CONTENTS
Tuesday 12 October 1993
Ministry of Labour
Hon Bob Mackenzie, minister
James R. Thomas, deputy minister
Gardner, Paul, director, office of mediation, labour-management services
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
*Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND
*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South/-Sud N)
*Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)
Elston, Murray J. (Bruce L)
*Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
*Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)
*Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Mr Lessard
Clerk pro tem / Greffier par intérim: Carrozza, Franco
The committee met at 1555 in room 151.
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): I'd like to convene the standing committee on estimates. Although not on Hansard, we've been experiencing some technical difficulties, which accounts for our little bit of a late start, but we have agreement to make up the time to hopefully complete the estimates of the Ministry of Labour today. We have approximately two hours and 30 minutes remaining.
When we last left in the rotation, we would move to the official opposition. I'd like to recognize Mr Mahoney, but before I do that, the deputy, Mr Thomas, has some brief comments about some of the questions that remained unanswered when we last met. Those are also in print form and will be circulated to the members momentarily. Mr Thomas, briefly.
Mr James R. Thomas: I wanted to very quickly go through some of the questions we didn't have answers to. One of them was how much was spent on the task force on the organization of work. The task force is a Premier's Council activity. The amount of money spent so far by the task force is $64,991 in the fiscal year 1992-93, and to the end of September of this fiscal year, $45,748.
The Ministry of Labour and the Premier's Council secretariat are providing staff support to the task force. MOL staff members are not included in the above figures. I also note that up to 70 representatives of business, labour and the academic and consulting communities all gave their time voluntarily over the past 18 months at no cost to the province.
The work organization service being developed, worked on and consulted on by this ministry has not received any money. The cost of preparing the discussion paper and for conducting consultations has been absorbed within the ministry's current budget.
There was a question that was raised about the amount of money spent on Bill 40 and the additional expense. So far, the budget for the startup costs was $4.009 million. The annualized impact of Bill 40 in the out years for 1994-95 is $2.660 million, and for 1995-96 is $2.542 million.
I was asked to confirm the average amount of a claim under the employee wage protection program. I had guesstimated that the average amount of the claim was something in the order of $3,500. I can report to the committee that that in fact is the average amount of the claim. The average amount of money actually paid out, though, is less than that because some people who claim under the wage protection program claim more money than they're eligible for. The average amount paid out is $2,400.
We were asked questions about the questionnaires that were distributed by the Workplace Health and Safety Agency with the September 30 deadline. I indicated that about 5,000 questionnaires had been returned, and that is correct. I was also asked how many responses were anticipated still to come. We don't have an answer to that. What I can tell the committee is that there were 24,000 questionnaires mailed out.
Then there was a question around the costs of the certification training program at the health and safety agency. I have a page that I would propose to simply table with the committee that talks about the basis under which the various pricings were set for the agency.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Thomas. Mr Mahoney, if we could please proceed with you.
Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On page 208 of the estimates, where we get into the ministry administration program, I'm assuming that this is because this document was printed prior to the rollback of MPPs' wages of 5.5%, but maybe you can just confirm. The line under "Minister's Salary, the Executive Council Act" shows no change in 1992-93 over 1993-94. In your salary as a minister, it shows $31,749 being constant, even back to 1991-92. Was the legislation that we passed prior to the break which rolled back the wages of MPPs by 5.5% also apply to a minister's salary under the Executive Council Act?
Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): It sure as hell did. I noticed a difference of -- I was going to tell you. I forget what the figure was now, but my wife reminded me very quickly when she saw it.
Mr Mahoney: Well, it looks like about $1,500, I would think, on top of the MPP's salary. I just wanted to make sure, because that isn't reflected in the documents that are part of the public domain. We can now say that particular issue's in Hansard officially.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My wife wants to form a union for MPPs.
Mr Mahoney: I'm not surprised. Probably Bill 40 might help her do that.
Interjection: That's what it's all about.
Mr Mahoney: We know that that's what it's all about. I also note there's an increase in the parliamentary assistants' salaries of $9,808; I'm assuming that's a result of you having two parliamentary assistants instead of the customary one.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I believe that's the case, yes. If not, there could be somebody here who could answer it.
Mr Thomas: That's the answer.
Mr Mahoney: Can you tell me how you would allocate duties to the two parliamentary assistants? Having been one myself in the former government, the duties were quite clear, but I don't know how you would split this up. I presume this would be your decision, Minister, as opposed to the deputy's or administrative staff within the Ministry of Labour. I presume you would call the two together and ask one to carry a bill or do other things. Can you tell me how that workload is allocated? Is it really necessary to have two PAs?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: In my opinion it would be, over the next year or two in particular, extremely useful. The way I broke it down was fairly simple: One of the PAs is responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board, and that can be a job unto itself, and the other one deals with other labour issues, basically, that we are dealing with in the House.
Mr Mahoney: So you have one parliamentary assistant specifically responsible for WCB.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I wouldn't say there's not some other jobs that might be done from time to time, but essentially that was the clear understanding, that one would be working on workers' compensation and the other one would deal with other labour matters.
Mr Mahoney: I guess I've been led to believe by some of your answers in the Legislature and other comments that workers' comp is a bit of an arm's-length situation from you as the minister. In relationship to the building, you seemed to indicate that was clearly their decision, not yours, that you didn't have input or influence into that in relationship to other things they've done. I'm curious about why you would have a political parliamentary assistant assigned to workers' compensation if in fact it is arm's length.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think they're arm's length, but the responsibility does come back and they report back to the ministry. Anybody that's been working on WCB problems or cases for the last few years can recognizes the difficulties that are there and the restructuring we're currently trying to go through with the WCB.
Mr Mahoney: So they're dealing directly with the WCB board as opposed to dealing as an advocate with cases or any of that nature?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Well, not dealing as an advocate on cases, but they would sit in at the meetings we have with the board. My own office is still dealing with the advocacy role, except that we can no longer make appeals.
Mr Mahoney: The issues of mediation and arbitration: You have specific offices established to deal with each of those issues. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that mediation would be less confrontational than arbitration, that arbitration would simply occur at a point of no return in labour negotiations or a point where a decision was not reachable, and mediation would seem to be a softer process that would bring those two sides together and try to resolve the outstanding differences. Yet the office of mediation is expecting a 22% increase in the number of mediation meeting days in the upcoming year, implying that the ministry is expecting perhaps a higher level of labour unrest this year compared to last, and the preventive mediation days are apparently expected to fall by 30% compared to mediation days increasing over the same period last year.
I guess what I'm getting at is that you've got a substantial cut, if I look at the figures correctly, of $902,000 in the office of mediation and yet an increase in arbitration of $418,000, at a time when you're expecting dramatic increases in mediation and substantially lower increases -- I saw the figure somewhere of something like 6% or 8% -- in the arbitration. Are you expecting some kind of major change here because of increased labour unrest to have more arbitration cases going and fewer mediation, and if so, why does your ministry reflect the opposite of that?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think I'm going to have the deputy respond on that one.
Mr Thomas: In fact the results data for the office of mediation show that while there may be a slight reduction in the number of days spent on preventive mediation, there's also an increase in the amount spent on mediation-conciliation. We think the office of mediation is going to continue to be pressed hard on not just its conciliation-mediation role but also on preventive mediation. We've been running a program called Relationships by Objectives; we've been running a number of preventive mediation programs that have been well received. I don't think the fact that we are seeing a continued demand for mediation-conciliation and preventive mediation should be interpreted as us expecting an increased level of labour unrest.
Mr Mahoney: But if I could just point out, the number of preventive mediation days is expected to fall by 30%. That's not minor; that's pretty dramatic. If the mediation and conciliation budget is being slashed, are you saying there will be more work done in the office of arbitration to take up that slack because you don't need the money? Yet you continue to say that you're expecting a lot more in the area of mediation and conciliation.
Mr Thomas: There's a chart that shows, over the last four years, mediation-conciliation meeting days and preventive mediation days. If you look at 1992-93, the combination of both of those days is in the order of 4,600 days. If you look at the total estimate for mediation-conciliation and preventive mediation for the current fiscal year, we're estimating 5,100. In other words, we're estimating an increase in the amount of work. When these estimates were put together, there was an expectation that there would be a demand on mediation and conciliation in the range of 4,200, and what would be left over in terms of our resource capability would be applied to preventive mediation, and that's 900 days.
Mr Gardner's here from labour-management services. Would you like to add to what I've said?
Mr Mahoney: Maybe Mr Gardner could also tell me if it's accurate that you're expecting a 22% increase in the number of mediation days next year over last.
The Chair: Maybe Mr Gardner could properly introduce himself for the committee.
Mr Paul Gardner: Paul Gardner, director of the office of mediation, labour-management services.
In answer to your second question, are we projecting an increase in the number of conciliation and mediation days over last year, yes, we are, the main reason for that being that although the number of work stoppages and in fact maybe the number of applications for service has decreased, the degree of involvement has become more intensive because of the state of the economy and the types of issues we're now dealing with. They take longer and more days, more hours, to resolve.
The situation with preventive mediation, the projected downward trend, I think as the deputy had answered, we project on the basis of what the dispute situation will be, and hopefully we'll have resources over and above, if we're off a little bit on our projections there, additional resources, to put towards preventive mediation.
1610
Mr Mahoney: Maybe I'm not making myself clear. My opening remarks about the difference between the mediation level and the arbitration level -- my feeling would be that mediation would be a less confrontational situation and one that hopefully you would resolve well in advance of a threat of strike. In some cases this would be in a situation where a right to strike was not possible, which I also want to get into in relationship to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act legislation that's coming up.
But you're holding 22% more mediation days in 1993-94 over 1992-93, and the office of arbitration expects to complete 8% more assignments over that same period, yet you're cutting the amount of money allocated to Mr Gardner's operation by 15%, while the amount going to arbitration is increasing by 15%. My point is that there appears to be a substantial projected increase in mediation hearings, with a substantial reduction in those costs, and totally the opposite in arbitration.
I can't balance those two competing interests within the ministry to understand how you can justify or accept -- it's not up to you to justify; you get it passed on. Let me be point blank: Do you have concerns about your section's ability to function properly with the dramatic increases of 22% and a 15% cut in your line?
Mr Gardner: No, we don't. It would be nice if we were in a position to not face those reductions in resources. Part of the thing that probably doesn't show up -- in fact it doesn't show up in here -- is that there was a third operation within labour management services called the office of collective bargaining information. Administratively, that operation was absorbed or merged with the office of mediation, which resulted in a significant saving in terms of administrative costs and that type of thing.
Mr Mahoney: How many staff did that eliminate? Do you know?
Mr Gardner: Approximately 15, but that part of it did not have to do with the administrative savings.
Mr Mahoney: So you have a 22% increase in mediation days, and that staff that you lost was not part of your grouping.
Mr Gardner: No.
Mr Mahoney: How many staff, as a result of Bill 48, are you losing, and how are you going to handle the increase in the mediation days with the reduction of that staff?
Mr Gardner: Do you mean with regard to Bill 40?
Mr Mahoney: Bill 48, the social contract.
Mr Gardner: We did not lose any staff with regard to Bill 48. The staff has remained static. We don't believe there will be, in the long run, a significant reduction in terms of negotiations or mediation assistance needed, either direct mediation or preventive mediation in the public sector. Although it slowed down the March period, it is showing a trend for public sector now to pick up and increase -- not increase, but go back to normal.
Mr Mahoney: Did you not lose any staff days as a result of the social contract?
Mr Gardner: No. Do you mean in terms of full-time equivalents? No.
Mr Mahoney: So you were allowed to remain static and to maintain your staffing levels and the hours that they work as opposed to other sectors in the public sector which are being forced to take 12 days off.
Mr Gardner: If you're talking in terms of -- I thought you meant loss of actual staff.
Mr Mahoney: No, I said "staff days." I said, first, "staff" and then, second, "staff days."
Mr Gardner: I'm sorry. We're fully affected by the social contract.
Mr Mahoney: You have an increase in mediation days, yet you're losing staff days, staff time. How are you going to fill this up? Are you going to bring in part-timers? Are you going to work overtime? What are you going to do? Presumably, you're not sitting around. I assume you're busy.
Mr Gardner: Yes, we are. But I would say that we will endeavour to do the best we can with the resources that we have. To date we have not had a great deal of difficulty in meeting our obligations to the clients, and hopefully we can continue to do that.
Mr Mahoney: Okay, thanks.
I want to just ask about the CECBA reform. Maybe to the deputy, do you have any idea of what the increased case load for the Public Service Labour Relations Tribunal and the crown employees Grievance Settlement Board might be because of CECBA? Have you analysed that kind of impact?
Mr Thomas: In terms of the labour relations tribunal, we do not expect that there will be a case load increase because there's an agreement that the matters that would have been adjudicated by the labour relations tribunal, particularly in the area of essential services, will be adjudicated by the OLRB, by the Ontario Labour Relations Board. So the board is taking on the responsibility for administering the provisions of CECBA that normally one would have expected to be handled by the public service labour relations tribunal. Indeed, we see the phasing out of the public service labour relations tribunal over the next couple of years. They will essentially work their way through the existing backlog or the workload of cases that they have.
It's very hard to predict what will happen with the Grievance Settlement Board. On the one hand, having an expanded scope of bargainable issues raises the spectre of them having a higher workload. On the other hand, a large part of the workload of the GSB has resulted from classification grievances and it is my understanding that the social contract negotiations with the Ontario public service included a moratorium on classification grievances. How the details of that will be worked out isn't known at this point, but to the extent that classification grievances become a smaller volume, that will substantially impact the other way on the Grievance Settlement Board's workload.
Mr Mahoney: I guess many of the -- two minutes? How'd I get to 20 minutes so fast?
The Chair: Eighteen minutes ago you started.
Mr Mahoney: I see. I guess we'll get another go-round in here, so I'll save my health and safety questions till later.
The Chair: A couple, if we hurry up.
