and Stuffed Articles Amendment Act; Bill 56, the Operating Engineers Amendment Act, followed, if time permits, by a debate on the interim supply motion.

The Deputy Speaker: It being close to six of the clock, this House now stands adjourned until 10 o’clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.

December 9, 1987

SPEAKER’S RULING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

EDUCATION FUNDING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

CHILD CARE

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

LORI STRONG

HOSPITAL BEDS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK AND FISCAL REVIEW

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING

RESPONSES

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK AND FISCAL REVIEW

FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING

ECONOMIC OUTLOOK AND FISCAL REVIEW

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

CHILD CARE

ENERGY FROM WASTE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REVIEW BOARD

PROPERTY TAXES

ONTARIO HYDRO

HEALTH SERVICES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

TRANSMISSION LINES

JOHN DAVID CARNIE

CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

CONTINUING EDUCATION

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS ACT

KINGSWAY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO UNCONDITIONAL GRANTS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

RACE TRACKS TAX ACT

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE