Journal des débats 1986-févr-06 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Sheppard: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: It is with great sadness I rise today to advise members of the Legislature of the passing of a former member of this House, Dr. Reginald Percy Vivian.

Dr. Vivian was the sole surviving member of George Drew's first cabinet when the Conservatives began their 42-year reign in 1943. Because at that time he was the only member at Queen's Park with professional training as a doctor, it seems only fitting that Dr. Vivian was named Minister of Health and Minister of Public Welfare.

He proceeded to lay out the groundwork for the public health care system we all benefit from today, and he also established the system of county health units. Other valued accomplishments included the establishment of the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and a program of financial assistance to the Ontario hospital insurance plan.

Dr. Vivian was known not only for his dedication to health issues but also for his involvement in the education field. In 1968, he became involved in the development of a program for the early identification of kindergarten children's learning problems. Later, the Minister of Education provided financial assistance for the research of the program with Dr. Vivian as the supervisory official. The program was subsequently adopted by the Northumberland-Newcastle Board of Education along with 100 other boards across the province.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to echo the comments made by the honourable member to mark the passing of Dr. Vivian, Minister of Health beginning in 1943. I recall meeting him on a number of occasions and I was interested to read the account of his career in the daily press a few days ago. I know he has been admired for his initiatives, and we also want to pass on our condolences to his family.

In the reports, I was particularly interested to read that among the 22 points that are still waiting to be acted upon was the promise to introduce denticare. I thought it might be interesting to keep that in mind.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I want to bring the honourable members up to date on our program to improve the terms of employment for eligible part-time members of the Ontario public service.

Effective January 1, we put measures into effect which extend access to a wide range of working conditions and benefits to regular part-time unclassified employees in jobs which qualify for conversion to the classified service. Employees in converted positions will have access to a wide range of working conditions and prorated benefits similar to those available to our existing classified staff.

The improved package of benefits includes seniority, salary increments within the range, health benefits, vacation leave and statutory holidays, special leaves, basic life insurance and supplementary insurance and other benefits which apply to classified members of the Ontario public service.

The new status of regular part-time employment that we have introduced into the Ontario public service was recently cited by an arbitrator as a model for employers who employ part-time staff.

Implementation of this program began in mid-November 1985, after the board of arbitration's acceptance of the government's proposal to extend improved working conditions and benefits to those regular part-time employees who qualify under specific criteria.

Ministries are currently completing reviews of each of their existing part-time unclassified jobs to determine which jobs meet the criteria established for conversion to the classified service.

These are two criteria being applied: First, required work must be performed on a year-round, ongoing and continuous basis; second, hours of work for the job must be regularly scheduled and must be either fewer than full-time but not fewer than 14 hours per week, or fewer than 20 full days but not fewer than nine full days during a period of four consecutive weeks.

The criterion for the hours of work was developed and agreed to during negotiations between Management Board as the employer and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union on behalf of employees. A part-time job that meets both of these criteria will be converted to the status of a regular part-time position in the classified service.

I suggest that part-time unclassified employees who believe they meet the necessary criteria discuss their status with their immediate supervisor or with their human resources branch if they have not yet been informed by their ministries.

As I said previously in the House, I strongly encourage the honourable members to provide me with details of specific cases that are of concern. I will have my staff inquire into the matter and I will inform the member as quickly as possible.

I am pleased with the progress we have made in implementing this progressive program. I believe this is a long step towards the government's objective of ensuring equality of treatment and fair compensation throughout the public service.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier will now see that there is a growing degree of unrest in the health care system, thanks to legislation the government has introduced on extra billing.

Given that the Ontario Medical Association has indicated a willingness to negotiate all issues of accessibility, including provisions to guarantee access to any medical procedure for seniors and those who are financially disadvantaged and provisions to address any geographic and linguistic barriers to access that may currently exist, will the Premier now consider accepting the OMA's invitation to negotiate these matters of accessibility and will he agree, once the House adjourns until April, that he will allow the bill to stand where it is today and actually negotiate with the OMA?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would be delighted to sit down with the OMA at its pleasure, at its time, to discuss issues that are important with respect to accessibility and, indeed, some of the long-term problems in the health care system. As a matter of fact, I have been seeking that meeting with them for a long time.

I would also be delighted to sit down and discuss with them the question of how one could end extra billing in this province. They understand, as I am sure the honourable member opposite understands, our commitment to that principle. However, we would like to have their advice. If they have better advice on how to do that and on how to implement it in a way they would support, I would be delighted. I stand ready to discuss that with them any time.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: Of course, what the Premier will not sit down and negotiate with the OMA is the question of whether extra billing is the only way to ensure full accessibility.

The Premier may have been interested in the excellent remarks made here by his own member, the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson). I have his speech here. In essence, he said that no self-respecting union would tolerate a circumstance where management says to it, "We are willing to negotiate with you, but our position is non-negotiable." That is his view of the Premier's view of negotiations.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Grossman: I will repeat the question: If the Premier's concern is accessibility, why will he not sit down with the OMA and say, "If full accessibility can be achieved in ways other than by banning extra billing, the government wants to hear about it and will allow the OMA to prove it can achieve that accessibility"?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member has asked me the same question and I will give him the same answer. I happen to disagree with him and the member he quotes with respect to that question. This government has stood ready to discuss, negotiate and work with the OMA, and that offer is still there. The member knows our position on the question of extra billing. If he has an idea as to how to implement it in a fairer way or a way that would make the OMA happier, I would be delighted to include him in the negotiations. He knows where we stand on this question.

Mr. Rae: The Tory filibuster is costing the patients of this province $1 million a week and the province $1 million a week in transfers. That is what the Tories' lying in bed with the OMA is costing the people of this province. That is what that tag team is costing us. Do we have the Premier's assurance that, quite contrary to the suggestion of the leader of the Tory party, this House will stay in session and complete second reading of this bill and that we will not leave here until Bill 94 has received second reading?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The two members opposite have pointed out why it is so good for this province that it now is not being run by either of the extremist parties, but by a moderate, thoughtful and reasonable party. We are committed to this principle and we have set a course of action.

I recognize that, as with any controversial issue, there has to be full discussion. If the members opposite have anything more worthwhile to contribute, I am a patient man and I am prepared to sit here and listen for as long as they would like. We are doing that. If they feel they have further salient contributions to make, they are entitled to make them. The course has been set in agreement with the House leaders. After discussion, the bill will go to committee for further discussion, and we will invite the OMA and anyone else to contribute.

As a government, we are not so arrogant as to think we are the repositories of all wisdom. If someone comes to that committee with better ideas, we are prepared to amend the bill. We are prepared to work with the OMA and others to implement the principles the majority of the members of this House believe in.

Mr. Grossman: First, I want to confirm for the batting-practice pitcher that our House leader has indicated we will be prepared to vote on this matter next Tuesday. If the member asks his House leader, he will confirm this.

Mr. Pope: He knew it when he stood up.

Mr. Rae: Why did he ask the question?

Mr. McClellan: He knew the answer.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Silly question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time of the House is being wasted.

Mr. Grossman: My, we are touchy.

Mr. Rae: We are voting on it. It is not like clean water, is it?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What is the point?

Interjections.

Mr. Grossman: If he wants to ask a question, he should feel free; we have been waiting for months.

I want to clarify the question for the Premier. He says he is willing to negotiate, he is delighted to receive all suggestions with regard to accessibility and he has been looking forward to a chance to discuss this matter with the OMA. I ask the Premier one more time, is he willing, yes or no, to say to the OMA that he will hoist the legislation and not proceed any further, and give the OMA a chance to convince him that full accessibility can be achieved in ways other than by banning extra billing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the frustrations of being in opposition even better than the honourable member opposite. I languished there for a very long time. One of the things I learned is that one does not have to ask the same question three times. I have answered the question twice already. Surely the member knows the answer by now.

Mr. Grossman: I want to thank the Premier for that condescension. We still do not have a yes or no answer. When the Premier goes outside, perhaps he will be kind enough to tell the media whether the answer to that question was yes or no. I do not need lectures from him on how to be Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grossman: I would like to ask the government House leader whether the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara) is going to be joining us this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: He is expected to be here.

Mr. Grossman: Perhaps I will hold back the second question then.

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. In answer to certain questions from my Health critic on Friday concerning the possibility of doctors insisting on payment prior to a patient having received money from the Ontario health insurance plan in the event of more doctors opting out of the situation, the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) said: "In this situation, if a person is requested to make a payment, he or she should sit down with the physician and say, `I cannot do it. Wait until I get reimbursed by OHIP and then I will make the payment.'"

The minister also said: "I have said on more than one occasion that the physicians -- even those who do not like the principles of this bill -- have told me face to face that patients can sit down with them and talk about their financial problems."

I would like to ask the Premier, why in the name of goodness should someone who is sick have to sit down and discuss his financial situation with his doctor?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the honourable member's question and from whence it comes. It is our hope this situation does not develop. The honourable member is aware as much as anyone in this House of the sensitive nature of the discussions with the doctors now. He is aware of some of the statements made by members of the medical profession and the Ontario Medical Association.

It is our hope these things will pass in the course of time. It is our belief that doctors, being the professionals they are, will not sacrifice individual patients' health for their disagreement with the government's principles at this time.

It is our view we can work these things out. There may be little adjustments along the way, but doctors will be understanding of the situation that presents itself and will not jeopardize anybody's health care.

Mr. Rae: The Premier was in Pembroke yesterday, I gather, as well as in other places. I heard him say, "We are not going to have one standard of health care for the rich and another for the poor." It was one of the things that woke me up on the radio this morning at 6:30.

If that is the case, why does the government not simply set down a basic rule and make a change to the Health Disciplines Act that will be quite specific and will say that no doctor can request, require or expect payment until such time as the patient has received that money from OHIP? Why not state that as the law of the province rather than continuing to rely on goodwill and charity? Surely it is not charity we need but justice.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe the majority of doctors, if not all of them, will operate on that basis. Presumably the system will be the following: If they opt out, they will send the patient a bill. After treatment is received, if the patient is capable of sending in his or her own cheque to cover that, perhaps they will, and then wait for the OHIP cheque to come along. If they do not, they will wait for the OHIP cheque to come along and they will endorse that to the doctor. I think doctors will understand that and work on that system. Frankly, I do not see the perils in this system that the honourable member is pointing out.

Mr. Pope: The Premier can be as nonchalant as he wants. There is concern among the population of Ontario that there will be a deterioration in the delivery of health care to them and to their families. The Premier hopes these things will not develop. He has embarked upon a course of action that will ensure they do develop.

We repeat, why will the Premier not hoist the bill, give himself until April 7 when this session opens again, and negotiate universal accessibility to protect senior citizens and the financially disadvantaged?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I fundamentally disagree with the premise upon which the honourable member opposite bases his question today. I will repeat the course of action on the bill. I presume he knows his leader has told us there will be a vote on Tuesday night, presumably by common agreement, and that is a good thing. We will all have an opportunity to express our will on second reading at that point.

Then we will go to committee. We will have discussion over a period of a couple of months and the bill will come back. It will not be the law of the land until April 7. At that point, there can still be amendments to the act, if that is the will of the majority, and we will have a further opportunity for discussion later on. We have to be prepared to be patient and talk these things out. We are accomplishing in a very orderly way some of the purposes the honourable member puts forward.

Mr. Rae: Apart from opting out, another of the tactics that has been suggested by the Ontario Medical Association in a number of statements that have been made is that doctors will now start to charge for a number of services for which they have not charged before. Last week, my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside, our Health critic (Mr. D. S. Cooke), issued a list of a number of services for which there is no specific charge: hospital visits not covered by OHIP, prescription renewals, chart summaries to other physicians, appointments with specialists, some medical examinations, telephone advice, certain certificates, materials, drugs, medication, bandages, etc., which vary with the cost of --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Rae: What steps does the Premier intend to take to protect patients from the imposition of charges for which there is no justification and which should not be outside the OHIP system? What does he intend to do to preserve one-price medicine of fully insured services in the province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Presumably, they will charge only for services that can be reimbursed by OHIP.

Let me give the other side of this. One of the problems in our health care system at the moment is that very few, if any, people know the price of the medical services they are consuming. I take my child to a doctor, he or she is well looked after, I walk out of the office and I have no idea how much that visit cost or how much the state will be billed for that examination.

Now that the doctor is going to send me and, presumably, every person who is working with an opted-out doctor a bill, they will have a better sense of the cost of health care and what they are being billed for. Maybe this exercise, in spreading the information with respect to the real cost of health care, will be salutary, not just for the doctors but for the patients as well.

We may see a situation where the collective intelligence on this whole question is increased and society as a whole is capable of making better judgements with respect to the allocation of health care knowledge.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Treasurer. It concerns the withdrawal of pension surpluses. The Treasurer stated with some confidence on Tuesday that there was no run. He said that as far as he was concerned, there was no problem.

Is the Treasurer aware that in the United States pension withdrawals in 1980 were at $18 million and by 1985 had reached $3.1 billion for that one year? Is he also aware that in Ontario the figure was $3 million for withdrawals in 1980 and in 1984 it jumped to $177 million? That is from active plans alone. In the United States it is an increase of 172 times and in Ontario it is an increase of 59 times over that five-year period. What does the Treasurer call a run?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not call that a run. There is no indication of companies lining up for approval from the Pension Commission of Ontario. Under the laws of Ontario and the regulations passed associated with them, all of the requirements are to be met. We require by regulation 125 per cent of the minimum numbers of dollars to be on deposit or invested in the pension. There is no chance whatsoever that the people who have contributed or the employees in the plan are in any danger of losing what is committed to them by the plan of their employment.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer is not disturbed by a 172-fold increase in the United States or a 60-fold increase in Ontario. He does not describe that as a run.

I wonder how he feels about another very important piece of information. The average actuarial rate of interest -- that is to say, the assumed rate of return that is built into planned funding formulas -- in 1984 was 6.4 per cent, which is less than one could have got by putting it into a daily interest account at one's credit union. Only six per cent of plans used an interest rate of eight per cent or higher.

When one compares that with the actual rate of return on longer terms, does the Treasurer not realize that what these plans are doing is building a surplus into the very existence of those plans, going in and taking the money they should be paying to the workers of this province?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I just say again that under the current laws, the guarantee of sufficient funds to pay out the requirements -- as approved by the plan and policed, if I may use that word, by the Pension Commission of Ontario -- is assured.