Mr Mahoney: The right to strike coming into the civil service: Do you anticipate any concerns, particularly in relationship to Bill 48 and the impact in 1996 when it sort of comes off and the right to strike is all of a sudden available under CECBA, could we be facing province-wide strikes in pretty vital sectors?
Mr Thomas: The right to strike will be available to the bargaining unit and lockout to the employer as soon as CECBA is passed. Therefore it is expected that there will be at least a round of bargaining or two under the new CECBA rules during the last two years of the term of this government. So that's expected to be a thing that will happen anyhow.
The problems you've alluded to about what will happen in 1996 when the restrictions on collective bargaining come off is going to be germane to a whole bunch of organizations, not just the Ontario public service, but there will be bargaining happening over the next three years between the government and OPSEU over a variety of non-salary issues, particularly the issues that have come to be bargainable and are not bargainable under current CECBA.
Mr Mahoney: You don't feel that you're facing some pretty severe problems that should be analysed in advance of CECBA? It's primarily around -- I think the minister got it -- the essential services that my concerns lie. How are we going to deal with that? Is there going to have to be further legislation dealing with essential services if we find ourselves in a very difficult position with all of these unions?
Mr Thomas: If there's one issue that's been talked out at length between the Ministry of Labour, Management Board and OPSEU it is the issue of essential services, it is the issue of how you find a balance between giving the bargaining agent a meaningful right to strike on the one hand and, on the other hand, making sure that essential government services continue to happen. People have worked very hard to attempt to achieve that balance through a number of mechanisms within CECBA, including the fact that the parties are to sit down and discuss and negotiate essential services before bargaining and certainly, in any event, before a strike can happen. One of the tests that will be applied if they can't reach an agreement on what is the proper level of essential services is, what will ensure meaningful collective bargaining in a context of wanting to making sure that you also have essential services? I think we have, in the mechanisms within CECBA, some very effective mechanisms, and some of them, I think, will work very, very well to make sure that we're able to provide a level of essential services while at the same time having a meaningful right to strike.
1620
Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Minister, you said that one of your parliamentary assistants has a responsibility for the WCB. What is the mandate of that parliamentary assistant? What is their primary function and role? Could you outline it for us, please?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Just a monitoring of the situation at the board, the complaints that we get, the changes that may or may not deal with some of the problems and generally to be on top of the situation as it develops at the board.
Mr Carr: One of the questions I get in my critic's role for Economic Development and Trade is the whole issue of the unfunded liability. There have been lots of figures bandied about, everything from the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee figures to the present unfunded liability. One of the questions I've got is, what are you going to do with the unfunded liability? What's your plan to deal with it?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: We alone won't make that decision. It's a decision not as yet made. It's one of the things that has been put to the PLMAC, which has a team of top management and top labour people to ascertain whether or not they can come up with two or three main answers to some of our problems: a governance issue, an unfunded liability issue and one or two of the other issues that have been plaguing the board for some time. Once they come in with their recommendations, which is not too far down the road, then we'll have to see the extent that we've got a buy-in and whether we do have an agreement from the joint labour-management group that's agreed to take a look at it.
Mr Carr: I appreciate that they're going to offer you some advice. What do you see being done and what would you like to see done?
You've been minister now three years. The unfunded liability's continued to rise. I remember when I asked the chairman, when he came in, what he planned to do with the unfunded liability. I think his idea was -- he said, "After the first year, we might have an idea of when we might have a plan." Obviously he hasn't come up with much of a plan; neither has the vice-chair.
I guess the real question comes down to what you plan on doing with it, because, as you know, the people who are going to be affected by the unfunded liability, the people who are on the hook for it, are the injured workers. I'd like to ask you what your plans are. Notwithstanding that you might get some good information from some of the other people, what would you like to see done, as the man who's ultimately going to be in charge of dealing with it?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: There's no question in my mind that it's an issue that has to be dealt with. It's probably the main issue raised on the management side of board activities. But I'm not prepared to make any comments until I see what we get back from the PLMAC that's currently looking at it.
Mr Thomas: Could I just add to that?
Mr Carr: Yes, sure.
Mr Thomas: The other aspect of it, besides awaiting the report from the PLMAC, is the fact that there has been an improvement in the rate of growth of the unfunded liability. I think the common parlance is that the unfunded liability is growing at $100 million a month. That was the situation a couple of years ago. At the present time, the unfunded liability is growing at something less than $40 million a month. So the degree of the problem is reducing -- which, by the way, doesn't take away the seriousness of having to confront the problem, but steps have been taken to start to curb the rate of growth of the unfunded liability.
One of the things we would be hoping that the PLMAC would try to confront on a consensus basis between business and labour are ways that we could begin to achieve greater savings at the Workers' Compensation Board.
Mr Carr: Let me ask you this then: Since you have got it down to only $40 million a month now, which of course is still far too high, how have you been able to do it? Is there anything we can learn from the way you've done it? How did we get it down to $40 million then? What is the reason you've been able to do that, in a nutshell? How come you've gone from $100 million to $40 million?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The deputy may have some answers that I don't, but I can tell you that there's been a very rigorous exercise at the board, and questions in the meetings they have with me every month as to the administration and the management costs at the board and there has been an improvement there, so it's an issue that's foremost on the agenda almost every session.
Mr Thomas: There's also been a reduced injury rate.
Mr Carr: As to the cost we're looking at, what percentage is paid out to individuals in the WCB? What percentage of the total cost would the WCB pay out to individuals?
Mr Thomas: Do you mean, what is the part that is not administrative expense?
Mr Carr: Yes.
Mr Thomas: I'll have to get back to you on that.
Mr Carr: It would be fairly small though, I would think, right?
Mr Thomas: Yes.
Mr Carr: In other words, we've got it down to $40 million by cutting out the management costs, but it would appear, not to sound too negative, that you've got a lot of the management costs out of it. Do you see our being able to get it down by having any more management costs taken out? If not, what are some of your other thoughts that need to be done? If management costs are only a small portion of it and you've cut them out now, how do you see us getting the rest, that we need the other $40 million a month at least?
Mr Mahoney: Cut out more jobs.
Mr Thomas: I think one of the most significant issues that presents a win-win potential for business and labour, for government and for the workers' compensation system is trying to find ways to get more workers back to work sooner and in larger numbers. Nothing will improve the health of the workers' compensation system better and faster and be able to do so by way of maybe consensus views from business and labour than trying to find more creative ways, more effective ways to get more injured workers back to work, and get more of them back to work sooner than they currently are getting back to work.
Mr Carr: What are some of the creative and effective ways in which you're going to do that?
Mr Thomas: That is the point on which I need to be very clear, that this is one of the main issues the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee is looking at. I would not want to pre-empt the thinking that's going on in that committee.
Mr Carr: But they need to be creative and effective, right, that is what you're saying?
Mr Thomas: Yes.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Rehabilitation and return to work have been clearly outlined to us as two of the major effective cost savings, and two of the answers or partial answers to the problem of the underfunding as well.
