CONTENTS
Monday 19 August 1991
Employment Standards Amendment Act (Employee Wage Protection Program), 1991, Bill 70 / Loi de 1991 modifiant la Loi sur les normes d'emploi (Programme de protection des salaires des employés), projet de loi 70
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Chair: Kormos, Peter (Welland-Thorold NDP)
Vice-Chair: Waters, Daniel (Muskoka-Georgian Bay NDP)
Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)
Dadamo, George (Windsor-Sandwich NDP)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia NDP)
Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP)
Murdock, Sharon (Sudbury NDP)
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Wood, Len (Cochrane North NDP)
Substitutions:
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot NDP) for Mr Dadamo
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North PC) for Mr Jordan
Clerk pro tem: Manikel, Tannis
Staff:
Nigro, Albert, Legislative Counsel
Luski, Lorraine, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1308 in committee room 1.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (EMPLOYEE WAGE PROTECTION PROGRAM), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI (PROGRAMME DE PROTECTION DES SALAIRES DES EMPLOYÉS)
Resuming consideration of Bill 70, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments.
Reprise de l'étude du projet de loi 70, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les normes d'emploi par création d'un Programme de protection des employés et par adoption de certaines autres modifications.
The Chair: First, I do want to thank Mr Waters for chairing the first week of these hearings. I sincerely thank him for subbing for me. I suspect he did a far better job than I would have in any event.
Mr Waters: No comment.
The Chair: We are commencing clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 70. There are some persons sitting here as staff persons. Perhaps Ms Murdock would introduce them or have the staff persons introduce themselves.
Ms S. Murdock: Laura Hopkins is legal counsel for the Ministry of Labour. Peter Jenkins is the provincial specialist for the employment standards branch. Finally, Cherith Muir is the policy project manager for this particular employee wage protection program. I thank them for being here.
I believe that the deputy minister, on the first day, went through the entire proposed amendments and bill pretty thoroughly. If you want me to, I will go through it as he did, but I just feel we might as well start on clause-by-clause, if that is agreeable to everyone.
The Chair: I expect so. I should indicate the first four sections, sections 1, 2, 3 and 4, stand by themselves. Section 5, of course, entails a whole lot of sections, and I suspect the committee would prefer that section 5 be dealt with by what will be actual section, to wit, section 40, section 41, etc. So we will commence. Prior to that, I would ask whether either of the two opposition parties have preliminary comments that they would want to make.
Mrs Witmer: I do not have any preliminary comments, but I do have a list of our amendments and I am just wondering when you want to receive those.
The Chair: You could file them now and ensure their speedy distribution. Then nobody can claim surprise. Thank you. I appreciate that. The clerk will receive those from you.
Mr Offer: As a preliminary before we get involved in the clause-by-clause, which I hope will proceed expeditiously, there are two things which we heard in the consultation process that are of some concern. They are areas for which the committee does not yet have any information.
The first is the impact this bill may have on the small business community, however that is defined. To date, our interest and attention has been focused on the Ministry of Labour, and rightly so, since it is the ministry with carriage of the legislation. There is also, however, with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, a small business advocate. I believe that is Norm Jamison. I believe that obviously should continue, and this is not meant in any way to stop the clause-by-clause deliberation, but I would propose a motion. So as an opening, I would propose that motion, Mr Chair. If you feel that it is in order, I believe that it is.
The Chair: Mr Offer moves that we obtain from the small business advocate of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology any information that the ministry has that deals with the impact this bill may have on the small business community.
Mr Offer: I have a second matter which I would like to deal with after this. I have again prepared this particular motion that might be of some assistance.
The Chair: I am satisfied, subject to what anybody might raise by way of objection and comments, that the motion is in order. Do you want to speak to the motion, or have your preliminary comments constituted your having spoken to the motion?
Mr Offer: In the main they have; however, I do believe we heard an inordinate amount of presentation by representatives of the small business community talking about the legislation and talking about what this legislation means to them. I do not believe in any way that should detract from the principle of the legislation, but I do believe it is incumbent upon us -- if not our obligation, surely our responsibility -- to at least question the small business advocate of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology about whether there is any information which he has amassed that deals with the impact this particular bill may have on the small business community. Some of the areas that quickly come to mind are the issue of insurance, whether it is available, and if so, the cost of obtaining that type of coverage, and of course the type of coverage that would be needed.
So that is why I would ask that this motion be supported by all members of the committee. It just moves towards our greater appreciation of not only the principle, which I believe the ministry and members coming before this committee have shared with us, but also some of its impact and implications.
Mr Klopp: Am I to take it from this motion that you wish the parliamentary assistant, in this case Norm Jamison, to review this as we go on clause-by-clause, or are you saying that we should stop everything and have him look at this bill first?
Mr Offer: I am not suggesting for a moment that the clause-by-clause deliberations be stopped. I am suggesting that the committee be aware and apprised of any information that the small business advocate in the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has with respect to what this bill means to the small business community.
The Chair: Any further comments, Mr Klopp?
Mr Klopp: Other than I am hoping, knowing the PA will probably do an excellent job in his position, then he will probably review a lot of policies that are in this government or from previous governments. I think he will not be able to draw a lot of conclusions in the next four days, for instance. What happens if he does not have any information for us? Is that all right? Is the motion just that we make him aware of this bill?
The Chair: Please, Mr Klopp, we could get involved in questions and answers all afternoon. I trust that was put in the interrogative only to make a statement.
Mr Klopp: Sure.
Mrs Witmer: Have we heard the motion?
The Chair: Yes, the motion is on the floor.
Mrs Witmer: There is no seconder yet.
The Chair: No need for one, I am told. That is the case.
Mrs Witmer: I would certainly support that particular motion. I continue to hear from the small business community. They are concerned about not only the short-term effect of the wage protection fund but also what is going to happen in 18 months as far as the funding is concerned. I certainly think we need more information as to the impact on that small business community. Before we give final approval I would like that information.
The Chair: Prior to Ms Murdock speaking, the motion is as follows: moved by Mr Offer that the small business advocate within the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology present any information the ministry has collected with respect to potential effects of Bill 70 on the small business sector in the province.
Ms S. Murdock: I personally do not see any problem at all in Mr Offer's motion and would be in favour of that. I just have one question in terms of that. Would it have to be a personal appearance by the ministry, or could it be in written form?
The Chair: Here is the motion.
Ms S. Murdock: Yes, I understand that.
The Chair: The motion does not call for an appearance.
Ms S. Murdock: Then I am in favour of it.
The Chair: Are there any other comments on the motion?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: Mr Offer, you had another matter.
Mr Offer: I think it is important that we are given that particular information. We know that after this committee, this matter is going to go back into the Legislature for third reading, and certainly that is going to be important information.
One of the other areas that people brought forward to us in their presentation, and I am sure all of us have been hearing not only within this committee but throughout our constituencies, is how this particular piece of legislation is going to be funded. It is clear, and I believe the minister was patently clear, that for the first 18 months of this legislation, commencing October 1, 1990, the funding of this particular piece of legislation would come from the consolidated revenue fund.
Questions and concerns have been raised dealing with what happens after the 18-month period. I think arguments as to how this particular fund is to be seeded will cover the whole gamut, but again, it seemed to me that we directed much of our attention to the Ministry of Labour, to the deputy minister, the parliamentary assistant and the officials of the ministry, and potentially, I think maybe this is a question which should properly be posed to the Treasurer. The Treasurer is the one, as we all know, who has the big say in how programs are to be funded -- in fact, whether programs are to be funded, so I would propose a second motion.
The Chair: Mr Offer moves that as a result of the presentations which we have heard both within this committee and indeed outside, the Treasurer confirm that there will not be levied an employers tax as a result of Bill 70 after the initial 18-month period.
The motion is on the floor. Do you want further opportunity to speak to that motion?
1320
Mr Offer: Just very briefly. Again, one cannot deny that many people spoke to this particular issue not knowing what is going to happen in the 18 months after this bill has been in force. I would think that although we properly -- and in fact, as I recall, in his opening remarks the Minister of Labour very rightly dealt with this issue, we all realize it is not within the purview of the Minister of Labour but rather the Treasurer of this province.
I would like to hear, and hence the reason for this motion, the response to the Treasurer dealing with the funding of this legislation after the 18-month period. We know how it is going to be funded prior to the 18-month period; that is not a question. But there is a question as to how it is going to be funded after the 18-month period. I believe this motion is important in so far as we hear from the Treasurer whether it is going to be so funded by an employers tax.
The other thing is that the 18-month period -- correct me if I am wrong -- commenced October 1990, and so we are no longer talking about an 18-month period. That period has reduced each month since October. It seems to me the Treasurer will now discuss, or has already been discussing, how this program is to be funded in the very few months ahead. That is very close at hand; probably five, six months away, a final decision will be made. It may be that within the Treasury a decision has already been made. I believe it is important for us to inquire of the Treasurer a confirmation as to the funding of this program after the 18-month period.
Mr Arnott: I would like to speak to this motion and indicate that I support it. I certainly have grave concerns about the possibility of a new payroll tax being added to the employers of Ontario. When we talk about the 18-month factor, if we turn back the clock about 18 months, I guess it was in the 1989 budget that the employer health tax was brought in and most fairminded observers recognized that a new payroll tax -- or any payroll tax, whether it be the employer health tax or perhaps one in the future -- will be a killer of jobs and reduce the number of jobs created in the province. I think we had better reflect upon that.
The Chair: Are there any other comments on the motion?
Ms S. Murdock: I would like to remind the committee of the statements made by the minister on the day he was here. He made it quite clear at that time that the Treasurer was fully aware of the situation and that even to him at that point -- and at the present time, because that was only two weeks ago -- the Treasurer was going to make a decision when he looked at the situation at the end of the 18 months and could not make a decision, or at least was not about to advise us at that time, whether there would be an employers tax or whether it would continue under the consolidated fund. So I would not support this particular motion.
Mrs Witmer: I support the motion. I have grave concerns about another payroll tax. As my colleague has just mentioned, the employer health tax was introduced by the Liberal government and it had a severe impact on the individuals in this province. Employers are still reeling from that and to now introduce this wage protection fund without any assurance that there is not going to be a further payroll tax would be grossly unfair. I think it is going to influence what some of these small business people do, whether they stay in this province, whether they grow or whether they reduce the size of their operation. I think we have to eliminate that uncertainty.
There is enough uncertainty in this province at present. They are very concerned about the changes to the Labour Relations Act and all sorts of other legislation. We have to alleviate that fear.
The Chair: Thank you, Mrs Witmer. Any other comments, Mr Offer?
Mr Offer: In response to Ms Murdock where she refers to the statements of the minister that at the end of the 18-month period the funding is going to be reviewed, I think we all recognize that is way too late. At the end of the 18-month period there is, in essence, no more money in the till and there are still going to be claims made. The question will be, come 18 months and one day and there is a claim -- that is way too late to determine how you are going to pay the particular claim.
We all recognize that decision has to be made well in advance of the expiration of the 18-month period. We are now clearly moving in on the 12th month for which the consolidated revenue fund is the funder, and it is clear those decisions have to be decided now, that the concerns or factors to be taken into consideration have to be done now. One should not be afraid to ask the Treasurer to confirm these things.
The Treasurer will know, if not today, very shortly, how this fund is going to be happening. It is not going to be in 18 months, that is too late, but he is going to know very shortly and when we speak to this legislation we have to recognize that people came before the committee and spoke about this as an aspect of their concern. It is certainly our obligation to ask the Treasurer whether he has, at the very least, heard those concerns and whether, while retaining the principle of the legislation, he is going to be receptive to those concerns.
The Treasurer is making these decisions right now. By the time this bill gets into the Legislature we are going to be under six months, five months, four months, and I believe this is important information for us to have on hand as we continue the deliberation of this bill. At the very least we should be giving impetus to some of the concerns that were brought forward to the committee.
I am not going into how these particular hearings were short-circuited. However, on the basis of this motion we should not be afraid to ask the Treasurer this particular question.
The Chair: Mr Offer moves that the Treasurer confirm that there will not be levied an employers tax as a result of Bill 70 after the initial 18-month period. Those in favour? Those opposed?
Motion negatived.
Section/article 1:
Ms S. Murdock: An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act to provide for an Employee Wage Protection Program and to make certain other amendments, looking at subsection 1(1).
Mr Klopp: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Could I make a motion in here at this time? If we are going to be starting to read the clause-by-clause and all that right now -- I am new at this and I apologize. We have the bill in front of us and we have amendments. I wonder if we could make a motion to dispense with reading of the section-by-section and just go to the explanation parts, since I have my bill in front of me. Is that clear enough? I would like to move a motion to dispense with the reading of each of the sections of the bill, instead of having to read every one of them over to us again?
The Chair: I appreciate your efforts to assist, but in my view it is not necessary for each section to be read. Reference will be made to the section number since everybody has a copy. It was agreed by the committee that the amended bill would be used for the purpose of reference. Reference to the section number will suffice and it will not be necessary to read the complete section, as printed, on to the record.
1330
Ms S. Murdock: Subsection 1(1) of the bill adds to the existing exemptions under the procedural requirements of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. It strikes out some of the sections and substitutes with some of the new provisions.
The Chair: Perhaps you could speak to subsection 1(2), due to the fact that we will be dealing with section 1.
Ms S. Murdock: Subsection 1(2) of the bill exempts decisions of the wage protection program administrator from the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. In other words, it shields the administrator of requirement of holding a hearing initially, and the appeal in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act is protected.
The Chair: Could I hear a motion with respect to section 1 so it can be debated?
Ms S. Murdock: All of section 1 I move for adoption.
Mr Offer: I have some amendments being circulated at this point.
Ms S. Murdock: I will explain, if I may.
The Chair: Do the amendments that have been prepared relate to section 1?
Mr Offer: They may have an impact on section 1.
Ms S. Murdock: The amendments that you presented today?
Mr Offer: Yes.
Ms S. Murdock: In that case I would ask we stand them down for the moment until we look at your amendments and go on to the next.
The Chair: Might your amendments affect section 2?
Ms S. Murdock: Maybe I had better not set a precedent here.
Mr Offer: Have you moved section 2 yet?
The Chair: No.
Mr Offer: The only reason I say this is out of caution. It may be that the amendment does not have an impact, but one of the amendments we will be calling will be for a procedure whereby there will be a due diligence defence by directors.
The Chair: Mr Offer, in appreciation of Mrs Witmer having had her amendments prepared and distributed, it is obviously useful for everybody here to have everybody else read their amendments before they engage or participate in discussion. If somebody wanted to move a five-minute recess, it might be wise to entertain that.
Mr Huget moves that the committee recess for five minutes.
Motion agreed to.
The committee recessed at 1333.
1346
Mrs Witmer: I have a suggestion at this point in time, Mr Chairperson. I have just received, as we came into this committee, a copy of Bill 70 -- that is the first I had seen it -- and also this book prepared by the Ministry of Labour, which I really appreciate. I wonder if there would be an opportunity for us to adjourn at the present time and resume tomorrow at 10 o'clock, as scheduled, after all of us have had an opportunity to read the bill we are dealing with in printed form, which I had not seen until I came into this room, and also the explanations that have been provided for us as far as the amendments are concerned, which I really appreciate. My understanding is that we are going to finish the work on Bill 70 by Thursday. That certainly would still be my hope and my intention. I would simply like an opportunity to read the information first. I feel as if I am giving approval or making changes a little bit in the dark.
The Chair: I should ask people to note that a motion to adjourn is not debatable, but since you have not made the motion yet, appreciating that you might be making that motion very soon, are there any other comments?
Ms S. Murdock: Yes. Just for the record, Mr Chair, I want to explain that this book handed out by the ministry, as I stated after the recess, is an explanation of the current provisions of the Employment Standards Act, the new provisions and then any of the explanations, but it covers only the first five sections of the amendments. It does not cover from section 6 on yet, but it will as soon as possible.
The other thing is that I agree it is very difficult to discuss or debate any kinds of provisions if they have not been read. It makes it much easier when we have all had an opportunity to look at the same information. But on the last comments of Mrs Witmer, with the intention being that we will be finished Thursday, I hope, we would then deem that all issues not discussed would have been debated?
The Chair: Mrs Witmer, do you want to respond to that? If you do not want to, that is okay, too.
Ms S. Murdock: If on Thursday we end up with a number of clauses that have not been discussed, would we deem them to have been debated at the end of Thursday?
Mrs Witmer: My intention is that we would be finished and have discussed and debated all clauses by Thursday.
Ms S. Murdock: That does not answer the question. It was well done. I agree with what Mrs Witmer has said, but I would simply like, if I can, to have it clear that added to that -- there is not a motion on the floor -- whatever is not completed on Thursday would be deemed to have been debated.
The Chair: That can be done by way of motion or by unanimous consent, but Mr Ramsay wanted to speak.
Mr Ramsay: To give comfort to the government members, I was going to suggest the same thing, that in the motion, because it is the intention to have this business finished by Thursday, we would have some sort of explanation -- maybe a friendly amendment or maybe Mrs Witmer could consider that in her motion when she does move it -- that she wants some time now, as others of us in the committee do, but that our intention is to have the work finished by Thursday afternoon.
Mr Offer: I think it is the hope of all of the members that we will have discussed all of the sections, amendments and, potentially, amendments to the amendments to those sections by, at the very latest, Thursday. I guess my question is, maybe to the Chair or to the clerk, it seems that at the end of that particular point in time, no matter where we are in the bill, the bill is going to be referred back. I think that just happens automatically. It would be nice to get a clarification on that process right now.
The Chair: I should indicate I am not aware of what you are speaking about, and that means I cannot confirm or refute it. Perhaps in response, is there anybody who wishes to speak to that particular matter as to what was the agreement between House leaders?
Ms S. Murdock: We discussed the fact that it would be helpful to look at Bill 70 and the reprint, because the reprint was only handed out to the members -- some of them received them on Friday in their offices but, since most members are not in their Toronto offices on Friday, did not see them until today. Some did not get them until they came in here. As a consequence, the discussion was -- correct me if I am wrong -- that since it was expected that with a few exceptions of differences of opinion, most of this bill should be through by Wednesday, could we adjourn for this afternoon so that each group would be able to look it over and go through it in detail? On that agreement, then, we would adjourn for the afternoon. That was my understanding. All I am asking is that I would like some agreement on my understanding -- perhaps legislative counsel would be able to correct me; I do not know -- that anything not finished would be debatable in the House. Is that correct?
Mr Nigro: Actually, on matters of procedure, on what happens after it is reported to the committee, I defer to the clerk on those things.
Clerk of the Committee: What could happen is that when the Chair reports the bill in the House, if enough members stand, it would be referred to the committee of the whole House and debate could continue in the House in committee of the whole.
Ms S. Murdock: Regardless of what motion was agreed to here?
Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
The Chair: Look, I am aware only of the agreement among House leaders that this committee have two weeks for consideration of the bill.
Ms S. Murdock: Oh, I see.
The Chair: That is the extent of the agreement I am aware of. I cannot speak to anything in addition to that. I am going to ask Ms Witmer to put her motion forward. It is not debatable. It is amendable, so people do what they think they should be doing.
Mrs Witmer: I would like to make a motion at this time, and I hope it would incorporate what is being discussed here, that we would adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow.
The Chair: Is that your whole motion?
Mrs Witmer: What would you like added?
The Chair: Far be it from me, Ms Witmer.
Mr Ramsay: Maybe I could move a friendly amendment that it be the determination of the committee to complete its business by Thursday afternoon, just if you would like that as insurance.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay, in your amendment, is there a formula for doing that? Is there a means being prescribed?
Mr Ramsay: Just work hard, starting tomorrow morning.
The Chair: Any other amendments? Do you accept the amendment?
Mrs Witmer: Yes. In fact, if you want to incorporate that in the main body, that is fine, the intention that we would finish by Thursday.
The Chair: God bless you. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Motion agreed to.
The committee adjourned at 1355.