CONTENTS
Tuesday 24 September 1991
Ministry of Labour
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)
Farnan, Mike (Cambridge 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)
O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York NDP)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)
Substitutions:
Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls NDP) for Mr Johnson
Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L) for Mrs McLeod
Tilson, David (Dufferin-Peel PC) for Mr Carr
Clerk: Carrozza, Franco
The committee met at 1534 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
The Vice-Chair: Good afternoon. If this meets the agreement of the committee, we are going to go in 15-minute rotations by party. It is my understanding that the official opposition Labour critic would like to start.
Mr Offer: Thank you very much. I have a few questions that surround a certain document that came into our possession over the summer which purports to be a cabinet submission on a fairly dramatic change in the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
As you will recall, earlier on when these estimates commenced we spoke about the need that business was voicing in terms of inputting, being part of a consultative process. At that point in time you had indicated there was indeed going to be a consultative process. If memory serves me correctly, you indicated that such a process was probably going to be announced around the end of the summer. Could the minister please indicate for us what is the consultative process and what is the discussion paper that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology alluded to today in his response to a question by the member for Wilson Heights?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The minister was partially, not totally. correct. The document that was leaked, if that is the expression I am assuming you are referring to, is a paper that people have been working on in the ministry for some time. It follows the two documents from management and labour that were made available much earlier and is to go to cabinet as a basis of the discussion paper that will go out to the parties for consultation over this fall, hopefully. The timing on that is not absolutely finalized yet nor is the final copy that will go out for consultation.
The paper you are referring to is a paper that was meant for cabinet to take a look at and decide if it wanted that to be the basis of the issues under the consultation process.
Mr Offer: Is it fair to say that the response by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, that there is a discussion paper out, is not totally accurate?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The discussion paper has not been finalized through cabinet as yet and we intend to change it and to present it simply as the options when it goes out for discussion.
Mr Offer: In this document, which contains your signature, there are two areas that are spoken of: One is around the "narrow focus of business"; second, the need to "neutralize the opposition." I am wondering, in a twofold question, whether you are aware of those particular phrases used in this document, and second, notwithstanding your signature on these documents, whether you agree with those.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think that the best thing and the straightest answer I can give you is that any time you take a look at potential changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, you are into a very controversial area. The consultation process is going to have to be thorough and complete and it is going to have to involve all of the players in the issue. That has to be very clear to those who are involved in the exercise, and that is the purpose of that.
Mr Offer: I am wondering if you might want to expand upon what is meant by the "narrow focus of business"?
1540
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I do not have a good or fast answer. I do not particularly remember that phrase, but as I said, the basis of the paper and the changes that still will have to be made, to present some of the options and some of the discussion, had to be very clear for the parties involved, and that is what we are intending to do.
Mr Offer: As you know, this coming Thursday I believe the Legislature, through committee of the whole, will be talking about another piece of legislation about which we have had the opportunity of having some discussion, though not nearly as broad and wide as I and my party would have hoped: that dealing with Bill 70, the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Employee Wage Protection Program), 1991.
On page 59 of this submission it is stated, and I am going to have to quote: "Specific areas of concern identified by employers and trade unions were the severance obligations arising, wage and employment security and the loss of bargaining rights where contracts change hands. The first two of these concerns" -- and I read that in the area of severance and security -- "have been addressed in approved amendments to the Employment Standards Act which have not yet been introduced."
I think you will readily see that when we deal with Bill 70, which really does have some bearing on the severance and termination provisions under the Employment Standards Act, I think it behooves us as legislators to be fully aware of any changes to the Employment Standards Act, which will impact on the bill, which have not been introduced. I am wondering if you will take this time, first, to confirm that what is in this document is the case and, second, what those changes are.
Mr Thomson: Perhaps I can speak to that. Those are not the amendments, as you know --
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, for the purposes of Hansard, could you introduce yourself?
Mr Thomson: George Thomson, the Deputy Minister of Labour. I might say, Mr Offer, the proposals that are being referred to in that part of the paper are not the ones, as you know, relating to Bill 70. These are proposals relating to the issue of the contracting-in of work and then retendering those contracts, primarily in the food and cleaning sectors.
What the cabinet submission notes is that there had been an earlier cabinet submission, also a confidential document, that led to a cabinet decision with respect to one part of that issue. No decision has yet been made as to when legislation relating to that would be introduced, but a part of the contracting-in issue, as that document points out, was dealt with by cabinet earlier this year.
As I say, we have not been given instructions at this point on when and if that legislation would be introduced, and this cabinet submission purported to raise options with respect to the remaining part of the contracting-in issue in order to determine whether the whole contracting-in issue would be dealt with and would we deal with it in the consultation paper on the Labour Relations Act.
Mr Offer: On this same issue, you will all know that -- I guess it was the latter part of the previous year -- a discussion paper around the Employment Standards Act had been circulated for discussion with those people who are interested in the Employment Standards Act, in the enhancement of workers' rights, which includes, of course, both labour and management, and that whole broad group of people all in the middle who still have some opinions on what the Employment Standards Act should contain.
My question is, as this discussion apparently was ongoing under the Employment Standards Act, decisions were before cabinet on the very issues while that discussion was, at the same time, progressing. I am wondering if you might want to share with the committee how on one hand one can call for the need for discussion and consultation, yet on the other, on the same issue, have cabinet making decisions prior to the discussions being completed?
Mr Thomson: I think I can speak to that. There were two discussion papers on the Employment Standards Act, one relating to issues dealing with adjustment. That is not dealt with in this document.
The second consultation document that we released late last fall dealt with this issue of contracting-in in the cleaning and other parts of the service sector. In actual fact it was the second consultation we had held on that subject. We held one when the previous government was in power. We then had a consultation during January, February and March on that issue. Then we went to cabinet after that, telling them the results of that consultation, which was a separate one from the one being talked about generally in this cabinet submission. We got a decision from cabinet with respect to some aspects of the contracting-in issue, but that was a submission that followed a fairly extensive consultation during January, February and March, 1991. That is what is being referred to in this document.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: One of the things that would be worth adding to it as well, Mr Offer, is that when you come to the labour relations field there are a number of things that could come under either the Employment Standards Act or the OLRA, and a number of other items that need more consultation before any decisions would be made under either piece of legislation. One of the things involved here is if and where it should surface as an issue.
Mr Offer: Thank you for those remarks.
You must be sensitive to the fact that there are a great many people, both in business and on the labour side, who very much rely on the statements made by yourself, Minister, and indeed the Premier, talking about the fact that there would be a full consultative process prior to any decisions being made. Those groups and individuals all want to be able to talk about not only what changes should be made but also whether changes should be made. You must be sensitive to the fact that when a document of this nature is publicized and when one reads through the document, it can only lead one to see that decisions upon which people want to have some input have already been made. There is no question that any person reading this document must see this, and the concern it gives to business, to investors, to people who want to start small businesses in this provinces or to expand existing businesses, and what impact that will have on jobs.
We have asked this a number of times, but I think that as a result of this submission we have to ask it again: Will you commit that there will not be any change contemplated to any aspect of the Ontario Labour Relations Act without the input of those individuals in this province, whether they be labour and management or however else we want to define people, prior to them being heard? They are asking for that commitment. They are concerned about this particular submission because it says that while those statements have been made earlier, decisions have been taken. That commitment is absolutely required, together with a full and frank period of discussion -- and timeliness, so that all people who want to be heard on this matter, which will create jobs and wealth in this province, will in fact be able to do so.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am sure it is not your intent to perpetuate a myth, Mr Offer, but there was wide consultation on the employment standards material. If there is a criticism it is that we did not act as yet, because we did not know just exactly how we were going to fit it into the picture. On the OLRA stuff, I had made it very clear on a number of occasions that there will be a full consultation process. Indeed, if you have read all of the document that you are talking about, you will be aware that has begun to set out the parameters of an extremely full consultation process on the OLRA material.
Mr Offer: I hear your response, Minister, but again, on the document itself, you have to be aware that it flies in the face of those statements. What is required is a renewed commitment.
Mr Thomson: If I could just clarify one point, I just want to make it very clear there is nothing in that document that speaks to any decision having been made with respect to reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. The only reference to a cabinet decision in that document is a cabinet decision with respect to reform of the Employment Standards Act, following consultation on contracting-in in the food and cleaning sector. There have been no decisions made by the government with respect to any reform of the Ontario Labour Relations Act.
1550
Mr Offer: I appreciate that response, Deputy. However, what I am alluding to is the fact that there had been statements made that there would be a consultation process prior to any decisions made in terms of what area should be changed -- and indeed the need for any change.
A discussion paper is one which talks about the areas for discussion, talks about the groups that are going to be discussing the area, talks about the timing of this, talks about a whole variety of things -- and that is not this. This is, in my opinion, one which does have decisions contained within it. It does not talk in many areas about any options other than the one which is indicated. It does talk about variable options. I think all of us in this room have seen documents of decisions and have seen documents of consultation, and they look and feel and taste and smell an awful lot different. This one, I submit, is not one which talks about a broad process of consultation. Leaving that aside --
The Vice-Chair: Mr Offer, we will come back in rotation. That is your 15 minutes. Mr Tilson.
Mr Tilson: I would like to ask some questions with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board. I am going to read to you a section from last year's November report of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business -- which, I am sure, has been read to you before, but I will read it again -- in which it talks about the tax structure in the province of Ontario. It is from the report called Taxing Ourselves to Death.
It states: "Analysis of the tax structure for the four most industrialized Canadian provinces shows that Ontario has no equal when it comes to imposing corporate taxes. In all three categories -- big, medium and small -- businesses located in Ontario sustain a higher total tax burden than similar businesses in Quebec, Alberta, British Columbia, Michigan, New York and New Jersey. The employer health tax and the higher workers' compensation rates in Ontario are the principal culprits."
There does seem to be some expansions of the policy of the Workers' Compensation Board; for example, there seems to be a new area with respect to stress that has only recently emerged. The example that has been given to me is a worker at the young offender facility being awarded $20,000 because of stress. I know the ministry is working on a green paper on Workers' Compensation Board reform. Can either you or the deputy minister inform me when you plan to release that green paper?
