Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

CONTENTS

Wednesday 26 June 1991

Ministry of Labour

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC)

Vice-Chair: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South PC)

Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)

Ferguson, Will (Kitchener NDP)

Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)

Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings NDP)

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)

McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)

Substitution: Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L) for McGuinty

Clerk: Carrozza, Franco

The committee met at 1540 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

The Chair: I call to order the the standing committee on estimates, which is currently considering the estimates of the Ministry of Labour for the 1991-92 fiscal year. There are 5 hours and 22 minutes remaining. The Chair recognizes the clock at 3:40.

When we adjourned yesterday, Ms Witmer of the Progressive Conservative Party had just completed her segment. In accordance with our procedures, I will recognize Mr Wilson to lead off questions for the governing party.

Mr Daigeler: Before we go to Mr Wilson, could I ask whether after the government's 15 minutes you will be going to the third party for its half-hour presentation? What is your plan on that?

The Chair: I am in the hands of the committee. If Mr Carr is prepared to proceed in 15 minutes, then fine. If not, I will recognize you, Mr Daigeler. Ms Witmer has succumbed to her condition and deeply regrets it, but the doctor has her at home with her illness.

Mr G. Wilson: Minister, I have a question about vote 2405, item 3. It is under the office of labour adjustment. It specifically involves the help centres that have been set up under the office of labour adjustment. This is on page 107 of the estimates. The third point down reads, "Provide enhanced funding to existing help centres and explore the possibility of establishing new help centres." That is the two-part initiative for this question. Certainly I am happy to see there will be enhanced funding for existing centres, but I am more interested in the possibility, as it says, of establishing new help centres. I will tell you why.

In our area -- that is, in the Kingston area -- as in a lot of other areas, we are experiencing quite a number of layoffs and plant closures. We do not have a help centre as it is laid out under this section. We have been getting along with something called the Unemployment Help Centre for a number of years now, run by a volunteer, Theresa Houston, who has done an admirable job, so good in fact that we really have not felt the need for anything more elaborate. But for a number of reasons, Theresa has decided to close her centre, so we have some urgency to establish something else.

As I said, we have a high number of plant closures and layoffs. Since 26 October 1990, we have had 3,269 layoffs. Some of these have been complete shutdowns. What is interesting when you look at these figures -- this is from Brockville to Perth, Prescott and Smith Falls there also, as well as Kingston, of course, because as the largest centre, it is the most affected -- you see that they affect the same plant on a number of different occasions. So there is the need, I would say, for some continuity here for advice to the laid-off workers about what they can expect in the way of unemployment insurance, for instance, and severance, but also help in finding new jobs. That is individually. Then, of course, there is also the effect on their family. It is, as we all know, a very traumatic event to lose your job, especially in a time of recession and at a time of restructuring, when we cannot be sure what the outcome is going to be, at least in the short term, what kind of employment we are going to be attracting to our area in particular, but the province in general.

So as I say, I am very interested in establishing new help centres as it is laid out under the 1991-92 initiatives. We have a group in Kingston that is very interested in setting up a help centre. The need is there, so I just wondered what the ministry can suggest as far as the establishment of new help centres will be.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I just want to make a comment or two, and then I would like Harry Shardlow -- I think he is here -- who is the director of labour adjustment, to give us a bit of a rundown on the help centres.

I can tell you they are proving helpful, the number we have set up, some of them with the new initiatives that we have been funding as well. I guess the problem I have is how many we are going to be able to put in place over and above the help centres we are now assisting.

I have heard from yourself and one of your colleagues on a regular basis on the Kingston area, so I know of your concerns. I also have a number of calls and letters and strong cases, I think, being presented by a number of members in the House. So it is going to be a question of just exactly what we can handle more than anything else in terms of the funding. But I think maybe Mr Shardlow would respond a bit to your query.

Mr Shardlow: Thank you, Minister. We certainly do recognize that the 15 help centres that are now funded on our particular program are not enough for the needs in the province. We are looking at a number of different areas in order to provide some form of assistance. Certainly geographical is one of the ones we are concerned about.

Currently, there is no help centre funded east of Oshawa. For instance, in northern Ontario, there is just the one centre in the Sudbury area. I think what we have to be aware of, though, is that our particular program does not provide core funding for the establishment of a help centre. We do provide funds. Help centres get funds from a number of sources, from the United Appeal, for instance, United Way, from the community, from the labour councils, perhaps. Our particular amount of funding is specifically addressed to the provision of counselling for workers who find themselves unemployed -- for adult workers, as a matter of fact, because there are other provincial programs that provide assistance for youth. So our funds are directed towards that.

As far as the creation of a new centre, we are certainly working with community groups in exploring the ways in which we can be of assistance to them in establishing new centres. But of the funding that we do have, it is only for a particular segment of what those centres may provide. So there are a variety of different things we are looking at. We are looking at that and certainly looking at the entire program as to how we can be of more assistance. We do recognize the problem.

Mr G. Wilson: Thanks very much. I am glad you pointed out that there is nothing east of Oshawa, because that is a big area and one that, as I say, is certainly feeling the strains of the recession and the closures and layoffs. I was wondering about the possibility of changing the criteria, then, to make it easier for the province to fund these centres. Has that been considered?

Mr Shardlow: We are certainly looking at the entire program as to how we can be more flexible and provide the assistance necessary, bearing in mind that the funding we have is not a core funding.

1550

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think I could add that we are hoping to have some additional information as to our next moves, hopefully before the summer is out.

Mrs Haslam: I would like to touch on a couple of areas. Number one, you speak about the need for creative and constructive partnerships and consultation. I was looking through the Hansard and I know that Mr Klopp spoke about something in his riding, where the plant was going to be closed down and the people got together and worked co-operatively. I think that is very good, but it brings to mind a particular issue in my riding, and that is Deilcraft in Milverton. I know you are aware of this because I have talked about it. There might be something you do not know right now, and I am going to ask you about it.

In Milverton, the Deilcraft plant closed down. They were not in time to have protection under the wage protection because they closed down before 1 October. The stories went on and on about the workers trying very hard. They finally received funding through the Ministry of Labour, I believe from the workers' -- no, I stand corrected; I am not sure.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Workers' adjustment.

Mrs Haslam: Thank you. I knew you knew about it -- the workers' adjustment fund. I have just learned there is a possibility that the federal government is re-evaluating its share of that. Is there anything we can do as a provincial government or as a provincial partner in this to take another look at how we can ensure that feeling of co-operation that was there, which is now not being worked on. Is there any way we could help the workers in dealing with the situation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am going to let Mr Shardlow, who has also been dealing with the federal authorities, respond to you on that.

Mr Shardlow: We were pleased to be able to assist with the group in Milverton, along with the federal government and with the committee that had been established, first to look at the possibilities of doing something specific with that plant, and then more generally to look at the economic situation around Milverton.

It is true that our federal colleagues have expressed some concern about some of the technical details of the agreement and the funding arrangements. We will be talking to them about that, but through our officer who is on that committee I have let it be known that we certainly are not about to leave the Milverton area, and that if there is any shortfall in the provision of funds, we will certainly make sure the committee can carry on with the projects it has undertaken. We certainly do not want to see our federal colleagues pull out. If we can prevent that, we certainly will. If we cannot, then we will carry on with the funding of that committee.

Mrs Haslam: I am so glad to hear that on Hansard, because it is a major concern of mine, for Milverton in particular.

Perhaps you could comment on the role you see the Ministry of Labour playing in future efforts and direction in terms of labour adjustment that it might be taking to assist in this effort of communities and industries to come to grips with the difficult periods. I was looking at a town that was literally dying because of that situation. I would like to know, are there any other examples of some of these endeavours, or am I the only one?

Mr Shardlow: I can certainly give you the example of Wawa. We are doing some work there with the community and with the mines. We are looking at a somewhat similar situation, both in Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing, where we have actually formed with the federal government an action centre approach because of the layoffs and plant closures. For instance, in the Elliot Lake situation, with the closure of the two mines, there are adjustment programs set up for the workers in those mines, but there are a number of different, smaller situations arising, and we have established a joint venture with the federal government in this situation to assist those.

As far as communities are concerned, we certainly are hopeful to be able to expand our endeavour in the various communities. There are, as I say, just a couple that we have now, but we will be expanding that approach in the communities. We are also looking at expanding our involvement with the federal government and the workplace parties in the industrial sectors.

We have an agreement now with the Ontario Furniture Manufacturers' Association that the United Steelworkers of America is a part of. The international woodworkers' association is a part of that, along with various provincial and federal agencies looking at the human resource implications of the downturn in the Canadian manufacturing industry with respect to furniture. We have entered into some discussions with two unions in the garment worker area that will hopefully be establishing a sector approach for the garment workers in the Toronto area and then expanding that out. We are also doing the same situation with the food processing industry. It is the beginning of an expanded program.

Mrs Haslam: I was really quite pleased to see the ministry come into Milverton and do something. It was a very scary time.

Mr Johnson: The minister made some comments in the House the other day about the employee wage protection plan. In my opinion, of course, the employee wage protection plan is a good one. Opponents to it may suggest it is overfunded. I think it could be even better funded, but that is not our purpose for being here, nor is that the purpose of my question.

I am curious to know how many people have applied to this date, so that we can have it recorded in Hansard relevant to the estimates that we are undertaking. How many people have applied to this program to date?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have a little more detailed response to a question on that issue by, I think, one of the Liberal members. I can tell you it is now up to over 13,000 who have applied.

Mr Thomson: I think we are up to 14,000.

Mr Johnson: If I may just add further, how has the Ministry of Labour kept in contact with potential claimants for the employee wage protection plan?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If you can give me just a second, I will get the response to that.

The Chair: I might suggest, Minister, that it would be helpful if the clerk would be willing to distribute the material that appears to be in print form. Following Mr Carr's comments, you might respond with those documents in a more detailed fashion. That would perhaps be helpful. Is that okay? If that is the case, is there consensus among the committee that we ask Mr Carr to proceed to do third-party commentary up to a maximum of 30 minutes? Then we are in the minister's hands if he is comfortable responding subsequent to that. If there is no disagreement, please proceed, Mr Carr.

