EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
CONSOLIDATED HEARINGS ACT
Hon. Mr. Norton moved second reading of Bill 89, An Act to provide for the Consolidation of Hearings under certain Acts of the Legislature.
Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement about the background of this bill at the time of its introduction for first reading in the House, and I will not reiterate the information I presented to the House at that time. I will abbreviate my remarks considerably so as not to cut into the time I am sure the honourable members wish to use to address the second reading of this bill.
I wish to point out once again that in principle this bill is designed to provide for a single hearing in those situations where a project brought forward by a proponent might otherwise require a multiplicity of hearings under two or more pieces of legislation within the jurisdiction of the province. The bill will provide for a streamlining of the process which in our opinion will be in the best interests of the proponents and other parties who wish to participate in those hearings. We hope it will result in a more expedient and less costly process for those involved.
Particularly important in our consideration of this bill is the fact that it was the commitment to proceed with a consolidated hearings bill that was instrumental in persuading municipalities to go along with their inclusion under the Environmental Assessment Act of this province. I hope the honourable members will bear that in mind in the course of the consideration under second reading.
Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, speaking to Bill 89, An Act to provide for the Consolidation of Hearings under certain Acts of the Legislature, I just have a couple of questions because we are prepared to support this bill in principle.
I wonder if the minister, if he is making notes, will tell me whether there is any loss in any specific area in the combined hearings. In the event we consolidate hearings, do we lose any special protection in any specific area related to hearings under this act? I think that will be of prime concern in relation to the consolidated hearings.
Mr. Speaker, excuse me while I look through my notes here. If there is a chance there may be loss in any specific area, if there is any circumventing of existing regulations in any particular area, we might have an opportunity to go into various aspects of the bill to get into specific wording because I have some concerns as they relate to wording. That is why I am a little at a loss until I straighten out my notes.
I do not know whether I should go specifically into these areas in this aspect of the presentation of the bill, but section 1(f) says "'person' includes a municipality, Her Majesty in right of Ontario, a crown agency within the meaning of the Crown Agency Act, a public body, a partnership, an unincorporated joint venture and an unincorporated association." I suggest that, in keeping with the intent of the act, we will have to include officers and directors of a corporation in that section.
Section 1(g), which refers to a proponent as meaning "a person who carries out or proposes to carry out" the whole aspect of the act, should also include officers and directors of corporations.
Section 2 says the act "applies in respect of an undertaking in relation to which more than one hearing is required or may be required or held by more than one tribunal under one or more of the acts." I suggest that at that juncture it should read "act or regulation," as it applies to this particular bill.
Under section 3, I think the minister will have to include, after act, "an enabling provision," which would be very important to the meaning in interpreting this act.
I wonder if I can get from the minister a feeling as to whether he might allow this act to go to committee, instead of me going through this and showing him my concerns as they relate to sections of the act. I would like to get a feeling that we might put it to committee and in that way take these sections clause by clause. If I do not have that kind of determination, I will have to put it on the record. Was that his intention, or is that a good question to ask?
The Acting Speaker(Mr. Cousens): You have the floor.
Mr. Kerrio: Can the minister reply?
Hon. Mr. Norton: I am prepared to agree to this bill going to committee provided there is some undertaking from the honourable members of the Legislature from both sides of the House that, since the time which remains before committee would be limited, it will be reported back to the House prior to the end of this sitting so that it can be considered finally by the House before the summer recess.
Mr. Kerrio: That is why I was groping through my files here to get the actual clause-by-clause problems that I had to deal with. If that is the commitment the minister makes, then I can make my comments --
Mr. Nixon: We undertake not to adjourn the House until you are ready.
Mr. Kerrio: My comments can be very brief then. In principle, we support the bill. The fact that the minister is prepared to consolidate hearings under certain acts of the Legislature is a meaningful step forward in the process of getting and expediting of certain aspects of environmental assessment.
I should not say this to the Speaker, because he is liable to call me to order -- I should not suggest I want to digress from the intent of the bill -- but the fact of the matter is that, while we are consolidating on the one hand, we are sort of going off on a tangent as it relates to the minister's other bill that is coming up later this evening. We will deal with that when it comes to the floor.
All I should say then, at this juncture, if the minister is willing to allow us to debate this clause by clause, is that the intent of the bill certainly is a good one. To consolidate the hearings to allow people to make one presentation before various boards and corporations is vital to speeding up the whole process. On that basis, we will deal with the bill clause by clause at the appropriate time.
8:10 p.m.
The Acting Speaker: Mr. Cooke.
Mr. Charlton: It is Mr. Charlton, sir, although that mistake has been made on a number of occasions. I am not sure why.
Mr. Cooke: Neither am I.
Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 89, and I say at the outset that after some deliberation we are prepared to support this bill on second reading, although we have some serious reservations about a number of sections in the bill.
Earlier this afternoon we spoke to the minister briefly, but not in much detail, about some of our reservations. I will try to lay some of them out now so that perhaps we can discuss them between my comments, the comments of my colleagues and the minister's response.
It is my understanding that we will be taking this out of the House into committee for a couple of days in an attempt to clarify a number of things, but not to delay the bill unduly.
The principle of the bill, the principle of attempting to deal with some fairly lengthy delays that the present legislation provides, is a supportable principle. Over the past number of years we have heard complaints from a number of sectors in our economy, specifically from the construction and development sector, that the bureaucracy, the delays and the red tape are serious problems. Like the government and the municipalities in this province, we can understand and seriously want to deal with delays that might result from imposing the Environmental Assessment Act on municipal projects without this kind of legislation.
On the other hand, there is a small item of principle that causes us some problems. I think they can be resolved in discussions over the next week. But we have the problem in principle of the question of protest and opposition and their effectiveness, as opposed to streamlining the system. It becomes clear very quickly that in terms of a community, or a neighbourhood in a community, or a special interest group in a community, or the people on a street, or whoever is opposing a particular project, the more often they can have a kick at the cat, as the expression goes, the more often they can take a shot at that proposal, the more they can delay that proposal, the more likely it is that the particular group, municipality, community, neighbourhood, whatever it happens to be, is going to be able to defeat that proposal. Delays can ultimately cause the end of the project, and in some ways the length of the process can be a safeguard for the public.
On the other hand, we also fully understand the very detrimental nature of delays in some situations and the very costly nature of delays in many situations.
However, we have to resolve that very basic question about whether this legislation is going to provide as effective a tool for the public in terms of opposition to a particular proposal as the present process does. I am not sure that the legislation as it stands does that. As I said to the minister earlier, I am sure we can resolve that over the course of the next week or so.
We found a number of specific problems with the bill, and I will run through them for the minister. At least one of my colleagues will be speaking tonight and he may talk about problems I have not seen, but section 5(4) raises the first serious problem I see. Here we deal with the question of a joint board and its ability to defer a matter or part of a matter. This section gives that board the ability, in a deferral, to "impose such terms and conditions or give such directions or both in respect of the proceedings or the matter or part deferred as the joint board considers proper." For us, that section is a little loose and ambiguous in terms of what power that gives this joint board.
Section 5(4)(b) says, "A joint board may direct that the matter or part deferred be decided without a hearing." The meaning of that is a little vague. It also raises the spectre of some potential problems, for this caucus at least, in terms of what power that grants and what kinds of things these joint boards may determine shall not have a hearing at all. This goes back to the question I raised about the public's right to oppose in a substantive way.
So section 5(4) creates some serious problems for us. While we understand the minister's and the government's feeling that we have to streamline the process, we have to protect, at all cost, the public's ability to make sure the best things are happening in the public interest.
As we have suggested over the last number of months, we do not want to see matters that should be clearly and publicly dealt with at public hearings moved out of the public hearing sector. During the past year, we have complained that the minister or the cabinet has exempted particular projects from public hearing under the legislation that exists in this province. Our question here is whether or not these sections, in legal terms, will allow this single hearing that is going to be created to exempt some of the things we have complained about ministers and cabinets exempting.
The second problem I see with the legislation as it is proposed is in section 5(6), which reads: "A joint board may make any decision mentioned in subsection 2 without holding a hearing if the joint board is satisfied that in the circumstances a hearing would not be required or would be dispensed with under the act specified in the schedule" -- the schedule referring to all the acts covered by this piece of legislation.
It seems to us that, although that section is not quite as wide open as subsection 4, subsection 6 is somewhat vague in terms of definition. It is not specific about what this determination on the part of the board should be and how that determination should be reached. In other words, it is the same question raised under the last section about the board's power to get around the hearing process and public input into the decision-making process in terms of major proposals that may be made.
8:20 p.m.
We next found some problems with section 8(3). The definition in this subsection, as well as the intent, is a bit vague. Perhaps the minister can clarify some of this. Subsection 3 seems to say the joint board, set up to deal with a situation under this act where more than one of the acts listed in the schedule come into play, can have a look at those interest groups that are requesting permission to make presentations for or against the proposal.
It seems the board has the power to decide who is going to represent those classes of complaint or support and has the right not only to decide who will make presentations in the hearing process but also the right to decide that certain groups shall not make presentations since they have already been adequately represented because of other board decisions. That seems to us to be a section of this bill that requires some particular and careful thought.
As it reads now, it does not appear to be acceptable to us in terms of protecting the rights of groups or individuals in the public to have their say before the decision is made. It is not clear to us in the decisions of this joint board that is set up who can adequately represent all those groups that may fall into a particular category. It is not clear to us that whoever the board suggests should represent them can adequately reflect all the concerns and/or facts they may have to bring to bear.
The fourth concern we have with specific sections of the bill concerns section 8(4), wherein the board will have the power to specify any additional persons who will make presentations in the hearing process under this act. This seems, in conjunction with subsection 3, to give the board the power to decide without hearing the full extent of their case, without hearing the facts of their presentation and without hearing all the things an individual or group may get into.
This seems to give the board the power to decide who is relevant and who is irrelevant to the matter the board is hearing. That to us does not seem to be a clear-cut or fully appropriate process in terms of protecting the public's right to oppose a proposal in a municipality, community, neighbourhood or even on the street, as the case may be.
Those are basically the sections that cause us some concern and on which we wish some clarification. They are sections we want to see discussed in the committee, even for a short period of time. Perhaps there could be some input from some of those outside the Legislature who are familiar with the processes under all the acts this bill covers and around which it proposes to consolidate the hearing process.
That brings me to the next point in my comments tonight. I am not sure whether the minister can respond to this. I have been through this act a number of times over the last week or so, and I have been through the bundle of material that was sent over to me ation. I have had a particularly difficult time getting a handle on all the ramifications, all the possibilities of what this legislation will do in relation to all the acts it attempts to consolidate in one hearing process.
The reason that is true is that all these acts are not necessarily homogenous. In some cases -- not in every case, but in some cases -- sections of these acts contradict provisions of sections of some of the other acts.
For example, and I mentioned this to the minister earlier this afternoon, I have had comments from at least one group now opposing a particular proposal who at least feel -- and the minister may be able to clarify some of this -- that their opposition could be somewhat limited under a consolidated process such as that laid out here because of the lack of clear definition.
The minister may be able to tell us that he is going to deal with that in regulations, and he may be able to lay that out clearly for us.
The group I am referring to is a group in Hamilton called the Save the Valley Committee. It is a committee opposed to the proposed Redhill Valley Expressway. That group is somewhat concerned about proposals that the Ministry of the Environment has made to it about consolidating hearings under the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment Act.
The group fears that the Planning Act is restrictive in its terms of reference as to what the Ontario Municipal Board is able to hear on an application, while the Environmental Assessment Act is broader and more permissive as to what can be looked at by an environmental assessment board.
The Planning Act is restrictive in the sense that it says that the Ontario Municipal Board will look only at the proposal that is before it and make its decision, for or against, on the specific proposal's own merits.
The Environmental Assessment Act, on the other hand, allows for a much broader debate, a much broader discussion and a much broader decision. The Environmental Assessment Act allows one not only to look at the specific proposal but also to consider alternatives and to weigh all the pros and cons not only of the proposal but also of the alternatives.
In the case I have just cited, the fear has been expressed to us that, if there is no clear definition in this consolidation act of which rules will prevail -- and there are other contradictions in the half dozen or eight or 10 acts that are involved here -- the consolidated and combined hearing can become restrictive, whereas the two-hearing process that we have now allows one in the one instance to deal with the specific proposal and in the other instance to deal with the broader range of issues and alternatives.
Our concern here is that over the course of the next week in some way we should not only answer the questions I have raised tonight but also try to tighten up the wording of this piece of legislation in a specific way so there will be no misunderstandings on the part of the public or on the part of those who are setting up the tribunals and laying out the rules for the chairmen and members of these tribunal boards.
8:30 p.m.
If there is a question when two acts are combined in the hearing about which rules apply -- which rules apply in the sense of whether they lean to the more restrictive of the two or to the more open of the two -- I think we have to deal with this area before we, in this caucus at least, are prepared to give this legislation third reading and allow it to go into effect.
As I said at the outset, we can support the principle of what the minister and the government are trying to do in this piece of legislation. We can support it, because there have been a number of very serious problems out there in the real world in terms of the effectiveness of all of these pieces of legislation. There have been some problems out there in the real world in terms of costs. There have been some problems out there in the real world not only in terms of the costs of public expenditure but also in terms of costs by public groups having to oppose a particular proposal through three or four different hearing processes.
There have been delays, and sometimes there have been undue delays, in a particular proposal finally getting permission to go ahead. We understand that, and we want to be as cooperative as we can in terms of seeing that principle and that aspect of the problems out there being dealt with effectively through whatever legislation we finally pass.
At the same time, we want to be sure that whatever legislation we pass will protect the public and ensure that the public is not left in a bind where it is restricted by the most restrictive legislation in this package and has lost the flexibility of the most flexible legislation in this package.
We want to be sure that the reverse is true and, if we are going to have combined or consolidated hearings in terms of the way the minister has laid out the name of this piece of legislation, that the more flexible approach is the norm.
We want to be sure that there are definitions of those things in this piece of legislation that the minister and his staff, when they were drawing up this legislation, intended should be excluded from the hearing process from time to time so we know that what may be excluded are not substantive things and that they are perhaps things of a technically inconsequential nature.
We certainly do not want to see the boards having the power to do what we have complained about over the past year, and that is what this government and what this ministry may do in terms of totally exempting proposals in this province from the legislation that exists.
We do not want to see some board out there all of a sudden having that power, and we want to ensure that whatever process we come up with is a process that is workable not only in terms of streamlining but also in terms of the public's right and ability to defend communities, municipalities, neighbourhoods and so on.
With those comments, and having laid out those reservations about this piece of legislation, I repeat again that I am sure, in terms of what seems to be fairly universal agreement with the basic principle of the bill, we can work out the assurances, the definitions and the clarity we are looking for in this piece of legislation in fairly short order.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we are used to having a succession of Ministers of the Environment who were aggressive and high-profile, full of initiative and fight, and it is rather a relief to have the present minister assuming his duties.
The bill before us is really a result of many years of this aggressive, high-profile, hitting-the-table leadership in the Ministry of the Environment, going back to the time when the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) was the minister. I well recall him hitting his desk over there -- he split the thing -- saying that the polluter should pay. "The polluter must pay," I believe was the phrase. We have been trying to hold the government to that all these years, but I think it was just before the election of 1975 that the leadership of the government got carried away with what we felt was a lot of good initiatives involving environmental assessment.
I recall many of the debates in the House in which we urged the government to take these steps, which largely went for nought politically, when most of the concepts were accepted and we established the Environmental Assessment Board, and even before that, going back before 1971, to matters pertaining to expropriation under the Expropriations Act, which was entirely renewed, renovated, set right before the election of 1971.
Now the chickens have come home to roost, and the minister, who is not supported tonight by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), has found that all these blooming boards think they are supposed to hold hearings. They have the preposterous idea, in the minds of the government or of some members of the government, that these hearings are supposed to be, at least in part, independent. They have the strange idea that they are supposed to be scheduled when it is suitable for the boards and those who might want to appear before the boards, and not just when it is convenient for the Minister of Transportation and Communications or the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), or people who want to go forward with some project they know to be correct. They do not think all these hearings are just so much piffle, designed to elect the Tories back in 1971 and 1975.
I do not know who had the concept of putting all these hearings together in one major circus. Frankly, I think it is a good idea, and I agree with my colleague, who spoke first for us, that we will support the bill with some enthusiasm. I cannot help but feel a certain amount of -- it is not bitterness, because I really do not give a darn about it at this stage -- softened bitterness, when I think of the ringing declarations of principle that came from the other side during these years -- not too many years -- when the government led the province into this whole new concept of public participation and the protection of minorities, and a new understanding of the importance of the environment in the face of the onslaught of big government and big business.
It is the passing of an era. Even the environmental assessment procedure -- I will not dwell on that; I know members will glad of that -- has been just a farce. The government does not bother having an assessment for Darlington, and we have a bill before us, which we may get to some time in July, setting aside any hearing, for example, for the South Cayuga dump, or, as the former minister chose to call it, repository.
Those matters are set aside, whereas heaven help the township of South Dumfries if it wants to pave a road, or the county of Brant if it wants to widen a road and pave it, if they do not have a proper environmental assessment.
Another example is a whole area of southwestern Ontario that is aching to be served by a new controlled-access highway, Highway 403. The whole thing is going to be stymied in spite of the will of the people, who elected certain candidates in that area because of their support for the road, like me, or in spite of their support for the road, like the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies). All that is in danger certainly of being delayed, if not being set aside, because of the great commitment of the ministry to having an environmental assessment for some piffling road somewhere. But if they really want to get something through, and it has an emergent and particular importance to the minister concerned, then there is no doubt about it at all.
8:40 p.m.
In many ways it is an end to an era. It is like the way the Premier and the ministry were reformed over the years. Remember the committee on government productivity with all the new ministers? In the next three or four years we will probably see the gradual abolition, dissolution and disappearance of many of those top-heavy structures that came in, in the name of great reform.
I believe this bill in many respects is the end of that great thrust of the 1970s which was supposed to bring the citizen to participate in government. There were even comments at one time that perhaps citizens ought to be funded from the provincial Treasury to assist them in getting together a case in defence against big government that might otherwise move in with its PCB tanks, hydro generators and heavy water distilleries, with all of the power, majesty and finance of government, and thrust aside the requirements of the small community and the individual citizen.
The chairman of the Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning -- what was that worthy gentleman's name? I think the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) appointed him when he was the minister.
Mr. J. A. Taylor: I did not appoint him. You are talking about Porter.
Mr. Nixon: Dr. Porter. It was probably the epitome of citizen participation. He listened to platoons of well-informed citizens each with legal support indicating what the findings should be. But that is now being pretty well set aside. If this bill means anything, it means the end of that commitment by the government.
Certainly there are still going to be hearings. They even took the cream of the Ontario Municipal Board and plucked it out of the OMB to form a nucleus for the environmental hearing board. Those hearing officers who had OMB experience had a concept of independence and importance. Who would leave the OMB? It is incredible. It is like resigning from the Senate. But some of them did, because they felt the government was totally and thoroughly committed. Now they find they are all going to be thrown into a common hearing anyway, almost willy-nilly.
I see there are many sections for coordination and so on, but all those people -- although I would certainly support their claims to independence -- realize that in the long run they exist at pleasure and, if their appointments are not at pleasure, at least their raises are at pleasure.
It is the same with the rest of us --
Mr. Roy: Well, not quite.
Mr. Nixon: No. Some people are going to reject them, I understand, but that is another matter.
Mr. Roy: They don't exist for the pleasure of anybody on that side; sorry about that.
Mr. Nixon: No. It is very good. I feel at last the government is climbing down from the Olympian stance it has taken over these years. Frankly, I welcome this dose of reality, because there is no way any progress in the community could be realistically contemplated with the panoply of independent hearings, all of them lengthy and many of them waiting in precedence one for the other. In many respects that has been substantially disruptive.
I still believe the original concepts could well have been maintained, if not totally independently, particularly for environmental hearings. I do not want to give the minister the impression that I like the concept of downgrading in any way the independence of environmental hearings. After all, we have always left the final decision to the political authority, and I have no objection to that.
If the minister can continue in any of these findings to accept, reject or have them refurbished along any lines that he sees fit, then at the same time the minister must carry whatever opprobrium or ash cans go along with a decision that might be seen by a significant proportion of the public to be incorrect, crass or badly motivated.
I have often felt that the government of the day, having embarked bravely on this process, has never ever given it a chance to work. Even in the South Cayuga instance there was always not only the possibility but also the certainty of setting limits to an environmental hearing by an amendment or a special act of this House. That would have been supported on all sides if there could have been some sort of an environmental hearing and not a decision that the liquid waste dump or repository was going to go in South Cayuga and that was fixed and the only hearing had to do with how it could be made safe. We are going to be making some arguments in that connection some time in the future.
I cannot say I welcome the bill but I do point out to you, Mr. Speaker, in one aspect it is a signpost on the road down from Olympus. It is an acceptance of reality, which I guess all of us must do every now and then.
Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly on Bill 89, because there are two elements of the bill which cause me a degree of concern. I may say that in substance our caucus is in agreement with the need to provide some kind of streamlining to these complex hearings with respect to many of the involved issues that come before such hearings, by which so many people may be affected and on which so many people may want to express their views.
The two areas that are of concern to me are not ones that can be dealt with simply by asking the minister on second reading or in committee of the whole House to make some verbal or semantic changes in the bill. If that were so, we would not be proposing -- I hope with agreement amongst the House leaders -- that the bill might go out for a limited period of time to the standing committee on administration of justice for return to the House for final proceedings here before the House recesses for the summer.
One of the areas of specific concern to me is the whole question of standing: Who is entitled to be heard? The minister will find in the bill, as is natural when they put together so many other bills and the provisions of other bills relating to standing, that the bill is quite confused, in my view, about who would be entitled to standing. Unless, of course, one can be heard, then one vitiates and truncates the whole of the process and perhaps streamlines it to an extent that is totally unacceptable.
Specifically, the provision is in section 8 of the bill. The bill provides that "a person entitled to be heard at a hearing or to take part in proceedings before a tribunal that has a power, right or duty to hold a hearing in respect of which a joint board has been established has the same entitlement in respect of the proceedings before the joint board." One immediately has to look back at the previous statute to find out who it is who might be entitled to be heard before this joint board.
Of course, in the schedule one may find a joint board appointed to deal with at least two of the traditional statutory hearings provided in the schedule to the bill, perhaps in certain instances many more -- perhaps three, four or five. A perusal of the various bills related to the principles about who has standing leave much to be desired. There is usually a fundamental argument before any board as to just who has the right to be heard.
I recognize that a number of these clauses are taken out of the Environmental Assessment Act, which was passed in 1975 and which left much to be desired when we passed it. But then there is the specific provision, of course, which then goes on to say that even if you are entitled to be heard, the joint board can determine who will represent you, particularly when there are a number of classes of persons before the hearing.
Again, in section 8(3) you have this provision: "For the purpose of proceedings before a joint board, the joint board may appoint from among a class of parties to the proceedings having, in the opinion of the joint board, a common interest, a person to represent that class in the proceedings, but any other member of the class for which such appointment was made may, with the consent of the joint board, take part in the proceedings notwithstanding the appointment."
8:50 p.m.
I say again that even if you are one of the persons who can establish standing, who can establish that you have such an interest in the proceeding that you must be heard or, by the principles of natural justice, the proceeding would be vitiated, nevertheless we still give the joint board, and the bill purports to give the joint board the ability to designate the person who will represent classes of persons with substantially the same interest. And only with the consent of the board can anybody else be heard.
I think there is a certain arbitrary tone in that kind of procedure that is unacceptable when we are trying to facilitate the hearings of the board and streamline their proceedings while at the same time preserving the rights of all persons who have an interest in being properly heard and properly represented.
I cannot understand why it is not possible to determine for these purposes who has an interest. The question has been before any number of similar boards in the past, and it should be possible when we are attempting to provide and facilitate a procedure for the resolution of complex and difficult problems to state more clearly who has an interest.
I, for one, think that in questions such as this, where so many people are affected and concerned both broadly and directly, we need to have an opportunity for some input by people outside this chamber with experience in and knowledge of the hazards involved in determining the question of standing so that we have some understanding of the problems. Many members of the assembly have had experience; I have not had all that much, but we have had a number of these bills before us on other occasions, and that question is always a perplexing and vexed one.
I think we would be ill advised to proceed on environmental matters -- using the expression in the broadest sense of the term -- related to planning, zoning and other kinds of applications, unless we can establish a specific kind of provision that will indicate clearly to the joint board who has standing before the board and unless we make certain that the participants before the board, if they wish to combine and be represented by one or more persons, have that opportunity without providing such an intrusion by the board in the naming of persons to argue their case or to put the case before that tribunal.
The second area, which is a little bit earlier on in the bill, seems to me -- and I stand to be corrected by the minister when he speaks on the bill -- to indicate that there are certain circumstances in which a hearing need not be held.
In section 5 of the bill, if I may paraphrase or at least skip some of the words, there is provision for a joint board to be able to hold a public hearing and make decisions. Then you have the strange provision later on, in section 5(5) of the bill, where a joint board defers a matter. There is a provision for deferral earlier in that same section. It goes on to say, in section 5(4)(b), that "the joint board may direct that the matter or part deferred be decided without a hearing." I find that a very odd juxtaposition of powers for any board to have.
Further on in that section, if I understand it correctly, we have another provision, the broad omnibus power of decision-making, that simply says, "A joint board may make any decision mentioned in subsection 2 without holding a hearing if the joint board is satisfied that in the circumstances a hearing would not be required or would be dispensed with under the act specified in the schedule or prescribed by the regulations that, but for this act, would apply in respect of the undertaking."
When we get that number of legal words in a section, that means the board could decide almost anything within the ambit of its authority without holding a hearing and we in this assembly would have authorized it. I find that an extremely ill-advised clause to have in the bill without some very clear and more precise definition of the need to have a public hearing.
Let me step back a little bit. The joint board is for the purpose of deciding matters that are extremely complex. It seems to me that, if the process of a joint board is going to take place, there should be an absolute obligation on that joint board to have a public hearing. There should not be a provision that says we go through this more elaborate process of having a joint board with that kind of expertise to deal with some matter that does not require a hearing.
I am saying to the minister that we have to have some adequate explanation of the provisions of section 5. I do not believe I have misread them. I believe I understand what it says. In substance, it says that any decision the board may want to make can be made without having a hearing. Yet the very purpose of establishing the joint bill is to have a public hearing.
Then there is the ancillary statement that, in a roundabout way, they can simply defer the matter. If they defer it, they can then decide not to have a hearing. Those are matters that are of very major concern to us.
I want to reiterate that our position on the bill is that we want to see a better procedure for dealing with very complex issues in which many interests have very different aims in view when they appear before such a joint tribunal. However, we must first establish very clearly in the bill who has standing in any hearing. In a bill such as this we must be absolutely certain that, having gone to all this trouble, there will be a public hearing.
To us, those are two major considerations that in other circumstances, except for our desire to facilitate the major purpose of the bill, would lead us to vote against the bill.
I am saying to the minister that it is important from our point of view that he clarify our concerns on these two counts. Second, it is important that with agreement, I trust, the bill will go out to the standing committee on administration of justice for a limited period of time so the members of that committee can fully understand and appreciate the significance of those two points.
If I have misread the bill in some way, and I do not believe I have, then that would be quite a different matter. If the minister can convince me that I have misread it, I will be quite happy to change my views.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I feel this is a progressive bill and one, as has been indicated, that we can support, but I want to make a few comments and give a little background on the reason it came to a head.
The minority government working over the past five years and, I suppose, the South Cayuga issue were mainly responsible for the revision of the legislation. It has been obvious that the government wanted to deal with waste, and it is important that we move forward in that respect.
9 p.m.
The Environmental Assessment Act was there to protect the people, as was the Environmental Protection Act. The Expropriations Act is there, along with the Ontario Water Resources Act. Now that we are putting them together and shortening the time period, as has been pointed out by the previous speakers, it is important that the public has the opportunity of participating and that a time limit should be established so we can move forward in the best interests of everyone in Ontario.