The withdrawals are something less than one per cent. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) was indicating to me just yesterday when we were discussing this that it is 0.35 per cent. I suppose that is just one way of making the amount seem relatively small. It is a very large amount, but we do not consider it a run.

We believe the companies that have been required by regulations to contribute to the plan have fulfilled those responsibilities. The honourable member would know that while there are surpluses there now, in the past and, God forbid, perhaps in the future, economic changes might require additional payments to be made under the regulations.

Mr. Rae: There is currently a proposal in Ronald Reagan's Congress that would establish a surtax on pension fund withdrawals, because the current epidemic of withdrawals, as it has been described by many observers in the United States, is there because it is being used in the corporate takeover war that is taking place in the United States, as it is taking place in Canada.

One of the suggestions in the United States Congress is that there should be a surtax on withdrawals in an attempt to discourage companies from withdrawing. The Treasurer is not prepared to stop the withdrawals now. He is not prepared to put on a freeze. He is not prepared to stop this process. Is he telling us he is prepared to do even less than Ronald Reagan's Congress appears to be ready to do in the United States of America?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The surtax is an interesting proposal, and I will have a look at it. However, the member would know that during times of very high inflation, the actuaries, I am informed, would advise companies required to contribute to the plans that their actuarial requirement was increasing rapidly, and many of the companies put in large sums to make up for the pension payout requirements as advised and recommended by the actuaries in charge of the fund.

With inflation down to four per cent and relatively stable -- and I hope it stays at that point; I hope stability is maintained -- the need for these funds is not now recognized by the actuaries, and this permits the pension commission to recognize those as surplus funds, which are then withdrawn.

The idea of a surtax is something I suppose a Treasurer or a Minister of Finance would always be looking at. It would certainly provide revenue.

2:30 p.m.

YOUNG OFFENDER

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Attorney General and it is regarding a 14-year-old who killed a Scarborough couple and their seven-year-old daughter, a much-publicized case recently.

The Attorney General will be aware that with a trial under the Young Offenders Act it was impossible for that young offender to be sentenced to longer than three years in penitentiary. Will the Attorney General tell the House why he did not instruct the crown attorney to have that case transferred to an adult court?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The circumstances in this case and the real tragedy of the case are that we have a 14-year-old boy who is probably insane or profoundly disturbed but who has been found not to be insane by a trial judge. Under the circumstances that the Young Offenders Act presents, he can be sentenced to three years and there can be no appeal from the finding of the trial judge that he is sane -- this notwithstanding that both counsel asked for that result, which is very unusual, and both psychiatrists concluded that the boy was insane.

It produces a tragic result. The result could have been averted in this case, though not in all cases, if a transfer hearing had been requested. A transfer hearing cannot be requested if the boy is under 14. This boy had just become 14 at the time of the offence, and the crown attorney -- a very experienced crown attorney -- bearing in mind the joint submission of both counsel, the joint opinion of two eminent psychiatrists -- jointly retained -- that the boy was insane, and the fact that the boy had just achieved his 14th birthday, concluded that a transfer hearing was unnecessary.

There are certain advantages to trial in the youth court: the social services, the speed, the lack of cost --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: I can appreciate what the Attorney General is saying regarding the procedure of the case once it commenced, but it is my understanding that the Attorney General had the power to transfer this case into adult court at any time up until the case commenced. The offence was in April. The trial commenced in October. Will the Attorney General not agree that it is unconscionable that someone guilty of a crime of this magnitude should face the possibility of parole after six months. and that steps should have been taken to ensure that the trial was held in adult court and that a more appropriate sentence would have been rendered?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The reality is that if a transfer application had been made, it would have been made before this government was in office, as a practical matter; but that is not the answer and I do not hold the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) responsible for what happened. I have no right to order a transfer nor has the crown attorney any right to order a transfer. What we have is the right to request a transfer hearing in which the judge himself will decide, on the evidence, whether a transfer is desirable or not.

In a case such as this, where all the evidence was predicated and pointed to insanity, where both counsel jointly submitted to the trial judge in chambers and in court that the boy was clearly insane and where there was no suggestion to the contrary, it was decided to proceed, as was done. If the boy had been a few days younger, we would not have been able to ask for a transfer hearing, because it is not permitted until a child reaches 14. The difficulty here is where there is a maximum sentence of three years, there should be the right to appeal a finding of sanity.

I will be meeting with the Solicitor General of Canada, who is reviewing the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, at Vancouver on Tuesday next, and I will be asking him, in the light of the maximum sentence, to consider permitting an appeal with respect to a finding of sanity.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Given that the problem here is the lack of a finding of insanity and that has limited what can be done, this child may be incarcerated for three years with no requirement that he receive any treatment at all, so he comes out as an even more lethal instrument afterwards. What can the minister do to guarantee that child will receive the kind of treatment he is going to need in the next three years?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to assure the House that every facility we have to provide treatment for this unfortunate boy will be provided. It is highly likely that he will be dispatched to the Syl Apps Youth Centre where he will be in the secure treatment program, which is directed by Dr. Clive Chamberlain, who was one of the jointly retained psychiatrists who told the judge the boy was insane.

Dr. Chamberlain can, if he wishes -- and he will consider the matter as a medical question -- determine whether it is appropriate to hold the boy under the Mental Health Act as an involuntary patient. Everything will be done to ensure that this very unfortunate boy gets all the assistance that we in the province can provide him. I want to assure the House that there will be no risk to the public whatever in this case.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker: The second leadoff question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) was stood down awaiting the arrival of the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara). I am now informed that he will not be with us during question period.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to place another question now?

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I might ask a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. With the House possibly adjourning next week and with the spectre of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. sale still hovering, can the minister report to the House today whether any offers have been received yet to purchase UTDC, who they are from and what the closing date on those offers are?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The answer is no. We have a closing date of February 11 for any bids that may be offered. Beyond that, nothing has been received from any prospective purchasers.

Mr. Grossman: In view of the fact that the minister's colleagues in the federal House have made quite a fuss over the fact that the de Havilland sale was closed, thus apparently cutting off a full discussion of it before a commitment was made, can he give a commitment to this House that no deal will be accepted by the government of Ontario to sell UTDC prior to the standing committee on public accounts having a chance to deal with the reference our party made to that committee some weeks ago?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I do not know when the House may recess, but as I indicated, there is a time frame for bids to be received. We do not have a time fixed in stone for any bid to be accepted.

Mr. Rae: I did not hear an answer to the question. It is really not terribly complicated. As have the leaders of other parties, we have met with most of the principals concerned and certainly with the workers involved, both in Thunder Bay and Kingston. There is an enormous concern that guarantees be in place and everything be entirely satisfactory to those people who have been jammed around over the last six months by the amount of speculation.

Will the minister not agree it is in the public interest that no final contracts be signed and no final deal made until this House, or a committee of this House, has had an opportunity to look at the contracts and until the workers involved have also had a chance to do that?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I understand the leader of the third party met with some of the workers yesterday. Certainly, as he requests, we will consider discussing with those workers some of the terms or details of any offer we may receive. The conditions that existed and the questions previously put to this House are still paramount in the minds of this government.

Mr. Grossman: The minister has now avoided answering the same question twice. I want to give him a final opportunity.

He has people who perhaps may be interested in providing an alternative offer; he has the whole question of job guarantees and technology up for grabs. Given the commitment of his leader to an open government, one without walls and barriers, which will share information at will, will the minister or will he not -- one out of 48 is not bad -- give an undertaking to this House that no deal will be accepted until the standing committee on public accounts has had an opportunity to peruse those arrangements?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: We do not consider that anything in the proposition related to UTDC is up for grabs. It will be handled in a most businesslike manner by the proper people on this side of the House.

As I answered to the previous question, we will meet and discuss with those interested parties, the workers in Thunder Bay and Kingston, any details that may flow from any pending offer.

2:40 p.m.

CONTRACT WORKERS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Premier, who met this morning with representatives of the 250 workers from First Canadian Place, the cleaners who are going to be fired in March by the Reichmanns. I was very disappointed to hear that the cleaners' representatives received in many respects the same fatuous answers they have been getting for 10 years from the previous government with respect to the impossibility, difficulty and complexity of successor rights legislation.

Given that section 63 of the Labour Relations Act says that if an employer sells the business, the purchaser is bound by any collective agreement, and given that it is crystal-clear in the Labour Relations Act what the obligation is, why is it beyond the wit of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and his officials to amend section 63 so that contractors and subcontractors are equally bound by pre-existing collective agreements'?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member points out that the legislation as it exists does not cover this kind of situation. I do not pretend to be an expert in labour law; I have lost my QC and I defer to the member opposite in this regard.

I sat and chatted with the workers this morning and I have a considerable amount of sympathy for the situation they have at the moment. However, as one approaches the solution to this problem legislatively, it is an extremely difficult drafting problem. One could cast the net so widely that one would catch a lot of things one may not want to catch.

I can give the member, if he is interested, a number of situations -- hypothetical perhaps, but real as well -- that at this moment at least would not be beneficial to catch up in that act.

We have undertaken to have discussions with the employer to see what we can do about those 250 people who may or may not lose their work as a result of tendering that contract, but if the member is asking me to change the law on successor rights at this time, the answer is no, I am not prepared to do it today.

Mr. Mackenzie: Back on April 2, 1984, the now Minister of Labour made some very interesting comments. We do not have time for more than this one line, "Surely the women of this province deserve something better than the kind of uncertainty so many of them are going through now."

Is the Premier prepared to sit down with his colleague the Minister of Labour, with whom he is now chatting, and have a little more formal chat about the kinds of initiatives this government might take to stop this kind of action? I could go on. He is giving the same answers we got from the same deputy ministers and from the last Minister of Labour. When are we going to get some action to deal with this --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want the member to know that the minister and I and the members of this cabinet are prepared to take complete responsibility for the policies of this government and we do not hide behind bureaucrats --

Mr. Rae: That is not how I have heard it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Perhaps the third party wants to take the credit. If they are going to take the credit for the good things, they had better take the credit for this too. They cannot have it both ways.

It is a serious question and it needs a serious answer. It is a troubling situation. We are looking at our legislative options. If the member asks whether the law is going to be changed right now, the answer is no. If he is asking whether we are reviewing it and seeing whether this kind of situation can be addressed in the future, the answer is yes. Specifically, legislation right now would probably not solve this particular problem anyway. We are working with the various parties to see whether we can come to some kind of an accommodation.

That is the best answer I can give the member at the moment. I wish I could wave a magic wand and solve it today but I am not capable of doing that.

ONTARIO HYDRO DEBT

Mr. Andrewes: My question is for the Minister of Energy and it pertains to a financial matter with Ontario Hydro -- a public utility he often described, in terms of financial matters, as having the same integrity as a Third World nation.

The minister knows that every one-cent drop in the Canadian dollar adds about $150 million to the $10.5-billion debt Hydro has with United States lenders and increases the cost of operating the utility by between $10 million and $15 million a year. He knows these increased costs are passed on to consumers and passed on at a time when the prices of other forms of energy are falling.

Would the minister tell us what steps he plans to take to protect the electrical consumer of Ontario from the increased costs of servicing a debt that he often said in the past threatens the financial soundness of the province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I guess we are going to have to struggle along under the burden that was left to us. To answer the question directly, some $10 billion in loans in the US market is locked in for a long time.

The member's figures are close to accurate -- probably not as good as mine because his research would be wanting now that he is over there -- but in any event, we will be looking for every cent on the dollar. We are looking at a tremendous increase and it is going to reflect in the rates of Ontario Hydro. There is not much we can do about that.

Mr. Davis: Are the people going to pay more for their medicine?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) have a supplementary? I heard one.

Mr. Andrewes: With respect, the minister simply repeated the question I asked and gave me the usual history lesson. He will know that in February 1985 -- listen to this, Minister --

Mr. Speaker: I am listening for a supplementary.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister will know that in February 1985 his leader claimed the declining value of the Canadian dollar from 75 cents to 72 cents was bringing the utility closer to bankruptcy.

If Hydro was close to bankruptcy with a 72-cent Canadian dollar, will the minister tell us whether a 70-cent dollar, a 68-cent dollar or a 65-cent dollar will bankrupt the utility, or was his leader's position a year ago somewhat inaccurate or irresponsible?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The fact remains that the borrowings were made. Every cent by which the dollar decreases in value will reflect on the rates of Ontario Hydro. That is a fact of life we are going to live with. Until we can get out from under it, until we can encourage Canadians to invest in Ontario Hydro borrowings and do the things that should be done to reflect on the whole matter of borrowing money, we are going to have to pay for what was left to us. It is that simple. There is nothing else we can do.

Mr. Charlton: The minister seems to feel uncomfortable with the decisions made by the former government in the level of debt imposed there. Is he now prepared under the present situation to stop any further borrowing by Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The only undertaking I might share at this time is that we are going to do something that I suggested while I was sitting on the other side; that is, to get into borrowing from the people in Ontario and in Canada so they very properly own the utility.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding the introduction of an aluminum prophylaxis in the gold and uranium mines of Ontario.

He will be aware that in 1943, the McIntyre Research Foundation developed a wonder drug which would prevent silicosis. The theory was that if miners were to breathe aluminum dust, it would coat their lungs and they would not get silicosis; they would be immune. Miners entering the mines had to go through the "dry" to change and they inhaled aluminum dust injected into the atmosphere.

Can the minister indicate to the House whether the federal government ever approved the use of aluminum dust under the Food and Drugs Act to force this procedure on miners who objected to its use, or did McIntyre Mines do this on its own?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: In answer to the question from my friend, for whom I am now preparing inspection reports, I am going to have to check into it and get back to him. I expect the honourable member understands, since the question is pretty detailed.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister aware of work by Dr. G. H. Stone, who conducted studies on the effects of aluminum on rats and guinea pigs by exposing them to the same prophylactic agent miners inhaled? These animals developed tumours of the lung similar to human carcinoma. Is the minister further aware that six years ago the United Steelworkers were able to get this substance stopped and a study was ordered that suggested and recommended a further study be commissioned to determine the effects of this prophylaxis on miners and their lungs?