Mr Carr: As Mr Jackson has said, and as many of you know, Elizabeth Witmer is very ill with laryngitis, so she wanted to see if I could make the statement for her. I will be doing that. Although I understand she is feeling a little bit better, the voice is still rather difficult to speak. She sends her regrets. I will proceed with her statement.

"I regret that I am unable to be present at the estimates meeting and would like to thank Mr Carr for sharing my remarks with you.

"I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for his remarks yesterday.

"You spoke about the need for labour and management to `work together in a spirit of partnership' and the need to `reshape the long-standing confrontational approach to labour-management relations.' I agree with you. However, I would remind you that this will take time. Attitudes do not change overnight.

"Your ministry must proceed slowly and clearly demonstrate that you are prepared to seriously consider the views of both labour and management as you develop your policies. It would be prudent to remember that, historically, changes to Ontario's labour and employment legislation have evolved after a thorough process of consultation with sufficient time for meaningful input.

"Given the present economic climate, your ministry must also start asking itself questions. Can we afford this legislation at the present time? Will it lead to further job losses? That is the issue.

"I am very concerned about the impact of some of the new policy changes on jobs. Although I support the aim of providing reasonable protection for workers, some of the proposed legislation, such as Bill 116, the original Bill 70 and the changes to the Labour Relations Act do nothing to protect workers' jobs and only serve to further discourage job retention and creation.

"We must remember that this is a very challenging and troubling time for the business community in Ontario. I am reminded of that constantly as I learn of yet another plant closing in my community of Waterloo or another community in Ontario.

1600

"We have seen an exodus of business south of the border and we must stop that flow and the further loss of jobs.

"Unfortunately some of the proposed policies are contributing to economic uncertainty in the province and a poor investment climate. They will also increase the cost of doing business in Ontario or are perceived to increase costs.

"If your proposed policies cause business costs to increase at a faster rate than in the United States, it will become even more difficult to compete with our neighbours than it is now. This will sway new investment away from Ontario, encourage more relocation of existing business and contribute to further job loss.

"If we are to protect the workers and their jobs we must be cognizant of the fact that business concerns about these proposals and their impact must be considered and included in the drafting of all new legislation.

"This means that there must be meaningful and effective consultation and not the flawed process which contributed to the downfall of Bill 70 in its original form. Although the government launched a consultation process in January, it failed to include the recommendations of the business community in the drafting of the bill. The government simply paid lipservice to consultation. I would suggest that meaningful and effective consultation on all issues take place in the future. The measure of effective consultation is a policy which reflects a fair balance of the expressed views and concerns of all parties.

"Concern has also been expressed about the short consultation time line, and this should be extended so that all parties can analyse, study and critique the discussion paper and develop positions on the topic. The ministry must also spend the necessary time producing discussion papers that consider all possible and viable options.

"It is as a result of haste and lack of true consultation, Bill 70 was poorly drafted and flawed in principle.

"This brings me to my concern about the proposed Labour Relations Act reforms. I do not believe that the consultation time as suggested by the minister yesterday is sufficient to allow for any type of broad or meaningful process of consultation given the far-reaching ramifications of many of the measures addressed in the reports. The broad, practical and financial implications of these types of changes must be fully considered before any legislation can be drafted. The potentially damaging consequences to the Ontario economy, as emphasized by the management representatives on the committee, must be fully considered.

"I urge you not to make the same mistake again and act in haste and without true consultation. I remind you that it takes time to develop a spirit of partnership between labour and management and it takes time to develop trust and understanding. The process used to reach that goal is critical to its success.

"I would also like to share with you the concerns about the legislation as expressed in this letter -- automobile manufacturers' association. Stephen Van Horne stated in a letter to Bob Rae:

"`I urge the government not to act on these proposals. They would disturb and upset the existing balance in labour-management relations climate dramatically and unnecessarily. They would interfere in the collective bargaining process, substituting the judgement of bureaucrats for the will of the employers and employees. They would further damage Ontario's already deteriorating international competitive position.

"`To act on these proposals would tend to confirm Ontario's already growing reputation as a jurisdiction which is not attractive or conducive to investment, production or job creation, and which is not supportive of the business that carries out these essential functions.'

"Yes, these proposed reforms have the potential to do irreparable harm to the fragile industrial fabric of Ontario. You must embark on a consultative process that will restore the confidence of the Ontario business community. Only in this way will our people be assured of secure jobs.

"I have concerns about the proposed changes to the minimum wage.

"The NDP have proposed to increase, over a four-year period, the minimum wage from the current level of $5.40 an hour to 60% of the average industrial wage. If that policy was in effect today, the minimum would be $7.20 an hour.

"This commitment has sparked concern about the impact of such an increase on the province's competitive position and job creation rates. What studies has the Ministry of Labour done?

"A study written for the University of Toronto's Institute for Policy Analysis by three University of Montreal economists indicates that the promise to increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average industrial wage will cost Ontario 53,000 jobs, primarily women and young people.

"How does this compare with the ministry's data?

"I have concerns about training and retraining programs for workers. These are primarily to enable them to compete in an increasingly global market.

"`We have a shortage of useful and effective training programs for workers, particularly older and immigrant workers.'

"The January 24, 1991 labour adjustment package announced by the minister contained $25 million to laid-off workers. The Minister of Labour committed an additional $1.3 million to the Transitions program to assist workers over 65. An additional $4 million will be allocated next year. The Minister of Skills Development has announced $2 million for counselling services, $1.5 million for skills training at Stelco and $2.6 million to retrain the laid-off staff at Algoma Steel. The Minister of Education has announced $10.2 million for literacy and basic skills training. However, there is no comprehensive strategy to encourage the private sector to train. But as the budget clearly stated, `to move towards an economy in which workers and businesses are skilled and flexible in effecting change will require new approaches to training.'

"Has the ministry evaluated the Quebec model? Quebec's budget included a program designed to provide financial assistance to maintain 90% of a worker's disposable income while they seek training to upgrade their skills. When fully implemented the program will cost $100 million. Last year, Quebec introduced a refundable tax credit aimed at businesses that invest in training their workforce.

"I still have a major concern about Bill 70; that is, how it will be funded. Will there be yet another payroll tax that will provide another disincentive to doing business in this province and thus contribute to the further loss of jobs and closure of businesses?

"I would like to share some of my concerns about the Workers' Compensation Board with you. Instead of examining the previous year's WCB Annual Report, the standing committee on resources development focused exclusively on service delivery. It still appears to be inadequate.

"The level of service must be examined as well as the underlying reasons behind the deplorable levels of service. According to the Employers' Council on Workers Compensation, `an unprecedented era of change and reorganization has left the WCB spinning out of control.' The brakes need to `be applied and good management take root.'

"Major legislative, organizational and policy changes have taken place since 1984 and this has caused upheaval. The focus now must be on an improvement in the WCB. This means a complete moratorium on the development of new policies (hundreds of new policies developed over the last few years) and administrative changes. The WCB staff requires time and training to ensure that they understand all the new policies and are able to apply them fairly and consistently.

"It is also important at this time to take a look at the cost of the WCB system. Although the level of service has not improved, it appears that costs are running out of control. A complete assessment of the board's financial and service operations should take place at this time to assist the administrators in their planning and effective deployment of their resources. This is particularly appropriate at this time under a new chair and a new vice-chair.

"There are concerns about WCB's implementation of recent legislative reforms, particularly the changes in the law in the area of benefits (wage loss and non-economic awards) and reinstatement of obligations and rights. The practical application appears to verge from the intentions of the legislators. Yes, it is important that the WCB become more responsive and accountable to those it serves.

"I would like to conclude by saying that if we are to restore prosperity to this province and provide jobs for those who are unemployed, government, business, labour and educators must establish true partnerships and co-operate to prepare our workers to compete in the increasing global market. However, we should not only focus on creating new jobs; we must ensure that we retain the jobs that we already have. In order to do this, we must ensure that we do not burden our industries with additional taxes and costs, and that we carefully evaluate the impact of all new legislation. Only then can we restore prosperity to this province."

The Acting Chair (Mrs Haslam): I believe the minister can now take up to half an hour in his response.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am going to leave most of the points raised by Mr Carr, because some of them will be answered in answer to some of the questions that were asked yesterday, except I think there are at least three points that I want to touch on very quickly.

One, there is no question it takes time to change attitudes. We understand that. It is also one of the reasons we want to get involved and have moved to the extent we have and caught the attention of people in terms of some of the changes that should be at least discussed.

1610

I really cannot see in the comments Mrs Witmer made why the wage protection plan would have any effect on jobs. That is money workers have actually earned, are entitled to and have not been paid and really should not have a major impact in terms of jobs.

It is the same thing, to some extent, for the local adjustment funds and programs and committees we announced. These adjustment programs are not just a quick fix. The training benefits not only workers but business as well. It is one thing we find very little disagreement with from either side, business or labour, in terms of putting training programs in place. The type and adequacy of them is one of the things we are working on and there will be some new initiatives in terms of training programs in Ontario relatively quickly.

The other thing on consultation periods is that the only warning I issue -- I will deal with some of the consultations we have gone through and some of the other legislation as part of my response to Mr Offer's questions -- is that we can also spend a lifetime in consultation and not proceed.

One of the things that disturbed me more than a little bit was finding, when I entered the ministry, that we had gone through a process -- I am not saying we had reached total agreement but we had done it in a number of areas; I think construction, health regs are a couple of examples -- where recommendations, almost an entire package, had been arrived at with varying degrees of support, but all the parties had been involved in them, and they were sitting on the shelves since 1985 in one case and 1987 in another case, revisited a couple of times, but never got to the point where they were coming out the other end.

It was an attempt to break some of the logjams that made me realize we have to make sure that in the process of consulting we are not just delaying or stalling legislative changes where they appear to be necessary.

If I can go into some of the questions that we were asked directly, which will also answer, I think, some of the questions Mrs Witmer had in her letter as well, in the contract consulting field -- I think it is in response to the questions first -- the Ministry of Labour has a number of regular consultation forums involving its clients on an ongoing basis.

The Ontario labour-management forum brings together senior labour and management reps on a quarterly basis. The labour policy advisory groups are external advisers from the business and labour communities that meet separately every four to six weeks to review issues on the labour policy agenda.