Mr Carr: Let's look at the other issue, the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee. One of the concerns is that it's dominated by some of the large industries -- you know the statistics; it's the small employers that are in fact creating the jobs -- and that we are going to go to a uniform assessment rate and that the ones that are going to be affected would be some of the smaller companies. This is a question I guess to the minister: Is the board right now examining a uniform assessment rate proposal?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The assessment rates are being examined currently and we've kept a control on them over the last couple of years. The makeup of the PLMAC: At the moment we don't have an awful lot of control over that. When we put together a list of the most serious and common complaints, and whether or not there was something we could do about it -- there has long been a call for a royal commission as well at the board -- we sat down with both the representatives of the Premier's Council of labour and management and simply talked to them and discussed, and asked them if they would take on the job, which is fairly daunting, of coming up with some positive recommendations.
I didn't want to proceed to the royal commission route unless we had tried to see whether in working together, management and labour could resolve some of the problems that were there.
I must confess that I was a little bit surprised that when we made the proposition to them, both sides, after discussing it, went away and discussed it themselves for a couple of weeks, came back and said they were willing to undertake it. But as I say, we don't appoint, at least I don't appoint the people who sit on the Premier's Council, and it's right; the people who are on the committee are largely pretty senior executive members, as they are from the union side.
1630
Mr Carr: Since you, Minister, are going to be the one who ultimately has the final decision, what are your thoughts on the uniform assessment rate? Do you think there's any capacity to increase the rate any more on employers in the province of Ontario?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think any increase in rates, and that's one of the things the board has been dealing with, has got to be looked at very, very carefully, because you do have a concern as to what additional costs can be borne. I think there is probably some adjustment. That's one of the reasons they've been looking at the various classifications and categories that are going to have to be looked at seriously. They may be able to standardize some of the rates a little bit, and some of the classifications, in the deal.
Mr Thomas: It's my understanding, Mr Carr, that the board of directors of the Workers' Compensation Board has put forward a proposal -- it's out for consultation -- on the assessment rate issue. I think no one is more aware of the difficulties of increasing the assessment rates than the Workers' Compensation Board itself. It's looking at transition measures, including establishing a standard 1994 actual assessment rate for each rate group, and exploring appropriate rate change limits during the consultations; in other words, what are the maximum limits that you could allow to increase by in order to give some cap and some comfort to employers as you move to a different assessment rate system.
I could also add that the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee -- again, no one is more aware than the five CEOs of large companies who are on the PLMAC of the fact that they do not represent, among them, small business. They have gone through a number of initiatives. They've introduced a number of initiatives, including a committee that steers the process from the business side, which consists of 17 or 20 people representing all sizes and shapes of businesses and associations.
They have something in the order of 14 working groups looking at different issues that are part of the PLMAC process and they've held at least two meetings with large numbers of people showing up -- by large numbers, I mean over 100 employers and employer associations showing up -- to keep them informed of the progress that is being made and the issues that are being talked about at the PLMAC table.
Mr Carr: If I get this straight, we're looking at a shortfall of about $40 million per month. Are some of the assessments you've been looking at going to get us that number that we need or are we falling short? Obviously, that's what we need just to stem the tide. Is that what you're looking at doing, finding $40 million a month in increased assessments to make up the unfunded liability? How close are we to making that? You said there's been some discussion. You looked at some of the rates and so on. What will we have to do with the rates to get that $40 million that we need?
Mr Thomas: That isn't what I said. You would have to increase the assessment rates quite substantially to use assessment rates as the only way of stopping the growth in the unfunded liability. Increasing the assessment rates and reducing benefit levels are not at the top of the list that the PLMAC members are looking at. They're looking at ways of getting people back to work faster and things like that, which present savings that are win-win propositions for both sides. If I left you with the impression that the way to solve the unfunded liability is to increase the assessment rates, I want to correct that impression. It can't come from that kind of activity, because the amount of the assessment rate increase would be very large. It would be too big.
Mr Carr: You've got to do it some way. Either it comes out of, as you say, getting people back to work quicker and so on, or through assessments. I guess this question is to the minister. Percentage-wise, how would you like to see it, an increase to make up 10% of that, with 90% through better case management? How would you like to see the percentage break down?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: That's one of the major concerns, because when we pulled together the business and labour communities, they had slightly different priorities, although both sides agreed finally to look at each other's concerns there. I would find it difficult to make that kind of an assessment. The main concern is rehab and return to work rather than an increase in the assessments. The board itself has resisted that over the last two or three years. I think other suggestions have been thrown into the hopper, but at the moment, I want to hear what the recommendation is back from the PLMAC committee, which I think will be back within the next month or so, before I would give any preference at all.
Mr Carr: You said also, I think, to quote you, that any look at assessment would have to be done "carefully" is your word, and I wonder if the minister could provide any cost-benefit studies the board may have conducted on the introduction of some of the uniform assessment rates. Have any of those studies been done, and if not, why not?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'd have to get an answer back from the board on that.
Mr Carr: But surely that would be the logical thing to look at doing. You haven't asked that question of the ministry already: What would be the cost-benefit studies if we went to a uniform assessment rate? That hasn't come up in your discussions with the ministry? You haven't asked for that already?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have found that the board reports have been fairly inclusive and that they have looked at a lot of things. They've looked at extending coverage. They've looked, as I say, at a number of different processes, but they haven't settled on any of them. Some of it I think was their own uncertainty as to just what they'd get away with in terms of dealing with the current economic situation out there, and that's one of the reasons why we made the effort to pull together the Premier's committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Carr. We'll be continuing in rotation and be back to you in a moment. Mr Cooper, you have a question, I can tell.
Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have several. We will try and work through the book here.
The Chair: What page are you on?
Mr Cooper: Page 26, on the audits. It says, "Initiatives: perform comprehensive audits, information systems audits and statutory audits within the ministry and its agencies (excluding the Workers' Compensation Board)." Why is the Workers' Compensation Board excluded?
Mr Thomas: The Workers' Compensation Board has its own audit function, and I believe the Workers' Compensation Board is also subject to its audit mechanisms being reviewed by the Provincial Auditor.
Mr Cooper: Then that's brought to the ministry?
Mr Thomas: Yes.
Mr Mahoney: And rejected.
Mr Cooper: And rejected. Annually?
Mr Thomas: My recollection is that the recommendations in the most recent report of the Provincial Auditor that dealt with the WCB head office were completely accepted and the Ministry of Labour is in the process of implementing them.
Mr Cooper: The next one is, I know that a number of members are receiving phone calls in their office about the Transitions program. One of the problems there is that there's concern that people aren't being trained for jobs that are available or they're being trained for jobs that aren't suitable to them. Are there any initiatives there to find appropriate jobs for people going through the Transitions program?
Mr Thomas: The Transitions program has recently been transferred to the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, but let me just make a few comments about that. You're right, there have been concerns about the Transitions program, which is a program that provides funding to people who wish to be retrained and provides tuition and other fees to them, to a ceiling, to a maximum.
One of the concerns that was expressed by a number of people was that the people who were applying for Transitions didn't necessarily end up with a program that best suited their needs, so what has recently been implemented into the Transitions program is a counselling mechanism, a review mechanism, that allows them to sit down with a counsellor as part of the Transitions process and discuss the kinds of training and the kinds of course work that would be most appropriate for them.