Since that study never occurred, is the minister prepared to commission such a study immediately to find out whether the aluminum has contributed to the cancer our miners are suffering now?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: My friend will know that Dr. Muller is currently completing phase 2 of his report, which is expected early in the spring. Following that report, certain decisions, which I assume will be held in abeyance, will be made in terms of workers' compensation for gold miners. I will check immediately with Dr. Muller, with whom I met last week, to see whether the findings of Dr. Stone have been incorporated as part of the phase 2 study, and if not, why not. I will get back to the member.

RESIDENT ANGLING LICENCE

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. He will know that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) wants to introduce resident anglers' licences. He has invited the public to advise him as to how he might be able to convince the Treasurer to commit these funds solely for the improvement of Ontario's fisheries. Can the Treasurer save the Ministry of Natural Resources a lot of time and trouble and assure us today that all proceeds raised by the licences will go into a separate fund dedicated to fisheries management and not go into the consolidated revenue fund?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) said one cannot do that.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As the Minister of Natural Resources so suitably interjects, we cannot do that. It is not our policy. However, we can assure the people who are interested in fishing and who are prepared and anxious to pay for this relatively inexpensive licence that at least that number of dollars will be made available in the budget of the minister to go forward with the innovative improvements that have been lacking in this province for so long.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will wait until we can hear the question.

Mr. Harris: I believe the Treasurer is well aware that the minister's proposal is conditional on these funds being dedicated to fisheries management programs. He knows the only way it can be guaranteed, both in the short term and the long term, is if a separate fund is set up. He also knows no one in the province will support the proposal unless that is the case.

The proposal of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the support of the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association is based on that. It is a simple question: Will he give us the absolute guarantee today that not some, but all the money raised by the licence will be turned over to fisheries management by incorporation in a separate fund?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was quite clear that not some, but all the dollars will be made available in the budget of the minister. When we talk about earmarking the dollars, we do not need any more guarantee than the commitment of the minister backed up by the commitment of the Treasurer.

Mr. Laughren: Typically, I have a compromise, a way out for the Treasurer. If a licence is imposed, would he assure us of two things: (1) that a special fund will be set up that will have in it more money than is raised through the imposition of the licence fee, and (2) that our native people, our first citizens of this province, will not have to pay the angling licence fee?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Native people will not have to pay it and neither will young people, but we do not need a commitment for any more or fewer dollars because all the dollars will be made available to the minister. It is a very suitable and fair way to proceed.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the minister responsible for women's issues, the Attorney General. If he disagrees with the submission by the Personnel Association of Ontario that the government should not proceed with legislation on equal pay, could he explain why he has appointed, as the male majority of the equal pay consultation panel, the heads of two private companies whose personnel managers are members of the Personnel Association of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Now, that is research.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is research. I disagree with the position the Personnel Association of Ontario has taken on that point. I had the opportunity to meet with them the other day and we had a useful, perhaps lively, discussion about the question of equal pay.

In appointing members to this group, I did not do research to find out what associations they had joined or what their parties or backgrounds were. I simply looked at their expertise, found that satisfactory and recommended they should be appointed.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister must be aware that neither Royal LePage nor Campbell Soup has an affirmative action program or an equal opportunity program. They were not even mentioned in the minister's achievement on employment equity awards. The only place that equal pay legislation is going to get a fair hearing is right here before a legislative committee. Will he stop the sham of this consultation, table the bill and let us get on with the work in this area in an honest and fair manner?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am quite prepared to answer questions, but if the member wants to talk about sham, let us get right down to it. The reality is -- I have a note here that I am supposed to be nicer than that, so let me try to answer the question directly. My executive assistant tells me I am much too direct and abrupt in the way I answer questions, so I will begin again.

I thank the member for the question. I am very grateful to have it. The reality that neither of the companies that employ two members of the group has equal pay plans is neither here nor there. The intent of this scheme is to develop a system so all the employers in Ontario will have equal pay plans.

Mr. Gillies: Supplementary to the nice minister: When he first announced the panel that would be travelling in the province on the question of equal pay, we did raise the concern that it was made up of three corporate executives. He promised us then that there would be another consultative group made up of representatives of labour and women. When are we going to see that? Or was the minister only kidding?

Hon. Mr. Scott: To the nice member for Brantford, the announcement of the members of those two panels will be made either Friday or Monday, I am not certain which. One of the panels has met several times and I am able to report that much useful work is being done. I will let the House have the names very shortly.

3 p.m.

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Davis: It is indeed an honour to address the Minister of Education and ask him a question. In his letter of January 17, 1986, to the chairman of the standing committee on social development, he says, "The government does not intend to protect public schoolteachers' jobs from the effects of the full funding of Roman Catholic secondary schools beyond a 10-year period."

Does the minister not think it is his responsibility to protect public schoolteachers without any arbitrary time limit?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to reiterate to the member for Scarborough Centre and his colleagues in the official opposition what I have said repeatedly: This minister and this government intend to provide the public school system with every protection that is required to buffer it against the cost of the separate school extension. We have made that clear and we will continue not only to say that but also to do it.

Mr. Davis: Do I understand the minister to inform this House that, after the 10-year period, his government guarantees job protection to the elementary and secondary schoolteachers who will find their jobs redundant because of the extension of separate school funding? Yes or no? That is an easy answer for the minister.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would not want my honourable friend from Scarborough to become too exercised. He knows better than perhaps any of his colleagues that the 10-year period that is incorporated in the legislation is there because we believe that during the course of that decade --

Mr. Davis: This party will guarantee it. Is the minister going to guarantee it or not?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you want to hear the answer?

Mr. Grossman: You bet.

Mr. Speaker: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member knows that the 10-year period is in the legislation because we believe that during the course of that 10-year period, separate school extension as it is contemplated by this government and this Legislature will be fully completed. That is the reason for the time period. The member knows full well, on the basis of the testimony put to the social development committee, that this view is shared by many in the community.

Mr. Allen: Rather than look into that distant, dim future, about which neither the questioner nor the answerer can speculate very clearly, is the minister currently looking sympathetically at amendments or approaches to the legislation that would make it possible for elementary schoolteachers to be considered within the ambit of those who are displaced and therefore protected?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Yes.

FLOODING

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Municipalities are desperately trying to prepare for the coming flood along Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie. Their financial resources are very limited because many of those municipalities are quite small. The city of Windsor, for example, is spending $200,000 right now to try to do something and it is having a hard time doing even that.

Why does the minister not take action to protect these people from flooding this spring? Why does he not do what he said he was going to do?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course, we have a serious problem with persistent high waters and with precipitation that appears to be above average, and we will have to do something with regard to the protection of that whole shoreline.

I have been to Ottawa to talk with the honourable minister, Tom McMillan, because he is involved in what is an international circumstance with some 3,000 miles of shoreline in this province. The member can rest assured that we are going to need help from the federal government to undertake the kind of protection that will be required. That is under way.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) will come forward shortly with an extension to some of the plans that will allow people to borrow money to shore up the areas that are being inundated. We are doing everything that can be done at this time and we shall continue to do so. Our plan will be put forward shortly, before the ice goes out, and we are looking at the kind of storms that we must properly address ourselves to.

Mr. Hayes: We realize that the minister went down to Ottawa and he reported that in the House on January 23. What I would like to know is, did the minister talk about specific help and not about the planning, plotting and mapping things like that for the future? I am talking about development. Did the minister specifically ask for help to protect the properties and the municipalities for the flooding that is imminent this spring and not for the future?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We are certainly addressing the short-term problems, as the member has described. I have already said the minister is bringing in shoreline protection loans that are going to be extended so that people can take advantage of them. I wanted to point out, so there is no misunderstanding, that this problem is of a magnitude that is going to require considerable help from the federal government if we are going to do something to protect ourselves over the long term.

Mr. Brandt: I brought this problem to the attention of the minister's colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs during estimates. Surely the minister is aware that any money that is invested at this time in shoreline protection, even of a temporary kind, will save the government considerable dollars in the long term, as the member has suggested, by reducing the amount of damage that is going to be done immediately.

Can the minister give us some indication of what kind of dollar commitment the government is prepared to put into shoreline protection, or what forms of assistance might be available between now and when the spring floods are anticipated?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: My ministry took the lead role in doing the assessment and in bringing together those people who could properly share with us the amount of damage that was done. I think the legislation that is going to come forward from the Minister of Municipal Affairs is going to address itself to the kind of money this government is going to put forward for shoreline protection and that is imminent.

LICENSING OF TRUCKERS

Mr. Gregory: On a point of personal privilege: My point of privilege is based on a question that I asked the Minister of Transportation and Communications last Friday. The minister suggested he would get back to me. As it is a matter that is clearly on the record, I expected that he would have done so. I am wondering if it is going to be in the early spring, late spring, early fall or whenever?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Before the next full moon.

PETITIONS

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

Ms. Bryden: "Under the provisions of standing order 33(b), we, the undersigned, request that the most recent annual report of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities be referred to the standing committee on social development. This petition will permit the committee to hold hearings on the proposed closure of the faculty of architecture at the University of Toronto."

ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. Davis: I have a petition signed by over 3,000 people to the Treasurer of the province.

"Whereas the government has decided to merge the Ontario Institute of Studies in Education and the University of Toronto, we, the undersigned, protest this move by the Treasurer of Ontario and petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Ontario Legislature that the Treasurer rescind this ill-advised budget item and that he reaffirm OISE's mandate to serve public education in Ontario."

Interjection.

Mr. Davis: And I want his resignation.

NURSING HOME BEDS

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the Belmont Manor Resident Council. It reads:

"We, the undersigned, request the provincial government to speed up the process of making nursing home beds available to groups in the Waterloo region that are willing to build the required facilities. The government of Ontario is fully aware of the great need of nursing home beds in this region.

"Among the concerned local organizations, the Ontario Teachers' Retirement Village Inc. is particularly willing and able to build an extended care unit for senior citizens. Therefore, we petition the government to make nursing home beds available at the earliest possible date in 1986 to the OTRV organization."

It is signed by 169 people.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I might take a moment of the House's time to inform you that sitting in the members' west gallery is Mr. Fred Young, a former member of the Legislature. Please welcome him.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: When he was in the House, I remember him saying he was going to conduct his affairs so that he would never lose his tan, and it appears he has been successful.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McCague from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Skills Development be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Skills development program, $276,342,500;

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Skills Development be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Skills development program, $65,300,000.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

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

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Attorney General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Law officer of the crown program, $3,773,700; administrative services program, $57,536,100; guardian and trustee services program, $8,361,800; crown legal services program, $24,691,000; legislative counsel services program, $1,482,500; courts administration program, $103,493,800; administrative tribunals program, $11,007,100; office responsible for women's issues program, $5,400,000, and resources development policy program for native affairs, $924,100;

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Attorney General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Office responsible for women's issues program, $1,499,500.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Community planning program, $31,194,300; municipal affairs program, $431,145,700; resources development policy program for the Niagara Escarpment Commission, $1,531,700;

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Municipal affairs program, $26,479,900.

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Housing be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986:

Ministry administration program, $12,606,300; real estate program, $11,426,600; community housing program, $165,572,500; residential tenancy program, $5,824,500;

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Housing be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986: Community housing program, $2,725,300.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Conway, first reading of Bill 103, An Act to amend the Teachers' Superannuation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The principal feature of this bill is the introduction of a three-year early retirement incentive program for Ontario's primary and secondary schoolteachers. This amendment to the Teachers' Superannuation Act addresses the special employment problems currently facing Ontario teachers because of declining enrolment and curriculum changes.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), in consultation with the Ontario Teachers' Federation, has designed this early retirement plan to ensure a future pool of well-trained and experienced teachers in the classrooms while enabling longer-service teachers to retire without undue financial burden.

The amendment will suspend early retirement reduction factors for three years for teachers aged 55 and over and will be effective from May 31, 1986, to August 31, 1989. It is estimated that 5,500 teachers will take advantage of this opportunity. The estimated cost of the proposal during the period of payments to the retiring teachers is $321 million. This will be financed from the teachers' Superannuation plan, which is jointly funded by the province and the teachers.

The remaining amendments are mainly of an administrative and housekeeping nature. The majority of these amendments have been examined and recommended by the biennial review committee on the Teachers' Superannuation Act and regulations. This committee is composed of representatives from the government, the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the Teachers' Superannuation Commission.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT

Ms. Bryden moved, seconded by Mr. Philip, resolution 4:

That in the opinion of this House, recognizing that part-time workers in both the public and private sector are discriminated against by the denial of many benefits and rights provided to other workers in the same establishment, a charter of rights for part-time workers be added to both the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act to provide pro rata benefits and collective bargaining rights to such workers and that they be made eligible for severance pay and retraining and readjustment programs provided for other workers displaced by technological change in the same establishment.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes and may reserve any part of that time for the end of the debate.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to reserve five minutes for the end of the debate.

This area of discussion, a charter of rights for part-time workers, is the next important area of labour legislation that we need in this province. We in the New Democratic Party have pioneered in getting a great number of the pieces of legislation that are now on the statute books into effect. While they do not all cover the issues as widely as we would like, they have been steps forward in the protection of workers from exploitation.

3:20 p.m.

We have built important provisions for collective bargaining in this province with the Labour Relations Act, and we have built bit by bit, over the foot-dragging of the previous government, a number of provisions in the Employment Standards Act that guarantee workers, whether they are organized or not, fair conditions, or minimum conditions, in their employment.

As long as exploitation is possible, we will need legislation to make sure all employees are treated fairly and are given their rights under the charter to have free collective bargaining and freedom of assembly. By adopting this motion today, this House should start the work within the government to draft legislation that will ensure that our labour and collective bargaining legislation does extend the rights that are guaranteed by the charter to part-time workers.

Part-time workers are growing in number very rapidly in our economy. In Ontario in the four years from 1981 to 1985, in the second quarter, the increase in full-time jobs was 3.5 per cent and the increase in part-time jobs was 17.2 per cent. We have to recognize that many of the part-time workers took part-time jobs because there were no full-time jobs available. However, some of them took part-time jobs because it suited their circumstances at the time to do so and they wanted part-time work. However, none of those who took part-time work wanted to be treated as a second-class citizen when it came to benefits and collective bargaining. This is the situation we are in today.