The business organizations, which incidentally are involved in almost every consultation process we go through, include the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Council of Ontario Construction Associations, Tourism Ontario, Retail Council of Canada, board of trade, and the Construction Industry Advisory Board, which met, I think, today or yesterday and brings together, on a quarterly basis, senior representatives of labour and management from the industrial, commercial and institutional construction sector to ensure that the ministry is aware of the concerns of the sector and to comment on Ministry of Labour initiatives related to industrial relations in the sector.

Pursuant to section 11 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the ministry establishes labour-management committees in a variety of sectors -- mining, police, film and TV, firefighters, etc -- to help develop health and safety regulations and to advise the minister on related issues. The joint steering committee on hazardous substances is also established under section 11.

In addition, the ministry has established other sectoral advisory committees to advise it on matters of interest relating to health and safety in other sectors such as logging and meat packing. Ministry staff regularly attend the monthly meetings of the construction industry's provincial labour-management health and safety committee and the regional trade labour-management committees.

In some specifics, because we were asked about them yesterday, we will provide notes that can be passed around as well.

Contract tendering in the service sector: The question was asked, what kind of consultation has the ministry undertaken with respect to amendments regarding contract tendering in the service sector?

The following consultations supplemented extensive consultations held during August and September 1990: consultations held in February and March 1991. Consultations in this area were held with 14 private sector employers, six employer associations, six ministries involved in purchasing contracted services, nine other ministries with an interest in this issue, the Ontario Federation of Labour, eight trade union groups and one community legal clinic. In recent weeks the minister has met with one of the major private sector stakeholders, the Building Owners and Managers Association, or BOMA as it calls itself, of Metropolitan Toronto, and we have actually been complimented, believe it or not, including by BOMA, for the contact we have maintained and the discussions we had with them. This does not mean we always agree on all of the points, but we certainly have been meeting with them regularly.

In the labour adjustment field, because I think there has been a real interest in the labour adjustment field, we distributed 98 discussion papers on 29 January 1991. The consultations were held between 19 February and 28 March. Sixty-six groups participated in the consultation: 29 employer, 25 labour and 12 community groups. There were 19 written submissions received: 11 from employers, four from labour and four from community groups. Most of the submissions were from groups which participated in the consultation.

In the Employment Standards Act review, the consultation process, in the spring of 1990 a total of 56 organizations representing business, labour and community organizations were invited to participate in the preliminary consultation. More than 45 of these groups took the time to meet with the Ministry of Labour staff.

As these were preliminary consultations, Ministry of Labour staff explained the contours of the review and asked participants if they would be interested in sharing information with Ministry of Labour staff as part of the research component of the review. As it is now envisaged, it is expected that clients will have an opportunity to assist the Ministry of Labour with aspects of the background research, and following release of the green paper we will engage in a comprehensive round of consultations based on the issues raised in the green paper.

I have not read them out, I do not think it is necessary, but to give you all some idea of the employer organizations, I will just go through three or four and no more than that: the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the board of trade, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Council of Ontario Construction Associations, Tourism Ontario, the Retail Council of Canada, and it goes on and on.

The labour organizations: Ontario Federation of Labour, Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario, Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers.

The community organizations: the Ontario Social Development Council, Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, National Anti-Poverty Organization, National Action Committee on the Status of Women, National Association of Women and the Law, Ontario Council on Women's Issues, ONTERCEDE -- the International Coalition to End Domestic Workers' Exploitation. It goes on and on. Those are some of the groups that were actively involved.

In the minimum wage consultations, which certainly provoked some interest as well, on 8 April 1991 a letter was sent from the deputy minister to 14 organizations inviting them to meet with the ministry officials to discuss their minimum wage revisions. The letter included a schedule of the current minimum wage rates and described the key components of the minimum wage review. Two groups were later invited to participate, bringing to 16 the total number of groups involved in the consultations. Consultations with the 16 groups took place between 24 April and 10 May 1991. Three written submissions were received.

In addition to the external clients, the ministry consulted with other ministries whose clients may be particularly affected by the minimum wage, including, I might say, the ministries of Tourism and Recreation, Agriculture and Food, Education, Industry, Trade and Technology, Community and Social Services and the Ontario women's directorate. The ministry will continue to consult with government stakeholders and external clients as the minimum wage is revised in future years.

On pay equity, the list of the groups involved is attached. A pay equity-proxy comparison consultation paper was released in February of 1991 and sent out to approximately 1,000 interested organizations and persons. Consultations were held throughout the month of March and written submissions were received into May. Altogether, 107 groups made either a written submission or an oral presentation. Some groups provided both.

The public consultations were attended by 113 people representing 87 organizations, and an additional 20 written submissions were received from groups that did not attend the consultations, including two submissions from private citizens.

Of the organizations consulted, 74 were public sector employers and employers' associations. Also consulted were 21 employee groups, including 11 unions, four professional associations, five advocacy groups and one private citizen. In addition, several meetings were held with the Equal Pay Coalition and the OFL.

1620

The Ministry of Labour also met separately with the board of trade, the retail council, the CFIB and some large private and public employers to discuss both proxy and proportion value recommendations.

With regard to Sunday retail work, in January 1991 the Ministry of the Solicitor General wrote to 60 groups inviting them to participate in joint staff consultations with the Ministry of Labour on proposals which the government was considering for amendment of the Retail Business Holidays Act and the Employment Standards Act to establish a common pause day.

Of the 60 groups, 26 responded by meeting with the ministries. These included representatives of business -- the CFIB, the Retail Council of Canada, Tourism Ontario and it goes on. Ten groups preferred to submit written briefs. These included labour groups, including the OFL. The groups involved in Sunday retail work are all listed on the added sheets as well.

With regard to the employee wage protection plan, and this is the last one we had questions about, we distributed approximately 100 copies of a discussion paper on wage protection on 31 December 1990. We consulted with 39 groups representative of business, labour and professional groups during January and February prior to the introduction of Bill 70. We received 15 written submissions prior to the introduction of Bill 70 and 20 written briefs since its introduction. We consulted internally with the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, the Ministry of Financial Institutions, the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the Ministry of Culture and Communications, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Following the minister's announcement of amendments to Bill 70, the ministries conducted additional roundtable meetings with business, labour, insolvency professionals and representatives of the not-for-profit sector.

I think this gives you some idea of the fact that we have gone through a relatively extensive consultation process. One of the things I found as a new minister was that I never did know myself exactly what the consultation process was. I think the staff of the ministry do one heck of a lot of work in trying to meet with the various groups and go through the filtering process of what was said and reporting it back. I am not always sure we have got all of the groups that should be there on the list. We have certainly been adding to or updating the consultation lists in recent weeks within the ministry. I think that will give some idea. It also deals with a couple of the questions that were in Mrs Witmer's response.

I would like to have the deputy respond to the questions concerning budgetary costs, which were also raised by Mr Offer in the session yesterday.

Mr Thomson: There are two or three I think I can fairly quickly summarize.

One was the question of why ministry administration costs have increased by 10.2% this year. Some of those are really one-time costs. The costs related to the planning for relocation are in there. There is money in there for what is called the justice review project, which is an interministerial exercise to review the justice system as a whole and develop an overall policy framework. That money is in that budget simply because I happen to be the deputy chairing that exercise.

There is also $350,000 there to provide added legal services to cope with the demands of the Askov decision in the health and safety area. We have had a fair number of cases that we have needed to process very quickly in order to avoid the problems of Askov in the health and safety prosecution area.

The rest of it relates to our basic ministry administration, and that is human resources and financial administration. That is about a 6.6% increase which really covers COLA and some resources related to the new initiatives we have; for example, the wage fund. To the extent that there are human resource costs or financial administration costs, some of those are located there. That really brings it down to only 6.6% in total.

With regard to the questions asked about the mediation and collective bargaining part of the ministry, it is true that budget has been generally constrained this year, partly in light of all the other initiatives taking place elsewhere in the ministry. But in addition, that is because we did get some added resources last year. We anticipated it would be a very difficult bargaining year and that turned out to be correct. We did provide some added resources in that area, for added mediation services in particular, for that bargaining. This year, while there are the same, in fact even more contracts reopening this year, we are not anticipating -- and thus far it has turned out to be the case -- as difficult a bargaining year. We are not anticipating the same number of days lost through strikes and we think that with the additions last year we are going to be all right for mediation services and collective bargaining support this year.

There is a substantial increase to the public service appeal tribunals. In general, that is simply to deal with added workload, specifically to deal with grievances within the public sector. Last year there was approximately a 49% increase in the number of grievance applications and, overall, a 23% increase in the number of days the board needed to sit. The simple fact is there are a large number of added grievances, particularly in the area of classifications, and that has produced a huge amount of added workload, particularly for the Grievance Settlement Board.

With regard to the issue of our move out of Toronto, specifically the relocation to Windsor, Fred Peters, the assistant deputy minister of corporate services can answer any detailed questions you have. In general, we are talking about 425 to 450 positions moving from our head office to Windsor. At this point, the expected date for moving is 1995. I cannot tell you the overall costs because we do not know what they are at this point. For example, we do not know what the costs will be of construction for the new building that is being constructed in Windsor. We have some funds this year for the first stage of the planning.

A lot of the final costs will depend upon the final result of some negotiations going on at the Management Board of Cabinet level with both management and the union to determine what the terms will be, what the protections will be, what the supports will be that are given to employees who are moving. As you will know, there has been a promise of a job offer to those who are unable to move. There are a lot of other things to be sorted out. At that point, I think we will know what the long-term costs of relocation probably will be. At this point, we simply have a sum of money to do the planning this year that needs to be done and we are starting to help our staff to become aware of what is involved in moving to Windsor and what Windsor has to offer.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: One of the other key questions -- I cannot remember who asked this, whether it was Mrs Witmer or Mrs McLeod -- was how many labour disputes were referred to the Ontario Labour Relations Board in calendar 1990 alleging bad-faith bargaining under the act, which can be a difficult situation. In the 1990 calendar year there were approximately 106 complaints filed with the board alleging bad-faith bargaining under the act.

With regard to processing of claimants by the employee wage protection plan -- and it is a question that came from one of my colleagues here earlier today as well -- the employment standards branch has now received approximately 14,000 claims to the employee wage protection plan. Of these claims, 50% are under investigation, 17% are closed and ready for payment and 33% are unassigned.