We think that will allow us to run a much more effective Transitions program in which the courses that people end up taking are the ones that are best suited for them. Up until we made that change, there wasn't an obligation on people signing up for Transitions to go through that kind of counselling. Some of them did; some of them didn't. We think this will make sure that everyone taking the Transitions program will have counselling that will make sure they're getting the most appropriate courses for them.
1640
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The counselling, I think, is an essential part of any of the training programs. We generally have run into the problem of just exactly what we should and can retrain people for. Some of the conventional training programs are not likely to be around in the numbers that they have been in the past. It's also one of the reasons why the total authority of the Transitions program was transferred to OTAB.
Mr Cooper: At our last meeting you were saying that under the expenditure control program, money would be cut back on research to the health and safety agency and that we might lose some programs. It's my understanding that there are a number of places that are doing research on their own. I did a tour of the University of Waterloo and was talking to the president there. He said in the kinesiology department they were doing repetitive strain injuries, and there was no funding coming from the government on that.
So is it quite possible that there won't be research lost, that there are other people working on some of the same things, like occupational disease, and that we won't be losing a lot of the research because of our cutbacks, that we'll just have to go and find out who else is duplicating what we're doing?
Mr Thomas: No, no. The fact that the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, as part of its expenditure control plan, was asked by the ministry and agreed to essentially cut out the money that we were transferring to it to be used for research does not mean that research in health and safety in the province of Ontario has ground to a halt. I think some institutions that were receiving grants -- I think the total is about $3 million that has been cut out -- have written to the agency and to the minister, pleading a case to be reactivated.
Certainly the agency and the minister are looking at whether anything can be done over the long term to accommodate them, but the fact remains that there's still an awful lot of health and safety research going on in the province of Ontario. Whether it be health and safety research that's conducted within the Ministry of Labour, the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety in Hamilton or the academic institutions that have industrial safety courses, there's still a lot of health and safety research going on. We would like to see, though, if there are some ways to reactivate some of the grants over the long term that we had to cut out because of expenditure control.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm in the process of talking to the people from both the University of Toronto and McMaster about their grants. When the programs were initially set up, they were set up also on the basis that they were to find alternative funding. They understand that, but where we can take a look at it and have the agency or one of the other ministries take a look at it, we're doing that. But I think there's a clear understanding that it wasn't an ongoing guarantee.
Mr Cooper: I believe my colleague Mr Wiseman has a question.
Mr Wiseman: I'd like to talk about the unfunded liability. Could you describe for me the method by which it was calculated and what the parameters are in terms of the projected percentage increase?
Mr Thomas: The unfunded liability essentially arises out of the fact that there are some thousands of people who are on permanent disability pensions and will be entitled to money during the course of their lives, and there is not enough money in the asset pool to cover off all the potential liability that exists there. It's my recollection that the total liability for workers' compensation is around $17 billion and the amount that is covered by assets is something in the $6-billion range. So there's an $11-billion shortfall, if you will, or amount by which assets are less than the liabilities.
The unfunded liability, I think, has been calculated using standard parameters around CPI and salary rate per cent increases. I don't have those numbers at my fingertips. If you'd like, I could undertake to get the parameters under which it was calculated, but I think it was using standard actuarial data.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Once again, these figures are not exact, but they're close. When one of the previous governments undertook the first effort to deal with the unfunded liability in the province, there was about 32% of the bill covered. That improved, when they set the target also of 2014 to deal with the unfunded liability, to somewhere around 36% or 38%. It's dropped very slightly during the last couple of years of tough economic times again, but it's essentially still somewhat above the 32% that they started with.
Mr Wiseman: How much of the payout from the WCB is done on the basis of income from employers and employees, what percentage yearly payout and what percentage is made up of -- would it be made up of interest from the assets or would it be just the --
Mr Thomas: At the present time, in terms of a cash-flow situation, the revenue and expenditure picture is such that the board has to use most of its income from investments plus the revenue that it gets from employers to balance the books, if you will, to have enough to pay current in-year obligations. The total amount that gets spent every year is in the order of $3 billion, so there's about $2.6 billion that comes in from revenue from employers and about $400 million that comes from accident fund investment income. That balances about the $3 billion that gets spent on benefits and administration, and all the costs of the Workers' Compensation Board.
The Chair: I'd like to move to Ms Haeck, if I could.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'd like to move to a whole other topic. Obviously, workers' compensation is one we hear a lot about in our offices as well, but I wanted to deal with an issue that is somewhat local, and I'd like to turn to page 99. I'm referring to the fatal accident that happened on the Garden City Skyway, which sort of brings to mind some occupational health and safety issues.
I was looking through there and noticed that there was a pretty major change between 1991 and then 1992 in the number of investigations, and again, that the change between 1992 and 1993, estimated, appears to be somewhat more than, say, the previous two years, 1990 and 1991.
I would be interested in hearing, in light of that sort of local incident, what would lead you to believe that there would be this sort of need for increased investigations, and why the increased investigations for the previous two years.
Mr Thomas: First of all, the increase in investigations for 1993-94 is not as high percentage-wise as it was, for example, between 1991-92 and 1992-93.
Ms Haeck: Right.
Mr Thomas: One explanation for that, probably the biggest one, is the fact that there has been a reduced level of business activity in general in the province. My sense is that the estimate of 11,700-some-odd is a reasonably accurate estimate of what we think we'll be able to accomplish this year.
I should say that one of the things we're asking in our strategic planning exercise is the extent to which we are most effective doing investigations and inspections versus other ways of making sure that the workplaces are healthier and safer around education and training, and being more helpful to the workplace parties than simply going out there and doing inspections and investigations. The health and safety inspector right now is doing both, is out there providing education and support to the workplace parties as it is doing investigations and inspections.
Ms Haeck: There seems to be quite a dropoff in the prosecutions, which is on the next page, and you foresee that there would even be a lowering of prosecutions. Is it again, as you indicated earlier, sort of a general downturn in the economy, the number of cases that sort of come before you, and then the compliance as a result sees that kind of -- it's quite a major change from 1990-91 to see that major dropoff.
1650
Mr Thomas: Yes, I think that's a different explanation. The reason the prosecutions have dropped substantially is the fact that the Ministry of Labour has been targeting, in the last couple of years, the more serious health and safety offences and has been trying to limit its prosecution activity to the types of workplace practices that are most in need of sanctions of the kind you get through prosecutions.
We have been successful in securing some fairly substantial fines against a number of companies, in the order of a half-million dollars or more, and those have come at the price of volume. In other words, we've been focusing more on the quality of the prosecution rather than trying to get a large number. We've been advertising through news releases those situations where we have been able to secure prosecutions as a deterrent to others and as a lesson to others and to point out that we're serious about making sure that we do prosecute these kinds of very serious accidents that could be prevented.