I have been listening closely to what the minister has to say about how we will be dealing with all these boards under one board. It will still be important that we do move and that private individuals can afford to participate in the protection they deserve.
Those are a few key issues. I am interested to hear the response of the minister. I hope the bill will be going to committee where further input can be provided.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill, because, as many people here will know, I and many other members of this Legislature have been involved in a large number of hearings, in my case both as an elected member of a municipality and as head of a municipality. Also I have been involved in many citizens' groups in a variety of hearings that have taken place. I am aware of some of the problems with regard to the present legislation.
Like my colleagues, I want to say that the principle in this bill is a solemn principle, the principle of consolidating the hearings into one hearing. The system of having two or three hearings on the same issue is extremely costly and time-consuming, sometimes going on for years. This frustrates both sides in the hearing and precludes arriving at a reasonable decision in a reasonable period of time.
I was looking at the schedule in the back and can conceive that there could be an issue to be decided that would encompass at least five of those specific acts. Under the present legislation, one would probably have to have five separate hearings.
The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) -- I was not in here all the time he was speaking -- may have mentioned that in Niagara Falls two hearings were held, one under the Environmental Assessment Act and one under the Planning Act. The first one, which was lengthy and costly, was approved. The second one under the Planning Act was turned down. The costs of those two hearings were fairly substantial, both to the municipalities involved and to the citizens' group that was opposing that hearing.
Even more recently, a hearing has taken place -- I believe it has now concluded -- in the Pelham area of the Niagara Peninsula relative to rezoning of an area to extend a pits and quarries operation rather extensively. It was a zoning matter in the Niagara Escarpment. It comes under the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board Act and, therefore, there have been extensive hearings held and hearings yet to be held.
Mr. Kerrio: The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act as well.
Mr. Swart: Yes, I mentioned that, if the member was listening. It comes under the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act as well. There will be a tremendous delay. The principle here is a sound one. I think everyone who has spoken has agreed to it. I suppose the question can rightly be asked, why has this been so long in coming before this House?
From my contacts with municipalities and municipal organizations, I am sure there is general approval by them with regard to this act. They support the consolidation.
I have also had some contact with citizens' groups. There is some mixed reception among them. In general, they are conscious of the cost of separate hearings and therefore, on the one hand, they are anxious to proceed under one hearing. On the other hand, some municipal groups, after having lost in one hearing, have been successful in a second hearing, as was the case in Niagara Falls. They are reluctant not to get a second kick at the cat if one can term it that way. There will have to be some very firm guidelines set up so the overlapping of the issues in these joint board hearings will not be fudged to the extent where one can supersede another.
I am glad this act provides generally for the provisions of the Municipal Act and the Planning Act to be applied to the joint board hearings. Under the Environmental Assessment Act and the Environmental Protection Act, it is generally the minister who makes the final decision. I notice this bill, as I say, follows the procedures of the Planning Act, and any appeal must be through the Lieutenant Governor in Council. I am supportive of that being placed in this act.
I think it is fair to say, and I have said this here before, that generally there is no board over a long period of time that has been considered more impartial and more independent than the Ontario Municipal Board. I am glad that it is tied into this and that its policies generally will prevail in the hearings before the joint board.
However, there are some shortcomings and some items in this bill that cause us concern, as my colleagues the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) and the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) have stated. I am not going to repeat what they said to any great degree except to say there is a real danger, which we dealt with under the Pits and Quarries Control Act, when one gives the power to the board to decide who it is going to hear or to name one person to represent a certain class. I suggest there is real danger when it has the power to decide who gets standing at the board.
That should be amended as it was amended in the new pits and quarries legislation which, incidentally, never got passed before the last House was dissolved. Nevertheless, the then Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Auld, had agreed to remove that clause from the bill.
There is another danger I have already mentioned which I think bothers all of us who are concerned about citizens' rights and full citizen input. I think it is not unfair to say that this party has been the champion over the years of those citizens' rights. It is precisely because we have been such that I am supporting this bill in principle.
However, I want to point out there is some danger in the grouping under the joint board of what would normally be two or three hearings. Under the previous situation, one held a hearing under the Planning Act -- perhaps that came first -- a hearing under the Environmental Act, a hearing under the Expropriations Act or whatever the case may be. If any one of those was turned down, it killed the whole proceeding; that stopped the proposal put forward by a municipality or sometimes by the developer or perhaps by other people.
9:10 p.m.
I am a bit concerned that when this is all grouped together under one board they will look at these three different issues all contained in one. They will say: "Two of these look very good; they outweigh the other one. Therefore, we will approve them." I think that is a real danger which has to be addressed, and it appears to me that it has not been addressed in this bill.
Another shortcoming in this bill -- and I believe it was mentioned by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), although he did not pursue it to any great extent -- is the matter of funding. If there is going to be any fairness and equity and equality in these hearings, whether it is the joint board hearings or individual board hearings, those groups that are taking one side of the case, often versus the municipalities -- citizens' groups versus the municipalities -- must have some equality of funding. That is a sound principle. You cannot get away from it.
If there was anything that proved this need, I think it was the hearing in the Niagara Peninsula with regard to the preservation of the fruit lands there. I do not know how many people in this House are aware that those hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board went on for 16 months. It is probably the record in Ontario.
The municipalities and the developers, who had some 70 lawyers at the hearings, admitted they spent a couple of million dollars in promoting the widespread urban boundaries and the development of the fruit lands and the prime agricultural land in that area. The Preservation of Agricultural Land Society, one of those in opposition, and myself and Dr. Krueger, spent something like $150,000 and had some minor assistance from the government. But they had to raise most of that money themselves.
The point I want to make --
The Deputy Speaker: That is just what I was going to ask you.
Mr. Swart: The point I want to make with regard to the need for funding, and my reason for using that as an example, is that the Ontario Municipal Board in its ruling granted to the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society the preservation of about two thirds of the land that was in dispute before the OMB.
The Ontario Municipal Board -- I wrote it down here; it is almost the exact wording -- commended the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society, commended Dr. Krueger and commended me for filling a void that no other person or group was prepared to fill. That was the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board. And yet it was only by chance that this group was able to do the job it did at that hearing, because there was a lawyer who was so committed to land preservation that he charged the Preservation of Agricultural Land Society really only a pittance compared to what most lawyers charge.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Swart, I have let you go on at length on this issue. I am having difficulty in trying to relate what you are saying to the essence of the bill.
Mr. Swart: I would say to you with respect, Mr. Speaker, that you should not have any difficulty, because missing from this bill is the funding of groups before the joint boards. It is not mentioned in this bill, and surely on second reading you talk about not only what is in the bill but also what is missing. Therefore, I am giving examples that I think are exactly applicable to the principle in this bill.
Because of these shortcomings, and they are substantial, I am glad that the minister has agreed that it will go to a committee, perhaps the justice committee, which will not hold public hearings, but will at least invite various groups before that committee to give their views. I suggest that one of those groups has to be the Canadian Environmental Law Association. We also want to hear from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and other groups that have spent a great deal of time in recent years and have been deeply involved in this whole matter of the various hearings that are to be consolidated.
With the assurance that it is going to go to the committee, and with the assurance that we will be hearing from these groups, either directly -- I hope it is directly, and perhaps the minister will answer that -- or through briefs, which they may submit in writing, we, in this party, are going to support this. We think it is a move in the right direction but, as always seems to be the case with that government over there, they never move the whole way. The bills always have major shortcomings, and we, on this side of the House, are going to try to correct those substantial shortcomings in this bill.
Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as has been alluded to in the earlier part of this evening's discussion, I believe there is an understanding among the House leaders of all parties, and certainly with my concurrence, if such an understanding has been arrived at, that this bill will go to a standing committee; I believe it will be the standing committee on administration of justice, but I am not sure which committee. I certainly support that, provided there is also a commitment on the part of members of the House, as I have mentioned earlier, to limit the period of time before the committee to two days.
In view of the remarks of the last speaker, I have to say that I am not sure it is up to me to determine the procedure before the committee. I think that is the committee's prerogative. I have no preference as to whether the groups give oral representations before the committee or do it by way of written submissions. That is a matter that ought to be determined by the members of the committee, as they consider their proceedings. However, I am prepared at the request of some of the members opposite to undertake to notify those organizations, which the member indicated to me he would like to have notified, of the likelihood of these matters being dealt with before the committee, perhaps in the early part of next week.
In view of the fact that we will have the opportunity in committee to address some of the specific concerns which are now on the record, I will be somewhat less detailed in my response here tonight. I think the honourable members will agree that part of the debate tonight was essentially clause-by-clause consideration, which can be dealt with more appropriately and carefully in committee.
I am not accustomed to these powerful images of the member from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). On this side of the House, we are plain, simple folk who identify with the grass roots, not with Olympus. Being so unfamiliar with those very powerful and expansive images, I was a little taken aback by his references to climbing down from our Olympian stance.
Actually, I think this is a conscientious and sincere effort on the part of someone who is clearly and deeply involved with the grass roots of this province to try to improve the process in areas where we see that it can be improved so that those individuals who wish to participate may participate perhaps even more effectively than they have been able to in the past.
We have tried to improve it so they may participate at less cost in terms of energy and resources by avoiding unnecessary duplications of hearings. If that is somehow coming down from an Olympian stance, then I defer to the honourable member, but I think it is a genuine and honest reflection of a government that is striving to meet the needs of the simple folk in this province, like those of us on this side of the House.
9:20 p.m.
It certainly is not even remotely accurate, in my opinion, to try to portray the bill as in any way backing away from a commitment to public participation. It is, in fact, an effort to improve the opportunity for public participation in the process. I should not get into the next bill, I know, Mr. Speaker, but I say to the honourable member that the next bill even improves that opportunity for people in specific circumstances.