Mr Thomson: I can perhaps speak first to say that the broader issue of Workers' Compensation Act reform is one on which we are not proceeding at any fast pace at this point in time. An exercise was begun about a year ago that would ultimately lead to a green paper. We would anticipate at some point that there would be a green paper on workers' compensation reform, but not within the next several months at least.
The issue of stress is one that is actually being dealt with by the Workers' Compensation Board itself, within the existing legislation. They have a document out for consultation now on that issue, and they are having public hearings this fall, as I understand. But we do not foresee having a green paper on Workers' Compensation Act reform within the next short period of time.
Mr Tilson: Would it be out in 1991?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: My guess is that it would not. I can tell you for your information that there is a substantial change in the makeup of the Workers' Compensation Board. They want to take a look at the act. My party, as you are well aware, has had some reservations about some sections of the current act. They want to take a look at the operation of the board and what they see as the problems in these sections before we initiate legislation. We have agreed that we will wait until we get a report back from the current board before we make any moves in terms of any changes.
Mr Tilson: I understand that. Mr Laughren has commented on the idea of handling Workers' Compensation Board as part of a more ambitious program to develop a universal and unified insurance system in Ontario. I wonder, Minister, if you could comment on two things: one, the feasibility of a universal insurance system, and two, whether it will be included in any of these documents you are referring to that are coming out, whether it is the green paper or any other form of document. Because this certainly has been referred to by the Treasurer, I believe.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I cannot conceive of it at this point in time being in the green paper, which would be designed to look at problems people still see with the WCB. I think the concept of some kind of universal wage protection scheme or insurance scheme is something that has been around for a long time. Certainly it has been one of the things I have heard in the 16 years I have been in this House from our current Treasurer, and that a number of people have spoken about. There is a group currently taking a look at universal coverage. That is a totally separate exercise and, I suspect, one that is going to take a little bit of time.
Mr Tilson: Do you believe it is feasible?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I like the general idea of it. But I am not at all sure, and do not have the information to make an assessment, as to whether it is feasible or not. I know we have some 20 or 30 or more income support schemes in this country. I would love to think it might be possible to do it all within one, but I do not have enough information that I would begin to make that judgement.
Mr Tilson: The 1989 annual report indicated that Bill 162 transitional supplemental provisions would add $1 billion to the unfunded liability. I believe the Liberals indicated it would be revenue-neutral. Can you tell us how much has been spent on the implementation of Bill 162 to date? That is to the deputy minister.
Mr Thomson: We could obtain from the board their best estimate on both what has been spent and what would be the long-term impact of any decisions made. There is no question that the board is discovering that the provisions of Bill 162 will have cost implications for the board. They are still attempting to determine whether that still enables them to keep on the course they have set for ensuring that there is no unfunded liability in the future. I think the date they have most recently talked about is about 2014.
They did anticipate in their projections for this year some costs of Bill 162. I think they are in the midst of determining whether those are accurate, or whether, in fact, the costs will be slightly greater than that. I could ask them to provide us with that information. They are meeting with us in the next couple of weeks to tell us what their overall financial position is with respect to Bill 162, and their overall unfunded liability. We could obtain the information you want and pass it on to you.
Mr Tilson: My question is twofold. What has been spent to date and what is the total projected figure for the transitional supplements?
Mr Thomson: We will obtain both of those for you.
Mr Tilson: Thank you. Moving to the 1990 annual report, that indicates that the unfunded liability increased by 7% to $9.1 billion. The 1989 annual report indicated it had peaked, I believe, at $8 billion. Can you explain that?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I cannot give you a definite explanation. It is something we can also check with the board. But I would be very surprised if the general economic situation we have in the province was not a major reason for the continuing increase.
1600
Mr Thomson: I think the board would say that part of the reason is the cost of Bill 162, which started to have an impact a year and a bit ago -- a year and a half ago, in fact -- and the fact that in the present economic climate the revenues from employers have gone down at the same time as those expenses have increased.
Mr Tilson: I wonder if it is possible to give us details on that, because certainly that is a major shift from what was said a year earlier, over $1 billion.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure that a year earlier we were quite as in tune with the kind of economic situation we were going to be dealing with as well.
Mr Tilson: Can you tell us what your current projection is for the elimination of this liability?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: As the deputy mentioned, we have a meeting with the board and the officers next week. I have been told we will get a financial picture from them at that time.
Mr Tilson: And you can get that to us.
The final question on this area is that the budget for the office of the worker adviser has increased by 23.1%, or $1.5 million. I wonder if you could account for that increase.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Probably a more detailed or accurate answer would come from the board. If I can get additional information, I will pass it on. If my own experience is any indication, it is the delays and the complaints that we have had about how long it takes to deal with the problem. There have been efforts made to speed up the process and increase the availability of worker advisers. That is probably what accounts for the additional cost.
Mr Thomson: I might add that one of the things that has particularly created that is Bill 162, which introduced a number of time lines within which matters must be resolved. With these new limitation periods in the act, it has meant that the worker advisers have had to concentrate very much on new applications while also trying to clean up the backlog. They came to us and indicated they needed added worker advisers to do that. They in particular needed more worker advisers in some parts of the province -- for example, Thunder Bay -- where there is a real problem with backlog. That was responded to in this year's budget.
Mr Tilson: How many added staff in 1991-92 will be hired to handle the pressures the minister spoke of?
Mr Thomson: If you give me a few minutes, I think I can get that answer for you. I just need to search for it in these materials.
Mr Tilson: Someone said 306.
Mr Thomson: Thank you very much.
Mr Tilson: You need all the help you can get.
Mr Thomson: I do have an answer to that. There are 13 classified intake counsellors who have been added to the staff. Two additional worker advisers have been hired in Kitchener and London. An additional worker adviser has been hired in the Thunder Bay office. It is anticipated that one additional worker adviser will be hired in the Mississauga office to relieve the heavy case load in that office. There were some people added, I think two in total, in the head office to provide greater support and advice to the field.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: To bring it even more up-to-date on that particular issue, there was also an exercise of assistance to the worker advisers that was put in place some time ago. General consensus has been that it was not the most successful way of dealing with the problem and there is being an effort made to take those people who are qualified and can move into worker adviser roles to do it, and those who may not have quite the qualifications into the support staff roles. That also will increase the number of people actively involved in dealing with and solving claims at the Workers' Compensation Board.
The Vice-Chair: That is 15 minutes, Mr Tilson. The next speaker is Mr Wilson.
Mr G. Wilson: Minister, I would like to welcome you back to this committee. I hope you found it was as enjoyable and as productive as mine. Certainly it was too fast. Looking back to our preceding hearings in June, it still feels very fresh, and certainly my question seems fresh on the surface. It has to do with the labour adjustment program, with specifically the help centres. In checking the Hansard for our last meeting, I see I gave as a figure 3,269 jobs lost since October 1990. These are Canada Employment Centre figures. Since then, as you can probably imagine, there have been more layoffs in companies. It is imperative that we have some help in dealing with the workers who are dislocated here.
I want to say that in reading over the Hansard I noticed that the point is made that other areas also need the help, and of course this is a province-wide recession we are dealing with, even beyond our own province. Certainly other provinces, and indeed other countries, are suffering from our restructuring of the economy. I think we do see it as certainly a crisis but at the same time a challenge to readjust our labour force to meet the new conditions. Again, that is part of the reason we see the importance of the help centre in our area.
I think you know we have a proposal put forward by a group called the Kingston Area Labour Adjustment Centre Inc with a plan of how it can, with ministry help, set up a help centre. I would just like to know what the situation is now as far as the ministry approach to this issue is concerned.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am going to answer part of it and have the deputy answer part of it. The help centre issue is one that can play a key role in the community, as you know. We have a number of them now established in Ontario. We are in the process of deciding on two more, one in the north and one in the east. As you are probably well aware, there is intense pressure from a number of different communities over where the help centre should be located. We are at the point where we should be making that decision within the next week or two and we will get the word out as quickly as we can. I am not going to make any commitment until then, until we have had the session and until I see the final figures they have in terms of the need.
There are a number of communities that have been after help centres. The only restriction there, quite frankly, is that we do not have the money that is needed to provide every one I would like to put in place, but we are dealing with it to the best of our ability in a financial way.
Mr Thomson: We have separately, as you will know, Mr Wilson, built up the office of labour adjustment, and we have hired a number of people whose full-time job will be to work in areas of the province and in specific communities and with committees established at plants when closures and layoffs occur. They are being assigned to various parts of the province, including the east. We have a number of very skilled people and they are in fact now working or have worked over the last few months with more than 100 committees at the plant level in helping to develop plans for laid-off employees, including very direct access to training and to income support and whatever other supports they require, as a result of the layoff or closure.
Mr G. Wilson: It does sound as though you are certainly looking at it. I am happy to hear we will have a response in the next couple of weeks. I realize there are other programs we can appeal to in case ours is not the area, but I would like to remind you that the nearest one, as the minutes from Hansard show, is Oshawa, and that leaves a big area to the east.
The other thing I would like to ask about is the co-ordination with other ministries as far as programs for adjustment go. Is that something that is being considered at this point?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Our ministry has the key role in this, but I will let the deputy deal with that. He has been in on some of the discussions.
Mr Thomson: In actual fact, this year we received a total of approximately $25 million which has been spread among a number of ministries so that each of them is able to provide priority assistance to laid-off workers. Perhaps an easy example would be the money that was given to the Ministry of Skills Development, I think $6 million in total this year, to enable it to set up a special training program for laid-off apprentices so that they do not lose their apprenticeship training and can immediately plug into a program that will enable them to complete it, even though there is not any longer the employer they were working with.
1610
We have provided extra money as well to the Ministry of Education to beef up substantially the literacy program, because a number of workers require that. We have entered into some special arrangements with organizations; for example, the body attached to the Labour Council of Metropolitan Toronto that is doing special work with people after they have gotten the training to make sure they are then getting placed with particular employers.