The result is, though, that those are the more difficult ones, the more complicated ones. They take up a great deal more time both for the inspectorate and for the lawyers within the Ministry of Labour who prosecute them. I think that explains the reason why there's been such a substantial drop in the number of prosecutions over the last couple of years.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: In fact, the higher profile and the higher fines, one of the things we went after, seem to be having an effect. Whether it's the communication out there in the field or not, I don't know, but the early prospects seem to be encouraging with the new approach. It's one of the things we found we simply had to do, because once we toughened up the legislation a bit, we were finding that we just had a tougher team of lawyers to deal with on the part of some of the companies.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Haeck. I'd like to move back to Mr Mahoney.
Mr Mahoney: Moving back to the workers' comp situation, Mr Deputy, you made a comment -- I don't want to quote you exactly, but the inference was that workers' comp is in the process of implementing all the recommendations in the Provincial Auditor's report. If I didn't understand you to say that, I'd like to be corrected. Is that basically what you said?
Mr Thomas: My recollection, Mr Mahoney, is that the Provincial Auditor's report had three major areas of concern. There were a number of recommendations, but they were lumped under three headings. What I can say to you is that the Ministry of Labour and the Workers' Compensation Board are working very closely together to develop a memorandum of understanding that would update the one that currently exists and has not been updated since, I guess, the early 1980s.
The intent of that memorandum of understanding is to capture, among other things, the concerns the auditor raised around adhering to the spirit of the sections of the Workers' Compensation Act that the auditor made reference to, including section 64. The Workers' Compensation Board, according to my discussions with it, is working on putting in place the kinds of conflict-of-interest guidelines that the Provincial Auditor thought should be in place. I believe they're in the process of putting together the responses that the auditor requested with respect to the value-for-money issues around the decision to build a building that was made back in 1990 or so.
Mr Mahoney: In essence, are you telling me that the board concurs that they did indeed violate the act in going ahead with the decision on the building without the approval of cabinet?
Mr Thomas: No, I'm saying to you that the board and the Ministry of Labour are working together to try to make sure we implement the recommendations of the auditor's report.
Mr Mahoney: Okay. I'm not trying to cross-examine you; I'm trying to understand. The auditor filed a report, and exception was taken to it by Brian King. He in fact, in another committee that I was present at, said he did not agree with many of the things in the auditor's report. At one time he even referred to it as rhetoric. The issue around the broken rules or allegedly broken rules has to do with the term "acquisition for their own use." As I recall, the section basically said they required cabinet approval if they were going to acquire real property for their own use. They've sort of got around that. I guess the board decision was, "Well, we're only leasing it." Even though they are a joint partner in the deal, they are also a tenant. The auditor clearly felt that the rules at best were skirted, if not broken. Mr King strongly and publicly disagreed with the Provincial Auditor and said so.
We now have a letter on record from the Provincial Auditor taking exception to the remarks made by Mr King in those committee hearings. That issue I believe was raised in the Legislature last week, and we're awaiting the specifics of the Provincial Auditor as to where his concerns lie, because he's waiting for the final copy of Hansard to come out. But we're expecting a letter from the auditor expressing his dissatisfaction with Mr King's comments.
I perhaps somewhat flippantly said that the auditor's report was rejected, which led to your comment that the auditor's recommendations were being implemented. I just don't see that happening. In fact, if anything, I see the auditor's recommendations for some kind of an investigation into the decision on the building -- notwithstanding the fact that the building's going ahead. I think everybody knows that. The contracts have been let and the deal has been signed. My remarks to Mr King, in the hearings we had in the summer, were that hopefully we could avoid this kind of bad decision being made -- or decision, good or bad, being made -- in violation of rules that are laid down very specifically with a requirement for cabinet approval for acquisition.
How they can hide behind the fact that they're the main tenant and therefore they're not acquiring it for their personal use, and yet they are a joint venture partner along with Cadillac Fairview and the Toronto-Dominion Bank in the project, is absolutely beyond me. Mr Di Santo could not answer that question at committee and Mr King could not answer that question. In fact, I won't put words in Mr King's mouth, but he certainly left me with the impression that he had some sympathy for that position.
But there's very clearly not what I would call an atmosphere of cooperation between the Provincial Auditor and the Workers' Compensation Board. There may well be with the Ministry of Labour, but there clearly is not one between the Workers' Compensation Board and the auditor, and I don't see it accepting the auditor's recommendations at all. If that were the case, I think we'd be heading into a hearing or at least an all-party committee to look at how that decision was arrived at.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Also, I think some of the recommendations of the auditor were so that we would not again run into the kind of situation we've had here. We are, and the board is, trying to comply with most of the recommendations the auditor made. I'm not going to speak for either of the two, the current management team or the previous management team at the board, but I do know that the very first briefing I had when I walked into the Ministry of Labour's office was with some of the previous board members, who indicated that this issue had been discussed and that they had legal opinions, I think three of them, as to the accuracy of the move they were making. I think probably from Mr King's point of view it's an accurate statement as well. They might have looked at another approach, but the feeling certainly was that it was going to cost us plenty to get out of the arrangements that had already been made and that they did have a legal opinion on it. That's the best answer I can give you.
Mr Thomas: I think it's important to distinguish between the recommendations that came out of the auditor's report and the auditor's findings that gave rise to those recommendations. Maybe I should have been more precise. What I'm saying to you is that the Ministry of Labour has every intention of complying with the recommendations of the auditor's report as they pertain to the Ministry of Labour, and it's my understanding that the Workers' Compensation Board has every intent of complying with the recommendations in the auditor's report.
1700
The recommendations deal with such things as: The board is required to justify to the Minister of Labour why the decision it took in 1990 was a good decision, and it is working on that. It was asked to implement conflict-of-interest guidelines that deal with making sure we keep decisions around the accident fund separate from decisions around administrative matters. The board is required to report back, I've forgotten the year, but in a couple of years on the results of the construction and some indication of whether or not this was good value for money. Again, I'm paraphrasing; I don't have the report in front of me.
Mr Mahoney: Nor do I.
Mr Thomas: And we were asked to put together an MOU with the board.
Those were the four things that stand out in my mind as being recommendations that the auditor made. The WCB, in its response contained in the auditor's report, and the Ministry of Labour, in its response, have agreed that the WCB will do those things that are recommended by the auditor. Now, that is different from points of view that may or may not have come out around whether everyone agrees completely with all of the findings the auditor used to come up with the recommendations he came up with.
Mr Mahoney: I think one of the areas the auditor is particularly upset at was the statement, and it's in Hansard, by Mr King wherein he said that he asked the auditor for his legal opinion and was refused that legal opinion. The fact is that the auditor is prohibited from sharing working notes on decisions he arrives at; he's prohibited by legislation. He cannot even share those working notes with members of the Legislature.
Secondly, Mr King did not at all ask the auditor for a copy of his legal opinion, which ran contrary, according to the auditor's report, to the legal opinions that were obtained by the board. He had some staff person request it, at which time that staff person was informed that, by law, the auditor is not allowed to share such information.
It's hard for either you, Deputy, or the minister, I suppose -- harder for the deputy than it is for the minister. Perhaps it should be the minister's responsibility to answer for statements like that made by Mr King. But I find that when there's a difficulty answering a question about workers' comp, it quickly becomes an arm's-length agency. When there's an easy answer available, they almost become part of the Ministry of Labour.