Even recognizing the very difficult situation I know the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) faces in his constituency -- I understand that; I know the anxiety that exists among his constituents -- the next bill will provide them with a greater opportunity for involvement in the process than probably any other piece of legislation would.
I guess the comment I want to address is the one by the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton). I was a little confused when he spoke. I was not sure, when he began to describe what might remotely be characterized as the urban guerrilla approach to the hearing process, whether he was expressing his own philosophy or whether he was being critical of that approach. Surely the hearing process does not exist for the principal purpose of allowing for a deliberate frustration of that very process.
I think the honourable member's attitude might have crept forward from time to time when he repeatedly referred to opposition, as opposed to participation, because there are people who participate in the process who may not be constantly opposed. If his mental set is such that he sees all public participation as being in some way opposition, then I can understand why he would describe the repeated opportunities for kicks at the can or kicks at the cat -- I have forgotten whom he was kicking.
He made the suggestion that the length of the process really had some advantages because it can allow things to be dragged out to the point where the proposal is killed. Surely the purpose of a hearing process is to allow for full and fair involvement and participation and then to come to the best decision possible.
Mr. Charlton: That was the whole point.
Mr. McClellan: That is exactly what he said.
Hon. Mr. Norton: If that is what he said, then we do concur. I thought he was saying he had some regrets or some concerns about removing the multiplicity of hearings.
Mr. Martel: You should listen. You might learn something.
Hon. Mr. Norton: I thought I was. Perhaps he might have expressed himself a little more carefully on that subject.
Some specific concerns were raised. For example, one of the concerns of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) was that section 5 might afford an opportunity for the joint hearing board to decide things without hearings. If the section requires clarification, I am willing to hear suggestions, because it is important that the legislation be clearly understandable and that there be no doubts in the minds of people about the intent.
Section 5(4), which I think he made reference to, is really intended to deal in some instances with specific technical matters that may not be before the board after a public hearing, for example because the complete plan may not be prepared. It is not decided in secret or behind closed doors or anything like that.
Presumably, after hearing argument on the subject, the board may say that a particular item can be deferred for decision and that, because it is a minor technical matter and not a matter of principle in the hearing, it need not be subject to a further hearing at the time the decision is taken. We can perhaps discuss those sorts of things more readily during clause-by-clause consideration in committee.
Similarly, concern was expressed about whether section 7 would allow the board arbitrarily somehow to disallow people from representation before the board. That is not the intention. I think section 7(1) clearly indicates the intention that all the acts must be complied with in terms of those provisions. Section 8(1) I think indicates as well that parties who would be parties under any of the individual acts would be parties before the joint hearing board.
The reference to the joint board specifying additional persons shall be parties is really intended to be an opportunity to add people who might be deemed to be appropriately entitled to be before the board and for some reason might not be eligible under the particular combination of acts that give rise to the joint hearing. It is not intended to be exclusive in the sense of excluding people from status. The intent would be the reverse.
I am not ignoring the matters the honourable members have put on the record, but I do think the forum of the committee is better for this purpose.
Mr. Martel: Quit while you are ahead.
Hon. Mr. Norton: Is that right? I shall shortly. I guess it was the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) who made reference to the fact that, if there were three issues under consideration, two might be deemed to be good and the other one not good; therefore, they might override the third. It sounded to me as if he were describing what one might call a holistic approach to decision-making.
I am not sure that is a bad idea in some instances and that, when a decision is being made on a matter, all the evidence before the hearing be considered. Ultimately, the necessity of decision-making surely requires that one does those sorts of things. I am not sure what he was describing is all bad, although I was concerned he might have been portraying it from that perspective.
Generally, I am pleased the honourable members opposite support the principle of this bill, and I look forward to a brief, thorough and speedy consideration before committee and ultimately a return to the House next week.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I wish to propose a motion at this time.
Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding any standing order of the House, Bill 89, An Act for the Consolidation of Hearings under certain Acts of the Legislature, be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice and be reported back to the House by the committee by next Tuesday, June 23, 1981.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader brought the motion to my attention before presenting it to you. I have always felt the committees ought to order their own business. I know the government House leader is anxious, as are we all, not to prolong the business unduly. My own feeling, however, is that the committee might very well direct its own affairs. The membership of the committee is composed in the same proportion as is the House itself; so the government House leader is not without a certain influence if he chooses to use it. I personally am not keen to give this sort of direction to the committee, but of course the House has this within its power. I do not favour the motion. I do not feel it is necessary.
9:30 p.m.
On the other hand, we in this party want one of the other environmental bills to go to committee as well. Under those circumstances it will no doubt go to another committee, but we hope there will be a reasonable opportunity for that committee, which may in the wisdom of the House have the carriage of that bill, not to be directly under the instruction of the House as to the hours it may sit. We hope it will use its own discretion as to witnesses it might choose to call. Once again, the committees are controlled by their membership, and it seems to me we might very well leave those matters to their discretion.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I should say a few words since the request to have the bill go to committee came from this party with a request from my colleagues who will serve on that committee for a very short exchange based on the problem they saw in the bill.
I am not one who would wish to control the committee, but those members in this party who serve on that committee felt that any time beyond that was useless and that the issue they wanted to deal with could be dealt with quickly and expeditiously if two or three groups representing the various groups out in the province were requested --
Mr. Kerrio: How could you decide how much time we wanted?
Mr. Martel: You didn't want any time. Just crawl back into your hole.
Mr. Kerrio: You decided.
The Deputy Speaker: Speaking to the motion. Please, Mr. Kerrio, Mr. Martel has the floor.
Mr. Kerrio: You don't have to use that kind of language here. I understand what you are trying to say.
The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Martel, please try to ignore the interjections.
Mr. Kerrio: Pretty ignorant. I don't need that from you.
Mr. Martel: Let me pick up the pieces.
The Deputy Speaker: Yes. Carry on.
Mr. Kerrio: Well, he is presuming, and I don't like that -- or any one of those Socialists.
Mr. Martel: What did he say?
The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Martel, speaking to the motion, please.
Mr. Martel: What am I presuming? That's right. It is a presumption on my part.
Mr. Kerrio: You'd better believe it.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make the point that I am not one who would wish to limit the debate. That was the time my colleagues felt was necessary to deal with the item they wanted to discuss at length in a more direct exchange than this House allows with respect to the bill, and therefore I see no problem with the motion that is before us.
Mr. Breithaupt: Speaking to the point that was raised by my House leader, Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to see that the chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice, the member of Oxford (Mr. Treleaven), has just come into the House. I do not know whether he was aware that he was getting this bill, but perhaps we could find out, since the government House leader appears to be organizing, to some extent, the work of the committee.
Is it the intention that this bill is to proceed on Wednesday morning after we have finished the hour and a half left in the Justice policy estimates or will this be expected, with presumed notice to the people who are interested, to commence on Thursday afternoon? Is there any real knowledge of this so that we can be at least somewhat prepared?
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as my friend the House leader for the official opposition has said, the committees order their own business. I assume the committee and its chairman will order their business having been given this bill by the House with the only limitation on it being that it be reported back to the House by next Tuesday.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Motion agreed to.
EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Elgie moved second reading of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, this bill includes a number of measures designed to supplement the existing provisions of the Employment Standards Act relating to layoffs and plant closures. Its main features include the introduction of a severance pay requirement covering workers terminated as a result of full or partial plant closures, subject to certain conditions that I will discuss in some detail shortly.
In addition, the bill contains provisions similar to those in Bill 191, which I introduced in the last session of the Legislature. The bill authorizes the Minister of Labour to require an employer who has terminated or intends to terminate the employment of employees to participate in such actions or measures as are deemed appropriate to facilitate the reemployment of those employees.
In the past, the vast majority of employers faced with large-scale terminations have in practice proved willing to participate in manpower adjustment committees established on a voluntary basis and cosponsored by the Ministry of Labour and the Canada Department of Employment and Immigration. The committees have had considerable success, as all members know, in assisting displaced persons to find alternative employment.
The new provision, replacing the existing section 40(5), will enable action to be taken in those comparatively rare situations of employer refusal to participate in adjustment committees. In addition, it will enable the establishment of committees in any termination situation where they are likely to prove helpful, and not simply in mass terminations.
It will authorize the minister to require the employer to contribute to the cost or expense of such committees, and it provides the necessary flexibility to consider alternative or additional adjustment measures, such as counselling or training, where these appear to constitute a more effective mechanism for achieving reemployment. The latter feature was not included in the original Bill 191. However, experience over the past few months has suggested that the adjustment committee approach may not always be the best one to pursue in each and every case.
Bill 95 also reintroduces the requirement that employer contributions to benefit plans be maintained during the notice period required under the Employment Standards Act, where notice is actually provided or where pay in lieu of notice is given instead. Where pay in lieu is given, the workers will be deemed to have worked during the period for which notice should have been provided, thus maintaining entitlement to pension and other benefits that otherwise could have been impaired.
For the purpose of administration of the act, employer contributions to benefit plans will be included in the definition of wages, empowering the employment standards officers to collect such benefits on behalf of employees where necessary.
The benefits covered are those enumerated in part X of the act; they include superannuation, retirement, unemployment, income replacement, death, disability, sickness, accident and medical and dental benefits. There is no requirement in the act at present for continuance of contributions to these benefit plans. This led to the unfortunate situation that emerged in several plant closures during the past year, and to which I referred in my statement of last October 14, where employees found themselves without legal entitlement to pensions or other benefits solely as a result of the employer's failure to provide the required notice.