To file a claim, a worker writes to or visits a field office of the employment standards branch and the details of the claim are investigated by an employment standards officer. If it is verified, an order to pay may be issued against the employer. The employer has 15 days to respond to the order. An employer may comply, may appeal the order or may ignore the order. If collection efforts by the ESB fail but the worker's claim for EWPP compensation has been established, his or her file joins the backlog awaiting passage of the bill.

A claimant whose claim for EWPP compensation has been accepted is advised by letter and potential EWPP claimants identified by employment standards branch audits of employers are also notified by letter.

How is the EWPP going to be financed? Is there going to be a payroll tax? The wage protection program will be financed through the consolidated revenue fund, as we announced in the House. That is the reason for the allocation of the $175 million made by the Treasurer in the last budget for the first 18 months of the program.

1630

We have no plans at this time for a payroll tax or any other form of tax. However, the Treasurer was given discretion to select the appropriate revenue-generating measures to finance all provincial programs, and that is a decision I guess the Treasurer will make at the end of the first 18 months this is in place.

How does the Minister of Labour respond to the recent study which indicates that the increase in the minimum wage will result in the loss of 53,000 jobs? I think it is important to note that the proposed minimum wage increases will occur over the next several years and will not be made all in one year. The increases in the minimum wage will be made gradually in order to minimize the potential adverse employment effect and the gradual increases in the minimum wage will restore the purchasing power which minimum wage earners have had eroded since 1975.

We know that 36,000 minimum wage earners are heads of a household and that over 56,000 minimum wage workers in Ontario have family earnings of less than $15,000 per year. An increase in the minimum wage will provide significant assistance for these low-wage workers.

The minimum wage initiative is part of our broad strategy for the labour market and the antipoverty initiatives outlined in the budget paper. I think it is also important to note that most of the people who are receiving any increase in wages as a result of the minimum wage initiative are exceedingly likely to spend all of that money and not very likely to be banking any of it. So there is an unknown effect in terms of the additional purchasing power that is there as well. Certainly there is also a tradeoff saving in terms of some of the Comsoc payments that have to be made.

What are the costs of job-to-job comparisons in the broader Ontario public sector and the Ontario public service? What will the cost impact be of proportional value and proxy? We cannot give you the figures we thought we had on that, other than to say the total cost of OPS pay equity adjustments was $130 million. This takes into consideration some increased cost due to classification grievances. It has been fully paid.

The cost to the broader public sector of job-to-job comparisons can only be estimated, as the Pay Equity Act does not require employers to file their pay equity plans. Moreover, some broader public sector employers are still negotiating their plans.

The Treasurer announced funding support for our major funding partners, including municipalities, school boards, hospitals, universities and colleges, of approximately $100 million for 1991-92. An additional $25 million was announced for 1991-92 for other transfer partners. Support for public sector pay equity costs will also be available in future years. The government will provide almost $1 billion annually at maturity towards pay equity adjustments.

That is about all of the information I can give you on the costs on the pay equity plan. I still have a couple of minutes, I believe.

The Chair: We have lots of time, Minister.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There were a number of questions on workers' compensation. But first, there is an additional comment on wage protection. I will turn it over to the deputy.

Mr Thomson: Actually, the question was about the number of staff who would be involved in delivering the wage protection program. We are a long way from that number yet. Ultimately, there will be 131 staff involved in administering that program. That is to administer it for the first 18 months. Some of those staff will not be there at the end of that time period, as the size of the program diminishes, we hope. But to support the program, which will spend about $170 million in the first 18 months, that is the size of the staff overall in the branch that will be required.

I have a breakdown of who does what among those 131, which I would be happy to give you. Fifty-seven of them are basically employment standards officers trying to verify the claims that come in from employees.

Mr Offer: These are new people.

Mr Thomson: These are new people.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it is useful to point out, although I am sure you have all figured it out as well, that the $175 million in this plan for the first 18 months was based on our experiences to date and the worst-case recessionary scenario we are into. The costs on a yearly basis are substantially less. If we go to a milder recessionary basis and we get out of the recession, they will be substantially less still, but the questions were asked as to whether or not it is an ongoing cost. As long as we are going to decide to protect workers' wages, that is a factor.

With regard to the Workers' Compensation Board questions that were asked, in some cases it would probably be better, although we have done what we can with them, to have these questions asked directly of the board.

What is the government doing to improve service delivery? While we tried to deal with that, and I will not go into a lot of detail, my priority in this area since becoming minister has been to improve WCB service delivery. The ministry and the government have taken a number of steps to improve service delivery.

First, I made it very clear to the WCB administration that service delivery improvements had to become the priority for the board as well. As a result, the WCB has taken a number of initiatives which we will talk about in just a moment.

I meet with senior board administrators regularly. At these meetings I receive updates on the board's activities regarding service delivery. As well, I receive a monthly written report from the board which reviews the board's performance in particular service delivery areas. I think we brought with us copies of the most recent addition of this report. I would be happy to provide copies to the members.

The government recently appointed a new chair and vice-chair to the WCB. Both of these individuals share the government's commitment to improving service delivery.

As well, my parliamentary assistant, Sharon Murdock, has assumed special responsibilities in the area of workers' compensation. Ms Murdock, my staff and ministry officials regularly meet with the board on issues related to service delivery. Ms Murdock is also a member of the standing committee on resources development, which just completed hearings on service delivery issues. There are many useful comments and recommendations coming from the labour and business groups and WCB employees who appeared before the committee. As I said in my opening statement, I look forward to the committee's report and recommendations.

The board's steps in this area include the following: the board's client service division has provided a confidential phone line between MPPs' offices and the board; the board of directors has struck a special subcommittee, the operations review committee, with representatives from management and labour; the board has developed specific claims adjudication performance criteria, and the board is preparing to conduct a survey with employers, workers and injured workers on how to improve service delivery.

Recent reports indicate that the board is making improvements, especially in the area of timeliness. However, there is recognition that we must continue, especially in the area of quality improvement. A review of internal and external training programs available to board staff is currently under way as well.

What is the WCB doing to improve service delivery in the northern regions of Ontario? In the mid-1980s the board created regional offices with the express purpose of bringing the WCB closer to workers in all parts of the province. The board established two regional offices in northern Ontario, one in Thunder Bay and the other in Sudbury. Other regional offices are located in Ottawa, Hamilton, Windsor and London.

Since the newer regional offices were only created in 1987 and 1988, it is recognized that staff in these offices have relatively less experience than staff in the well-established offices. Special efforts are made to address the training needs of regional office staff and assist them with the management of difficult issues.

As well, in an attempt to improve service delivery in the regional offices, the board has approved the establishment of privately run clinics to deliver medical and vocational rehabilitation services. In the Sudbury area, five community clinics and two regional evaluation centres have been established. In the Thunder Bay area, 13 community clinics and two regional evaluation centres have been established.

I think this is the final or second-to-final one: Has the government passed a regulation defining "suitable and available" employment under section 45a of the Workers' Compensation Act?

Bill 162, specifically section 45a, requires that the board, in determining what a worker is likely to earn in suitable and available employment, have regard to a number of factors.

The board, in its efforts to develop policy for the interpretation and application of section 45a, worked with an external consultation group consisting of employer and labour representatives for over two years. In December 1990, the board of directors approved a series of recommendations to define "suitable and available" employment based on the recommendations from the external consultation group.

Section 45a and clause 69(1a)(e) contemplate that the policy may be prescribed by regulation. Given the sensitivity of the issue, as well as the relative inexperience the board has had with section 45a -- the board has been making decisions under section 45a since January 1991 -- a decision was made to apply this section through the use of operational policy guidelines.

1640

The board of directors will review the policies in one year, or at such other time as the board of directors may direct, to determine if any changes to the policy are required. Following the annual review the board of directors may make regulations governing suitable and available employment.

What is the rate of appeals to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal was another one of the questions. I have had the officials of my ministry contact the WCAT and I am now in a position to respond to the questions regarding the WCAT case loads.

In the calendar year 1990 the WCAT received 1,524 cases. In 1990 the WCAT disposed of a total of 1,587 cases, 985 by written decision, and the remaining were disposed of before the hearing was completed.

Because the WCB and the WCAT have different data banks, it is very difficult to determine the actual rate of cases that reach the WCAT. It would also depend on what you define as "rate." If it is the rate of all WCB claims, it would be very low. However, if it is the rate of appeals from the board's hearings level, the rate would be much higher.

How many appeals relating to Bill 162, specifically with respect to reinstatement provisions in section 54b of Bill 162, have been considered by the WCAT? For 1991 and as of 31 May 1991 the WCAT received nine reinstatement cases and has disposed of one case. The remaining eight are being scheduled for hearings at this point in time.

I think that probably answers most of the questions, unless I have missed a few, that were asked during the course of the presentations yesterday.

The Chair: Thank you very much for those speedy responses and for reading them into the record. I am guided by the committee, but I think if that constitutes the minister's response then we can go back to our regular rotation.

Mr Offer: Mrs McLeod would like to ask a question based on some of the final comments of the minister.

Mrs McLeod: Just to make an observation, there was a tremendous amount of information provided about the appeals process to WCAT. It was not actually relevant to the specific question I asked, and perhaps that is because the information is not available in that form. Obviously my concern was to know what the impact has been of the deeming clause and whether or not it has led to the kinds of concerns workers believed it would lead to when the legislation was introduced.

If that information is not available so that we can get a sense of whether that has been a focus for problems since January, perhaps there is some other forum in which we can get the information at a future date.

Mr Thomson: I thought the question related to the reinstatement issue. Perhaps Mr Toker can tell you exactly what the impact has been to date. Mitchell Toker is the senior policy adviser in the policy branch who deals with workers' compensation issues.

Mr Toker: The long and short answer with respect to appeals regarding Bill 162 amendments is that it is very early right now to tell you. In fact, it is too early for there to be appeals at the WCAT. In the area of reinstatement, because the board has adopted a very quick route for having appeals determined because in reinstatement it is very important to have a result quickly, that is why you have about nine cases being referred to the appeals tribunal.