The growth in part-time work is evidenced by what has been happening in some of our big retail department stores and supermarkets. For example, in November 1984, Simpsons Ltd. fired 1,631 employees and hired back 800 part-time employees, many, of course, at lower hourly rates than they had been receiving as full-time workers. The T. Eaton Co. Ltd. is now operating with 60 to 65 per cent of its employees in the part-time category. Many other retail stores are using part-time workers almost exclusively.

I am told that in 1985 the numbers of full-time bank tellers and customer service employees rose very little, but there was a 15 per cent increase in part-time workers in these areas.

A and P Food Stores, in negotiating with its union recently, wanted to transfer all the full-time employees to part-time positions at a cut in wages of from 18 per cent to 29 per cent. I understand this is still under negotiation, but that was its objective. So we can see that this is a growing problem and a changing situation in the province.

If we look at the reasons for which employers use part-time employees, we can see that there are about half a dozen. The first is flexibility to meet seasonal peaks or daily peaks, when more employees are needed, and that is a legitimate desire. Other reasons are to provide opportunities for employment for people who do want part-time work only, such as high school students, sometimes university students, women with child care responsibilities or men with child care responsibilities.

However, other reasons for hiring part-time workers should be looked at. Employers are attracted to part-time workers because they are cheaper. There is therefore an incentive for them to hire as many part-time workers as possible. They wish to avoid creating new jobs or they wish to have people who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement or who are not organized at all. They wish to have people who are not subject to many of the employment standards laws and who are not eligible for pension plans. In effect, they are looking for labour that is cheaper and that they can exploit more easily because of the lack of protective laws.

This kind of exploitation is something we should look at and be ashamed. Many part-time workers get little job security, no consideration of seniority and irregular schedules. They are subject to call when the employer wants them -- it may be for only a few hours or a few days -- and they have no regular schedule that they can plan their lives around. The employers get them at lower minimum wages, especially if they hire people under 18, and they know that the people they hire are often not covered by the employment standards or trade union laws.

Of particular concern is the employment of women as part-time workers. In 1985, women constituted 73 per cent of the 720,000 part-time employees in Ontario, so it is a very special problem for women. It is also a very special problem for people who are being displaced by technological change or who are facing some kind of technological change that reduces the number of jobs in the establishment. Those people also need protection if they have to take two part-time jobs, as they may, in order to make up a full-time job in their particular industry.

It seems to me it is time to remove the economic incentives for employers by bringing in a charter of rights for part-time workers and to protect those new groups of employees who have become part-time but who were full-time before.

The previous government had endorsed some extension of part-time benefits for employees of the public service before it left office, but it was dragging its feet on the implementation of that policy by making it very difficult to become eligible. A lot of part-time civil servants or employees of the public service were not eligible.

The new government has undertaken some initiatives to change this policy, and I commend it for this. I hope it will not drag its feet or set standards of eligibility that will still cut out large numbers of employees who would be entitled to the same kind of protection and pro rata benefits as are being extended to some public servants.

3:30 p.m.

We have had various royal commissions and studies on the part-time work problem. In 1983, the federal government commissioned a study, Part-Time Work in Canada, the Wallace commission, which underlined what it found about the exploitation resulting from part-time jobs. It said:

"Not only are part-time jobs concentrated within industries and occupations that pay lower average hourly wages, but in addition, even within these lower-paid groups, part-time jobs pay even less.... On an average hourly basis, a part-time job pays 79 per cent of the wages that a full-time job pays."

That is a wide gap. There are many that pay considerably less.

It is time to set an example with our labour laws in Ontario and be the first province to have a charter of rights for part-time workers. I hope members from all parties in the House will indicate, by adopting such legislation, that we are the leaders in this field and are opposed to the kind of exploitation that is taking place among this very vulnerable group of employees without such legislation. That should make us all think about whether to support this motion.

We also need improvements in the collective bargaining process for part-time workers. The Ontario Labour Relations Board permits separate agreements for part-time as opposed to full-time workers if the employer so suggests. In a lot of bargaining situations, this means the bargaining strength and time are placed on the full-time workers' agreement and there may not even be the initiative to undertake an agreement for part-time workers.

Some unions also do not cover part-time workers in their bylaws. There must be an opportunity for part-time workers to be organized. One possibility to consider is making it ineligible for a union to sign a collective agreement that does not cover part-time workers in the plant. We would run into definitions as to what is a part-time worker, but that, could be worked out.

If we have legislation in this field, we will legitimize and regularize the principle of the recognition of the rights of part-time workers. There will undoubtedly be many charter cases on whether part-timers are discriminated against or not. If we do not have this kind of legislation, it will mean very expensive and costly litigation for the employees concerned and it will involve employers and governments in the same litigation.

If we get this legislation into effect, we can cut out a lot of charter cases and we can set Ontario as the first province with a charter of rights for part-time workers.

Ms. E. J. Smith: I am very pleased to address the motion in front of us and to support it. This should not come as a surprise because it seems fairly obvious that the discussion of part-time work involves itself very closely as a woman's issue, which it is.

The growth has been phenomenal in this area ever since the end of the last war. In 1953, the percentage of part-time workers was 3.8 per cent. As the member for Beaches-Woodbine pointed out, it has now moved to 16 per cent. Until the past couple of years, part-time work grew more quickly than full-time work in our economy.

For the past two years, there has been a levelling out, but even if the present level of employment continues on an even basis, it is apparent that part-time employment is a valuable and important part of our economic activity.

It is a woman's issue because, for such a large part, it is women who do part-time work. As the member pointed out, according to the report, Part-Time Work in Canada, 73 per cent of the work is done by women. Slightly more than a quarter of all women who work do part-time work, compared to only eight per cent of men.

Not only that, but the women in part-time work tend to be in what we call female-dominated jobs. Not only are they working on a part-time basis, but also they are working in the sorts of jobs that tend to be paid below the marketplace value of other such work. One could say, to be fair, these women are already underpaid. To be working at a job where they do not receive adequate protection and benefits further punishes them in their status.

It is not surprising, therefore, that whenever women sit down to discuss women's issues, the protection of part-time workers becomes part of their discussion. Conversely, whenever people start to discuss what should be done to protect part-time workers, the conversation takes on the issue of the protection of women. The two are closely entwined and represent a need for security for this very vulnerable group of workers.

I join the member for Beaches-Woodbine in remembering very clearly what happened to workers at Simpsons. This happened to be a time when I was campaigning. More than once, I ran into women who had worked faithfully at Simpsons, supported themselves and their families and suddenly found themselves left out in the cold or reduced to part-time work.

I felt for them emotionally as well as rationally, because my mother-in-law was the head of a mother-led family and raised her family while working in Eaton's. She did that through the Depression and the war years. I hate to think what would have happened to her family if she had been put on half-time and left with absolutely no benefits. Many people lost their houses and much suffering came about as a result of this. Eaton's is following the same pattern.

It is important that women on the whole have accepted that part-time work is a good thing and want it to continue. In order that it be there for the right reasons, for flexibility and for the employment of those who sincerely want to work part-time, we must make sure it remains available for these good reasons without being made available to employers for their benefit in getting cheaper labour.

If working full-time earns certain privileges and rights, then working part-time should earn those same privileges and rights. For those who spend all or a large part of their lives working part-time, this will ensure not only that they get their share of the return, but also that employers do not use part-time work to get away from rightful responsibilities they have to their employees. To avoid this abuse, the benefits must be made a part of the work, whether one works a full 40-hour week or only part-time.

I realize we were presented with a proposal today which limits itself to those employed beyond two years and such other requirements. While it may cover most of the most needy part-time workers who do it for a large portion of their lives, the problem is that it does not prevent abuse by employers who may move to part-time employment and then to rotating or getting rid of part-time employees before they become eligible for benefits.

3:40 p.m.

There was some question in the present situation with Dominion Stores that the company reduce itself below the level of employees under its domain to avoid certain requirements of job security where there are 50 or more employees. It is sad but realistic to know that we must write the laws in such a way that they are not open to this kind of abuse and, therefore, if we tie all the benefits into the hours worked, whether part-time or full-time, we can ensure that there is not a benefit in moving people around in this way to avoid paying benefits.

I am sure I do not know all the factors and difficulties involved in writing such legislation. I realize the details must be examined much more closely by those writing it up. We have an excellent report put forward on part-time work in Canada. It recognizes that part-time work is here to stay and that the people in this field of activity have equal rights to the benefits they have earned along with those working full-time. We should move on this as quickly as possible.

Women's groups have supported the notion that part-time work particularly serves the employment needs of those who must also provide homemaking and child-rearing opportunities. Many women move into part-time work for a period of their lives. By doing so, they keep up their skills and are able to move back into full-time employment. But these people have need for holidays, have need to accrue pensions and have need for the other benefits we are now beginning to take for granted in full-time work.

It is my most earnest concern that, whether part-time workers be male or female, they earn for themselves the right to holidays, the right to protection, the right to all those facets of employment that full-time workers have earned. Not only does this give them a fair reward for their labour, it also provides the protection to prevent employers from using part-time labour to avoid meeting their obligations to working people.

For this reason, I very much support the motion before the House and hope it receives the support of all the members.

Mr. Barlow: I want to congratulate and commend the member for Beaches-Woodbine for presenting this resolution before the House recommending that we amend the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act to add a charter of rights for part-time workers in Ontario.

I respect the fact that more than 15 per cent of our labour force in Canada is made up of people who work part-time. As has been mentioned by both previous speakers, 72 per cent of part-time workers are women, although I do not consider this wholly a women's issue for reasons I will explain. For instance, one third of all part-time workers are students who are working because they want to get a few dollars to carry on their education.

I have a deep respect for the substantial contribution part-time workers make to the work force of this nation. In many cases, as statistics point out, the part-time work force comprises people who require some type of affirmative action to ensure them a rightful and meaningful place in the work force.

I feel I cannot support the resolution in its present form, however, because it does not offer a clear definition of a pan-time worker as the proposed charter might suggest. As long as different definitions or categories of part-time workers exist, it seems impossible to impose legislation that will ensure that all part-timers are treated equitably by their employers.

If the provision of benefits, collective bargaining rights and severance pay was as easy as the resolution seems to suggest, I do not believe there would be too many who would not support the resolution. However --

Mr. Breaugh: Here it comes; the weasel words.

Mr. Barlow: -- here it comes -- such is simply not the case. The reality is that there is an abundance of categories and definitions of what constitutes part-time workers. Part-time workers may be classed as regular part-time, temporary part-time, casual or seasonal. One just cannot paint them all with the same brush. The reality is there are many different situations to consider in trying to come up with a fair and equitable rate for the part-time work force.

In 1983, the federal Commission of Inquiry into Part-Time Work found that coming to a decision on how to define a part-time worker was one of its major stumbling blocks. After much deliberation, it was able to recommend only the following definition, "That a part-time worker is one who works less than the normal scheduled weekly or monthly hours of work established for persons doing similar work."

The more recent 1985 report of the subcommittee on equality rights of the House of Commons standing committee on justice and legal affairs, also known as the Boyer report, said, "In considering the position of part-time workers, the committee was struck by both the difficulty of arriving at a comprehensive and fair definition of part-time workers for the benefit of entitlement purposes, and the inconsistency that exists in the provisions of federal laws affecting part-time workers." They had real confusion and concerns about it.

Both the reports I have mentioned agreed that there should be consideration given to some of our part-time workers, but that there would have to be some way to differentiate between permanent part-time workers and casual or seasonal part-time workers.

As the appointed spokesman for small business in our party, I cannot help but be very concerned about the effect that legislating any new rights for workers might have on the owners of small businesses in this province. The part-time work force has been growing steadily over the past few years and the forecasters say it will continue to grow.

As I said, in many cases a person is working part-time because he chooses to do so. The Wallace commission found that 75 per cent of the part-time workers do not want to work on a full-time basis. They like the freedom part-time work affords them so that they have time to engage in whatever other activities they might wish, such as their own education, child-rearing, homemaking, or in the case of a semi-retired person, some leisure activities.

In most cases, what is considered to be a fringe benefit, such as the employer paying the Ontario health insurance plan premiums, is not really required for those who are working part-time. In the case of a young person working in the summertime or after school, it is carried by the parents, or in the case of the part-time working homemaker it is carried by the spouse.

Surveys show that the majority of part-time workers already have adequate benefit coverage and would rather have the money earned than have to contribute towards a benefit package. Market competitiveness is going to become even more important to the businessman if the federal government intends to relax trade barriers.

In talking to many employers, especially those who operate small businesses, it has been brought to my attention that their use of part-time workers is socially progressive. They feel that the use of part-time workers aids students in gaining an education and eases the transition from school to work by allowing them to gain some work experience. It helps older workers to subsidize their pensions in their retirement years. Employers see themselves as contributing to society by hiring part-time workers and do not feel this should be penalized by legislation insisting that they provide the same benefits to part-timers as they offer to full-time employees.

3:50 p.m.

The administration of providing these benefits would in itself be a nightmare with the transient nature of many of the part-time workers. In many cases, one would just get all the paperwork completed to include a part-time worker on the staff benefits plan and then the school year would be upon us, the worker would be gone and somebody new would have to be trained for that position and again signed up for the benefits package.

The estimated cost to the employer for prorating pensions and fringe benefits for part-time workers who possibly would not even require this package would be more than 25 per cent of the income earned by a worker who worked fewer than 12 hours a week. When one considers that less than 33 per cent of all part-time jobs lasted the full year in 1981 due to job turnover and the short length of many part-time jobs, one can understand why employers are reluctant to bear the cost of providing benefits to part-time workers.

It should be noted that enshrining the rights of part-time workers in the Employment Standards Act and in the Labour Relations Act will not solve the problem of pension coverage for part-time workers who work for an organization that does not provide a pension package to its full-time employees.

As I understand it, only about 54 per cent of full-time workers in Canada have access to coverage through an employer-sponsored pension plan. While this is rather sad news -- I do not support that principle but it is a fact of life -- the point I make today is that this resolution will not serve as a panacea for the ills of the work force. I wish there were some way of separating those who choose to be on a part-time basis from those who are working in an organization which by design -- as we have heard pointed out on several occasions today -- is using the work force for that very reason; to avoid the part-time benefits package.