Since the intent of the Employment Standards Act is to ensure the provision of notice, it is clearly inequitable that employees themselves should suffer the loss of certain benefits to which they otherwise would be entitled simply because the employer decides to incur the pay-in-lieu penalty rather than provide the full notice required. The new provision will prevent a recurrence of this unfair situation and will prove of real benefit in alleviating the hardship of employees terminated without notice.
9:40 p.m.
I believe the provisions I have outlined are important and necessary in their own right and will contribute to an improvement in the situation of certain workers involved in layoffs and plant closures.
I recognize that the remaining parts of the bill involving severance pay are likely to generate the most attention. Accordingly, I intend to devote the remainder of my time to that issue. I do not need to remind honourable members of the numerous past discussions regarding severance pay in this House, including my statements of October 14 and December 11 last year and more recently the June 4 debate on the draft final report of the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment.
As I have said before, the principle of a legislated severance pay scheme has not hitherto been widely recognized in North America. In fact, only two jurisdictions -- namely, the federal jurisdiction in Canada and the great state of Maine in the United States -- have enacted severance pay legislation. Nevertheless, this government believes that the introduction of a severance pay requirement in this province along the lines of that proposed in the bill represents a responsible and a necessary approach to addressing a number of the concerns that have arisen in connection with plant closures in the recent past.
The severance pay requirement I am about to outline possesses a number of features that I believe improve upon the prevailing provisions in the two jurisdictions I have mentioned. Bill 95 provides for severance payments in the amount of one week's pay per year of service to employees who are terminated in complete or partial plant closures involving 50 or more employees within a six-month period. There is a minimum service requirement of five years for severance pay eligibility and a maximum payment entitlement of 26 weeks' pay.
The application of severance pay to full or partial plant closures focuses attention on those situations of permanent job loss that have generated the most public attention and most public concern, I might add.
The imposition of a severance pay requirement in the case of indefinite layoffs occasioned by reduced business operations, such as those associated with a cyclical downturn in sales or a difficult competitive situation, could be prejudicial to the eventual recovery of these establishments. In many such cases, there is at least an intention that regular operations will be resumed once business conditions improve.
This is not the case where full or partial plant closures are involved, since in these situations termination of employment is known to be both definite and permanent at the time it occurs.
Where there is difficulty in distinguishing between a partial closure and a reduction in operations, a determination will be made by a referee appointed under section 51 of the act.
The confinement of the severance pay requirement to closures involving 50 or more workers within a six-month period has already attracted some comment, including the suggestion that this may constitute a possible loophole enabling employers to avoid severance payments entirely by staggering terminations in groups of less than 50 employees at a time.
Adoption of the six-month measurement period rather than the four-week period that applies to regular mass notice provisions was designed to severely limit the potential for that sort of abuse. As I indicated in the House on June 5, if the six-month period proves insufficient for that purpose and people are attempting to bypass the legislation and its purpose, we will review it.
I draw the attention of members to the fact that the cutoff at 50 employees is consistent with the present mass notice provision in the Employment Standards Act. It was, I might add, also recommended by the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment, in part as a result of the recognition that smaller employers with a lesser ability to pay could be adversely affected by a universal severance pay requirement.
A further feature of the bill's severance pay provision is the minimum service requirement of five years to determine eligibility for payments. In my view, one of the principal reasons for a severance pay scheme of the type proposed relates to compensation in recognition of the past contribution and commitment that an employee has made to the operation of the enterprise. The other main rationale relates to the loss of job-related benefits that occur upon termination.
Virtually all severance pay schemes of which I am aware are related in some manner to the seniority of the workers involved. While there may be room for argument as to the length of the minimum service that may be appropriate, it is nevertheless common to have some such a minimum in severance pay plans, whether legislated or negotiated.
I happen to believe that a five-year requirement is not unreasonable in these circumstances and that it ensures the compensation provided will be oriented towards those who have a clearly established connection with the employer and who are most in need of the compensation a severance pay scheme provides.
The upper limit of 26 weeks on severance pay entitlement is, in my view, sufficiently high to accord adequate recognition to long-service employees. That maximum would result, for example, in a severance payment of $7,800 for a 26-year employee earning $300 per week.
I wish to make it clear that, in the design of the severance pay provisions in this bill, the principal objective was to provide a minimum equitable level of compensation to those workers likely to be most severely affected by the impact of plant closures. In doing so, a balance has to be struck between the desire to provide adequate compensation to the workers involved and the desire to avoid imposing an unrealistic cost burden that could undermine the competitive position of employers.
The fact that only two other North American jurisdictions have legislated any form of severance pay is clearly not an irrelevant consideration. However, in certain circumstances it may be felt that severance payments unrelated to closures, or in excess of those provided in this bill, are called for. In fact, a number of companies today, in both the organized and unorganized sectors, already have severance pay plans that accord equal or better benefits. This bill does not preclude the negotiation of those superior benefits in severance pay schemes in future, whether by extending benefits to situations not covered or by increasing the level of benefits provided.
The severance pay provisions in the bill will apply to regular, full- and part-time employees in closures during or following a strike or lockout, unless the employer can show that the closure was brought about as an economic consequence of the strike, and in closures caused by natural disasters and the like.
The provisions do not apply where an employee refuses an offer of reasonable alternative employment with that employer or where he or she refuses to exercise seniority rights to obtain such alternative employment. On-site construction workers are excluded from severance pay coverage because of the special nature of this industry, where employment is typically irregular and intermittent; that principle is recognized by all jurisdictions in Canada through exclusion from the termination notice provisions.
A number of additional provisions in the bill are based on common practice and collective agreement provisions governing receipt of severance pay in negotiated schemes. Included in this category are the requirements that recall rights be waived to qualify for severance pay, the ineligibility for severance pay of workers who retire on full pension benefits and the provision that supplementary unemployment benefits paid to an employee may be offset against the mandatory severance requirement. Pay in lieu of notice under the Employment Standards Act, which is a penalty for failure to provide notice, will not be permitted as an offset against severance pay.
The bill's severance pay provisions are retroactive to January 1, 1981, as envisaged in my statement of December 11, 1980. However, where a closure has occurred in the intervening period, the determination of the number of employees terminated will be based on a four-week period and not the six-month period in future cases, since this criterion, included in the mass notice provisions already, was the only one of which employers were aware at the time of closure.
For purposes of retroactivity, severance pay will not apply to bankruptcies under the Bankruptcy Act where assets have been distributed. However, once this act receives royal assent, employees in bankruptcy closures will be covered by the severance pay provisions.
I have outlined only the major provisions of what I consider to be a very important piece of legislation. Quite literally, it puts Ontario in the forefront in Canada in providing severance pay for victims of plant closures. It reflects many of the concerns expressed by the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment. While I do not expect unanimous agreement on all its features, I hope it may be enacted into law at the earliest time.
9:50 p.m.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to offer a few comments during second reading of this legislation. It might have been more of a pleasure if the minister in his opening statement had been able to announce that he was following the recommendations of the select committee as they pertain to severance pay and if he had not slipped in a few changes from what I am sure was the understanding of the intent of the statement that the same minister made last December 11.
I might add that in looking over that statement tonight, while I do not see any firm commitment to bringing in severance pay at a level below five years, I certainly notice that last December 11 he was not talking about making employees wait five years before tossing them the pittance of severance pay. That apparently is another one of the realities of March 19.
I want to start out by saying that we will reluctantly support the principle of this bill, and we wish fervently in supporting it tonight that one of the realities of March 19 had been one that would have given us a chance to bring in a bill that would have followed the recommendations of the select committee.
I want to say to the minister that we believe this legislation is a start, but only that -- a beginning -- and that we intend to offer some amendments during the committee stage of debate which, if passed, we expect would improve the bill to a great extent.
Mr. McClellan: The member supports anything.
Mr. Wrye: I listen to our friends on the left. Physically and philosophically we are not like them; we will support the positive aspects of the bill. The New Democratic Party wants the whole loaf at one time; they want the loaf and then some. They do not care whether it is realistic --
Interjections.
Mr. Wrye: No, we do not want it both ways. We think it is important to make a start.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wrye: The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) thinks it is important. He says we want it both ways.
Mr. Bradley: The NDP were busy propping up the government last session.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wrye: We want better severance pay, but at least we are going to get some on the books and then we will improve upon it. If the government had brought in the select committee report and the recommendations as they apply to severance pay, we would have had a great deal more of the loaf tonight. But at least we will get some of the loaf; at least the worker with 20 years' experience will get something.
Mr. Cooke: How many workers in Windsor will get severance pay?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wrye: I remember listening a couple of weeks ago to our friends on the left --
Mr. Speaker: Order, Mr. Wrye. Please address the principle of the bill. Never mind the interjections. Proceed.
Mr. Bradley: I remember when they just propped up the government.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wrye: Oh, I remember last fall. Anyway, before I deal with the severance portion of Bill 95, I want to say a few words about section 1 of those amendments to the Employment Standards Act. This section is --
Mr. Cooke: How many workers in Windsor are going to be helped by this bill?
Mr. Wrye: How many workers in Brantford would have been helped if we had voted with the NDP on Massey? How many workers in Windsor would have been helped if we had agreed with them on Chrysler? The NDP cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Cooke: We have Herb Gray to thank for that.
Mr. Wrye: At least the Chrysler plant is still open -- and no thanks to the NDP, either.
Section 1 of the bill is essentially the same as its previous incarnation, Bill 191, which was introduced in the dying days of the last parliament but which, I understand, was never given second reading.