My information at this point in time is that no other areas dealing with Bill 162 have reached the WCAT on issues regarding suitable and available employment and the deeming under section 45a. It is really only in the last few months that the board has started to make decisions under section 45a.

Mr Offer: Minister, thank you for your response to some of the questions that were posed, and as well to the deputy for providing information on a variety of areas.

I would like to touch upon probably five areas in the time permitted, hopefully in a brief way. I want to revisit minimum wage and I want to ask whether in the minimum wage area there is discussion over whether the current exemption for farmers is going to be abolished.

Mr Thomson: I am looking at Canadian policy to get ready to answer your questions.

Mr Offer: On that same general topic, you, Minister, might be able to share with us when you expect to make the minimum wage announcement for this year, when it will be effective and whether you anticipate that in the following years there will be, in the traditional sense, a single announcement each year or whether there may be staged announcements throughout the year. That would be my first set of questions on that area.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: In terms of the minimum wage, it was our hope and it is still my hope to be able to make the announcement before we leave here tomorrow, but I cannot give you any more details than that in terms of what we will be announcing. I obviously will not until this is done in the House.

Mr Offer: I will make certain that I will be in the Legislature tomorrow.

The Chair: Or read the early Toronto Star, one or the other.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: In terms of the farming exclusions, I think you asked about, that is part of the process that is very much under discussion now. It is one of the issues that will be part of the discussions that are set up over the next period of time.

I am just not prepared to comment on what the status is of any farming exclusions from legislation.

Mr Thomson: I would add that I think, in general, agricultural workers, harvest workers are covered under the act and the minimum wage is paid to them. There is a different date in the year when the increases normally come into play for harvest workers, for example. Normally we do it as of 1 January each year. But there is not a broad exemption of them, although they are exempted from other parts of the Employment Standards Act. That, as the minister says, will be dealt with as part of the Employment Standards Act review, which will take some time.

Mr Offer: It seems to raise another question for more information. There is now a differential between minimum wage for youth, is there not?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Student differential?

Mr Offer: Yes, I am wondering if you might share with us whether you are going to be abolishing the differential.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think you are going to have to wait for the announcement we make on that.

Mr Offer: You said there might be a statement tomorrow. How am I going to make it through the evening?

The Chair: There is a baseball game on that might divert you.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: You are well aware of the trouble I would be in if I were making an announcement in here before I made it in the House.

Mr Offer: I would not raise it, I can assure you.

If I might move on to -- I thank you for that, that is somewhat helpful -- the wage protection fund and the amount of dollars that have been set aside, as I recall, being $175 million projected for the next 18 months, I imagine that projection is on the basis of an estimated number of individuals taking up the plan. In other words, when we sift through it all, how many people are going to be the victims of a bankrupt company? I wonder if you might be able to share with us whether your estimation is in line with the actuals.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The only thing I can tell you is that when we established the figure the work done on it was done on a normal, a mild recessionary and a worst-case recessionary mode. We picked the numbers on the basis of a worst-case recessionary mode for the first 18 months, so I would hope -- I do not think anybody can ever give any guarantees -- we are adequately covered. If indeed we are able to access some of the federal funds, although it would be a very small part under their legislation, it may even assist us a bit, but that we do not know as yet.

1650

Mr Offer: I think it is clear this has been a fairly substantial recession and I am wondering if you could provide information as to whether the worst-case recession scenario used to estimate the amount of dollars required for the program is within what has actually happened in terms of the recession. I guess there are a number of indicators out there now to say that we may be moving out and lightening up in terms of a variety of areas. It would seem we would have a fair idea as to whether we are within the estimation.

Mr Thomson: What we did was try to estimate the number of employees who would show up in different kinds of economic climate. The difficulty is that because the bill has not passed yet, we have not really done substantial work to publicize the existence of the program. So the numbers we have been gathering of employees up to now has really been based upon the discussion of the program, the initial announcement that was made a number of months ago. Based on those numbers, we will definitely have the dollars available to deal with the claims that have been made and what one would anticipate for the next period of time.

What we do not know is how many people are out there who will file claims once the program is in existence and we are able to be clearer about the fact of it being in existence. Even there I think we have anticipated the most one could hear from. It is just that at this point I do not think we have anything like accurate figures because we do not have a program really to publicize yet.

Mr Offer: There are a couple of questions I might want to carry on in that area. But on not having a program, I think the minister stated, in terms of the wage protection plan, that some are actually being processed now. Not that cheques are being issued, of course not, but investigations are being undertaken. Information is being elicited and in fact availability of appeal is being issued to employers giving them the 15-day opportunity. I believe that is how I heard the minister respond. My question is, how can that happen if there is not a bill that has yet been enacted into law to give an employer a 15-day notice of appeal?

Mr Thomson: I think the answer is, and there may need to be someone to add to this, that we still have employees showing up seeking their statutory entitlement. We have the power to attempt to recover that from employers right now. It has nothing to do with the fund. The fund is there as a backup, when and if it is established.

We would still be dealing with employees' claims, as we normally do right now, and making orders against employers which would give employers the chance to appeal those orders. That is just the normal work of the employment standards branch.

Where the fun comes in is, when and if those orders are not met then one can make a claim against the fund. The extent to which we have been processing cases for the fund in advance really ties to the fact that the decision was made to backdate the program to last October.

If we do not start gathering information about people who were unble to collect from their employers, whether we made an order or not now, then we will have such a backlog and such outdated information by the time the program is in place that we will not be able to respond to employees' claims accurately or quickly. That is why we have been gathering files to show people who are entitled to money from their employers and are not collecting it so that when and if the program is introduced, we then are able to say, "You're entitled to a claim against the fund."

It is really information-gathering to enable the fund to function once it is in place, but in the meantime we are doing the regular work of the employment standards branch, which involves seeking money from employers on behalf of employees. We are continuing to do that wherever we can.

Mr Offer: You will just have to help me out on this one. The investigation, an inquiry and appeal process, which is currently being undertaken by the branch, is one which is not done under the umbrella of the wage protection fund or any of the contemplated amendments, but would have been done in any case, and there is nothing that is being done in terms of investigation of the claims which would not otherwise have been done. My question is, how can you do it when there is no law?

Mr Thomson: In general the answer to your question is yes. The one exception I think I could cite is, if a company goes bankrupt, up to now we really do not do much to even verify the claims because there is no money there to pay. Now that there is potentially a fund in the future, we are gathering information in bankruptcies that we did not use to gather so that if employees show up seeking money from the fund, we have got the information.

So we are processing cases further down the road than we used to because without the fund, in a number of cases you really would not go that far because if it is a bankruptcy and the creditors are not being paid, there is not any money for the employees as well. To that extent we are gathering information, but we are not doing anything to process any actual application against a fund that does not exist yet.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We have always had the authority in the ministry, where there is non-payment of an employee of something he is entitled to, to examine and investigate the case. Because of the fund being set up -- and I think the figures are worth using -- we would probably be farther ahead than we are right now. Of the 14,000 claims there now, 50% of them are under investigation and 17% are closed. In other words, if the bill were in place we could pay the 17%, and about 33% of the claims have not been assigned or we have not started investigating them yet.

Mr Offer: I know my time is just about up. I want to ask one further question and revisit maybe some of these things later on if time permits. It has to do with Bill 208. I know the minister is intimately aware of Bill 208 and would now be aware that under the bill there was a clear commitment -- and I speak about the safety associations; I think there are nine, 10 or 11 safety associations -- that the composition of the worker representatives on the safety associations would not have to be completely from organized labour. That was integral to the bill and was very clearly understood by all of the interested parties to the legislation, including organized labour. I am wondering, Minister -- this is an extremely important area -- whether you can confirm that you will ensure that commitment is carried out.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: That is the commitment at the moment, and I have no particular intention to change it. I am hoping that if the performance of the agency continues to be successful and useful it may set a pattern for some of the other associations. But if you are asking if there are currently any plans, I do not have them.

Mr Thomson: The agency has been working with the associations around the issue of the composition of the board, and it is true they have been encouraging them to consider the kind of makeup that exists at the agency itself. But there is no specific requirement in the act with respect to the makeup, only that it reflect the membership served by the association.

Different associations are working out different answers. One in particular has put unionized persons representing labour and has actually put a couple of non-unionized worker representatives on the board in addition to that.

Mr Offer: I think the associations will be pleased to hear that that commitment will be carried forward. It is a very crucial aspect of the bill to them.

Mr Carr: One of the questions I had was on the overall relations between labour and management. I was wondering what you plan to do as minister, because it is my feeling that if we are ever going to be successful in being able to compete with the rest of the world we are going to need better co-operation between management and labour. As you know, in a lot of industries that has not happened. I was wondering what you will be planning to do to try and bring those forces closer together in terms of co-operation, and specifically what programs you will be doing that might be new and different that will attempt to do that over the next period.

1700

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think you are really asking a continuation of -- I am not sure you would really call it philosophical -- the discussion I engaged in with Mr Daigeler earlier, in the session yesterday. As a philosophy, I guess I might be repeating or duplicating some of it, but we are interested in fairness and in the ability of workers to take part in the decisions that affect them in the workplace.

We think that, for example, Bill 70 is a classic example of fairness to workers who deserve to be paid for work they have performed, money they have earned and have not got. We think the labour adjustment programs, as I said earlier, are not just a quick-fix. They are something that seem to meet general support from both management and labour, and are not only of assistance to workers looking for a job, but the training benefits workers and business now and in the future. We think the training will help to assist vulnerable workers.

We think the emphasis we are putting on health and safety issues and the involvement at the agency and in the workplace of workers and management on a more equal footing is something that leads to more co-operation. We find that more co-operation and working together usually has a beneficial effect in terms of productivity as well.

One of the most dramatic changes that has been occurring in the workplace has been the role of women. In principle and in practice, with pay equity we are now trying to redress some of the historical wage gaps and imbalances that have been there for women in the economy. I think this and a commitment to retraining and strengthening pay equity measures is another measure that is working towards fairness and equity in the workplace.

I do not think anyone really believes that the way to generate higher profits and greater wealth in this province is by lowering wages or lowering the benefits or standards that our people have and that workers can expect for their families. I do not think that being actively pro-labour, which is one of the accusations I have had since I took over this ministry, implies that one is automatically antibusiness. I may have had some beliefs as to where the balance is in the situation, but most people today would be crazy to be antibusiness. It does not make any sense and I think most of us who think about it recognize it.