There are three other ministries that we have an arrangement with. One of the arrangements involves one with ourselves that beefs up the Transitions programs so that there are more of those $5,000 grants, vouchers for employees requiring training. We do think -- and our latest feedback is that it is true -- the ministries are in fact not only taking our money but spending it well on the very programs that are required for laid-off workers.
Mr O'Connor: Minister, I am glad to see you here today. One of the things our government has done, which I am proud of but have just a couple of questions about because it has been raised during the summer, is that as of November 1 the minimum wage will be increasing. In our last set of hearings in the standing committee on estimates, one of my colleagues raised the matter of a study being done -- I believe it was one of the western provinces -- about the impact it would have on employment and unemployment. I was wondering if you would care to elaborate. Do you know about the studies, and what did they have to say about it?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Most of the information we have been able to ascertain in terms of the minimum wage -- nobody can give you a hard figure on what is going to happen. Indeed, some of the studies show that the effect is minimal. There is a western study, I believe, and I am not aware of the details.
Mr Thomson: We do have a collection of studies which we have made available to those who wanted them. We could send you the studies we do have. The literature is varied and we would be happy to provide it to you.
Mr O'Connor: Do you recall if those studies had any impact on unemployment? Now, at a time of recession, some of the people are raising that issue. I just wondered if it was included in that.
Mr Thomson: Yes, all increases in the minimum wage have some impact on employment and they mean some increase in unemployment, at least for a period of time, and this increase would do that as well. We think the impact is quite modest. It tends to be focused primarily on younger workers and workers in the hospitality area, if I am correct. I am looking at Ron Saunders, who is the expert in this area. He could speak to this, if you wish. But in general the impact over the long haul is quite minimal. It is the best we can conclude from the literature we have read. I do not know if Ron Saunders wants to speak to that.
Mr Saunders: I think the studies you are referring to are studies that were done for the government of Alberta in the early 1980s. We have obtained copies of those and, as I understand, provided them to the committee recently, to the Chair of the committee. There were studies that were done both before and after a 17% increase in the minimum wage in Alberta in the early 1980s -- in May 1980, to be precise -- and both of the studies showed a minimal impact on employment and on employer costs.
Mr O'Connor: Being new on this committee, I ask that perhaps the clerk could forward that information.
The Acting Chair (Mr Tilson): Mrs Harrington and Mr Perruzza have six minutes.
Ms Harrington: I have several questions; I will see how far I can get.
Mr Offer was asking several questions about the Labour Relations Act and how the process will be happening this fall, I presume. I met last Friday morning for an hour with my local chamber of commerce. They had several people there who were anxious to find out more about it and of course I did not have all the answers. I just had what I had heard.
I want to clarify some of the things I think Mr Offer was asking. First of all, with regard to the process of a discussion paper, I need to know roughly when that might be coming out and if it will be sent to people in my riding who are interested in it. What kind of process are we looking at?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Thank you for the question, because I had wanted to go back on this issue in any event. I want to stress that anyone reading the OLRA document through will know it is a submission that asks for permission to consult and asks cabinet to decide on preferred positions so they can be set out in the discussion paper that we will use for consultation. It asks for no decisions on what will be in legislation. In fact, as I am reasonably certain Mr Offer knows, it says we would return to cabinet after consultation for any final decisions.
In answer to your question about where it will go, obviously on this issue and with the press there has already been on the issue, the consultation will be wide and extensive. That has been part of our plan, although we had hoped early on that it might go through a faster process, something like the housing process. It is our decision now that it will go through a very extensive process. When that process has ended and the parties have been before us on that particular issue, then we will draft the legislation which will go into the House. I am sure it will also be sent out in committee for a tour of the province on a bill like this. So there is a long process before --
Ms Harrington: When would the discussion paper, then --
Hon Mr Mackenzie: We are hoping we can go through the discussion process this fall. Whether we can get the legislation before the House this fall or whether it will be one of the items next spring is an issue that just is not decided as yet.
Ms Harrington: But you are saying the paper will be out soon?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Our intention is to try to have the paper out this fall.
Mr Thomson: I would add that we certainly can make available the paper, and we would make it available at a minimum to every chamber of commerce. I met last week with Mr Carnegie, the executive director of the overall Ontario chamber, to talk about how we might establish a consultation process that would have them fully involved during the fall, that would ensure that each chamber gets a chance to plug into the special committee they have set up to provide us with feedback on the proposals.
Ms Harrington: There were several inaccuracies floating around out there. I think they had thought there was a date of December. So that is not there, any final date?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I do not think, as to when we get it back -- it is going to have to go through the consultation process. That is just being arranged and decided, exactly what we are going to do with it now. The time frame is not finally decided. Once we get it back -- if you understand this place a little bit, you do not get legislation drafted that quickly. You have to go through the legislation and that has to go before the cabinet and then before the House.
Ms Harrington: Right. One of the types of things that I was hearing from the manager of our local Hydro commission is, if managers are not allowed to handle operations during a strike, what happens with something like your hydro service? Would you care to comment?
Mr Thomson: That proposal was contained in the labour lawyers' part of the so-called Burkett report. The proposal they made was that it not be permissible for anyone to do the work being done by the striking employees. That was their proposal. The cabinet submission that has been referred to, that is being publicly discussed, does not propose that management not be permitted to do the work. It is still not decided what it is we would be coming out to consult on.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I might say that even in that area the current paper is very close to what exists, although it is not exactly the same, in Quebec. What will be the final process, we do not know as yet. Certainly there is some indication that there has been some success in terms of reducing labour-management frictions in what they have done in Quebec. I think this is an area that is open for a lot of good discussion and we will be listening carefully to it.
Ms Harrington: Yes, I did tell them about the Quebec experience. But I just wondered if you cared to comment on the idea of the Hydro utilities and the involvement of management during the strike. Do I leave that open?
1620
Mr Thomson: One thing I can say without getting into a discussion of the contents of the cabinet submission that has been referred to is that there is no doubt that to the extent legislation is introduced that prevents the use of persons doing the struck work -- the further it goes, the greater the requirement that the legislation also provide for essential services. For example, the Quebec legislation, which does not go as far as your local managers are worried about, has essential services sections within it that ensure that essential services can be performed. It takes the approach that a certain percentage of the workforce is not permitted to go on strike in an essential service, so that work can continue.
Mr Offer: Two areas I want to canvass deal again with the matter Ms Harrington has brought forward, and those are the recommendations in the cabinet submission. Could you share with us whether there are any impact studies being done in the ministry dealing with what we in this province could expect in terms of job creation following changes to the Labour Relations Act?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure. The deputy may have an answer for this as well, but I can tell you that until we know what we are going to do, it would be very difficult to get accurate information. I am not sure that you would not get two different sets of figures from two different parties in terms of what effect any changes to the OLRA may have in the province.
Mr Thomson: We have done a fairly extensive review of the literature that has looked at labour relations reform and at provisions contained in other jurisdictions. It is very difficult to know the extent to which one ascribes either success or failure in that other jurisdiction to the contents of its labour relations legislation. I think there will be a lot of debate about whether particular provisions support or do not support added work and a stronger economy. There are obviously jurisdictions that have very strong union representation with a very strong economy; there are some with very low union representation with not a strong economy.
We have not tried to do a separate simulation of proposed legislation applied to Ontario, but we have gathered fairly extensively whatever literature we can that has analysed labour reform, both here and elsewhere. In fact, we have a request to make some of that available to the opposition and we are pulling that together at this point in time.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: If I can just add one comment to that, Mr Offer. It is worth making, although it is one that is not the easiest sell in the climate of any labour relations reform. We have, and I am well aware of it, a trade union movement and a management situation in this province and this country that has really been based on confrontation, and up until a fairly recent period of time a relatively successful model. I think most people in the trade union movement and most people in the management group will say this. Certainly something I am aware of is that one of the things we simply have to do is find some ways and means of attempting a more co-operative approach than the one we have had up until now. We have a history of the former and it is not easy to put in place any changes in what you have been doing for a long period of time.
Part of any such change in atmosphere has to be one of trust. That is one of the things we are looking at in terms of the changes that are going to be up for consideration and up for consultation: whether we can find a better means of arriving at agreements in this province.
Mr Offer: On the basis of the impact studies, I think it is important for us to be secure, notwithstanding all the variety of opinions and things that might prevail, that the ministry, while looking at changes to the Labour Relations Act, is also seriously looking at what impact those changes may or may not have. We all recognize that there is a whole variety of opinion, but I think it is still terribly important that this work be undertaken.
As I indicated earlier, I wanted to talk about two different areas. My second question deals with Bill 70. As indicated earlier, that is going to be coming up to committee of the whole this coming Thursday. The minister will be aware that Bill 70, with the amendments as proposed by yourself, is a bill which is in many instances just an enforcement mechanism. It creates no new rights, in essence, but rather provides an enforcement mechanism potentially against employers or directors. Of course, it also provides a fund where workers who are the victims of a recession may be able to access that fund for lost wages, vacation pay, termination and severance.
On the issue of enforcement, we heard a number of submissions, especially from the small business sector, in which there was certainly a recognition of their obligations, but also a realization that if the bill as is now drafted goes through, there is going to be an extra cost on the employer, specifically the small business person. That cost is probably going to manifest itself in an insurance policy premium to protect the employer or the director for those particular areas of liability under the bill.
One of the amendments brought forward by our party was to the effect that maybe now is the time to send out a very strong message to the small business sector which would in effect exclude them from the enforcement mechanism of the bill by limiting the enforcement mechanism to apply only to businesses of greater than 50 employees. That would not have any impact on the worker -- they would be able to access the fund as readily as before -- nor would it impact on the liability of the owners, because that is found under the Business Corporations Act.