In essence, the amendments attempt to close some loopholes that emerged, particularly during the case studies of the select committee on plant shutdowns and employee adjustment. I say this because it represents yet another reason why the plant shutdown committee should be reconstituted forthwith. The work of that committee was not completed, and the work of that committee has resulted in these important changes in the Employment Standards Act, because it brought out to the members of all of the parties who sat on that committee that there were important loopholes and that important changes were needed.
If the committee were to be reconstituted, we could have even more changes rather than the kind of retrenchment into the dark ages of labour relations that my friends on the government side seem so desperately to desire.
I might point out that this bill does not address in any way the provision of improving layoff notices or any form of justification for layoffs, but at least --
Mr. Laughren: What a sad state Windsor in falling into.
Mr. Van Horne: We are getting Windsor out of the dark ages.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the honourable members to respect the Speaker and to respect the person who has the floor. Mr. Wrye, proceed and address your remarks to the bill.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) tell us how we are always flip-flopping and we are doing this and doing that. I might remind the honourable member that one of the realities of March 19 was that his party's representation in Essex county was reduced by half. The next time we will get rid of the other member.
I remember in the case of Bendix Automotive, which was a plant in my riding, after throwing more than 500 workers out on to the street one June, the company hired a consultant firm. It spent all of one whole day advising the workers how to find new jobs. Imagine that: one whole day for more than 500 workers in a city with more than 20,000 already unemployed.
In the case of Essex International, and committee members can correct me if I am wrong, the bosses from the United States simply pronounced themselves too busy to come over and participate in any kind of employee adjustment program.
Section 1 of the bill gives the minister specific authority to compel employers to participate in and contribute to the funding of manpower adjustment committees. While we applaud that move, I suggest we on this side are more interested in the financial contribution of employers like Essex and Bendix and not so much in the kind of contribution they might make in the other way, because I do not think it would be wholehearted and enthusiastic.
I believe the small change the minister has made in Bill 95 from Bill 191, which allows him to take those actions and measures he deems appropriate in addition to the adjustment committee, seems to be something of an improvement.
I also want to say a couple of words about section 1(2), which makes it clear that employers must pay all benefits during the period of notice of shutdown whether the employees are working or not. Many companies' employees have chosen to forgo wage increases in lieu of generous benefit programs, which they believe, and I think rightly so, are equally as important to themselves and to their families.
Line workers at the Big Three, for example, have benefit packages almost equal to their hourly wage rates. It is important that such benefits continue for as long as possible. Most of us here in this Legislature have never been victimized by a plant shutdown and by all the traumas that such a closing of the place of employment means.
I believe it is very important that the economic impact of such a shutdown should be cushioned in as great a way as possible. It is my hope that section 1(2) of this legislation will do just that.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) just turn around, please?
Mr. Wrye: Since I believe the member for Nickel Belt would like me to say a few words, let me turn my remarks now to the question of severance pay and those portions of the bill which the Minister of Labour has spent so much of his time speaking about tonight and in introducing the legislation a couple of weeks ago.
I want to remind the minister of a resolution passed last December 12 by the select committee chaired by the member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey), who now is a Minister without Portfolio, and I want to read into the record --
Interjections.
Mr. Van Horne: Your party dropped from 33 seats to 21 seats by not knowing what the devil you were doing. Why don't you just shut up and give him a chance to talk?
Mr. Wrye: They will drop even further next time.
Mr. Van Horne: You didn't know your tail end from third base. Why don't you shut up and let him talk?
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Will the member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) and the member for Nickel Belt please refrain?
An hon. member: Watch your blood pressure.
Mr. Van Horne: It's doing very well. Your party dropped from 33 to 21; shut up and let him talk.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wrye has the floor.
10 p.m.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I just want to read into the record the comments of the committee in its interim report, a report that was signed by the minister without portfolio, who at that point was the committee chairman, last December 12. It said: "The committee has not yet completed its consideration of the severance pay issue. The committee, however, perceived an urgent need to provide at least temporary protection to workers laid off before this committee reported and before more comprehensive legislation is enacted. The committee therefore recommended to the House that Bill 191, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974, now before the assembly, be immediately amended to require a minimum severance pay of one week's wages for each year of employment for all layoffs of 50 or more workers."
There was no mention of when the provision would start; it just referred to one week's pay for each year of employment.
I want to remind the minister that just a few days later the minister accepted that recommendation in principle. I want to suggest to him that, if he had meant to accept the recommendation with the stilts at five years and with a cap at 26 weeks, perhaps it would have been appropriate for him to have said so at that time, but he did not.
Now, as part of the reality of March 19, the recommendation has changed.
Mr. Cassidy: So why don't you oppose the bill? Are you keeping the promise?
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wrye: I think we have given quite a bit. We have been very realistic on this side in agreeing to support a bill that would affect only those layoffs of 50 or more workers and not layoffs of lower levels of 20 and 25, as many of us on this side in both parties would have preferred. However, we have been realistic in that regard. We have said to the minister that we will see whether this bill has the terrible effects that our friends on the government side always suggest after they read their chamber of commerce briefs. We will do that and --
Mr. Laughren: I am embarrassed for the workers of Windsor. You know that.
Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections, Mr. Wrye.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the part of the legislation that has not been kept is evident in the provision to pay severance pay for those workers with five years of service or more and to cap it at 26 weeks on payment of severance. It is those two provisions which I wish to address in the next few minutes.
It seems to me absolutely ridiculous to suggest, as the minister has suggested, that a man or woman must work for the same company for five years before establishing what he believes is some degree of permanence. I notice that he referred to the fact that they must have some past contribution.
I want to remind the minister, for example, that in most union shops a period of just three months, or 90 short days, is considered long enough for an employee to complete his probation. Then, according to both the union and the company, he is considered a permanent employee. Ninety days is exactly one twentieth of the period proposed in this legislation before the government proposes to have permanence.
Before my friends on the left waste their breath any longer, I want to say that we will be moving amendments in committee stage to change that very weak provision of this legislation.
Mr. McClellan: Isn't that brave of you!
Mr. Laughren: I am sure the workers of Windsor will be happy to know that.
Mr. Wrye: I am sure my friend will tell them.
Frankly, I think the chamber of commerce view, which so dominates the thinking of this government, prevailed in the cabinet, and the minister, desperate to keep a promise that he had given this Legislature just a few months ago, was forced to swallow his pride and accept the five-year waiting period. Five years is a very long time.
Mr. Wildman: Why do you not just accept it?
Mr. Wrye: We will not. We will move an amendment. Five years is a very long time for an employee and --
Mr. Van Horne: If only they would let that theme work a little bit.
Mr. Wrye: Oh, they will just vote against it. They do not want to amend anything and improve it; they just want to vote against it. They want to be against everything.
Mr. Van Horne: That's right.
Mr. Wrye: Five years is a very long time for an employee, and it seems most unfair to deny a worker with that degree of permanence a little protection in the event of the folding of a company.
I also want to say a few words about the cap of 26 weeks that has also been proposed in this legislation. Again, I do not remember that being part of the promise of last December 11, if we can refer back to that date. I guess like so many other things it is part of the reality of March 19.
Mr. Laughren: All it takes is labour legislation to bring out the Liberals. Every time there is a labour bill, the Liberals come out in force and vote the wrong way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. You can proceed, Mr. Wrye.
Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, such a limitation is not only grossly unfair to those workers with more than 26 weeks of experience, it is a cruel joke on those who probably devoted more than half their lives and certainly most, if not all, of their working lives in the employ of one company. In 28, 30 or 35 years such an employee has made the kind of contribution to that company, to that industry, to that city, that could hardly be rewarded by a few extra weeks of severance pay. We should give them one week's severance pay for every year of employment, no matter how long that employment has continued.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. All honourable members who want to speak will have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Wrye has the floor; please respect Mr. Wrye.
Mr. Wrye: I also want to remind the minister that the older an employee, the less the likelihood he will be able to obtain any new employment. Thus the severance pay provision becomes even more important for the employee who has 30 or 35 years' service and is getting somewhat near the age of retirement.
With the level of unemployment in this province, those seeking workers tend to overlook those who are 55 or 58 years old in favour of those 20 or 30 years younger, so the chances of getting new employment for many of those thrown out of work at the age of 55 or 58, with 30 or 32 years of employment, are severely reduced. We in this party find the limitation of 26 weeks imposed in section 2(1) of this bill very disappointing and discriminating to the very people who most deserve our support.
The member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) has reminded our friends on the left they were reduced from 33 to 21 members in the last election and this was exactly because of their negative point of view on absolutely everything. They will be reduced, I am sure, even further next time. We in this party want to be as positive as we can in view of the severe limitations of the bill. We do welcome the initiative of severance pay, no matter how timid that initiative may be. The minister can rest assured we will be trying to tighten up and improve upon that initiative as the debate in this bill progresses.
Because we want to be a positive, helpful opposition, we intend to vote to support the principle of the legislation and then try to bring out some major improvements later during committee debate.
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 95 with some sadness that the bill has been crucified to the extent that it has been. I could not help but think, as I listened to the previous speaker, of that little Loblaws jingle, "The price is right." It sure does not take very much to buy support. I hope the Tories take that as an open invitation to invite him across the floor.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Mackenzie: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, there has to come a time when we decide that dangling a little bit of principle out in front of the members of the opposition parties, but giving them no substance, is just not going to work any longer. That is what we are facing here.