What does make sense is getting us together a little more on a more co-operative basis. I have indicated some of the programs that are in place. Some of the ability of workers to organize, as I said yesterday, and to engage in free collective bargaining I think is a leveller and something that can make it easier for management and labour to co-operate as well.

There are the safety nets you set up for workers, because they are very much affected by the economic decisions that are made and their ability to participate. We obviously need a better mechanism and we are working on that for employee buyouts. I have said many times that it is likely to never reach even 1% of closures. Maybe I am just picking a figure out of the air, but I know it is never going to be a major tool. But to have in place legislation that does allow it and does make it easier could very well save some of the plants and maybe even involve workers themselves in an exercise in entrepreneurship, if you like, or in partnership with other people who might be willing to take a look at a plant that otherwise is going to close down.

If we are not putting in place the mechanisms that bring about this kind of co-operation, I think we are missing the boat in what is going to be a very trying time with what is happening in society today. I have no difficulty at all in saying yes, I want to find ways and means of increasing the participation and the protection of workers. That does not mean necessarily at the expense of business, but that is always the argument you get raised, that if somehow or other you are helping workers, you are going to hinder business. I just do not buy that philosophy.

Mr Carr: One of the other questions I have, and forgive me if we go over some of the ground again because I was not here yesterday and hopefully we will not revisit things that were --

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am sorry. I have difficulty in hearing.

Mr Carr: Okay, I will yell. Forgive me if we go over some of the things that were discussed yesterday. One of the big concerns I have is the training of the workforce. You would be working in co-operation with various ministries in that regard, because it works through all areas. If I could, I wanted to see what your game plan was in that regard, where you see your role as minister and where you see us heading. Fundamentally, I believe our standard of living is going to be in direct proportion to the skills we give people. In the past we have always figured that the skills you have when you come out of school were it. As you know, we are in a rapidly changing world where the skills of yesterday are not good today.

As the Minister of Labour, where do you see it, with what input and how are you going to co-ordinate with the other ministries to get the skills upgrading, with a particular emphasis on knowing what skills are going to be needed? This is the difficulty everybody faces. I just want to get an overall sense of where you see that going.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: My ministry had the responsibility for trying to co-ordinate the labour adjustment committee generally and the $31 million or $32.5 million we announced. You heard the money we had to spend, and then a series of announcements from some of the other ministries. One of our initial efforts there was to make sure we were not duplicating. We were trying to get a better look at the kinds of programs needed when you get into worker retraining.

As you know yourself, there are a wide variety of needs in some of the plants. I have gone through some situations in Hamilton where you get an older heavy industry shop or a foundry operation and you find there are a lot of workers who may have served a long time in that plant. The biggest need they have is English as a second language or skills upgrading or some of the very basic education. You get others who could use apprenticeship programs or specialized training. It is one of the reasons why the government is currently working on what has been known as OTAB, or the Ontario Training Assistance Board, hoping to co-ordinate with some direction from various stakeholders -- business, labour and the communities and the community facilities that are available for training people -- and develop a much better training program than we have had.

In terms of training, in my opinion we have fallen behind. It is obvious that in apprenticeship we have fallen behind many of the industrial countries, particularly in Western Europe. That is one thing. I am not sure how many items we would agree on, Mr Carr, but I agree with you totally that we are going to have to do a much better job of training and retraining workers and developing the skills if we are still going to be able to come up with a high-wage, productive labour force. I think anything that is done in that particular area is going to be vital to us in this country.

Mr Thomson: I just wanted to note that there is an exercise going on involving our ministry and some other ministries to look at what kinds of structures should be in place for the delivery of training in this province and how we might meld federally with the recent announcements with respect to the creation of a labour force development board. In the relatively near future there should be announcements made with respect to the direction in which this government wants to go in terms of the structures and methods of delivering training to workers in Ontario.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: While we have been very much involved in this and several other ministries, I think probably one of my colleagues in the Ministry of Skills Development has sort of taken the lead in this particular exercise we are going through at the moment.

Mr Carr: One of the questions I have relates to the minimum wage. One concern I heard voiced when I spoke with some people who are involved in this is that they do not have much of a problem with the people who are coming in who would be on the minimum wage. But as you know, there is the bump-up effect; for somebody who is close to that they go up. How do you see that happening? Do you see that as a problem? Is a lot of that happening? How are you going to address and handle that? Maybe you could just give us some of your thoughts on what you think.

Mr Thomson: I just need to point out that there is literature and research that has been done on the so-called "ratchet effect" of increases in the minimum wage. The literature is not all that clear, but there is some suggestion that for some distance above the minimum wage -- many say about $1 at the most -- there is a ratchet effect; in other words, increasing the minimum wage does move people who are close to the minimum wage.

Once you are about a dollar above the minimum wage it is other factors that determine what you are paid and it is not so much the increases in the minimum wage that determine what happens to your wage. But for about a dollar -- and I should say the literature varies on this -- there is an impact upon employees who are close to the minimum wage.

1710

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can make one other comment on it as well. We had a productive meeting with one of my colleagues, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, and the hospitality and tourist industry a couple of weeks back. This is one of the questions they raised. First, I found it interesting, because there were representatives from small restaurants, a single hotel, an outfitting operation in northern Ontario and a number of business groups. One of the things we asked them, because they were making a case, obviously, against substantial increases in the minimum wage, was how many of them in the room -- and there were, I think, 11 or 12 business people there who were individual business people, most of them smaller business operations -- were paying the minimum wage. There was not one of them -- I have to take their word for it -- that was paying the minimum wage. Some were not far above it. They did request and raise the concern that it would bump up those just above the minimum wage.

I think the deputy is right that there will be some effect on that, but when you are in tough economic times there will also be some absorption of that, which does not make me particularly happy. I am not sure that the ratcheting effect will be as strong in tough economic times as it would if the times were not so tough. But that is a judgement. I cannot give you any evidence to support that either. There are people who hold that view.

The Chair: I wonder if the committee would bear my own indulgence if I asked the minister a question. Minister, I was informed by your colleague the member for Hamilton West a year ago that there was a report from one of the western provinces about the impact of the raising of the minimum wage. I am wondering if you are familiar with that document and/or you could make it available to the committee.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not personally aware of it.

The Chair: It was in concert with our work with the Social Assistance Review Committee report and with our work on a food bank review by Mr Allen and myself. I wonder if you are familiar with that report. It was referenced in one of the recommendations.

Mr Thomson: I have seen a summary of the various bits of research that have been done, and I would be happy to have us review that and try to find that particular report and make it available to you.

The Chair: My other short one was, since our time is coming to a close, if the process of student rates in this province differentiates whether or not a student is leaving high school or attending a university -- the break point means that a grade 13 graduate or a secondary school graduation diploma student is ineligible for the higher rate as paid by the provincial government. I am getting a sense from your policy person that we have a quick answer to that question, but I certainly have concerns about the fact that some students who would be entering a post-secondary institution would be working at a government job alongside those persons who would be receiving higher remuneration for the exact same work, yet they would both have to bear the costs of their post-secondary education. Could you comment on that, and has there been any adjustment or attention to this issue in the last year or so?

Mr Thomson: It is an age line. It is a student who is 18 and under who is subject to the student differential, so you could have a 17-year-old student working with a 19-year-old student doing the same job, and the 19-year-old would get the full minimum wage; the 17-year-old would get the differential. There have been no changes in that for a period of time. As the minimum wage has gone up, the differential has gone up. The distance between them, which I think is 80 cents, has been maintained.

The Chair: I am sorry. My question was about the paying practices of the province of Ontario for its employees. I am looking at the junior ranger program and programs of this nature. I have tried to make clear that this was a unique feature of the way the province pays students, not as a function of age but more a function of where they are going, whether they have come from post-secondary institutions or whether they are going to be going to one for the first time.

Perhaps you can get back to the committee on that. I have raised it the last three years and I thank the committee for allowing me to put that question on Hansard, because I think it is of concern to all of us.

Mr Thomson: We can certainly get you the answer. I am not sure whether any member of staff here actually has that answer right now. No. We will get that answer for you and you will not have to wait until next year to get it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr Lessard: The minister knows that I am a member from Windsor, an area that has really been hard hit by layoffs in the last year or so. Something that is of concern to me of course is the closure at the Welles Corp that happened to take place in the beginning of September last year. There were 135 employees working at that plant, and that was a plant that had suffered from a fire about three years ago and then received substantial assistance from the federal and provincial governments in order to rebuild in Windsor. Up until this point, none of those employees has received any of the severance pay owed to them. I wonder if this is a case you are aware of and, if so, could you tell me what steps may have been taken by the ministry to try to obtain the severance pay that is owed to the employees and any other efforts that may be taken to assist those workers who were subject to the closure at Welles Corp in Windsor.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure we have any more up-to-date information than I have been able to find so far. One of the questions I was asked in talking to the workers themselves was whether there was any possibility of backdating -- what do you call it?

Mr Lessard: Making the fund retroactive before 1 October.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: That is just not in the cards. I think Peter Ferlejowski is here and may be able to give us some more information in terms of this case. He is acting director of the branch.

The Chair: Could you speak into the microphone and identify yourself for Hansard.

Mr Ferlejowski: Peter Ferlejowski, acting director of the employment standards branch.

We completed an investigation at Welles and in February 1991 wrote an order for almost $900,000 in severance pay entitlements for 135 workers. Of course, the company is insolvent and not operating. We have pursued means to try to recover based on filing a writ of seizure and sale on the property in Windsor. If there is a sale of the property, there should be at least some money available to pay the employees.

Mr Lessard: Are there other creditors, who would come before these workers if that building were sold?

Mr Ferlejowski: There are other creditors, but there is a possibility there will be sufficient moneys left over to pay at least some of the entitlement of the employees.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As you are probably aware, one of the things we are trying to have the ministry people find out as well -- I passed the note on when I came back from Windsor a couple of weeks ago -- is whether the stories we got from some of the workers are accurate, whether the mortgage on the building in Windsor, which is supposedly worth something like $700,000, is excessive or not and just what there would be in the way of moneys available if whoever holds the mortgage on the property were paid off first in the deal. I guess any hopes we have there do depend on what is left if, indeed, this is the situation. There were rumours of an inflated mortgage on it, but I cannot verify that myself.