I would ask, Mr Minister, whether you feel it is proper or an area for possible amendment, whether you would be prepared to accept an amendment of that nature?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: It really is only wages and vacation pay that they are responsible for in the small businesses, and I am not sure that is a cost that really has any real substance. But I also want to respond to the comment that it is more an enforcement mechanism than anything else. It certainly goes beyond that, in setting up the fund and being able to deal -- although there is a $5,000 limit on it -- with vacation and severance pay that might be owed as well. That is something the worker had little or no chance of getting up until now.
Mr Offer: Of course I recognize that there are two components generally to the bill, one being the fund, which I acknowledged, and the second being the enforcement aspect of the bill. It is to the enforcement aspect of the bill that I direct my question. And the question I pose is again that, yes, it is wages and vacation pay of each employee. This will, without doubt, impose an ongoing cost to small business which will probably be borne in the shape of a premium on an insurance policy.
This bill could be amended, which would in fact relieve the small business owner of that enforcement aspect while on the other hand providing and maintaining the fund for the employee to access. The question is simply whether we are ready, and this bill is ready, and the government is ready, to send out a positive message to the small business owner in this province.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think one of the things we have already done with the changes we made in the legislation, Mr Offer, is to send out a very strong message in removing some of the responsibility that was there, and there is an exceedingly small amount of money involved in the issue you are raising.
Mr Offer: I think I am getting an answer to the amendment that I am probably going to be moving on Thursday. But I do believe that we had a wonderful opportunity and will have a tremendous opportunity to make this bill responsive to employees who have been the victims of the recession while at the same time sending out a very strong, concrete message to the largest employer in this province, the small business sector. I am a little, I must say candidly, disappointed with the minister's response.
1630
Hon Mr Mackenzie: But I am sure, Mr Offer, you will also recognize that with the extent of the changes we have made in this legislation, we have already sent out an extremely strong message. Most of the groups we have dealt with have acknowledged that. Indeed, I have it in writing in some letters.
Mr Thomson: I might also point out, Mr Offer, to the extent that we are talking about employers as opposed to incorporated small businesses -- a large number of small businesses obviously are sole proprietorships or partnerships. In those situations, the present act imposes upon them the obligation as employers, and the present enforcement mechanism does apply to them. The only difference would be for those small businesses that are incorporated, in which case the act moves the existing obligation of directors over into the Employment Standards Act for whatever wages and vacation pay are owing to whatever employees who are laid off.
Mr Daigeler: I would like to go back to a statement, Minister, you made just a few minutes ago. You said -- and I certainly agree with you there -- that we have to break down or change or adjust the confrontational nature, the adversarial nature, of labour relations in this province, and I would like to have a bit more specific direction as to your plans in that regard.
When I first came to this country from Germany about 20 years ago, the big debate that was on then was the question about co-determination in the workplace. When I came here to study at Carleton University, I asked one of my fellow students at the time, who was none other than Angus Reid -- and I remember that so vividly -- why there did not seem to be any kind of discussion about that question at all in Canada.
When I left Germany, all the papers were full of this, and in fact they have made extensive progress ever since. On this question of co-determination, Angus Reid told me at the time that the unions were not really interested in this concept at all because it would make them part of management and therefore perhaps weaken their powers. They would no longer be independent, as it were. Have the unions changed their minds on this question?
Second, what are you and your ministry doing to promote this concept? Do you in fact agree with this concept? If you do agree, I would like to hear something concrete you are doing to promote this. Certainly in Europe, not just in Germany, that seems to have been a means to get labour, business and industry to work together on building the economy, and a strong economy. So we have got an example there. We have something that has been put into practice and I would just like to hear from you what your ministry is doing in that regard.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: As far as I am concerned, the process we are going through is one of the moves to try and get us on -- I have reservations about saying a little more of the European model, but I think that is part of it. There is a larger degree of co-operation and consultation in much of western Europe between labour and governments than exists here. We have two examples here, what we have done so far as a country in Canada and what they have done in the United States.
In the States, some of the figures are painfully obvious that there is less and less consultation with, communication with and authority in terms of the trade union movement. Some people are afraid of basic figures. I am not. They have gone from some 30% of the labour force being organized down to about 17%. Somebody thinks that is a good idea. I guess that is their privilege, but there is a rapid loss of any real say in corporate decisions or adjustments or the kinds of programs that are in place. We have not done that yet in this country, and I personally do not want to see that happen because I think workers on the shop floor have a real contribution to make when there are tough times there.
I think, quite frankly, that the European experience is part of the proof of that. I suppose I am never quite sure of co-determination, and maybe one of my problems is exactly as you describe it. Certainly a confrontational approach, which as I say has been the pattern and up until recent years probably would be said to have largely worked in this country, is not the one you can deal with in terms of the trading pacts and the economics of this crazy world we are in today, and I think changes have to be made.
If you are asking me for the response of people, I get a call from the business community that we have to deal with things like some of the strict seniority provisions, the multiskilling issues, the flexibility issues. Those are demands, and if not demands, certainly requests that are on the table.
For the first time in my history in the trade union movement, I do not hear the trade movement necessarily objecting to some of these changes that may have to come about, but what they are clearly saying is, "Do we have any more ability to deal with the decisions that are going to affect us directly in the workplace, and do we have any more say in the kind of economic decisions made by the companies we work?" I think there is an openness that has not been there for a long time in this province for some real changes, providing both sides are willing to look at it.
You may or may not think it is unfortunate that what has surfaced first is the list of changes through the Ontario Labour Relations Act, but I would also point out that when we had the initial papers done in this particular exercise, we had probably what most people would call a wish list in the trade union movement. In spite of all of the early press, we knew that was not what was going to sell or what we were going to go with, but it certainly indicated the extent of their frustration.
From the other side of the equation, in the first paper, in the consultation approach, we are going to a much more serious approach to this issue. What we got from the management side on that were about five or six recommendations -- because we forced both sides to trade their papers as well -- "Don't touch the status quo" or "Don't do what labour has called for." I think we will see more clearly whether there is a mood out there once we get into the consultation process, but my hope is that there is. If I am getting a correct reading -- and if you think you can get into trouble politically, I will be in a lot more trouble much more quickly than you if I am wrong -- I think the trade union movement is ready to take a serious look at it.
Mr Tilson: I would like to engage in some discussion on the pay equity subject and specifically some interviews that were given by the then Chairman of Management Board, Ms Lankin. There was a press clipping at the end of June that talked about the public service payroll, which I believe is now around 90,000 workers and expanding, to use Ms Lankin's figures, to possibly 250,000 workers in the public service as a result of pay equity and labour tribunal decisions.
The Toronto Star specifically, on June 24, referred to a number of those. I will not quote them all but I refer to a couple of them:
"Ontario's pay equity tribunal looked at the financial control and compensation practices of the Haldimand-Norfolk regional police and ruled that for pay equity purposes, they were really employees of municipal government, not the police board. Ontario's Court of Appeal upheld the decision in this year.
"In 1989, the pay equity tribunal ruled that Metro was the employer of workers in the Metropolitan Toronto reference library."
Then it goes on to refer to other rulings that Ms Lankin was interviewed on.
Your government's Agenda for People promised to include all women under the pay equity legislation. It was estimated that would cost, I believe, $60 million, although the Pay Equity Commission estimated that as being $200 million. Having heard Ms Lankin's comments and these decisions, can you now provide a projected cost to include all women specifically in the public service under pay equity legislation?
1640
Mr Thomson: I think the answer to that question needs to be divided into two parts.
One issue relates to the fact that the pay equity tribunal has been trying to define who is the employer for pay equity purposes, because the act does not contain a definition. You referred to cases where it has found people employed in what you call the broader public sector, for example as police persons with a regional municipality, with a library, with an association for the developmentally handicapped or a children's aid society. They have been trying to determine who the employer is in those cases, and in some cases the finding has been that the government that provides the funds is the employer.
There is presently a case going on relating to a children's aid society where the issue is whether the province is the employer for pay equity purposes. That has really nothing to do with the question of expanding the coverage of the act, but the result of finding the province to be the employer would mean that the women in that agency would be compared to men in the government itself, and that would raise their salaries.
There is a cost associated with that. That is a very difficult one to project because it is so hard to know where we are going to be down the road in terms of in how many parts of the broader public sector the province is found to be the employer.
The second issue is the issue of coverage in the act. The present method in the act does not cover a lot of people who are in the broader public sector. The government has indicated that over several years -- this was announced last spring -- the funding that would be necessary to assist both those who already have pay equity and those who would get it under the new methods that have been proposed so that they get covered by the act would be several hundred million, approaching $1 billion. That would be over several years. That is to enable all of those women in the broader public sector who either need more under the present legislation or would be covered under future amendments to the legislation to have what in broad terms is called pay equity.
Mr Tilson: That is not really what Ms Lankin stated. Ms Lankin simply stated that it would be triple. She mentioned the figure 250,000 and she specifically stated that these workers would be entitled to negotiate with the government just like any other workers. Not only that, Andy Todd, the chief negotiator for OPSEU, estimates it would cost the province $500 million a year just to bring the 10,000 to 15,000 transfer agency salaries up to par with the civil service. This is what Mr Todd has said, at least. Perhaps I could ask you that question dealing specifically with his comments. Do you agree with his cost estimate?
Mr Thomson: Ms Lankin was referring to the possibility -- and this is not just the Pay Equity Act, this relates to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and the Crown Agency Act as well -- that the result of all those decisions, if taken to their absolute extreme, could have a large number of the transfer payment agencies' employees found to be crown employees, in which case they would have to be paid exactly the same amount as is paid to crown employees. If that had to be done, I would guess if you covered all the transfer payment agencies, the cost of that would be at least the sum Mr Todd has referred to.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: That is why it underlines that you have two real issues here. You are looking at the issue of who are government employees, in the simplest terms, or who are not, and the responsibility we have as against the initial outline of plans to try to cover another 240,000 women who were not covered through the proportional or proxy method. This is not an easy question to deal with and it is one that is going to take some time to work out.