I conclude my remarks on that note, giving my vote to business. I hope we can allow them a little breathing space to increase their chances for survival and for creating meaningful jobs for those who wish to work part-time.

Mr. Mackenzie: It will come as no surprise to indicate that I support the resolution of my colleague. In the opinion of this House, recognizing that part-time workers in both the public and private sectors are discriminated against by the denial of many benefits and rights provided to other workers in the same establishment, a charter of rights for part-time workers should be added to both the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act to provide -- and I point this out to the member who just finished speaking -- pro rata benefits and collective bargaining rights to such workers and that they may be made eligible for severance pay, retraining and adjustment programs provided for other workers displaced by technological change in the same establishment.

It is not a question of the same kind of a price or package whatsoever; it is a pro rata allotment of benefits to these workers. Unlike the riding of Cambridge, my riding is not one that is filled with small business people and no workers, because workers clearly understand the issue of part-timers' benefits and the issue of first contract.

I am a little disappointed with the statement today from the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet and Minister of Government Services (Ms. Caplan). If I can go to her comments -- and this is in an effort to achieve some of the benefits for part-time workers among government employees and the public sector -- she says: "There are two criteria being applied: First, required work must be performed on a year-round ongoing and continuous basis; and second" -- this is the one that does in most of the workers who might otherwise qualify for it -- "hours of work for the job must be regularly scheduled and must be either less than full-time but not less than 14 hours per week. or less than 20 full days but not less than nine full days over a period of four consecutive weeks."

What we got today in the statement was a little bit of smoke and mirrors with regard to the employees. I cannot give members a better example than that of the part-time workers at the Whitby Psychiatric Hospital. There are in that hospital some 130 people on the part-time rolls. Of those, letters have gone out to a total of 28 who qualify: 28 out of 130. I suspect if we do a little checking, we will find it is the same right across the province.

The odd thing about it is, the example I gave in the House in a question to that same cabinet minister just last week was right on. An employee working 19.5 or 20 hours qualifies, but another who regularly works 21.5 or 23.75 hours a week does not qualify for the part-time benefits.

I would like to put on record a letter that came from the workers at that hospital, because it effectively points out the problem we have when we start limiting who is going to qualify for the part-time benefits. The letter, which is addressed to me, says:

"Members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union at Whitby Psychiatric Hospital have a problem. It's a problem that from what we understand is becoming a concern for members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union province-wide.

"The Swan award gave civil service status and benefits to seasonal, contract and part-time employees of the Ontario government. This is something for which the Ontario Public Service Employees Union has been fighting for four years. It has taken over two years to give contract language to the part-time, seasonal, contract sections of our contract. Our people were looking forward to January 1, 1986, or December 31, 1985, the date we knew that our part-time people had to be notified that they would become part-time classified civil servants (and they would get benefits).

"(Now remember the Tories in the House talked about giving part-time benefits to members of the Ontario public service in order to set an example for other employers in Ontario.)

"At WPH, our people looked forward to the Swan award giving our people benefits such as OHIP, vacation, pension, dental benefits, etc.

"About December 27, 1985, the executive of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 331, had the Civil Service Commission definition of `regular part-time' explained to them. The Civil Service Commission says that in order to be regular part-time, a person must be working regularly scheduled hours on a fixed schedule. Example: a person working four hours a day, 10:30 to 14:30 hours, five days a week would get the benefits. A person who works three days a week on a float or unfixed schedule is not going to get the benefit. Anybody who is on a float or an unfixed schedule," and these are set up 14 days in advance for both groups, "is not going to qualify for the assistance.

"At WPH, we have 130 part-time, contract positions. Of these, the Civil Service Commission have decided that 28 people get benefits." They call it "window-dressing" -- these are the employees themselves in their letter.

"What impact does this have? Our people are very upset. The vast majority of these people are women. With the float pools not getting any benefits," and the hospitals like to keep them on float pools so they can call them in or adjust their hours or tell them they will be on float even a couple of weeks in advance, "I have women with 18 years' seniority part-time in this hospital who wanted a pension" -- to be able to work towards a pension or some of the benefits. The letter mentions one who still has nothing under this new government move.

"We have women who needed the OHIP, the dental plan, etc. They did not get it.

"Why? They work regularly part-time hours every week. But their hours are not fixed."

That is to the advantage of the hospital, and because the hours are not fixed, these people are automatically disqualified under the rules this government has brought in.

It goes on to say, "Your assistance in this matter is needed and welcome." They have said, "Please do what you can for us."

The letter points out the problem we have had over the years. We have it with respect to domestics and part-time workers. The previous speaker for the government was correct. We have gone from four per cent to almost 17 per cent part-time employees and a vast majority of those are women. They do not get the necessary benefits, even when they are male. A surprising number have been forced into part-time work because of the changing job patterns in this province. Though it is their only job, they may have families and if they are in part-time positions, usually they do not qualify for the benefits that give them some protection with respect to health insurance and the rest one could name.

4 p.m.

We have the ridiculous situation in my own riding now -- it is just one of many examples, but I will use it because it is current -- of some 16 harbour policeman whom we cannot seem to get the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) to move on.

Here in Toronto they were incorporated into the Metropolitan Toronto Police force. Their service runs from a low of 7.5 years to a high of 21.5 years, and they have all taken from one to four courses at the Ontario Police College in Aylmer. They are well qualified men in their jobs, but the best offer they can get from the police commission in our city, both in Hamilton-Wentworth and in Halton, is that some of them might be taken on as part-time civilian employees.

I have talked to most of these men. I had the wife of one of them in my office just a week ago Saturday. She pointed out some of the expenses they have had over the years and the fact that if her husband took that job now -- he is one of the older ones -- he might have difficulty locating elsewhere and would not only have a substantial reduction in salary but, as a part-time civilian employee, would also not qualify for the benefits that are needed to assist his family.

I am simply saying this is a resolution whose time not only has come but also is long past due in Ontario. It is a move that has been given lipservice even by my colleagues in the Conservative Party, who now seem to indicate that they are going to vote against this particular measure. That does not surprise me; the same thing happened on first contracts. It is going to be very nice.

Mr. Breaugh: Oh, no.

Mr. Mackenzie: The member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow), at least, indicated that he would not support it, and that is a pretty sad commentary on the commitment to working people in Ontario.

However, it is just as sad a commitment to working people by this government when we get the kind of statement we had from the Minister of Government Services in this House today, which was totally inadequate and does not deal with any more than about 15 or 20 per cent of the provincial employees who are in part-time jobs in Ontario.

It is long past time that we take a serious look at a resolution such as the one submitted here by my colleague and see that it does pass this House. Further than that, we should see that the government then takes action to put it into legislation.

Mr. Callahan: I have always considered myself to be a fair person, a person who tries to look at rights that are being usurped or at people who are not treated fairly.

I have looked at this resolution. With all due respect for the honourable member, I cannot find within the framework of either the Employment Standards Act or the Labour Relations Act anything that prevents a part-time worker from receiving benefits or that denies him any benefits.

Mr. Mackenzie: Where the hell has the member been all these years?

Mr. Callahan: I just finished reading through the Employment Standards Act. I challenge the member to read through it and show me where it says that a part-time employee does not receive a pro rata share of whatever benefits are provided under that act.

Mr. Mackenzie: Without legislation you do not get it. You have to have a contract.

Mr. Callahan: I have read through the Employment Standards Act -- that is what is referred to in the member's motion -- and there is no place in that piece of legislation that confines it to full-time employees. In fact, if the member will look at the act, he will see that it says:

"`Employee' includes a person who,

"(i) performs any work for or supplies any services to an employer for wages,

"(ii) does homework for an employer or

"(iii) receives any instruction or training in the activity, business, work, trade, occupation or profession of the employer,

"and includes a person who was an employee."

Mr. Mackenzie: Shall I send all the part-timers to see the member?

Mr. Callahan: I am going to get to the point where the part-time employees, I would suggest, perhaps miss out on some of the benefits, but it certainly is not under the first act that has been referred to in the member's motion.

I will not go through the act clause by clause, but in my understanding of it, the act provides for pro rata compensation in vacation pay, overtime and so on. Overtime probably would not become a significant factor, because a part-time worker would not work in excess of the required hours. It provides for other benefits there that are done on a pro rata basis.

I have looked through the Labour Relations Act as well, and in my humble and quick reading through the document, there is nothing in the act that deals with part-time workers in any unjust way.

I suggest that a part-time worker has equal opportunity to join a labour union, to negotiate a collective agreement and to try to achieve within the terms of that collective agreement greater rights than he receives or is entitled to under the Employment Standards Act. My friends in the third party have addressed the problem that, because of the negotiating of the contract or of the collective agreement, if part-time people decide to join a union, their rights have not been a result of free and open negotiation between employer and employee and they have not been given the same protection as full-time workers.

That is probably because not many part-time workers join a union. If they join a union, they are required to pay union dues and the moneys they are receiving perhaps are not sufficient to allow them to pay those union dues, or perhaps they are working on such a short part-time basis that they do not consider it necessary to join a union.

As a result, they are in a minority situation in any negotiations for a collective agreement and the rights of those workers are not as demonstratively put forward in a democratic process in negotiating that agreement.

I am not addressing the public service because I have not had an opportunity to look at whatever legislation affects it, but I suggest the denial of rights of part-time workers arises out of the small numbers that are part of a bargaining unit. Accordingly, the strength and the kick or punch they, have, in terms of votes when it comes to negotiating and ratifying a collective agreement, has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation. If I am wrong, I will be happy if any member can point out to me whether that is the case in the legislation.

Mr. Mackenzie: Two thirds of the people are not organized, to boot.

Mr. Callahan: However, what my friend is addressing is the question of organization of workers. He is addressing the question of people exercising their rights under the Labour Relations Act.

I am not for one minute saying that if part-time employees are being treated badly, there should not be some way to address that issue. However, I am not for one minute agreeing with the resolution that the panacea or the way to resolve it is to create a charter of rights and include it in the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Standards Act. It does not apply. There is nothing in the act that denies these rights to a part-time worker.

Mr. Mackenzie: The member is naïve.

Mr. Callahan: I may be naïve, but if one reads the plain print as contained in the statute, the statute does not do that, and if it does not do that, the only conclusion I can come to is that what happens is that part-time people who join a union wind up in a position where they do not have as much clout as the full-time employees because there are not many of them, and the collective agreement that is negotiated is not quite as effective as it would be for the full-time employees.

A bill was put forward by my colleague the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) that perhaps would address some of the inequities that exist. However, they are not the result of any legislation on the books that I have read and that is referred to in the honourable member's motion.

I would be more than happy to support a motion if it were reworded and if I could be shown the part-time workers were being discriminated against.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Gillies: I am pleased to join the debate on this resolution and to indicate at the outset to the member for Beaches-Woodbine that I will be pleased to support it.

I am quite surprised by the remarks made by the member for Brampton (Mr. Callahan). If I follow his argument, I am sure employers across Ontario are celebrating in the streets at this very moment. It has been brought to their attention by the member for Brampton that there is nothing whatsoever in the Employment Standards Act or the Labour Relations Act that prohibits them from providing benefits on a pro rata basis for part-time workers, and now that they are disabused of that misimpression, they will all run out and do so.

That is what I took from my honourable friend's speech. If I am wrong, then I stand to be corrected, but I think the point is that there is nothing in those acts or in any other government legislation which indicates that these people should have the right to benefit, and there is no legislative framework that allows them to benefit from these things.

I take the member back to the report of the select committee on pension reform. It reported in 1982. As I look around the chamber, the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Taylor), who was here a few minutes ago, was the chairman of that committee. There are several other members of the assembly as now constituted who sat, as I did, on that committee. I think one of the most important recommendations of that select committee of this House in 1982 was the recommendation which read as follows:

"The royal commission and the select committee heard many representations on the subject of part-time employment and pension plans. The royal commission was convinced, and the select committee is also convinced, that the time has now come for part-time workers to be given the opportunity, if they wish it, to participate in employment pension plans. The select committee supports the principle of the royal commission's proposal and the committee recommends that: When a durable employment relationship exists between an employer and a part-time employee, the employee should be given the opportunity to participate voluntarily in the employer's pension plan."

I suggest again to the member for Brampton that I think there is nothing I can see in the resolution of the member for Beaches-Woodbine that is inconsistent with that resolution which was endorsed by all three parties. I do not believe the member for Beaches-Woodbine is saying that all people who work part-time, under any circumstances, with an employer in this province should be obliged, say in the case of a contributory plan, to contribute to pensions and other benefits that they may not wish to contribute to. I do not believe, Marion, that is what you are saying.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. Gillies: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker.

What I see in the resolution is an expression of the concern that I believe many of us in this House share, that the right should exist for people to participate in such plans when they choose. Also, when part-time workers are part of a collective bargaining unit, they should have the same rights under the contract with regard to these issues, whether they are part-time or full-time. That is reasonable and supportable.

I might add when our leader, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), the former Treasurer, was the minister responsible for pensions, he spoke a number of times on this very subject. It has been a position of our party and we were moving towards the proposition or benefits to part-time workers. I suspect the legislation first introduced may have borne some resemblance to that brought in by the Chairman of Management Board to cover the public sector first and move on to the private sector.

It is worth while to comment on the statement made by the Chairman of Management Board in the House today. I believe the proposal the government is putting forward, as was spoken to by the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie), is flawed. I believe the government should have framed the legislation in terms similar to the resolution of the select committee. Where a durable relationship exists between the employee and the employer, in this case the government of Ontario or its agency, the employee should then have the right to the same sorts of benefits provided to full-time employees.

What the minister has brought in is restrictive and inflexible, saying, and I quote from her statement: "The hours of work for the job must be regularly scheduled. It must be either, firstly, less than full-time but not less than 14 hours per week, or less than 20 full days, but not less than nine full days over a period of four consecutive weeks."

There are employees of government agencies, specifically in the case of our hospitals -- nurses and nursing assistants -- who work part-time. They work on any number of various shift arrangements arrived at between them and their employer. I checked with St. Joseph's Hospital in my own riding of Brantford and found that an arrangement may involve three days of work one week and as many as seven to 10 days off before coming back to work one, two or three days on a regularly set schedule.