Mr Thomas: No, but you've given more specifics around what you think the auditor is concerned about than anything we've heard.
Mr Mahoney: Well, King heard it.
Mr Thomas: The auditor has not given specifics, and has undertaken to do so, as you point out, when he gets the final version of Hansard, as to what it is that bothered him about Mr King's testimony. I assume that matters will unfold after that happens. I don't know that the legal opinions or whatever are the issues that are of concern to the auditor.
Mr Mahoney: Not to be overly argumentative with you in your role as the deputy, but I interpreted your comments that the Workers' Compensation Board was complying with the recommendations of the auditor; quite frankly, I find that not to be the case. The minister used the words "most of the recommendations." That may be an acceptable statement. But they are clearly in some kind of battle with the Provincial Auditor, whether it's over interpretation or wording or recommendations; I don't think that has been pointed out yet. The auditor has other concerns. That is only one area where those concerns exist in relationship to -- and I went back and researched Hansard because much of this was as a result of my questioning in the committee to Mr King and Mr Di Santo around the building.
My point, which I think Mr King agreed with, was that if there is a requirement for the board to get cabinet approval, then it should darn well go and get it, regardless of which government's in power. They should not be allowed to be cute and use the fact that they're a tenant when they're a joint-venture partner in the deal, on the other hand. They should not be allowed to be cute and avoid -- and I dare say I don't understand why they would try to go around the legislation. Hopefully, whether they're arm's-length or not at any given time, they recognize that their political master is the government of the day and that legislation can be adjusted or changed or brought in to hammer that point home, if need be.
I just make the point, not to belabour it, that I don't think they're complying at all with the Provincial Auditor's recommendations in his report or we would be in some kind of hearing mode on how that building was approved without the Minister of Labour's approval, without the cabinet's approval.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Let me make it very clear to you, Mr Mahoney, that I'm not speaking for the board --
Mr Mahoney: They're arm's length now.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: It's not a question of being arm's length; they've reported back to us.
You know, I don't claim to be perfect either. I was satisfied at the very first meeting. I sat down with Mr Elgie and -- I forget his name now, the chair of the board -- got the recommendations. They were repeated at following meetings. If I were doing it over again, I'd do it a little differently. But I think they are following most of the recommendations that were in the report and that we probably would not have a similar situation again.
Mr Mahoney: I appreciate your candour on that. If that candour had been forthcoming from either Mr Di Santo or Mr King -- even though Mr King wasn't here at the time and Mr Di Santo was simply a board member and not the chair at the time those calls were made. There's always a great deal to be gained, in my view, by a few mea culpas and admitting that there indeed would be -- in fact, I asked that specific question, "Would you do it differently if you were doing it again today?" and their answer was no, they'd do the same darn thing. I just find that unacceptable. When the auditor's letter arrives detailing what, in addition to the point I've raised, his concerns are in relation to Mr King, I can assure you it's going to be raised in a very real sense.
I had hoped to get off workers' comp, but some of the questions are so important that I'll have to, if there's time, come to the health and safety issues in a moment. As I see it, there are four ways of dealing with the board's unfunded liability. The government has to give some direction. It's fine to tell the board to come in, but the government clearly is going to have to buy into some of these new ideas or changes. You, Minister, referred to some increasing in benefits that they've looked at; I know they've looked at stress in the workplace as a possible new category.
As I see it, there are four ways of dealing with it. One is reducing benefits to the injured workers, reducing the percentage that the injured workers would receive. The other you say is happening, and that is reducing injuries. I'd be curious as to whether or not that's as a result of the downturn in the economy and the downturn in jobs that would then lead to a downturn in people applying for workers' comp benefits simply because there's a smaller workforce out there. The other is to reduce the number of jobs in the province, not that anyone would want to do that consciously, but that will have an impact, without a doubt. The fourth one is rate increases.
Mr Carr raised the spectre of substantial rate increases coming in. It's a spectre, I can tell you, Minister, that not only big business, although it may be able to handle it with a little more ease, but small business particularly is deathly afraid that this is going to happen. I believe there is a rate increase computer proposal that's been put on hold for the time being. The rumour is that the impact was so shocking that the board didn't feel it could come out with it, given the timing that exists with the economy. I guess they're hoping for some magical turnaround in the economy, so then they can whack some kind of major rate increase.
In fact, I refer to it more as a market value adjustment, in the sense that it's going to take some businesses that are currently paying x and increase them by a certain percentage, and take others that are paying y and decrease them. There'll be the old market value assessment debate that's gone on recently in Metro that will perhaps deflect it and create some supporters for the proposal because they're going to get reduced rates, but it's potentially going to decimate other people who are going to be facing massive increases.
1710
I don't know which way you want to go. I guess my questions would be, how do you feel about reduced benefits, can you tell me if the reduced injuries are a result of the economy or is there some report that shows huge increases to certain sectors and rates, and what are those sectors?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Before I give any response, you said there were four main approaches. I took down reducing benefits, reducing injuries and rate increases. Did I miss one?
Mr Mahoney: Reducing jobs was the fourth one, which I said was unacceptable, I'm sure, to all parties involved, but it may be a function that's out of your control.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't think I would tell you that any of them were absolutely out of the picture, but I don't think we're anywhere near a decision as yet. I personally have difficulty on reducing benefits, in most cases. We've got a specific case of older workers' pensions where probably the biggest single complaint we have is that older workers who are on a fixed pension have them based on the old salary levels and can come nowhere near meeting a living wage situation. They could be affected by such a move.
Reducing injuries: We're not, we feel, at the top of that as yet. As you know, there's a very extensive program going on in terms of the health and safety committees, one person from both sides in the plants, and the certification process going on. We think that will have some effect. We see the increased awareness of health and safety committees and joint committees as having some effect. I think, however, that a good chunk of what's happening so far is also the downturn in the economy, and I think anybody who didn't accept that just wouldn't be facing reality.
Rate increases are going to be difficult, but there are some adjustments that undoubtedly need to be made, and that's one of the reasons why they've realigned the various categories that people are in. In some cases there are some that are low and in some cases the companies themselves admit it and there are some where they're high, and there will be probably room for some adjustments on it.
Reducing jobs, to the extent that we've got any control over it, has never been an option of mine.
Mr Thomas: Could I add to that that I think there's at least one way that is not on your list, and I think I made some reference to that, and that is reducing the duration time so that people get back to work more quickly and in larger numbers. That's certainly one of the areas where I think there's some opportunity for improvement. Some of the articles and literature indicate that that has more potential for saving money than many other activities, so I just thought I'd raise that with you. Also the fact that reducing administrative costs, making sure that you've got a program that minimizes fraud, those are the kinds of things that I think also can contribute to reducing the unfunded liability.
Mr Mahoney: Have you, Minister, taken a position on the issue of universal disability?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think our hope was that if the PLMAC could come up with some answers to the other difficult questions, that might more appropriately be the topic of a broader discussion.