Mr Tilson: I do not think you believe for one minute that workers will believe there are two different classifications of workers. They are either in or they are out. It is not just the pay equity and labour tribunals that are saying it; the Ontario Court of Appeal is saying it. It is a major problem. It is going to cost the province billions of dollars to implement this policy. My real question is, what effect is that going to have on the deficit?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: One of the things you also have to ask, though, is this or is this not a fair issue and should there or should there not be pay equity? I think there should. Obviously, we have a problem in how we take a look at it and how we are going to deal with it.
Mr Tilson: Except that you get into some of these sorts of things --
Hon Mr Mackenzie: You can just reject it and say, "Hey, they don't deserve it." I do not think that is the position of this government.
Mr Tilson: I guess my question is, where are we going? We are worrying about deficits. We are worrying about increasing costs. To be fair to all the workers --
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The legislation was there before we took over. I think that should be pointed out as well.
Mr Thomson: I would stress that the issue she is talking about is not just the pay equity issue. She is talking about decisions, particularly beginning with ones relating to ambulance drivers, that could have the result of turning large numbers of the broader public sector into actual employees of the crown. That is not a pay equity issue, whether they are male or female. They would then be paid the government rate that is paid to other government employees. That is the real issue we are looking at as we try to determine what legislative response there will be this fall in the area of pay equity and reform of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.
Mr Tilson: Absolutely. It is not just a pay equity question. It goes far beyond that and it is going to have major implications on the overall cost.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I should say that I am more than happy to have suggestions from anybody who has some positive, good ideas on this issue.
Mr Tilson: Before we get into that, having seen these decisions and the direction they are going, I assume the ministry does have some sort of cost estimate as to what this is going to cost? I mean, originally, prior to your election, you estimated it would cost $60 million. Well, now it is a different ball game.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I did not use the $60 million, I do not think.
Mr Tilson: I think that was in the Agenda for People; that is what I understand. So I guess my question is, having seen the results of these decisions, which are not just the tribunal's decisions but which are legal Ontario Court of Appeal decisions, and having seen the direction of that, do you have any estimates as to where we are going on this on both areas: pay equity and the overall bringing of people up to civil service salaries?
Mr Thomson: We have done some broad projections with respect to pay equity. The Treasurer's announcement in the spring suggested the kind of money that might need to be made available to deal with pay equity for women in the broader public sector. That is the figure I cited to you earlier.
With respect to all of the broader public sector being found to be crown employees, if one took that to its ultimate extreme, you are talking at least $1 billion and potentially higher, because you are talking about, as you pointed out, close to 200,000 people being turned into civil servants, if I could say it in the vernacular. That would have an enormous cost. I am not suggesting there is any risk today that would happen suddenly, but how far do you take that decision, and how many people become civil servants? All we have been able to do is to talk about a worst-case scenario. That would be a very large sum of money.
Mr Tilson: And the fact we also have the Chairman of Management Board negotiating with all of these people. It has major implications.
Mr Thomson: That is correct.
Mr Tilson: The salaries and wage budget will increase by 28.3% in 1991-92. Could you tell us how many additional staff will be hired by the Pay Equity Commission?
Mr Thomson: Once again, I think I have that answer.
Mr Tilson: I will hear a secret number from the back of the room, I am sure.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: You are talking about the pay equity?
Mr Thomson: The answer is the pay equity office has been given approval to add 19 staff this year to deal with the added case load.
Mr Tilson: What will that cost?
Mr Thomson: That figure I will have to give you afterwards. It is a range of employees ranging from clerks through to review officers. I do not have the exact breakdown of those staff, but I can give you the figure afterward.
1650
Mr Tilson: Getting into another area, could the minister explain why the transportation and communications budget has increased by 91.7%, or more than $500,000?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I will refer that one to the deputy as well.
Mr Thomson: The deputy just needs a moment, and he can answer that. If you could go on to another question, I will come back to the answer.
Mr Tilson: The next question will be just as bad, but I will proceed with that as well.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: That depends on how you define "bad."
Mr Tilson: Could the minister explain why the supplies and equipment budget has increased by 38.1%, or $142,000?
Mr Thomson: Mr Peters has just left. Has Ms Petterson arrived yet? I can provide you with answers for each of those, but the ADM of corporate services, who has the answers to both of those, just left one minute ago, to be replaced by the executive director who, I think, is showing up at any minute.
The Vice-Chair: If I could make a helpful suggestion, I am sure these answers are important and of interest to all members of the committee, so if the minister could file those answers with the committee clerk and have them distributed to the members of the committee.
Mr Tilson: I have no difficulty with that.
Mr Perruzza: I have a very quick question that has two parts to it. As I sat in the House yesterday, a Liberal backbencher -- I forget the riding he represented and his name -- stood up and in an angry voice, shouted across at the government side and, quite frankly, accused us of not having any business abilities, any managerial skills, no sensitivities towards business and that, in effect, we were the enemies of business.
I was quite shocked. I looked at myself and I said, "Jeez, am I that type of individual?" I am quite friendly to business, and I believe in business enterprise and in the right to make profits and so on and to pay taxes and all those wonderful things. So I was quite alarmed. But it made me think of some of the other myths that have been perpetuated by both the Conservatives and the Liberals in what has been a rather exhausting year. It has been picked up by the media to some degree. The myth that is being perpetuated is that somehow the NDP and the NDP government are an enemy of business, that we are anti-business and that business should run out of the province.
In fact, my suspicions are further reinforced by the Prime Minister's visit to Japan, I believe. While in Japan -- and he was supposedly on a mission to attract investment into Canada -- he made statements to the Japanese to try to discourage them from coming to Ontario. I wonder if the taxpayers in this country should be paying for that kind of visit. Maybe we should all ask for our money back on that one.
I wanted to know from the Minister of Labour what his feelings are about business enterprise and the kinds of things that business and labour can do together to make this a better province to live in, both from a worker's perspective, as well as from a business person's perspective, and second, the kinds of things we are doing to improve that relationship, because we really need to dispel these awful myths that have been created by the two opposition parties and have been picked up on by very irresponsible media. They have not been paying attention to some of the statements that have been made by the ministers, by the Premier of this province and by every member of the government.
I, for one, am not anti-business. In fact, I have yet to talk to a colleague of mine who is anti-business. I do not know of any members in our caucus who are. When they stand up across the way and simply point the finger, I think that is unfounded. So I would like to hear from the Minister of Labour in that regard.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I understand this, nor does it disturb me, but all of my life has been a trade union background, and of course one of the first charges made when I was put in this ministry was that I was an inappropriate person to put in the Labour ministry because of my obvious bias or obvious labour background. I was a very critical person in the House, but I cannot recall attacking many Labour ministers in the past on the basis they were in the ministry and had strictly a business background, which was certainly the case with a number of ministers.
However, I do understand or think I understand the necessity of involving workers and their organizations in some of the tough decisions we are going to have to make if we are to have a more co-operative approach to labour-management relations in this province.
I see myself as coming out of a background that is going to be suspicious no matter what is said, but I do not think it is an anti-business perception that I am bringing to it. I think it is a real effort, and I suspect that I have as much or more of a chance of achieving a more co-operative direction from the labour side than many people who could hold the ministry.
I think really what we have to decide is whether we are going to get business and labour working together in this province. And if we get them working together, are we going to get them working together with a little more equality than was the case until now and a little more consultation? I think the examples in Germany, Scandinavia and Japan are clear indications that this can work. Whether we are going to do it or whether Canada and Ontario are going to go down the road they are currently going down in the United States I think is a much more serious question than people realize.
Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much, Minister. That is certainly reassuring from you, and I would hope some of the members across the way here paid attention as well.
Mr Tilson: That does not reassure me one iota.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: That is because you would not believe anything I had said.
Ms Harrington: Recently, the Treasurer released a discussion paper and draft legislation on the Ontario investment and worker ownership program. I think we all agree that more co-operation in business and labour certainly is the way of the future and I firmly believe that if any government can be involved in this and make it work, our government can and must.
I wondered a couple of things. First of all, is the Ministry of Labour going to be closely involved in this initiative? Are there such things in other provinces, and will they be of any help in showing us the way?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The one thing I can tell you is that the perception, including the perception of business, is that Quebec is way ahead of us here in Ontario in terms of investment capital and labour's involvement in it.
The other thing I can tell you is that I am meeting probably more with business groups than with labour groups these days and I am constantly amazed at the concern and criticism of the availability of capital and some of the problems. I could take you right to some of the top companies in this province I have met with in recent weeks who have raised their difficulties in terms of restructuring and refinancing with some of our financial institutions.
One of the things that seems to meet with general approval is, if we can come up with some kind of mechanism that looks at a genuine entrepreneur or a much bigger operator in terms of some of their financial capacity, we will strike a real blow for the province. That is why I think the Premier and the Treasurer are in this particular exercise. We do hope to be very much involved in it, and I think it is part of a much broader picture. It is not only the need to try to find a little more security maybe for workers so that they feel they can be involved in some of the decisions that may mean some of the -- forgive me for the word -- sacred cows they have lived by for years had a little less strength than they have had in the past. If we can also find the financial mechanisms that allow us to deal with the tough situation we are in, and obviously business is feeling in terms of available capital, then we are taking major steps towards the restructuring that is needed in this province and I think in our economy.
1700
Ms Harrington: So you are saying that basically the Ministry of Labour is very much involved with this initiative?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: We are and will continue to be looking at it, and hopefully in terms of looking at industrial strategy in the province as well.
Ms Harrington: One of the things that we like to think of when we talk about co-operation is more productivity from the workers. Do you think this might be something we could stress?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I cannot give you all of the figures on productivity. One of the things that has interested me in some of the business dealings I have had in recent weeks is the almost absolute statement they make that, in terms of quality, nothing that we ship down either to the southern states or to Mexico comes close to the quality we can get with our workers here in Canada. In some cases the prices are just so outlandish that you are not in the market. I suspect the same thing applies in terms of productivity, but the specific conversations I have had have dealt more with the quality of the product than the productivity issue.
Ms Harrington: There is another thing I wanted to clarify from what you mentioned. Are you saying that many corporations have revealed to you that they are in more difficulty than we would imagine?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have had the issue of the financial problems raised by the presidents of a couple of the biggest companies in this province.