I think a little history would be useful in regard to what has happened in this particular bill; specifically, what happened in the committee. The need for some severance pay is obvious. We said, to the consternation of some of our friends in the trade union movement, that severance pay is one of the Band-Aid measures. It is not a vitally important one, in my opinion, but certainly it can help workers involved in a plant closure. The need for it, I think, is obvious when we take a look at some of the long-serving employees in some of the plants that shut down, but it is just a very small part of what is needed in terms of plant closures.
I want the members here to understand clearly what happened in committee, and the speaker who just finished speaking should understand it clearly because I do not think he was sitting in on the hearings of the committee. A motion was moved to see whether there was something we could get out of that committee immediately, because we all knew we were facing a potential election. One of the things we decided to zero in on was the need for severance pay, surely an issue on which we could get general support from all the parties represented on the committee.
I moved the first motion in that committee, which was for severance pay -- a week's pay for a year of service for any employees affected by a permanent shutdown situation. I think the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) should be made aware, if he has not been, or he should talk to some of his colleagues, and realize that the first reaction we got was not from the Tories, although it was obvious they were going to oppose it, but from some of the Liberal members of the committee, who almost automatically raised the questions: "What are you going to do to the small business people? How can you possibly think of severance pay, a week's pay for a year of service, for the smaller operations or the smaller employers?"
It became obvious that, barring the support of the NDP members on the committee, we would not get to first base with the motion that was moved. I am not sure I was right in bowing to the counsel of my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), but after a quick assessment of what was going on, it was obvious we would have neither Tory nor Liberal support on that particular motion -- not a single member as far as we could see --
Mr. Mancini: That is distorted and you know it. You wanted it sunsetted.
Mr. Mackenzie: It is not distorted one bit and the member knows that also.
What happened then was that the member for Riverdale suggested, "Let's find out if we have any support at all if we go to at least those employees who are currently covered by the layoff notice provisions; that is, 50 or more." That was not what I wanted, and I am not very proud of it, but we changed the motion. At that point we started to get some support. They might have agreed to go down to 25 employees, I do not know, but that sure as hell was not the indication to begin with. The Liberals certainly made the arguments, even before the Tories did, about the impossibility of small employers being able to pay this kind of severance pay load. I think that is a lot of hogwash, but that is the argument we got.
The recommendation on the motion we made that it cover employees included in the layoff provisions under the Employment Standards Act was carried, a couple of the Tories going along with it as well. To make a long story short, we eventually got it to the point where we had an almost unanimous recommendation. I am not sure we ever had the chairman of the committee with us, but we got the rest of them on the final recommendation that came to this House.
Mr. Mancini: We led the way for severance pay and you know it. You wanted it sunsetted.
Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Essex South please refrain from heckling.
Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed. For people who led the way, why was it not their motion we were debating in the committee? I have never been able to understand that.
We finally got a motion before this House that called for one week's severance pay per year of service. As far as I am concerned, that was a poor, pale substitute for what we were trying to get when we started, even in the severance pay field. However, we finally had the support of all parties on that much.
The statement made by the Minister of Labour in this House was pretty definite, as I recall. I know my leader read his words into the record when we were debating this issue after the new parliament returned. The minister said there was a commitment. I believe his words were, "This government is committed to the principle of severance pay and a severance pay bill." He went on to say that it would be retroactive to January 1. We certainly did not get any indication we were going to see a substantial watering down of that bill.
Then we had the election, the realities of March 19, and lo and behold we had the throne speech where there was no mention of severance pay. Indeed, if my information from the press scrum is right, the Premier (Mr. Davis) is quoted as saying he made no promises. Enough reporters have told me that directly that I have no doubt it is accurate. It was one of the first serious questions we raised in this House. We wanted to know where the promises were. We wanted to know where the commitment was in terms of the severance pay that had been promised so positively in this House by the Minister of Labour.
I think there was some embarrassment on the other side of the House, although that is conjecture; there is no way we can really know. I am not at all sure how the Minister of Labour could have retained his portfolio if the statement the Premier made that he had made no promises had been the final and definitive position of the government.
Certainly it was not included in the throne speech. It was obvious that even the Tories understood that if they backed out of that definite and firm commitment, the loss of integrity would be so total they would find it hard to live with.
From that point, the questions in the minds of many of us were: "What are we finally going to get? How are they going to water it down?" My suspicion, and I was wrong, was that we would probably get two or three days' pay per year of service. However, they decided to go at it the other way.
I am glad to see the Liberal member for the Windsor riding was right on side with the recommendations of the chamber of commerce. The Canadian Organization of Small Business did not want severance pay and made that fairly clear in its recommendations. It said it should only apply to employees with at least five years' service. Two or three of these organizations also indicated there should be a ceiling on what they would get or the number of years' service that could be covered.
What was brought in in terms of the two major changes in that very simple bill we had before this House was that one had to have five years. That eliminates a number of people. One also gets only up to 26 weeks. As we found out in some of the plant closures, that certainly discriminates against those who had as much as 30 and 35 years' seniority. What we got from this government was exactly what the chamber was willing to accept in this kind of legislation. As a matter of fact, if one reads the General Motors submission, it would have given us a little more. That is very interesting when one takes a look at the information contained in the draft final report that came before this House.
With those changes we were faced with a bill that eliminated large numbers of people who might have had the minimal coverage we are talking about. Nobody can be absolutely positive, but as far as we can tell, taking a period from January 1, 1981, to March 31, 1981, there were 6,603 layoffs or announcements of layoffs in 23 full closures, and there have been 1,565 layoffs or announcements that would fall into the category as defined by this proposed legislation.
10:20 p.m.
In other words, out of the 6,600 layoffs to begin with, 1,565 would qualify if they had more than the five years in. Certainly a number of them who are long-term employees would lose on the basis of the 26-week ceiling. So we are going to deal with something less than 1,500 out of the 6,600 in the first three months of this year. On the basis of the 1980 figures, the number of employees who would benefit if they had the five years in is once again somewhere around 8,000 out of some 30,000 layoffs.
We have a real bastardization of the principle and the idea that was put before this House in the interim recommendation of that committee. With those government moves, with that under- cutting of as little as we had before this House, this government has forfeited any and all support for this piece of legislation.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we will not be supporting the legislation the minister has brought before this House. I want you to know also, Mr. Speaker, that it is not difficult for those in the trade union movement who are concerned with this legislation to accept that. I want to read into the record a letter that has just gone out to all steelworker locals across Ontario. This letter is addressed to the Premier. It says simply:
"As layoffs and shutdowns continue to put thousands of Ontario workers out of work, we believe that the principle of severance pay is a matter of simple economic justice. Bill 95 fails as a piece of economic justice. It excludes thousands of workers by its arbitrary restrictions. Why are workers with less than five years' service discriminated against? Why are workers with more than 26 years' service discriminated against? Why are the provisions limited to closures involving 50 or more employees?
"Bill 95 would provide severance pay to only a small minority of those workers rightfully entitled to it, and that is completely unacceptable. We urge you and your government, in the interests of justice for all working people, to rewrite Bill 95 so that it embraces all workers experiencing the tragedy of a layoff."
Or I could take the release that was issued by Bob White of the United Auto Workers: "Severance pay should only have to be used when all of the alternatives to closing a plant have been explored by a public tribunal and discarded."
While I realize that is not what we are debating, I want to get briefly into some of the other shortcomings in the legislation. "Further more" -- I am quoting now from the UAW release -- "the severance pay legislation as announced is inadequate. The workers most vulnerable to plant closings are those who work in small operations. Legislation which guarantees severance pay for work places with 50 or more employees does nothing for them. Similarly, the five years of service necessary to qualify for severance pay ignores the very real problems of younger workers, who are finding it very hard indeed these days to find another job." I would suggest that the five-year provision does discriminate against younger workers.
Bob White continues, "The Conservatives have also failed to address the issue of continuing medical coverage." He then goes on to a number of other points that are shortcomings in this legislation.
The number of people covered by this legislation is totally inadequate. The restrictions -- the five years and the 26 years -- are a total sellout of the principle we had before this House in the interim report from that committee. I am flabbergasted that it is enough to buy the support of the Liberal Party, but it does not really surprise me.
I want you to know also, Mr. Speaker, that we have not begun to address the serious problems of justification of pensions, of the numbers. At this moment I do not feel proud about going with the original recommendation and eliminating those under 50, but at the time that was an honest effort to see if we could find any unanimity in the three parties, any kind of recommendation on which we could get some unanimity to put before this House in terms of severance pay. We did finally get it, and we did get it unanimously.
Then, probably because of the Premier's position -- and I do not think he was thinking very clearly when he made the comment that he had made no promise -- when it was not in the throne speech and he could not back off and leave the Minister of Labour high and dry on a commitment as definite as that, a commitment on behalf of this government that went into some detail on the provisions that would be in the bill, the government had to come up with something. So they took a quick look at some of the recommendations from the chamber and decided that by making these adjustments in the bill that at least would get its support, they would have something with which they could come forward and still claim to be bringing in some sort of a severance pay bill to this House.
I think that is totally false. I am not prepared any longer to buy a little bit of principle where there is no damned substance involved. That is exactly what we are getting in this particular legislation. I think this bill should be amended. In committee of the whole House we will certainly move a couple of amendments to remove those changes.
I guess our position is such that if there were no five-year floor and no 26-week topping on it, we would have to vote for this bill because we moved the motion ourselves, even though we know it is inadequate. But by fooling around with the bill and putting those changes in it, this government has forfeited any right to expect the support of a party such as ours, and it sure as blazes will not get it on this particular piece of legislation.
On motion by Mr. Gillies, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:27 p.m.