1720

Mr Lessard: At this point do we not know if anybody else has taken action to sell the building and pay off the mortgage? Has nobody else started to do that yet?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not aware of it. I am not sure just how much we would be on top of that, Peter, whether you can --

Mr Ferlejowski: I am not aware.

Mr Thomson: We can try to find out and let you know what we do know or what the employment standards officer who is handling the file knows about that. Would that be possible, Peter?

Mr Ferlejowski: Sure.

Mr Perruzza: Before I proceed to ask my questions, I think it might be worth while getting into Hansard that when the Chair requested to ask questions of the minister from the chair there was no opposition from the government side of the committee. I know that in the House we have been accused on many occasions of being obstructionist and disrupting the work or the questions of both the opposition and the third party in committee, and I would just like to have noted in the record that we are and have been very co-operative in this regard, as you will attest to.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Perruzza. We are all anxious to see that performance moved to the second floor on any occasion.

Mr Perruzza: I think our side of the House would welcome that far more than either the opposition or the third party. Fundamentally we all look forward to the day when we can work in co-operation and in a positive way and can receive positive suggestions from both the official opposition and the third party. I think that would be welcomed by all members on the government side.

A number of very important issues have been touched on in this committee. I have been listening closely to some of the concerns that have been raised by my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville. I too represent a largely working-class riding. An overwhelming number of people in my riding work in the construction industry, and I would like to ask some very specific questions as they relate to carpentry work in the construction industry.

I know this area very well because I have worked as a carpenter myself, and there is something that has bothered me in terms of safety on the job and in the workplace. I do not know if the minister would like to refer this to one of his staff who is very familiar with construction regulations, but it has to do with roofing of houses and at what pitches the roofs have to be before safety measures are required, through scaffolding in and around the roof of the house and so on.

I would like to ask some questions with respect to scaffolding as well, because I know the issue of scaffolding is a very sensitive one, and I know that a lot of work-related injuries, especially on construction sites, arise (a) from roofs and roof-associated injuries and (b) from scaffolding. Is there anybody here who would be able to answer some questions on that? If not, I can leave them until another time.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think I will call on Tim Millard.

The Chair: You always have Fred Peters as backup. He spent a lot of time in housing. He is their second-storey man. No pun intended.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think your questions are legitimate. We have just gone through an exercise, as you are aware, of some of the construction safety regs which have been tied up for quite a while. We finally got them out the other end of the system, as we say. Construction health and safety is an area that is of concern to the ministry. That is why we moved as quickly as we could on the construction regs. Tim, maybe you can respond do this.

Mr Millard: I am Tim Millard, the assistant deputy minister of the operations division, Ministry of Labour.

Would that you had not called me, because I do not know the answer to that question. The slope and pitch of the roof are of course very contributory to the peril of falling. Being the son of a builder, I know the perils well, but that is not the criterion established in the regulations. It is of course the danger of falling and the height requirements. Those are just in the process of being revised in the new construction regulations.

I will undertake to get back personally to the member or to the committee with those parts outlined in the construction regulations and follow it up that way, if that is satisfactory to the Chair and the member.

Mr Perruzza: Okay.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Can you deal with the scaffolding as well?

Mr Millard: Of course there is a requirement that there be "a competent supervisor and a competent worker to be associated with and oversee the erection of the scaffolding." We are involved with a number of contractors and unions trying to determine the kinds of criteria that need to go into training that would comprise adequate competency for that competent worker or supervisor to oversee the erection of a scaffolding. We are working on that at the present time as well.

Mr Perruzza: When scaffolding is erected, especially when bricks are being laid around houses, you have a very elaborate scaffolding set up. The possibility of scaffolding turning over at the stage when the entire house is being done is nominal. But when the bricking on the house is close to being finished scaffolding begins to be removed, especially in a subdivision where the work has to proceed fairly quickly. In most cases it is on a piecework basis and so on.

Scaffolds get left behind for bricklayers to finish the chimney stacks and that kind of thing. More often that not, one or two columns get left behind and you usually find a bricklayer dangling on the top of these things with the scaffold tied to the chimney stack. I do not know how you would monitor things like that. It is just something I point out.

The other comment I wanted to make was with respect to safety shoes. More often than not, safety shoes are not very conducive to allowing people to work on roofs and stay on roofs with them on because they have a hard surface underneath, especially on aspenite. Aspenite is being used in most cases now to seal off the roofs of houses. It is very difficult for these shoes to stay on pitched roofs and on aspenite, especially with some sawdust, etc, on them. You find that these people are not wearing safety shoes on roofs, although we have rules that say you have to wear these safety shoes. When you force them to wear those types of shoes, you are really increasing their chances for injury and for slipping off the roof.

In trying to protect somebody from getting a nail in his foot or from hammering his toe, you are potentially putting him in a situation where he is going to slide off the roof and break his leg, or worse, kill himself or herself.

1730

Mr Millard: There are two issues: the one of the base of support of the scaffold as the height increases -- the base support is to increase commensurate -- and you should have a base that would support that height of scaffolding so that it is solid.

We have engaged ourselves in the construction health and safety area in a number of targeted inspections of the low-rise residential construction sector because there is a preponderance of those kinds of accidents. Accidents that involve falls are still the biggest killer in the construction industry. We do very targeted inspections on the residential construction sector and we will continue to do that. I will ask that my staff pay particular attention to leftover scaffolds that bricklayers must use in perhaps an unsafe fashion.

In your question and your assertion with respect to the safety footwear, you are right with respect to the traction one can gain with common sneaker footwear that one might see shinglers and roofers using from time to time. Of course, the requirement is for a fall-arrest system. You will know, of course, from your experience in the construction industry that you do not stay on the roof, and when you leave that roof, the possibility of significant foot and leg injuries as a result of not wearing safety footwear is also very much ever-present, so we require fall-arrest systems, including the use of tie-offs, and the use of a system you would be well familiar with that would allow you to use backups of planks and any kind of fall-arrest system on slopes up to eight and the most significant of pitches on a roof.

But we require a fall-arrest system, so that in fact you cannot fall from the roof. That is why we require the safety footwear to be worn in those situations. We try to protect against both of those first with a fall-arrest

system in place. You are quite right when you assert that people do go around the fall-arrest system to avoid our regulations.

Mr Ferguson: I think most of the members of the House are vitally interested in the workers' compensation advisory program, particularly the office of the worker adviser. I am sure you are well aware, having had the opportunity for a number of years to operate a constituency office, that the number of workers' advisers in the field has a direct correlation to and a direct workload factor on constituency offices.

I note in the estimates there is approximately a 20% increase in the budget. I am wondering if you could advise the committee whether there is going to be a substantial increase, or any increase at all for that matter, in the number of workers' advisers in the field. I am told that in the Kitchener area some individuals in the office of the worker adviser are presently carrying case loads of up to 650 individuals, which I am sure you can appreciate is crisis intervention at best. I think any thoughts you would have on the matter would be appreciated by all 129 other individuals concerned.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I certainly agree with you that a workload of 600 or better cases is not a manageable load. I am not sure if the deputy can give us an answer or if we have somebody on staff here who can help.

Mr Thomson: The increase was specifically to allow for an increase in the number of worker advisers to handle the added case load associated with Bill 162 and just the general added case load. I do not know the exact number of worker advisers that will be hired, and I also do not know which offices they will be assigned to. I know that Rosemary Tait, the acting director, is in the midst of resolving that with the rest of the program.

I can probably give you a breakdown of how many worker advisers will be hired and the general plans to allocate them among the different offices relatively shortly. I am not quite sure whether that has been finally determined, but it may be that Jean Read, the acting assistant deputy minister in that area, can answer that question.

The Chair: Welcome back, Miss Read.

Miss Read: Thank you. The resources that I understand have been added are that there will be 13 classified intake counsellors annualized in the Office of the Worker Adviser's regional offices to continue to work on new cases and the backlog. As well, two new intake counsellors will be hired for the Sudbury and Ottawa area offices respectively. An additional classified worker adviser will be hired in the Thunder Bay office to extend representation services to clients in the large northern area covered by the office. In the central region, I understand there will be three additional worker advisers hired to provide representation services, two in Kitchener and one in London.

Mr Ferguson: That is going to provide some much-needed relief -- and let me tell you, it will be most welcome -- to those individuals in those offices. You are doing a fine job, Minister.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Ferguson. Mr Offer, if I could get you to collect yourself, the floor is yours.

Mr Offer: On the wage protection fund, you said there was a worst-case scenario. I am wondering if you might be able to provide to us the information dealing with the scenarios in terms of the takeup on the program. Second, upon the passage of the program, is there some program that will be undertaken in terms of its advertisement, if you could share that with us?

Mr Thomson: We do have an estimate we work with in doing both the costing and developing the program. I do not know the exact figure we worked with and whether we estimated how many employees would show up in the first 18 months, but I think we can give that to you fairly quickly.

Mr Offer: That would be appreciated if you could provide that to the committee.

Mr Thomson: That is the number of anticipated applications.

Mr Offer: Yes.

Mr Thomson: We plan to advertise the program. The resources we have obtained for the program overall include some modest funding to publicize the program's existence. We have been concentrating on getting the bill ready for passage rather than on advertising the program once the bill passes. Certainly, by the time we come back with further estimates, if that is happening in the summer, we can tell you what our general plans are to publicize the program when and if the bill finally passes.

Mr Daigeler: With regard to the wage protection fund, the federal government has now announced its own plans. How is the minister seeing his own project dovetailing with the federal plans? How are you working with the federal government to harmonize the two projects?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure whether I mentioned yesterday that I met with the federal minister and some of his staff and they indicated a desire to work with us and harmonize the two plans, which of course we are interested in having happen. I know my ministry people have been in touch with the federal authorities in terms of their plan. One of the difficulties we have at the moment is that while they announced the federal plan, my understanding is that it has not gone through the House or been sent out to a committee even for hearings. I could be wrong on that and I will concede to some of my colleagues if they are aware of it. It leaves me in a position of just not knowing when it will go through and what will happen with it. Maybe Naomi has some answers on that.