Ms Harrington: That is concerning. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr Wilson.
Mr G. Wilson: How much time have we got, Madam Chair?
The Vice-Chair: You have six minutes.
Mr G. Wilson: The point I want to raise was included in your answer to my colleague, Mr Perruzza, that is, the issue of consultation. Of course, it has been raised here before. There is an incident that occurred in my riding having to do with consultation, or at least the solution came after a consultative process, and it turned out that one of the groups felt it was not sufficiently consulted. It could be said that consultation is just to canvass views. It does not present an answer, or you cannot pick out one group. Obviously you will be consulting among a number of groups, many of which will have different views. You have to reach some kind of consensus, I suppose, or even a single answer that is not going to please everybody.
I was just wondering what your answer to that is. What do you mean by consultation? Certainly some of the groups I have spoken with suggest they will not be listened to in the consultation, which I do not think is fair; but still there is going to be that perception that, regardless of what they say, their proposals are not going to be fully addressed. Is this a legitimate concern? Are there ways of dealing with it?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it is probably a legitimate concern. It is not one that I can answer easily, because you not only have the consultation process that is going on but you have the aims and the direction of governments as well and whether you attempt to live up to those particular directions. We have said, for example, very clearly that we think it should be easier for workers to organize. I do not think you are ever going to see that dropped as a goal, because one of the things I have been proud of, but also a little bit angry that it was never really carried out, was the preamble we had to the Ontario Labour Relations Act that simply says it is in the interest of the province of Ontario for workers to be able to organize and engage in free collective bargaining.
But I can tell you, if you are in that particular field there are a lot of obstacles in the road. I think that is a useful exercise, and most governments do have their own priorities. The extent to which it is an honest consultation, I guess judgements will be made on that. Certainly the intent in our ministry and in the process we are going through is that we do have the consultation. Eventually, though, I have to tell you very clearly -- I think it would apply to any government -- you have to make your decisions, which of the points that were raised in the consultation convinced you that maybe you were on a wrong direction or a slightly wrong direction, or maybe this was not a key issue, and which did not convince your own research and your own work that this is the approach you want if you are going to achieve your ends. I think anybody who says other than that just is not telling you the truth.
Mr G. Wilson: I can see, too, that there will be an accounting after all you decide to do.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The accounting will be in the next election, I guess.
Mr G. Wilson: Well, no, I was thinking even before that: simply, in the legislation you come up with, you can show the effects of the consultative process. But I was certainly pleased with your reference to the preamble to the legislation as it is now because you do not always see that out in the field, as it were. A lot of people do not necessarily subscribe to it or even know it is there. At least it is a starting point, I think, to say that there is some value to having the workers organized. Again, I think it points to the consultative process. How do people speak? That is, you cannot canvass everybody; but they do it through organizations. I think that is one thing to be said for organized workforces; that gives them a voice.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I might point out as well that not only is it fairly clear that there has been, at least in recent years, a better atmosphere achieved in much of western Europe, but the percentage of workers that do belong to organizations that can participate in these kinds of discussions is much higher in most of the western European nations than it is here. So you have to ask if some of the process and some of the respect and involvement in some of the tough decisions that are made is not because you are dealing with a workforce that has a much greater percentage of the workers involved in it than we do even here in Ontario where we are still down in the range of some 30%.
Mr Thomson: I might say, Mr Wilson, that with respect to the most contentious issue, we are probably going to be consulting on the Labour Relations Act. We have been meeting with those organizations to try to work out what would be a good process that would enable them to say at the end, "We like or we don't like what the government has decided, but we were well heard in the process."
It is important to acknowledge that these days consultation is not generally described as, "Did people hear us?" but "Did they take our advice?" and sometimes, when the decisions do not reflect the feedback, that is argued to be a statement that you did not consult, when in fact one may have heard very well. One may have decided, though, as a government, not to take that particular advice. But we are going to work very hard to ensure that each consultation exercise, as we have tried to in the past with the time given to us, is one that enables people to be heard as fully as possible, and then we report back on exactly what we heard.
Mr Daigeler: Let me say first, in reply to the speech by the member for Downsview, who accuses the Liberals and I guess the Conservatives of spreading some myths about the lack of support for the business community, that if he had read his mail I am sure he would have seen the news release that came yesterday from a coalition of business groups, in fact some 25 major business groups in this province, expressing their very serious concern about the climate in this province.
I am quoting from that release from the vice-president of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Ontario division, and here is what he has to say. This is not the Liberal Party or the Conservative Party, but the business community itself. Mr Nykanen is saying, "We are concerned that the government's current agenda is ignoring the economic needs of our citizens." He added, "The Labour Relations Act proposals contained in the recently leaked cabinet submission are evidence of this, because they would make it more difficult and costly to operate in the province. What Ontario needs now is more jobs, not more labour disputes and work stoppages."
So if you are talking about spreading myths, I would recommend that perhaps you speak to the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association, the Canadian Foundry Association and so on, some 25 organizations that represent a lot of people, and a lot of people who are very concerned about the economic future of this province. I would recommend you take a look at that.
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me, Mr Perruzza, you are out of order. I would appreciate, Mr Daigeler, if you would make your comments through the Chair. Mr Perruzza, if you could show the same respect the members did when you were speaking.
Mr Daigeler: You are quite right, Madam Chair, but as you did not direct the member for Downsview at the time he put forward his tirade and I did not interrupt him, I thought at least for the record I should put into proper order what this party stands for, and I think the third party can speak for itself.
The Vice-Chair: Mr Daigeler, I was not questioning what you said. I just wanted you to just make your comments through the Chair. Thank you.
1710
Mr Daigeler: My question is to the minister, and perhaps this may be the first question that actually relates to the estimates document we received. Obviously, the estimates process gives us an opportunity to review the general policies of the minister and of the ministry, but also we should have some chance to look at the actual dollar figures that are in the estimates.
I am concerned, Minister, and I am just wondering how you feel about this in a time of recession and cost overruns -- very significant cost overruns in terms of our budget -- that the salaries in your own office are increasing by 31% over last year. I am referring to page 15 in the estimates book.
If you would like to comment on that, what is the increase in terms of the number of people that represents and who are these people? I presume these are additional people. What is the role they will be fulfilling or are fulfilling at the present time?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: We will have to get you a rundown on our actual office operations, if you are referring to my office operations. I was not at all sure that we were any higher in terms of numbers than some of the previous ministry people.
I can tell you that the general perception, and I think more than perception, is that there has been a heck of an increase in the workload. Some of that is that it is an NDP government and people have been, as they do, I think, any new government, trying us out and coming to us and have raised some issues with us. In terms of the ministry itself, a lot of it has to do with the increases that are there and substantial in terms of the wage protection program, in terms of the backlog that exists. I can tell you on health and safety problems that we tried to start cutting down, and a number of the other sections of the ministry.
Mr Thomson: I might add, if I could, that this vote and item relates to our overall main office, which includes the minister's office, includes my office and related programs. The bulk of the increased expenditures relate to unique programs that happen to be placed into this vote and item but do not relate to added staff in the minister's office: for example, the cost of the adjudicator's office that is established by the wage protection act; a justice review project that I chair that relates to overall development of justice policy, and the dollars for that have been put into my budget although it relates to an interministerial exercise involving a number of other ministries; the costs associated with the Windsor relocation for this year. Those are three examples of things that have been placed in this budget but do not relate to the minister's office; they relate to specific projects that are funded out of the main office of the ministry.
Mr Daigeler: I appreciate that clarification and I look forward to something in writing that will break that down and give us the precise figures, because when I see 130% increase for your whole ministry -- while we would expect, of course, the NDP government to put special emphasis on labour issues, and I think that is fair enough, still, that certainly, to any ordinary person, would seem a very high figure.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: You should also be aware that we have raised in the House for a number of years some of the problems in the lengthening case load handling time; whether it is health and safety or employment standards, you name it, our perception when we took over the ministry is that it really had been short-changed for at least a couple of years by previous governments and there was a heck of a backlog and an increasing time frame in dealing with problems. We have been trying to reduce that. In the health and safety field we have 20,000 or 30,000 new committees in the province as a result of legislation that had just gone through, and there is a commitment, I think, to some 73 or 83 additional health and safety inspectors if we are going to deal with the increased case load as a result of the health and safety legislation.
Mr Daigeler: I acknowledge that and, as I indicated, since this is a priority for your government, obviously you have chosen to do that, but at the same time I think the public has to be very much conscious of the fact that there is a very significant dollar figure associated with it and, especially at a time when we have these cost overruns, these changes that are being made cost money.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: It would cost us even more if we were not dealing with the new health and safety committee setup and the workers and the companies did not have that opportunity, or if we increased the time frames even further on employment standards cases or any number of other issues. I do not think there is anything in that budget I am not prepared to argue for.
Mr Daigeler: I would like to argue again, a pretty substantive increase for the Pay Equity Commission. It is going from the actuals, or interim actuals, of $6,661,000 to $8,374,000. In terms of percentage I am not quite sure how much that is, but certainly quite significant. Why is that?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think you yourself or one of the other members was raising earlier some of the difficult situations we are facing in terms of exactly who has to be covered under this. The pay equity legislation is relatively new legislation as well, so I think we are attempting to deal with a major problem that has taken a long time to come to grips with in the province of Ontario.
Mr Thomson: Mr Daigeler, I can provide you with some of the estimates and some of the realities that show the increase in case load with the Pay Equity Commission. With each year, as a new set of employees is covered by the Pay Equity Act -- it was originally just about companies with more than 500 employees; then it was 100 to 500; starting next year it is under 100 -- it increases astronomically the number of workplaces covered by the act, so a large amount of this increase is simply to enable that increase to be dealt with.
I also have a document, returning to Mr Tilson's question, that helps to explain where the added increases have been. I found the figures he has spoken to. Those primarily relate to the increased work that the Pay Equity Commission has done to advertise the act and the benefits of the act primarily to non-unionized workforces and to visible minority and other women in more vulnerable jobs.