I am sure I am not telling any members anything they do not know when I say that full-time nurses and nursing assistants have very great variations in their schedules. They can work seven days straight, be off for five, work two, be off for another two, and so on. These are the sorts of things we have to do to staff institutions which function 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

I share the concern already expressed in this House that the policy brought in by the Chairman of Management Board is going to exclude many part-time workers who should be benefiting from the right to pro rata benefits. I believe there should be some discretion. It may not be the chosen option of all part-time workers to participate in benefit and pension plans where they are contributory.

If somebody is working three, four, six or eight hours a week in a mom-and-pop comer store to supplement income -- perhaps a working woman where the main source of income for the household is the man, or vice versa -- that person may not intend to have a durable relationship with that employer and may not want to deduct from what may be a very modest pay package to contribute towards a pension plan which would pay next to nothing when it matures. We all recognize that.

I happen to believe that if a plan in that kind of business exists for the benefit of the full-time workers, it should be at the discretion of the employees. I do not believe the Legislature or the employer or anyone else should make that decision for them. If they are working eight hours a week and want to contribute so they end up with a pension benefit when they retire of $20 or $30 a month, surely that should be their option.

If they do not want to do that and they want to take home as part of their pay package the money that would be contributed, they should have that option too. I cannot believe what I am saying is inconsistent with the suggestion put forward by the member for Beaches-Woodbine in her resolution.

I also believe we have to maintain flexibility in the case of students, as mentioned by the member for Cambridge. I cannot imagine many students who work two or three months every summer to make income to return to college or university in the fall would necessarily want deductions made for pension or benefit purposes. The odds are extremely remote that a student will develop any sort of durable relationship with a part-time summer employer following graduation. Let us face it, when one is 17, 18 or 19 and saving to go to college or university or to go back to college or university, the odds are that one wants that money in the bank account then. One does not want to be banking a portion of it for a retirement which, at that age, is many years down the road.

Assuming the member has brought in her resolution with that kind of flexibility in mind -- wishing to afford the protection we want to afford to part-time workers who want it, but not wishing to include those who do not want it for various reasons -- I have no problem in supporting it.

The situation is that there is a movement in our labour force in Canada towards part-time work. That movement is viewed with some alarm by the labour movement and other observers, as we see the erosion of full-time employment in some areas of our work force. I had the opportunity to speak to the retail workers' union about this subject this week.

Inasmuch as I see this resolution moving towards addressing some of the concerns we have in this area, especially those applying to female workers, I will be supporting the resolution.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton Mountain has up to nine minutes because of the time reserved by the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Charlton: I rise in support of the resolution by the member for Beaches-Woodbine. As the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) suggested in his last few remarks, part-time work is becoming an area of increasing concern to the labour movement and even to many unorganized workers in Ontario. It is becoming a concern for a set of very real reasons. It is important for us to focus on and understand them during the debate on this resolution this afternoon.

There are two sides to the shift to part-time work that is occurring in our society. We can be sure the shift will continue in a number of the major sectors of our economy -- especially throughout the retail sector, but also in others such as the entertainment, hotel and tourism sectors.

As more service-oriented industries come on stream with the technological changes we have seen over the past decade, we will see greater shifts to part-time employment. We will see greater numbers of young people in this province never having a single full-time job such as our parents and most of us have had in our lives. In addition, in many industries that have traditionally employed large numbers of full-time people and small numbers of part-time people, we are seeing increasing numbers of part-time people.

Some attribute the reduction in the number of full-time positions and the increasing number of part-time people to efforts on the part of some retail chains in this country to break unions. Some attribute it strictly to cost-saving or maximization of profits. Strangely, both seem to relate to the same thing ultimately, because most employers in that sector view the union as a cost albatross, as an excessive cost in the operation of the enterprise.

In the past we have seen full-time and part-time employees pitted against each other; now we see it growing, especially with full-time employees of long standing who are threatened with the prospect of being replaced by part-timers. They are obviously resentful of desperate people who are prepared to accept even part-time work with no benefits at very low rates of pay substantially below the full-time rate, especially if the full-time rate happens to be under a union collective agreement.

We have a situation where part-time people who are being opposed by full-time workers in an establishment, chain or set of enterprises feel resentful because they have been out on the street for a year, a year and a half or two years. Any unemployment insurance they may have had has long since run out. Perhaps they never had any in the first place because they are young people who have never had a job. These people seeking part-time employment are beginning to feel very resentful towards those who are trying to protect full-time jobs.

The things set out in this resolution will start to impede the building of barriers between these two categories of employees; they will start to equalize the balance. We need better legislation in this province on the minimum wage for part-timers. Part of the reason employers see part-time employment as an advantage is that, generally speaking, they can avoid paying benefits, except in some of the very strongest of trade union situations. They can avoid what in 1986 is a fairly substantial cost item, a benefits package, which usually includes life insurance, extended health coverage, disability insurance, a pension plan, a dental plan and any number of other items.

To legislate prorated benefits packages for the part-time people in this province would equalize that situation and would substantially reduce the benefit of part-time employment to an employer. It would ultimately reduce the slide of permanent, full-time employment into increasing numbers of part-time jobs, and it would give the part-time employee an economic boost or assist which he or she does not have now.

Part-time employees in Ontario are sort of the disadvantaged disadvantaged. They are in a situation where they are earning not only a minimum wage, but also a minimum wage which in most cases is below the basic minimum wage in the legislation.

Because of the cost of the benefits package and because most of the benefits that are available in the package cannot be bought privately by those part-time employees on an individual basis, the only social coverage they have in Ontario is, essentially, whatever they pay on their low wage rate for unemployment insurance premiums, their Ontario health insurance plan, which they must buy directly from this government and perhaps, if they are lucky, an extended health package bought privately through Blue Cross of Ontario, for example. They will have access to no other benefits and no other protections for themselves and their families.

My time is almost up, Mr. Speaker, because you said nine minutes and the clock started at 10 minutes.

The situation for part-time employees in this province is a dramatic one. I urge all the members of this Legislature to support this resolution, even if they can see some niggling little part of it they do not like, so we can get on with the job of encouraging the government to develop legislation that we can debate, have public hearings on and do all the rest of the things that need to be done to sort out all the wrinkles.

It is a problem that is going to escalate rapidly over the next few years as we see the continuing shift to part-time employment in this province. Now is the time for us to start the job of resolving those problems.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine has five minutes and 29 seconds.

Ms. Bryden: I have been very interested in the comments of the speakers and I sense the majority of them do support the principle of the bill. It is a long-overdue bill, which is particularly needed in the private sector.

While we welcome the initiatives by the new government and the tentative initiatives by the previous government to extend benefits to part-time workers, there are still large numbers not eligible. My colleague the member for Hamilton East pointed this out. The government must set a better example if it is going to encourage the private sector to stop this discrimination against part-time workers.

4:30 p.m.

I find it almost impossible to understand how the second speaker on the Liberal side could believe the present legislation would automatically provide benefits for part-timers. In many cases, the number of hours worked limits them from being covered. There is simply no legislation compelling the employer to provide benefits. I am sure if the member had met with very many part-time workers, he would have found their efforts to obtain benefits have been fought and there is no legislative compulsion on employers to provide benefits. There is also no legislative compulsion on employers to provide a private pension plan for either full-time or part-time workers. This has to be changed as well.

I would like to congratulate the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith) on her very strong support for the principle of equal treatment for part-time and full-time workers and for benefits on a pro rata basis. I agree with her that it will take some time to work out the legislation, but that should not deter us from establishing the principles today.

She made particular reference to the importance of this legislation for women, who constitute a majority percentage of the part-timers in this province and who will be joined by many other workers, both men and women, in the next few years as the economy changes, automation takes place and high technology changes the job picture. That is the reason for all of us to support the principle. I hope the government will act on working out the details and bring in legislation as soon as possible.

I would like to remind the members that in 1984 the New Democratic Party had a task force on the subject of the future of work and employment that travelled around the province. We discovered the complaints about the lack of pro rata benefits for part-timers were almost universal. We ran into them in almost every brief we heard in every city or town in the province. Of course, the report recommended very strongly that the situation be remedied by a charter of rights for part-time workers.

I am rather disappointed that while the Progressive Conservative members are still stressing the public service more -- this was an area in which they made some moves on part-time benefits -- they are not stressing the need to make sure the private sector also brings in fair benefits for part-time workers. I do not know why they did not change the Employment Standards Act and the Labour Relations Act while they were in power. Maybe the same reluctance to ask the private sector to get into this area is still inhibiting them. I appreciate the remarks of the speakers from the Progressive Conservative Party, although I understand one member is opposing it. I hope he may reconsider. I am not sure how the other one is going.

This is an issue of great importance and I think it is time we moved ahead in this field of legislation to protect a very exploited group of workers.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the alloted time for this item of business. It will be dealt with further at 5:50 p.m.

WATER TREATMENT FUND

Mr. South moved, seconded by Mr. Henderson, resolution 27:

That in the opinion of this House, since many companies, institutions and municipalities in Ontario take water directly from our natural watercourses and ground water and, after processing it, discharge the used water back into those watercourses, thus putting a substantial stress on the environment, the government of Ontario should introduce legislation to establish a fund for the restoration and preservation of the environment by assessing a charge to be levied on all large prime water takers in Ontario and based on the amount of water taken.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Frontenac-Addington has up to 20 minutes and may reserve any part of that time for a windup for the debate.

Mr. South: I will take approximately 15 minutes and will reserve the remainder of the time at the end to answer questions and provide a summary.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to present to the Legislative Assembly a matter that has been of concern to me for some time, that being the preservation and restoration of the environment in our province. I am standing before the Legislature today to gain support for the establishment of a fund to be used solely -- and I repeat, solely -- for the preservation and restoration of our environment.

What is the rationale behind this? In today's industrial or post-industrial society, our environment is under continuing and increasing stress caused by the multitude of old and exotic new products. These stresses are brought about either by the products themselves -- that is, pesticides -- the waste produced during manufacturing or the final disposal of the product.

In all of these cases, water is being used at some point. At present we are continually withdrawing a great deal of water on both sides of the international border for a wide variety of uses. Most of that water is eventually returned to the system, more often than not into a watercourse. This waste water, no matter how well treated, still places stress on the receiving watercourse and on the environment.

Ontario and our neighbours on the Great Lakes basin are water-based societies. Together we have a 12-billion-litre-a-day water consumption habit, which could be doubled by the year 2000. There is a real need to think of water in a new way. We cannot take anything in our environment for granted, including water. Thus, by placing a charge against waste discharges, we are attempting to better relate the cost of environmental protection to the user and/or abuser.

This method would encourage water conservation as well if it were a decision by the Legislature in the near future to charge on the basis of quality. Then the people of Ontario would have an effective tool for encouraging better-quality waste effluents.

Why develop a fund rather than a tax? Many of the diseases of today are induced environmentally rather than by causative bacterial or viral organisms. These environmental diseases often require many years of low-level exposure before symptoms occur. Bacterial infections, on the other hand, are generally manifest in days or weeks.

4:40 p.m.

When causes and manifestations are close, it becomes easier to raise money; therefore, taxing for these types of diseases does work. However, it is very difficult to raise money on the basis of what might happen in the future. It has been relatively easy to raise tax money to fight the causes of infections with incubation periods that are fairly short; that is, typhoid fever, gastrointestinal diseases, etc. Conversely, it has often been politically expedient to cut or reduce the assignment of tax money to environmental stresses, hence diseases which may not occur for 10 or 20 years down the road.

Good examples of this are the recent number of cases of lung problems with workers at the old Johns-Manville plant in Scarborough. Their medical problems were not manifest for a number of years after the fact. The Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York, is another good example in which the problem was not manifest for at least 25 years after the fact.

In the past, the use of taxes to control natural disease organisms has been the government's practice. However, this system will not work as well for the longer time range of industrial environmental stresses and diseases of today.

Look at the imbalance of social money in treatment versus preventive medicine. At present, 95 per cent of provincial money for the delivery of health services is allocated for treatment medicine and less than five per cent for preventive medicine. It is my contention we must include the environment in the category of preventive medicine.

The environment affects us all: the healthy and the sick, the wealthy and the poor, the employed and the unemployed. Some medical experts now attest the majority of hospital patients are there because of environmentally induced diseases. The continuing and cumulative effect of acid rain on vegetation in our lakes, the fish with large cancerous growths we are finding in the Great Lakes, and the appearance of breeding problems in gulls are all obvious symptoms of a stressed environment which slowly and subtly affects our health.

I put forward a method which will include a levy on all large-use water dischargers who are prime water takers. Prime water takers are those who take water directly from watercourses or the ground. Large dischargers or takers would be those in excess of 10,000 gallons daily. This would eliminate small individual takers such as farmers.

The charge I propose would be based on a rate of a few cents per 1,000 gallons. It would initially be based only on quantity. It is anticipated that some 500 municipalities and 600 industries would be affected by this charge.

As far as billing is concerned, it could be on a monthly or quarterly basis. This would require only a limited administrative unit. The number of customers would be similar in size to many small municipal utilities and commissions.

What is the expected revenue and cost? At a charge of one cent per 1,000 gallons, the proposed fund would receive $44 million on a yearly basis. This would result in the following yearly costs:

For the average householder, the charge would be 55 cents per year. For the steel industry, in total, the cost would be $2 million a year. For the pulp and paper industry, it would be $1.2 million yearly. For Ontario Hydro, the cost would be $32 million a year. In other words, Hydro would be paying 70 per cent of the cost of this fund and, yes, the consumer of electricity would be paying a higher rate.

But why should we not? For too long, many of the costs of products we consume, and the fact that we are supposed to be getting cheap electrical energy, have been externalized on to the rest of us or externalized on to the environment.

Ontario Hydro, the second-largest producer of acid rain in the province, is stressing the environment. When we consider that one of the worst pollution problems in the Great Lakes is the weed growth, in particular cladophera, and that the cooling waters from Ontario Hydro thermal and nuclear plants are generating these growths, it is time for Ontario Hydro to bear its fair share of the cost of protecting our environment.

The fund I have spoken of would establish a dependable revenue source for restoring and preserving our environment. The utilization of a revenue-producing fund for the protection of our environment makes political sense. The proposal will result in water conservation and give incentive to the production of better quality waste effluents.