Ms Alboim: There have been discussions with federal and provincial officials and those discussions are continuing. The bill will remain on the order papers federally and there is now some indication that there will be further discussion over the summer months at the federal level.

We are working towards a single process so that workers who are owed their wages will not have to go to two sources and have access to the federal program and the provincial program, but will have access to one. We are quite optimistic that we will be able to harmonize both the investigation process and the payout process so that in Ontario, for example, people will be able to access the fund through the employment standards branch offices. The investigation will be carried out and funds will be provided and then the federal government will be billed, if you like, for those funds that are payable from their fund.

They will not be covering all the cases that Ontario's legislation will cover, so there will be some individuals who are eligible only for funding through the Ontario program and not through the federal program. But we are optimistic that we will be able to harmonize both programs quite nicely from an administrative perspective.

Mr Daigeler: We appreciate that. To be specific, will the $5,000 coverage from the provincial level be on top of the $2,000 that is projected from the federal government?

1740

Hon Mr Mackenzie: No. The maximum will be $5,000, but it is not an additional $2,000.

Mrs McLeod: In your remarks, Minister, on page 3 you talked about a committee made up of representatives of labour, management and government analysing the impact of layoffs in northern Ontario. You also made reference to the fact that the committee was exploring the feasibility of establishing a union venture capital corporation. Two questions:

One is, is that particular committee looking at the impact of layoffs in Sault Ste Marie? Is it the Sault Ste Marie committee that you are describing, and if not, what is the committee and particularly what management would be involved in it?

Second, on the venture capital corporation, I wonder what the source of funding might be to give you the venture capital as a basis for establishing that kind of corporation.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure that I can give you any answers on the venture capital fund. I think Mr Shardlow may be able to help us on the other part.

Mr Shardlow: I am not sure I heard the question properly, but if it is referring to the exploration we have under way now with the United Steelworkers in looking at the possibility of establishing some venture capital for northern Ontario, that is a committee that is established with the United Steelworkers, with the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Ministry of Labour, and the federal Canada Employment and Immigration commission just to explore various ways to look at layoffs in northern Ontario and to see if there are things that can be done to assist workers through such a fund. That is very much in the preliminary stages but it is under way at this time.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: That brings to mind, Mrs McLeod, that it is not just as a result of Sault Ste Marie, although they are very much involved in trying to come up with proposals in the Sault. But the venture capital fund was a broader application in terms of northern Ontario, I think basically because of the number of mine closures they have had in northern Ontario.

Mr Shardlow: It predates the Algoma Steel situation.

Mrs McLeod: But specifically looking at areas related to mining and areas that the steelworkers would be involved in.

Mr Shardlow: At this point in time, it is the United Steelworkers who have come with us to explore this, but it will not be specifically for mines. It is hoped at one point that we can expand it to include any kind of industry in northern Ontario.

Mrs McLeod: I guess that would lead to further questions and I was just trying to pursue it. I would be surprised that any committee that was looking at something as generalized as has just been described was based exclusively on representatives of one sector of industry in northern Ontario, so it raises as many concerns perhaps as it answers.

Maybe I can table the question wherein a reference is made to a union venture capital corporation. The issue of venture capital is a very important issue for restructuring of industry for diversification. A union venture capital corporation is certainly new for me and it implies the existence of a source of funds. I suppose it naïvely raises the question of whether or not it is a pension fund establishment for venture capital or just how that might work.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The only thing in addition that I can tell you is that, as I mentioned earlier, there are discussions going on in terms of investment capital on a broader scale right across Ontario that the Premier's office has initiated. A number of unions are concerned when we talk about the need for some involvement. In fairness and equity, in terms of workers, a number of unions are exploring possibilities of investment capital funds. I am not sure even that the steelworkers, which was my own union, are leading the pack in this area, but I do know they are actively involved in trying to come up with some suggestion.

I am relatively certain they will welcome any way they can tie in anything that is done on a broader basis. But I think it is a desperation move and a recognition, in terms of some of the closures and some of the potential worker buyouts, that there has to be an investment fund they can turn to. It is an issue that is coming from more than just the steelworkers in terms of the labour movement.

Mrs McLeod: I will be interested in more details in the future. Whether it is venture capital exclusively accessible to the unions, for example, would be one of the questions I would have when it is described the way it is in the remarks.

Mr Offer: I have two short questions. One refers way back to the parental leave announcement. We will all recognize that we were all very much in support of that, but we did need the federal government to get its regulations in gear to synchronize this matter.

You say in your statement that there have been something in the vicinity of 95,000 or 97,000 inquiries. Have you any information on how many people are actually taking up the parental leave and whether there is the necessity to advertise not only the availability of this but also in a more proactive way the beneficial impact of actually taking it up?

Mr Thomson: We do not have any good figures on how many people are taking up the parental leave. I think the best information probably would come from the federal government, because the vast majority of the people taking it are people who also have access to the unemployment insurance benefits that are payable during the time they are on leave. There may be information obtainable there, but it obviously would not cover everybody. For example, it would not cover people who have private plans tied to the workplace.

We did a fair amount of advertising around January and February about the existence of the new regulations in the Employment Standards Act and it generated an enormous amount of business. That has not fallen off all that much. This is an area where people regularly want to know what their rights are and employers need to know what their obligations are.

We just released a book called Working in Ontario, which is a summary of all the labour laws in Ontario in easily understood language and printed in a number of different languages. That, I think, is getting the information out much more broadly and is part of the reason there are so many calls coming in to us for further information about the program. At this point we do not have any plans to do a further program or advertising or publication or publicizing of the program, but we could look at that.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can tell you that I have been both impressed and amazed at the number of people who have called in on it. I certainly was not expecting the kind of numbers that called. It certainly would indicate that there is fairly widespread knowledge that there is something in place, but I doubt we have the uptake on that.

Mr Offer: As a final question, we are certainly close to some changes in terms of the Labour Relations Act in terms of the Employment Standards Act. There is always this type of balance that people play, on the one hand labour and on the other hand management. I am not talking about that. What I am talking about, from your perspective as the Minister of Labour, is not the balance of management on the one hand and labour on the other, but the balance of labour on the one hand and unionized labour on the other. I am wondering if you might share with us your viewpoint as to whether you believe the rights, responsibilities and protections for workers in this province are better advanced or enhanced through the collective bargaining process.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have no difficulty in answering that, Mr Offer. In my opinion, and it shows in most of the programs that are in place, there is more takeup and more knowledge on the part of the workers where they have an organized workforce. I think the benefits are relatively obvious in spite of some of the surveys I have seen recently. I guess my most common answer to that is that in my short life I have worked in both union and non-union, and in my opinion union has always been much better.

Mr Carr: A short question, and it goes along the same lines. Some of the proposals that will be coming up are going to make it easier to unionize, and I was wondering if you had any idea of -- I guess currently 31% of the workers are now unionized -- where you see that going to and if you have set any goals in favour of unions, whether you said, "By the end of my mandate, I would like to see that 45% or 50% or" --

Hon Mr Mackenzie: No, because we do not do the organizing. We set the framework for it obviously, and the unions in the province are going to have to get out and do their work in terms of convincing the workers that they can represent them and assist them to bargain more equity and fairness in the workplace.

Mr Carr: But making it easier, you have not said as a result of that, "We think it will probably go up"? You have not done any studies like that?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it would be to the benefit of the province if it did happen, because if we are going to work out a partnership, it is going to be on the basis that there is some comfort, that there is some say and some ability to participate in the decisions. I think that is enhanced with an organized workforce in the province, so it would certainly be my hope. But we do not have the responsibility for doing the actual organizing, and therefore I have not tried to set any targets. What I would like to see in place is legislation that certainly assists workers if they decide to take the organized route. If that happens, then the job, as I say, is up to the unions.

Mr Carr: But with your background, knowing some of the proposals that were put in, do you see a dramatic increase, or would it be something slow and gradual over a number of years? Did you have any thoughts on that? You might not even have thought about it. But I just wondered if you see, as a result of this legislation, all of a sudden, a dramatic --

Hon Mr Mackenzie: My guess -- and it would only be a guess -- is that what you will see is a slow and steady progression rather than maybe even a backing-off that has been the case over the last two or three years.

Mr Carr: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Carr. Thank you very much, Minister. If I may, on behalf of all members of the committee, we would like to thank staff of your ministry. It is not always easy to be the first ones to be notified. There are usually two or three weeks' notice, but we appreciate their attendance as well.

I wish to inform the committee that we have yet three hours and 15 minutes to complete the estimates of the Ministry of Labour, that the anticipated return date at this time will be 24 September and 25 September.

Mrs McLeod: Hold those thoughts.

The Chair: Yes, hold those thoughts. Well put. However, we have asked the government House leader for a series of options for us to meet at least one week -- potentially three weeks -- but at least one week. I wish to inform the committee that if we fail to meet through the summer, we will be lucky to complete five ministries out of the total complement this year. When I did the mathematics on this, it would appear that we would have only done the estimates of $3 billion of the $52-billion budget.

So this is a matter of concern, and I have underscored that concern and shared it with the government House leader on behalf of this committee. Certainly it was the committee's interest in meeting to ensure that we at least got better than 50% of our estimates done, or at least had a reasonable chance of completing the estimates. But if we are unable to convince the House leaders for us to meet in part, then I am afraid we will have only completed just under $3 billion of a $53-billion budget.

If there are no questions or comments -- I think I have clarified all the points for the committee.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Chairman, I thought we decided at our last committee meeting that we would not be meeting during the summer. I am of the view that we should not be meeting during the summer and that we should be --

The Chair: Okay, this committee sent a letter yesterday to Miss Martel and the House leaders of the other parties, advising them of the subcommittee's report and our committee's recommendation that we need some additional time. In my letter to the House leader, I indicated that we would be willing to work a full, five-day week in which we could complete four ministries. We did this last year, as you will recall, so we know it is possible. We can do it, but it would assist us in at least getting better than 50% of our estimates done. Otherwise, we will again be in a position where we are not accounting for the expenditures here at Queen's Park.

The committee adjourned at 1755.