To say one last thing, the largest part of our large increase as a ministry relates to the wage protection program. About $170 million of that increase is the wage protection program.
Mr Daigeler: I look forward to the material that you can provide for us on the increase with regard to the Pay Equity Commission. I think my colleague has a question.
Mr McGuinty: How much time do I have, Madam Chair?
The Vice-Chair: You have four minutes.
Mr McGuinty: I would like to refer, Minister, to this document left here by Mr Offer. I am referring to something called Cabinet Submission: Analysis and Policy Options. There are a few statements in here and I am going to get your reaction to them. Quoting from page 3, it says, "Without being offered a more participatory role, workers have little protection against layoffs and other threats to job security and job skills as a result of realizing efficiency gains, other than the enforcement of collectively bargained rules through a grievance procedure." The implication there, I think fairly, is that workers should have a more participatory role.
It also says on the same page, "On this basis, the presence of effective trade union representation can be regarded not as an obstacle but rather as a precondition to facilitating the development of a high wage." I think we can take the implication there, Minister, to mean that trade union representation is essential to facilitating the development of a high wage.
I am not going to have you address the specifics of this, rather just the generalities. It goes on to say, "To some extent up to the present time, many employers have responded to global economic restructuring by seeking short-term solutions, including cutting labour costs." I assume that means firing people. "These employers have not co-operated with workers and unions because they have not perceived any need to do so," the implication being that they should be co-operating.
Then on page 4 it says, "No genuine partnership can exist where one party has a marked advantage over the other, because in such circumstances there is no strategic advantage to co-operation." I take it from the thrust of this that the person who drafted this has concluded that the system is off-kilter, it is out of whack, there is an imbalance. What I am getting at is that when we look at this -- whether something is in or out of balance depends on your perspective.
There was reference in the House today to a letter put out by the party, the NDP, a fund-raising letter, and from what I can recall there was wording to the effect that it was raising money to fight business. So my concern is your perspective, the party's perspective, on the balance.
Mr Perruzza: Some people have to learn to read.
1720
Mr McGuinty: Where do you see yourself fitting, Minister, in terms of this balance? And how do you deal with the difficulty of having roots in a party which historically has advanced the labour cause, has been an advocate on behalf of labour issues and not business issues? I am sure you feel the weight of government now, where you have an obligation to bring a sense of balance, a balanced perspective.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I do not have any difficulty at all. I do not have any difficulty with my background, which is one that did come out of the trade union movement. It is an issue we discussed earlier. I think it has been my education and I think it has been useful, and I do not have any difficulty in playing a role as I see it as Minister of Labour in the province of Ontario and recognizing -- which is exactly what we have been trying to do in the changes that we are suggesting and the consultation process that leads up to whatever we finally go with -- and saying that things have arrived at a stage in our society today where we have got to find a little better way of dealing with issues.
As I say, we have two alternative models to look at. We can look at the European model, where they have achieved a little more of a co-operative approach, or we can look at what is happening in the US which, I will be very frank with you, scares the heck out of me. I see the run there to low wage, I see the reduction down to -- I said 17% -- I think it is 16% of their workforce organized. There is not very much speaking for working people in that country, and I think workers have too much to offer to put us in this country on this kind of track. This country is going to be better off if we can achieve a much more co-operative approach and that is exactly what we are trying to do. Having said it, I am not sure how many people with whom I might be in opposition are going to believe a word of it in any event, but all I can do is tell you exactly what I am trying to do.
Mr Tilson: I have one more question with respect to pay equity. You mentioned advertisements, and I would like, deputy, if you could inform us what the commission spent on advertisement in 1990-91. Second, what is your estimated advertising budget for 1991-92?
Mr Thomson: I can provide you with those figures. The commission has them. I do not have the exact figures because it is part of a figure that includes other things in addition to advertising, but we will give you those figures.
Mr Tilson: If you could add that to the list you will be filing with the committee.
Turning to page 6, I would like to ask a specific question with respect to ministry administration. I wonder if the minister could explain why there has been a 10.2% or $2.5-million increase in administration costs over 1990-91. Mr Daigeler touched on this, but I would like you to be more specific in giving examples; I would like you to go beyond the examples you were speaking of.
Mr Thomson: Ms Petterson or Peter Inokai might want to come and speak to that. There are a number of factors, and only a small percentage of that, or at least the regular inflation, approximately the regular inflation percentage, is there with respect to just normal year-over-year increases. The rest of them are special costs, for example, the costs related to relocation, the costs related to restructuring and some accommodation costs are in there.
Mr Tilson: I wonder if you could be more -- when you get a 10.2% increase, presumably you have some sort of analysis.
Mr Thomson: Yes, we do have a breakdown, and I can provide that to you as well. Can we do that now or should we do that afterwards? I have it right here. Ms Linda Petterson, who is the executive director of finance within the Ministry of Labour. The larger items that are here: There are salary awards and benefit adjustments, and that is $649,000 of that; the establishment of the adjudicator's office that is required by the wage protection program, there is $304,000 of that; annualizing the settlement for lawyers that was implemented about a year and a bit ago and then annualized this year, $337,000; the internal realignment of ministry ODOE to meet head office accommodation needs, that is $806,000. Perhaps you can explain to us what that means.
Ms Petterson: Within the ministry, we have identified funds that we require in order to manage the head office accommodation pressures within the ministry. What we have done is move money from the various activities throughout the ministry into the head office and had a corporate fund to deal with this, because of the difficulty of the individual programs to manage accommodation needs individually. So what we have done is reflected really a realignment of moneys through other areas in the ministry into the ministry administration so that it could be corporately managed.
Mr Tilson: I would like stop right there, because I do not understand what you just said. "Head office administration pressures," what does that mean?
Ms Petterson: These are accommodation pressures at the ministry at 400 University Avenue and in other locations within downtown Toronto; we have shortfalls in our accommodation needs.
Mr Tilson: That is because of increase of staff presumably.
Ms Petterson: Increase in staff, and in order to meet these demands and provide the accommodation and requirements of these staff, we have had to fund those costs internally within the Ministry of Labour.
Mr Tilson: What are those figures again?
Ms Petterson: It is $806,000.
Mr Tilson: And that is strictly for accommodation.
Ms Petterson: That is accommodation, leasehold improvements, those kinds of things, leases.
Mr Thomson: To give you an example, the added staff associated with the wage protection program we need to place somewhere, and a number of those are located here in Toronto. We have acquired some added space for that purpose and those costs will be covered under this. The $542,000 relates to the Windsor relocation costs; $357,000 to the justice review project, which is really not a labour exercise at all but one that I am responsible for, involving the development of a policy framework for the justice system; $350,000 to deal with the added work that came to us as a result of the Ascov decision, which is the decision you will probably know about that requires prosecutions to be completed within a certain period of time or they are thrown out. That Supreme Court of Canada decision put real pressure on us to speed up all our prosecutions, and that is an added cost to acquire some added lawyers to do that.
Mr Tilson: Maybe you could give us some details on that, because your legal services budget increased by 30.5% and I would like you to tell me specifically how the Askov decision affected that percentage increase.
Mr Thomson: Yes, we can give you that in some detail. I should also point out that increase in the legal services budget also ties in to Bill 70 and the wage protection program, because we introduced in that bill what is called an expedited appeal process, which requires all employment standards appeals now to be done within a set period of time. It is going to require added staff in the legal branch to process those appeals as quickly as the bill is going to require us to do it. I can give you a breakdown between those two demands on the legal services branch.
Mr Tilson: That would be helpful.
Mr Thomson: I think those are the major elements, that head office cost.
Mr Tilson: Getting back to the first figure you gave with respect to salaries -- and again, Mr Daigeler did touch on this -- can you tell us how many staff were employed by the minister's office in the spring of 1990, and can you tell us how many staff are currently employed in the minister's office?
1730
Mr Thomson: Just the minister's office? We can give you that as well. I do not have that breakdown by actual numbers tied to each of the offices within head office, but we can give you that.
Mr Tilson: Is that it, as far as specifying the 10.5% increase?
Mr Thomson: Yes, that is it. There are some much smaller figures, but those are the ones of any substance.
Mr Tilson: If you could provide that to the committee in writing, that would be helpful.
Mr Thomson: Yes, we will do that.
Mr Tilson: Madam Chair, do I have any more time?
The Vice-Chair: Yes, you have six minutes.
Mr Tilson: If I could turn to page 15, dealing with the budget for the main office or the minister's office, the budget has increased $645,400, which is 12.8%. Can you explain that, or can you provide us with specific details as to why that increase occurred?
Mr Thomson: Actually, I think in the figures I just gave you I covered both. If you want us to break that down into the two, I have covered all of main office in the figures I gave you --
Mr Tilson: I do.
Mr Thomson: But some of the ones I have just told you about -- Windsor relocation, the justice review project, establishment of the adjudicator's office -- are part of this, which is a component of our overall head office expenses.
Mr Tilson: You have a 10.2% ministry administration cost and then you have a 12.8% increase in the main office.
Mr Thomson: The second you are citing is a subcomponent of the first one you cited.
Mr Tilson: I agree. You are absolutely right, it is.
Mr Thomson: You would like us to provide you with a breakdown of the overall figure and then, in addition to that, how much of that is tied to this particular --
Mr Tilson: Specifically the main office, yes.
Mr Thomson: That is fine.
Mr G. Wilson: First of all, I would like to refer to something that Mr Daigeler said about how we do not seem to be specifying things in the estimates. I want to point out that my question to do with the employment adjustment centre or the help centre refers to vote 2405, item 3, and did come out of looking at the estimates the ministry had put forward.
We also want to pick up on a general point too. I think it is understood that the environment the ministry works in is determined by the general outlook we have, that is, by views put forward by both business and labour and by government and the community at large. When we think about the job creation -- that is something that is in the forefront of all our minds -- we have to think about what kind of jobs are created. Part-time jobs obviously do not provide the kind of ability to support a standard of living that we would think is suitable in today's society. Even some full-time jobs that pay only minimum wage obviously do not provide the standard of living we think should be aimed for in our society. I know from a previous question that the Ministry of Labour is involved with other ministries in trying to set up the proper environment for producing jobs.