I ask members of the Legislature for their participation in this debate and their many helpful suggestions.

Water conservation is an issue that affects us all, but only now is the importance of this issue becoming clearly recognized. This recognition is essential to the continued growth and wellbeing of our province, to give the issue of environmental preservation the attention it requires before the problem becomes acute and time runs out for remedial action.

The recent finding of dioxin in treated water supplies indicates we are too much after the fact; we do not even know where it is coming from. We need to put more money into the environment and this fund will do just that. It will provide for increased research. Even in the field of inorganic materials, the heavy metals, we still do not know all the answers to these very important chronic toxic questions.

As to the elements we have around us that are naturally occurring, we still do not know all the answers to the problems they are creating in regard to our health.

As to the new organic-type materials that now are with us, the polychlorinated biphenyls and the dioxins, we have barely scratched the surface. It is time to put more money into environmental research, it is time to provide for such things as intervener funding, and it is time to see that we restore the infrastructures of the basic water and sewage systems in the province. This fund could be used for those purposes.

I will appreciate comments from the other members of the Legislature.

Mrs. Grier: When I read this motion by the honourable member, and he was kind enough to speak to me about it, I found myself rather divided as to whether the motion was worthy of support or ought not to be supported. Obviously, I am in favour of preservation and restoration of the environment, and my party has for a long time been calling for an environmental fund that would preserve, contribute to and pay the costs of restoring the environment where it has been damaged.

My consideration was whether this motion, which on the surface sounded so good, was worthy of support or whether the implications of the motion and the methods by which the member suggested such a fund be created carried the seeds of much more damage and danger to the environment than the worthiness of the sentiments expressed. I have come to the latter conclusion and I have to say that hearing the comments this afternoon have reinforced my conclusion that this motion in its present form ought not to be supported.

4:50 p.m.

Especially when I hear the honourable member describe the implications of this motion on Ontario Hydro, the contribution of $32 million from Hydro to this fund based on the usage of water in order to pay for the cost of cleaning up such things as acid rain, it seems to me that the one element in its operation where Hydro does not do a great deal of damage to the environment is in its use of water.

What we ought to do is to encourage it to have more hydraulically produced power rather than to discourage it by putting an extra tax on the use of that water. What we do not want it to do is to build more nuclear power or to use the coal-fired generating plants that contribute to acid rain, so I do not find the logic of that argument very convincing.

As I said, our party has for a long time supported the idea of an environmental repair fund. However, one of the difficulties with the ways of producing such a fund that are in this motion is that the quantity of water taken does not necessarily bear a relationship to the toxicity of the discharge. Surely what we want to do is have those people who are contributing to the degradation of the environment because of the contaminants they admit to the water contribute to the cost of the fund, not merely those people who use water in their processes.

The other difficulty is that the burden of the contribution to the fund under this motion would fall largely on municipalities. The member has indicated that he thinks about 500 municipalities and about 600 industries would be forced to contribute, because it would be based on volume. Municipalities and the water they discharge do much less damage to the environment than do many small industries. There are far more than 600 industries in this province that are discharging effluents that contaminate our watercourses. Municipalities are not in a position to bear the burden of this extra fund.

The other difficulty I see with the resolution is that it appears to encourage the policy of diluting our pollution, which has been followed for far too long in this province. If one dilutes the quantity of effluent and the toxicity of what one is discharging, that is somehow okay. Instead, we must encourage the treatment of that effluent by those industries. We must encourage them to discharge fewer toxic materials. We must encourage developers and municipalities to lessen the damage done to watercourses by storm water by encouraging better storm-water management. This can be done and it can result in lessening the erosion that is now frequently caused by development as our cities expand.

The superfund that my party and I would like to see in place is based on the principle that the polluter must pay. It would be financed by those industries that use hazardous chemicals and therefore contribute in their discharges, be they to watercourses or to the air, to the degradation of our environment. I would like to see a fee imposed on each manufacturer, importer or generator of hazardous substances, that fee to be based on the volume of hazardous substances used by that industry.

In addition, we need to have a tonnage fee for hazardous wastes taken to landfill sites. In the motion as proposed by the member, those landfill sites or those companies that have landfill sites on their own property and which are leaching into our watercourses, as we have seen in the St. Clair River area, would not be forced to contribute to the superfund.

The necessity of such a fund has become obvious and I would agree with the speaker on his enumeration of the problems we face in our environment. My difficulty is with the method by which he seeks to effect a cleanup.

We must have a fund to pay for the detection, the inspection and the cleanup of all our hazardous industrial waste sites. We must be much stricter on those industries that are using materials which, in the form in which they are discharged, contribute to the problems we are finding and are going to continue to find unless we get very strict in our enforcement, laying of charges, inspections and the fines we levy on polluters. While the sentiments of the motion are worthy, I cannot support the methods employed.

Mr. Haggerty: I want to join in the debate this afternoon to express my concerns and viewpoints in support of my colleague the member for Frontenac-Addington. Resolution 27 states that "the government of Ontario should introduce legislation to establish a fund for the restoration and preservation of the environment by assessing a charge to be levied on the large prime water takers in Ontario based on the amount of water taken."

I can recall my first speech in the Legislature in the 1967-68 session. The issue raised in my maiden speech was a topic on the minds of every citizen in Ontario: water pollution in the Great Lakes and management of our natural resources. At that time I quoted from one of America's great environmental advocates, Barry Commoner, who said, "We are poisoning ourselves and our posterity with chemicals." After 18 years, that statement is still accurate.

The member's resolution provides an alternative solution to environmental cleanup, providing a healthier environment and thereby improving our ecosystem. Many citizens in Ontario and those bordering states along the Great Lakes basin are angered through their growing awareness of the vast scope of the toxic waste problem. The Environmental Protection Agency in the United States has stated there are 66,000 chemicals now being used in the US and it has classified 60,000 of them as potentially, if not definitely, hazardous to human health.

Grave and marked environmental risks are present every day. No doubt the new Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has touched only the tip of the hazardous substances found in water, air and land. Current laws to protect our environment are weak in our courts. An impaired driver is treated more severely before our courts than many industries in Ontario which continue to pollute and threaten the lives of many people. This resolution provides a measure to control pollution and funding to abate pollution problems.

A user-pay approach to water consumption is not something new in Ontario. Under the authority of the Public Lands Act, and subject to more specific water-power lease agreements, the provincial government levies water-power rentals for royalty charges on Ontario Hydro and other parties who generate electricity at hydro generating stations along most waterways in Ontario. These charges are related to electricity generated at each station.

For 1985, Ontario Hydro will be assessed at an estimated rental of $83 million and seven other private operators will pay $2.4 million to the provincial Treasury. Ontario Hydro does not pay a charge when using water for cooling purposes at its coal or nuclear generating stations. Similarly, other than meeting required environmental and water resource permit conditions, other major industrial or municipal users of water are not assessed charges equivalent to rentals for the withdrawal and use of water. Water rentals might therefore be regarded as an example of a user-pay approach to water consumption which might be applicable for expansion to other major water users.

5 p.m.

Increasing a user-pay approach to water consumption was suggested in the recent report of the federal inquiry on water policy in 1985, better known as the Pearse report. Professor Pearse, a resource economist at the University of British Columbia, stated: "Sound water management program: We recommend that the government shift its policy from one that emphasizes increasing supplies" -- of water -- "to one that stresses managing demands. More important, we recommend that the government adopt the principle that the beneficiaries should pay for the water they use and the cost of providing it."

This policy, which depends upon co-operation with the provinces, is intended not only to raise revenues but also to provide incentives to conserve resources, to distribute costs more equitably, and to foster individual and corporate responsibility in the use of water resources.

Furthermore, all these recommended changes in programs are designed to produce a water policy that responds to the present emergency need. They call for increased attention to the management of water demand to balance the traditional emphasis on developing supplies, a more balanced consideration of all the direct and indirect benefits and costs associated with water development, and an increased reliance on the beneficiaries of water programs to bear the costs instead of the taxpayer. They also imply a shift in policy priorities towards the new threats to water quality.

As for a user-pay approach to water use in a more general sense, water rentals might be cited as a specific example of a water-use charge. Based upon extensive discussions with research and the water management branch, it appears water rentals are the only current type of water-use payment levied by Ontario. When water users such as municipalities and industry seek to divert or use water from lakes and rivers, they must secure the necessary approvals, those falling primarily under the applicable environmental water resources legislation, but no ongoing user payments are made to the provincial Treasury.

For example, in contrast to the water rentals for its hydraulic generating stations, Ontario Hydro is not required to pay comparable levies for water at the Nanticoke, Bruce and Pickering generating stations where water is used as a coolant, or for future use of Lake Ontario water for cooling at Darlington. In the case of water diverted for cooling, Ontario Hydro is required to meet appropriate environmental approval standards relating primarily to the temperature and quality of the water when it is returned to the lake.

Any move towards a more generalized user-pay charge would likely require appropriate legislative and administrative changes to ensure the province has the appropriate mandate to institute such charges. Water usage charges could be based upon the quantity of water withdrawn and its condition, such as the degree of contamination, when the water is returned to the river or lake. A water usage charge would likely require modification in government policy.

In the United States they have what they call a superfund approach to the user-pay pollution cleanup. Briefly reviewed, it is an example of a public policy user-pay approach to pollution cleanup. Even though superfund revenues are directed towards the cleanup of toxic waste sites by the United States federal Environmental Protection Agency, the financing mechanism for this fund represents a user-pay approach to pollution cleanup. This example may therefore be relevant to the consideration of a user-pay approach to water pollution cleanup.

While there have been administrative problems in the operation of the superfund related mainly to questions over the adequacy of funding from public and private resources to achieve national cleanup, the general principle of taxing polluters for cleanup may be relevant to the water pollution problem. The allocation for the superfund in the United States has been estimated at US$1.6 billion.

As we look at that and listen to comments from the other members saying they are hesitant to support this resolution, I think it is the direction and the right way to go.

A recent article in the Toronto Star was headlined, "Cleanup of the Great Lakes Threatened by Political Tug of War in Washington." I think the member's resolution is trying to get this political tug of war out of this chamber in order to get some immediate action on cleaning up the Great Lakes and other drinking water throughout every community in Ontario. It is one way to generate revenue.

Once we start putting a tax in this particular area on to all industry, it is a cost of production in Ontario. We had a spill in Lake St. Clair related to the Dow Chemical spill -- or the blob, one might say. I understand that may cost the province $1 million. The industry may be charged $1 million, but that $1 million comes out of consolidated revenue. Really the polluter pays nothing.

The intent of this resolution is to get the person responsible for the production and the cause of the pollution problem to pay. If he had to pay for the use of that water, then perhaps we would get into the stage of recycling. I cite one case, the International Nickel Co. in Port Colborne, where within the last 10 years it has put in a pollution abatement program that works successfully. In fact, the program was reclaiming some of the heavy metals going out into the lake that could cause some serious contamination problems.

I understand there has been no input from the Conservative Party --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. The member's time has expired.

Mr. Haggerty: I just want to make one --

The Deputy Speaker: No. I am sorry. The time expired some time past.

Mr. Haggerty: I hope the members will support the resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: Even prior to hearing my remarks, I hear the third party starting to react. I guess it must be an anticipatory knee-jerk reaction of some sort.

I am pleased to enter into this debate because the resolution being proposed by the member for Frontenac-Addington is an interesting concept. It is one with which I do not necessarily totally disagree, but I think the problem he is trying to get at could be addressed in some different fashion, and may well be addressed in some of the measures we have in place in Ontario at the present time.

At the outset, I would like to suggest the amount of water consumed by an industry or an organization of whatever kind does not necessarily bear any relationship to the amount of stress on the environment. In other words, the consumption of water in certain instances such as, for example, the Great Lakes at the present time, could well be an environmental benefit. I know there are some areas that would gladly see the level of water available to them reduced rather minimally. I know some members opposite know what I am speaking about because the situation is rather desperate as a result of historic high levels of water.

If the intent of the honourable member is to improve on discharges into the natural environment, I think there are a number of other ways to go about it. I believe we have a process in place now, albeit imperfect, that can be either strengthened or improved upon to accomplish the end that may be inherent in the ballot item we have before us. For example, we have regulations in place and control orders that can be put into place by the Ministry of the Environment to limit discharges and to make absolutely certain those discharges are at safe levels.

If those regulations are unacceptable, if they should be strengthened, then in my view it is the responsibility of the ministry to do that. I do not believe it is an appropriate measure to bring in some form of a back-door tax, if you will, some form of a new level of taxation which we have not had before, in order to, in a fashion, adjust the amount of water consumed with some kind of an environmental issue because the two are not necessarily related.

The Minister of the Environment, or other ministries in concert with the minister, can certainly develop the kind of regulatory control that may be necessary. As we develop further technology and testing procedures and so forth, we will be able to detect more contaminants in our natural environment and, as well, propose certain methods by which we can control the problem those contaminants pose from an environmental standpoint.

5:10 p.m.

I have concerns about the suggestion that this might be looked upon as a form of superfund in some fashion. The superfund in the United States is collected through the normal mechanism of taxation. If the government decides it wants to collect more money from industries in the form of taxation in order to provide funding for a superfund, or to clean up contaminated areas if the government's intervention is required, it can do so. It has the power and the ability to do that today. It does not have to do that kind of thing through a water-use measure that is in some way associated with a taxation policy.

I have concerns about proceeding with a taxation policy that incorporates a hidden or clandestine tax which would be very difficult to relate to some forms of environmental stress or environmental contamination as a result of simply using the water. So I would caution the honourable member that, although I have sympathy for what he is suggesting and I have certain agreement with the thrust of the resolution that is before us, I cannot support it as it has areas that cause me difficulty because they are misguided.

From the standpoint of industries that may cause problems with respect to their use of and consumption of water in Ontario and, I might add, in most parts of Canada, it is usually not because of the volume of water they are using, thankfully. We are in a province with a tremendous amount of water. Our natural resources are such that we do have the capacity to use large volumes of water as long as we treat it in a sensitive and careful fashion. Of course, we must return it to the environment without contaminating or in any way degrading or lowering it with respect to its future usage for either recreation or drinking water potential. But what we have to do with our industrial community -- and I say this in a sincere fashion to my colleague, the member for Frontenac-Addington -- is make sure that the guidelines, the rules and regulations are very clearly understood.