Some of the things that directly affect the ministry are very draining, like the regulation of work, the laws having to do with safety on the job, and workers' compensation, which actually comes out of that -- the amount of money needed to pay for the kinds of accidents that happen on the job, and the reason for trying to make the workplace as safe as possible.
I would like you to comment here, if you would, Minister, on the prospect of jobs, the kinds of jobs that can be created, and what the Ministry of Labour can do to try to work towards as well-paying jobs as we can get. This touches on the labour adjustment centres and what some of the programs are that follow from that in this world we are part of, which is so quickly changing that we have to be so attuned to the conditions and circumstances that affect the workplace.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure that I totally understand your question, whether you are talking about jobs at the ministry or --
Mr G. Wilson: No, sorry. I meant jobs in the workplace. The pressure seems to be to create jobs without the thought that part-time jobs -- I know this was an issue in the recent circumstances at the Toronto Transit Commission and is a concern for workers at large, that the jobs be ones that can support a standard of living that we think, in our society, is something we can be proud of, rather than just a job being something that becomes a number. As long as we are creating jobs that are part-time or even full-time but are paid at minimum wage, that will not support a worker and her or his family.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: You will notice in some of the labour adjustment stuff we came in with some time ago that an awful lot of the money and the effort, not only in our ministry but other ministries, is involved in training. One of the things we have found in this difficult situation, when the economy is in a downturn, is that it is easier to place people who have the skills and the training than it is those who do not, and some of it at a relatively low level. For some people who work for a long time at a production job and do not have full command of the English language, it can be a major benefit in terms of getting another job if they are able to upgrade their skills there. So a lot of our emphasis in the labour adjustment committees and in the programs deals with the whole training issue. I think you probably have to look at a little broader picture to really get at the question of high-value-added jobs, which is certainly a direction of this government.
Mr Thomson: I would like to say that Naomi Alboim is here. You may want to talk to her afterwards. She has just taken on the status of deputy minister and is putting together the overall training board that will deal with the training that you are raising on a broader level.
I think we can say we have been engaged in a fair amount of work -- particularly tied to individual closures, and in some cases larger communities, for example, the work in Elliot Lake and the work being done through the group called Canadian Steel Trades Employment Congress in Sault Ste Marie -- to really get at the major change in role that has to take place with respect to people who have been engaged in a relatively semi-skilled but focused kind of job for a lot of years and now have to adapt to a very different kind of work environment.
Some of the things being done in places like the Sault and some of the things that have been tried through our labour adjustment committees are helping people to make that very fundamental change. It is about to be a much larger issue. That is where the broader work of the training board under Naomi Alboim's direction I think will become very relevant.
Mr G. Wilson: We would all agree that this kind of training should be carried on in an environment of a supportive nature, so I am glad the ministry is paying attention to that. Everybody recognizes that we are in a different world and have to look for these hard changes the deputy has referred to. People are just having to change to jobs that they had no idea when they began their work career they would be looking at.
Mr Lessard: I have a question that is closely related to a question that I asked the last time I was here. It has to do with the wage protection fund and the fact that employees who work for the Welles Corp in Windsor just missed the cut-off date in order to be covered under that fund. The only way for them to receive the compensation they are entitled to is through the sale of a building or some other enforcement proceedings. I was wondering whether there has been any investigation or follow-up with respect to that process thus far by the employment standards branch.
1740
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure if it is in my notes or not. I am sure we have a fact sheet on the situation. I am not sure it resolves your problems, but we may get an answer here.
Ms Coursey: Pat Coursey, acting director of the employment practices branch. The mortgagee has instituted power of sale proceedings with respect to the property, and we are presently trying to find out what the appraised value of the property is. Once that sale proceeds, we are hoping that there will be enough money left over for us to institute payment to the employees.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I just found the page. The employment standards branch issued an order to pay -- this is the Welles Corp -- in February 1991 for $887,000 in severance pay owing to 135 Welles' employees. The order has not been paid as the company is insolvent and not operating. Its property is currently being sold by the first mortgagee to recover the money owing to it. Any surplus money following the sale will be available to creditors, including the employees. There is the background sheet on it.
Mr Lessard: So we do not know the anticipated amount?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: We do not know what the answer will be on that as yet.
Mr Lessard: The other question relates to the relocation of the ministry. A few questions have been asked with respect to the costs that have been associated with that and I wonder whether you can tell me what those costs relate to. What sort of work has been done with respect to the move and what sort of things do you expect will be done in the coming year?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Do you have the answers to that?
Ms Petterson: You are talking about the costs to date as they relate to the relocation for the Ministry of Labour?
Mr Lessard: Right.
Ms Petterson: We have established a relocation unit within the ministry and have identified and allocated a little over $400,000 for that unit to function. Their responsibilities are, of course, to work through the detail of the move to Windsor and ensure that there are consultation and communication efforts undertaken. So far this year those are the kinds of things they have been doing. It has been a planning process so far and a communication process in regard to the Windsor relocation.
Mr Thomson: We have also hired someone in Windsor to deal with the relations with the community as we begin to plan for the move. We are also hoping that we can arrange a number of opportunities for staff within the Ministry of Labour to go to Windsor, see what Windsor is like, to help them as they get ready to make a decision on whether they will be moving with the ministry to the community.
Mr Lessard: What about the building planning, the design, or whatever work needs to be done?
Mr Thomson: We are partly involved in that. Government Services is primarily involved and the people to work on that from our standpoint. That is included in the budget. The actual building itself and the building of that building is about two or three years away, even getting going with that.
Mr Lessard: Will there be people from the ministry who will be relocating to Windsor before the building is complete? Is this going to be a phased-in move?
Mr Thomson: In all likelihood the move will not take place until the building is completed because of the difficulty involved in moving parts of a branch down and leaving part here. We are obviously going to keep reviewing that. But our present plan would be to have the people move generally as a group in the summer of 1996 probably.
Mr O'Connor: I am glad to hear a little bit of the talk around Bill 70. That is something all members of the Legislature should be able to take a certain amount of pride in, because the committee process was difficult in trying to define things. In fact the Metro business association, the chamber of commerce and the manufacturers' association seemed to think we were being a little bit over-generous. If the federal government had made some changes, perhaps they could have addressed this without us having to worry about it. There have been about seven attempts in the last 25 years to change some of the bankruptcy legislation that probably would have saved a lot of committee grief. But I think it is still something we can all be very proud of, because we are going to be getting money to some employees who well deserve it as far as earned wages, vacation pay and what not are concerned.
One thing that concerns me, though, is that it was part of the throne speech, rapidly approaching a year ago now, and we are going to third reading soon, but there are people who have been waiting. Are there claims being processed right now as we wait so that they can get their money as quickly as possible, because my concern is the increasing social assistance in the province right now. Maybe we can alleviate some of that strain that we have before us.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The quick answer is yes, but I will let the deputy deal with it. We have had some discussions on this.
Mr Thomson: We have been attempting to go as far as we can in the absence of a completed bill. We are hoping that when the bill is proclaimed we will have the files relating to approximately 7,000 employees completed, and over the first few weeks after the bill is proclaimed, we would hope to get that money out. We have in total claims from 17,000 employees, and we are continuing to process them as quickly as we can. We are starting with those who have waited the longest and working our way through. There will be some delay at the beginning because of this enormous blip as a result of the backdating of the legislation, but we do think we will have about 7,000 people ready to go when the bill is proclaimed and over the few weeks after that, and we are hoping to double that in the following couple of months.
Mr O'Connor: Terrific. One of the members opposite was questioning the advertising budget. Maybe a concern tied in with that would be, because there are so many people affected by the Bill 70 legislation and there could quite possibly be other people who end up having to return to other ways of surviving through this period of recession when so many people are hurting, is there a program being implemented to try to get out to those people who may not know about the program, and how are you trying to reach out to those people?
Mr Thomson: Yes, we do have a fairly full communications package plan that will try to achieve the very objective you speak of, to get an understanding of the program broadly out across the province so employees who may have a claim will know about that. That communications plan will kick into place very soon after the bill is proclaimed.
Mr O'Connor: I am pleased to hear that, and I think that is something that probably all of us members can be very proud about too.
The Vice-Chair: I understand, Mr Daigeler, that you have a question you would like to put on the record, and I also understand there is agreement that we will then take the vote on the Ministry of Labour estimates. Please place your question.
Mr Daigeler: I would like to do that, and I would appreciate if we would get a written answer on it; it relates to the Transitions program, whether you can give us the takeup in the program since its establishment in 1987 and what the takeup has been this year to date. Also, if you have done any kind of evaluation of the program's strengths and weaknesses, we would appreciate the result of that inquiry. We would appreciate anything you have on how the Transitions program is working.
Mr Thomson: We could provide you with both of those. There has been a fairly major increase in takeup this year which we can tell you about, and we have also just done an evaluation of the program and we can tell you about that.
The Vice-Chair: I understand the minister wishes to correct some information he gave a few moments ago.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: When we were discussing the WCB, I used the word workers' "advisers," and it was the workers' adjudicators, assistant adjudicators that we are changing into advisers now, or into support staff.
Mr Daigeler: We forgive you.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: That is the record corrected.
The Vice-Chair: I am aware we have not used our full allotment of time on these estimates. In fact, we have approximately 45 minutes remaining, but I also understand there is an all-party agreement that we take the vote now, so if the committee agrees, I will call the vote. Seeing no disagreement, shall votes 2401 to 2407 carry? All in favour?
Votes 2401 to 2407, inclusive, agreed to.
The Vice-Chair: Shall the estimates for the Ministry of Labour be reported to the House? All in favour? Opposed?
Agreed to.
The Vice-Chair: I would just like to say that is the completion of today's agenda. Thank you for your co-operation today.
The committee adjourned at 1751.