We are coming into an era where we have very rapidly -- only in the course of the last couple of years, as an example -- been able to sample at parts per quadrillion. I was speaking the other day with people who are in the agricultural community at the University of Guelph agricultural college. In the early 1970s they were quite pleased if they were able to sample at something in the order of five parts per million. We have made so many advances in terms of better understanding the question. There are far more questions than there are answers to a lot of these issues, as I well appreciate, but we have to establish very clear, understandable guidelines relating to what is proper behaviour for an industry.

As an example, I took some issue with the fact that the recent federal-provincial report suggested that one of the industries in my area was producing 370 times more than accepted standard for a particular contaminant, the name of which escapes me at the moment. It is interesting to note, in fairness, even though that company may well be "polluting" with regard to whatever standard one might establish for that industry, that the standard was only established on January 10. The rules of the ball game would suggest to me that if one is going to shout from the rooftops "This is a contaminator of the environment and a major polluter," one would at least let them know what the guidelines are. What are the standards? What is it that you want them to achieve?

The vast majority -- not all, I say to the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) -- of industries in this province thankfully are responsible and will not contaminate the environment if they understand the ground rules. Those that do not follow the direction of the government of the day and the standards and levels of quality established by the Ministry of the Environment should be prosecuted.

I say to the minister, who is not in the House today, I will have no objection whatever to an increase in the levels of fines and prosecutions that may occur as they relate particularly to chronic violators of environmental laws. I proposed that very measure when I sat in that chair some long time ago. I apologize to this House that I did not have time to bring those measures forward, but I am in sympathy with the direction that was suggested by our minister and he is now working on that.

There are ways we can achieve the same kind of direction and objectives that I know the member for Frontenac-Addington very sincerely wants to attain. I cannot agree entirely with the way in which he has put it before us. I share his sentiments and wish I could be totally supportive of the ballot but I will support him in another way.

Mr. Charlton: I rise to speak to the motion by the member for Frontenac-Addington, and perhaps I should start by saying he and I had a rather lengthy, and at some moments heated, discussion about the resolution prior to Christmas. I hope the member understands my position to some extent.

In principle, I support what he is trying to accomplish by this resolution, and I certainly congratulate him for the sentiment which is herein expressed. With some limited changes, I could be prepared to support this resolution, but I cannot support it as it is here before us and I would like to go through a number of reasons.

The problems we have in Ontario, specifically in the Great Lakes but obviously in a number of our other watercourses and water bodies in this province, have to be resolved; there is no question about that. Essentially, we have to find a way to make those major users of water pay, on the one hand, the cost of reclamation or reconditioning of the water that has been damaged in this province, and on the other hand, the cost of the long-term preservation of good quality water resources in Ontario.

My problems evolve around some of the specific wording in this resolution. For example, in the very first line, "That in the opinion of this House, since many companies, institutions and municipalities in Ontario take water directly from," etc. If the word "municipalities" had been left out of that sentence I would find this resolution much more acceptable in an overall sense. I say that for two reasons.

First, the municipalities in Ontario are the creations of the provincial government and essentially are almost totally beholden to the government of the day. In most cases they are beholden for almost half of their funding, in some cases for more. They are responsible to the province for their debt, with respect to its creation in the first place, and its repayment.

5:20 p.m.

As we are all well aware in this House, the municipalities in Ontario have been through a particularly difficult period financially for the last 15 years; difficult because of the actions of the provincial government, perhaps not of the party now in power. If the party now in power were to move over the course of the next five, six or seven years to remedy many of the financial problems that were created for municipalities by its predecessor, then a resolution along these lines might be supportable.

There are municipalities, which are the creation of the provincial government, which are beholden to the provincial government for more than half of their funding. There are municipalities which have been in a constant battle with the government of Ontario for the past 12 to 15 years over declining grants, grants that did not keep up with inflation, grants that have put municipalities in a situation where many of them are now paying 100 per cent dollars out of the municipal coffers, i.e., the municipal property tax. Twelve or 15 years ago that expenditure for that service was funded almost 50-50 with funds from this province.

In my own municipality in the city of Hamilton in 1986, for the first time in the municipality's history -- I think the member for Frontenac-Addington should understand the length of its history -- it is using 100 per cent municipal tax dollars for seven services that in the past it never had to pay for totally. This situation is a direct result of the policy of the provincial government and its application of grants to municipalities.

Municipalities are the responsibility of this provincial government; so, too, are the environmental standards which municipalities are required to implement, both in the way they use the water they take out of our watercourses for use in communities and for the standards that set the conditions under which the water will be put back into those watercourses.

In my view, this resolution as set out here would help the government of this province to avoid what I see as some very important aspects of its responsibility as a government to the municipalities and to the people who are residents of those municipalities.

With respect to companies, we have said on any number of occasions that the polluter must pay. We want to see provincial policy in this province reflect that. I have no real problem with the overall intent of this resolution as it relates to major companies that use large amounts of water in this province in applying a surcharge that would reflect the degree to which they alter the water they use before they put it back into our watercourses, whether it be altering it by temperature, which can cause environmental damage, or whether it be by adding other pollutants to that water.

We also have a third item which the member has chosen to throw into this resolution, namely, institutions. The vast majority of the institutions in this province to which the member refers use water -- institutions such as Ontario Hydro, which uses an awful lot of water in this province and adds substantial amounts of heat pollution to the water, and institutions such as hospitals, the underfunding of which we have so often talked about in this House. There are any number of other institutions which are directly the responsibility of this province and the government.

I say to the member for Frontenac-Addington, just before I run out of time, I would like to see him come back to this House at some point, or have one of his colleagues come back, with a resolution that sets out the same intent as this one does, to clean up our waterways and to keep them clean by applying the financial responsibility where the use is happening.

That resolution would also set out the responsibility of the government in Ontario for the major portion of what is set out as the problem in this resolution, that is, the municipalities and the majority of the major institutions in this province that happen to fall under the provincial government. Let us call a spade a spade. Let us set out the fact that the primary responsibility for the majority of damage that is being done in this province by municipalities and by institutions lies with this government. Let us set out that responsibility clearly and let us make funding available from the provincial coffers to clean up the water systems in Ontario.

Mr. D. W. Smith: I am pleased to join in the debate today on the resolution brought forward by my colleague the member for Frontenac-Addington. When I read the resolution, it seems to be a very interesting concept and a very timely resolution.

The interesting concept is that we would have to say that the plants along the Great Lakes system, or even on the tributaries that run into the Great Lakes, may have to consider as a cost of doing business the cleaning up or restoring of the environment, and they may have to think a little differently in the future.

It is very timely because of the revelations that have been brought forward or have come to light within the last few months through the Ministry of the Environment. It is time for us to be more aware of the problems in the environment. We have to start cleaning up the environment. The new technology we have in place today can gauge the amount of toxicity in the waters, but maybe this new technology is being created too quickly for the rest of us to understand.

I want to take members back a few years to when the plants were first developed and grew up along the Great Lakes. We who came up through the municipal system thought it was a wonderful thing to have these large plants springing up in our municipalities. They created a larger tax base and more assessment from which to draw taxes to provide better services to our ratepayers. We were very pleased to see them come into being. The plants also created a number of jobs for the people of our communities and enhanced the lifestyles of these people. Their lives were better because of them.

5:30 p.m.

In supporting this resolution, I do not want to sound as though we have to take so much away from the industries producing these products we use that it will put them out of business, but we have to make them aware that we have to start looking at this more closely and carefully than we have in the past. When these plants were built, this new technology I referred to did not exist. We did not even know that much about some of the products they produced. Therefore, they went about their business in somewhat of a haphazard way. Nobody felt there were too many pollution problems at that time.

I have used the products produced by some of these companies that have been built along the Great Lakes. They make life easier for a farmer such as me. We will spray some of these products on to our fields to control weed growth and make it easier for us to produce a better quality crop and possibly more of it. In some cases, they have helped us to produce too much and then we have had a problem in trying to get our commodity prices up. It has definitely made life easier for us on the farm and in other areas or businesses in our communities.

We may have come to the time now where we have to be more careful with the products these plants produce. The resolution of the member for Frontenac-Addington is starting to look at and address the issue of cleaning up this environment. He has his ideas or thoughts as to how this fund should be developed. If the government gets around to putting legislation into place, we cannot make it so costly that we run all our plants or institutions out of business. It should be enough that it makes us all aware that we have to be more careful.

I congratulate the member for Frontenac-Addington for bringing forth a resolution such as this. I can support it in principle. In closing, I want to say we have likely come to a point in history where more attention has to be given to the environment so our children and grandchildren can safely enjoy their lifestyle. This resolution can possibly help accomplish the solution to this problem, or at least start to solve the problem.

Mr. South: I appreciate the comments and constructive criticisms of the members of the Legislature. In part, what I am proposing has been misunderstood. All members should appreciate that one of the things I am saying is that we all use water. When we use water in our home or wherever that has been treated at a sewage treatment plant, the effluent from that sewage treatment plant is put back into the watercourse and it puts stress on that watercourse.

We are all accessories to the fact. We are using water in our home and we are using the products of industry. We are criticizing industry because of what is out in the landfill sites, but we are using the products they produce. After we have used them, we flush them down the toilet or put them out in the garbage and they end up in our landfill sites.

We are stressing the environment; every water user is stressing the environment. This is the point. Initially, the idea is to keep the fund and the charge simple and base it on quantity only. It can be adjusted later on to concern itself also with quality.

A charge based only on quantity will also encourage conservation, in which we all have to be interested. I want to reiterate that Ontario Hydro is using large amounts of water, the largest amounts of water, in its thermal and nuclear generating plants. It is this cooling water which, when discharged back into our waterways, is stimulating one of the worst problems we have in the Great Lakes, that is, prolific weed growth. It is one of the worst pollution problems we face today.

Hydro is contributing to this stress. Why then should not its electrical rates reflect the stress it is putting on the environment? The member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) indicated we could use features for controlling pollution, such as control orders and telling industries the rules of the game. The problem is that no one knows whether some of the wastes these industries are producing are harmful or in what concentrations they could be harmful. The effects of some of these materials are subtle and will not be known for five, 10 or 20 years down the road.

In the way we tax and raise money and then try to assign those tax moneys to problems, it is very difficult to put those revenues aside for problems which will not be seen for 10, 20 or 30 years. To date, we have not been able to do it. This is an attempt to have a fund which is related to water use. I repeat that all water use is putting a stress on the environment. We could have this fund related to that water use and we could start to concern ourselves only with quantity of use. The fund could later be adjusted to concern itself with quality as well. If we got into that, we would be providing industry with an incentive to produce better-quality effluents.

The problems of the environment cannot properly be addressed in the context of assigning a proportion of tax money. They never have been and they never will. This is an effort to have a fund which will be generated and which will be in proportion to the stress on the environment. It will be in proportion to that use and/or abuse. I wish to thank the House for the opportunity to introduce this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the comments on that item. Standing order 64(f) says no question shall be put to the House before 5:50 p.m. Is there unanimous consent of the House to place these two questions?

Agreed to.

5:40 p.m.

PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Speaker: Ms. Bryden has moved resolution 4. If any members are opposed to a vote on this resolution, will they please rise? If not, shall the motion carry?

Mr. Barlow: No.

Mr. Speaker: No? I do not see five members standing in their places; therefore it is carried.

Motion agreed to.

WATER TREATMENT FUND

Mr. Speaker: The next item is the motion of resolution 27 by Mr. South. If any members are opposed to this motion, will they please rise?

Miss Stephenson: Are they opposed to voting?

Mr. Speaker: No. if 20 people stand, I will not put the question.

The question is, will the motion carry? Carried.

Mrs. Grier: No.

Mr. Speaker: No? All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members.

Mr. Haggerty: There are only four members standing.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, sorry. Maybe I should just place the question again.

All those in favour will say "aye."

All those opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members. I must remind members it is a five-minute bell.

5:47 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. South's resolution, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bossy, Callahan, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Epp, Fontaine, Fulton, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Henderson, Kerrio, Knight, McGuigan, Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Polsinelli, Reycraft, Scott, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Sweeney, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Barlow, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Eves, Gigantes, Gillies, Grier, Hayes, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McLean, Morin-Strom, O'Connor, Partington, Philip, Pollock, Pouliot, Reville, Rowe, Sheppard, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Taylor.

Ayes 25; nays 32.

Mr. Speaker: Does the government House leader have any information for the members of the House?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon: To the best of my ability at the present time, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next week.

This evening and tomorrow, we will have the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

On Monday, February 10, in the afternoon we will have the estimates of Northern Development and Mines as needed for completion, followed by legislation as time permits, judiciously selected with the agreement of the House leaders from among the following bills: second reading of Bill 34, freedom of information; second reading and committee of the whole on Bill 3, transboundary pollution; Bill 70, Provincial Offences Amendment Act; Bill 72, Powers of Attorney Amendment Act; Bill 98, Foreign Arbitral Awards Act; Bill 66, Business Corporations Amendment Act; Bill 68, Securities Amendment Act; Bill 16, Public Commercial Vehicles Amendment Act; Bill 103, teachers' superannuation.

I say "judiciously selected with the agreement of the House leaders," and of course the other members, because the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Attorney General's critics all have additional responsibilities next week and may not be able to be here at all times for these bills, but we will do the best we can.

On Tuesday, February 11, in the afternoon we will have Bill 94, extra billing, with the vote at 5:45 p.m. The time in the afternoon will be split among the three parties. In the evening, we will do legislation not completed on Monday evening, as agreed.

On Wednesday, February 12, in the morning the usual three committees may sit; in the afternoon, we will continue legislation not completed on Tuesday evening.

Thursday, February 13, in the afternoon, the budget debate is to be finalized, the time to be divided equally among the three parties with the vote to be held at 5 p.m., followed by the supply bill and the prorogation address by His Honour.

I would also like to indicate that if the business proceeds more expeditiously than expected, the business for Thursday might very well be done on Wednesday afternoon. On the other hand, if it does not proceed as expeditiously as expected, it may be some time in March.

The House recessed at 5:53 p.m.

6 février 1986