Mr Mahoney: But you're personally not at a position where you're prepared to say your feelings in support or --
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I find the prospect interesting, but I'm not prepared to buy it until --
Mr Mahoney: Maybe the deputy would know this. Have there been studies done in relationship to the -- let me put this another way. I think the attempts to take credit for reduced injuries, if they're legitimate, I'd like to see the stats through the program, or have there been any studies done that would say that out of the reduced injuries a substantial percentage or any percentage is related to the economy and to areas that are not directly controlled by workers' compensation, as opposed to better rehab or to health and safety, better training on the job site, committees etc?
Mr Thomas: I don't know the answer to that. I think it's a very good question. Could I get back to you? Could I get back to the committee on that, Mr Mahoney?
Mr Mahoney: Okay.
In relation to health and safety operations, I understand the ministry plans to cut funding to the operations branch of health and safety by 18%. I just wonder if there have been any estimates on workplace injuries and employment standards violation because of the reduced funding to this branch. You're also reducing the policy and regulations budget by 31% or $1.2 million. So we've got a reduction in policy and regs, we've got a reduction in operations, and yet we're talking about reducing injury on the job as a result of better work in health and safety. How do we relate sort of the slash-and-burn mentality on one side of the process with the statement that there's production in the sense of reduced injury on the other?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The deputy may answer this as well, but I'm not sure that I would accept the slash-and-burn. I know the consultation that's gone on throughout the ministry, both with the bargaining unit people, management people, and our senior staff in terms of where we can effectively improve our record and situation and what's going to have the least effect on us in terms of the cuts. I have no option in terms of the programs that we've entered into and the process we've entered into in cutting a substantial amount of money out of the Ministry of Labour budget.
The question is, how effectively can we do it without hurting services? That entered into things like employment standards. We took a look at whether or not we could maintain what has been improvement in the time frame it's taken to deal with those cases. Those kinds of discussions and decisions very much went into the decisions we've made in terms of cutting. I think it's been a positive effort at reducing costs and not a slash-and-burn. Forgive me for just taking some exception to that.
Mr Mahoney: I don't mind at all.
Workers' compensation, though, clearly is part of our social safety net in this province, regardless of how it's paid for. Mr Di Santo tried to imply that there were no tax dollars in the building, for example, which is absolutely ridiculous because the people who fund workers' comp are taxpayers. The health and safety issues clearly relate to the workers' compensation. So what we have here is a branch making more investigations than in previous years. Inspections are up by 9%, investigations by 6.6%, and they're expected to increase in 1993-94 as well. And yet, as one example, there are substantially fewer compliance orders being issued.
I'm just concerned. When you do cut a social program -- and I accept the fact that you have no choice as the Minister of Labour. This is being dictated to you under the cuts by the government and you have to comply. But we need to keep a handle on what the impact is. So if you cut health care in the province, what is the impact of those cuts? We heard questions about the bone marrow transplants and the impact of that, and we're hearing other problems from hospitals in cutting down beds and cutting back nurse-intensive services etc. So the same thing applies here.
How can we determine? If there are more investigations and more inspections and fewer compliance orders, are they overlooking problems? Is morale so low in the ministry that they're just ignoring problems or saying: "To heck with you. You're going to lay me off 12 days. I'm not going to bother issuing a compliance order"? Is there a real fallout that has occurred from the cuts? Whether you call it slash-and-burn or whether you call it government-directed reductions, there is clearly a reduction. Go through this book, Minister, and all over the place there are substantial reductions.
We in opposition can't call for you to cut the size of government on the one hand and then, "Don't cut here," and "Don't cut there." My point is, what is the impact? Are we measuring it? Are we quantifying it? Do we have a lot of unhappy people in the inspection section? And are we ultimately going to lead to greater problems in health and safety, and therefore greater problems in workers' compensation, which means an even greater unfunded liability? I don't mean to extrapolate beyond being reasonable, but I think that's a pattern that could develop.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The deputy will probably, because he's been in on some of the negotiations and discussions with the staff, respond as well, but let me tell you clearly that I don't think any staff is happy when there is the potential of reductions and when their job may be one of the jobs that could be on the line. But by the same token, I want to tell you that I don't think I have seen a more thorough and, as far as I'm concerned, a more professional effort than has been done by the senior people in the ministry. Some of it may be their backgrounds and the ministry they're involved with, I don't know, but as far as I'm concerned, there has been a real involvement in terms of the bargaining unit people.
1720
There has certainly been real involvement -- I've been part of it -- with the management group at the ministry, and I think the decisions that are being made are being recognized as those that take into account some of the concerns you've raised, that people are concerned about their jobs and they also have a responsibility and are still accepting the responsibility to get the job done, whether it's employment standards or health and safety. I have been quite pleased with the efforts that have been made in the ministry not only to keep people on side but to make sure we're doing the most effective job of managing the cuts that we have to make.
Mr Thomas: Could I add to that? I don't think it's possible to go through a downsizing of an organization and not have problems in terms of keeping people turned on to their jobs, morale problems and the like, so I'm not going to sit here and say that we have an absolutely 100% well-motivated workforce, having just gone through a downsizing of some 208 jobs, 113 permanent jobs, of people whom we are trying to redeploy and find other jobs for.
What I can say to you is that this ministry has worked extraordinarily hard over the last couple of years to try to build a culture within the ministry that deals with results and that is based on respect and trying to make sure we treat the human resources within the ministry seriously and that we also treat the customer service issue seriously. So when we went through the expenditure reduction in April -- and I don't have the figures that would line up exactly with the ones that are in the book, because I've got mine broken down by what happened when we implemented the expenditure control plan in the first year of the multi-year expenditure reduction plan.
What I can say to you is that we cut direct service by only 7%, we cut program administration and program support by 21.3% and we cut transfer payments by 16%. You're right, we didn't go out and ask for the numbers, but having been given a target of $35 million to hit, we did it in a way that maximized customer service and minimized the impact on the front-line staff.
I would characterize it as anything but slash-and-burn. We put in place a redeployment process, a committee structure, a joint structure with OPSEU. We've worked very hard to place people, we've put in place a number of training programs for managers, we've put in place training programs for people who want to be redeployed into some other kind of job. We've been successful in placing all but 50 of the 113 of the people who were given surplus notices back in April, and we're working very hard to minimize that number.
So I'm not suggesting that we have a totally motivated workforce, but I do think that we are doing everything you would want a ministry to do in terms of finding ways to manage as effectively as it can through these difficult times.
The Chair: Mr Mahoney, you're at the end of your cycle. One final comment.
Mr Mahoney: The real issue that I raised, with due respect, wasn't answered by either one of you, and that is the issue of the fallout and the potential fallout from the cuts. What is the actual impact on this social service known as workers' compensation through the reductions -- you call them what you will, and I respect that -- of 18% in the health and safety division? How will they pay for this, when they have increased activity in the area of inspections etc? My question is, are we carefully analysing this as to whether or not the cuts will lead in the end to increased costs in workers' compensation as a result of the cuts in health and safety and therefore an increased cost in the unfunded liability? That was really my question. I could have been more succinct, but that's the issue I'm concerned with.
The Chair: I thank you very much, Mr Mahoney. Mr Carr.
Mr Mahoney: Obviously the Chairman isn't.
The Chair: No, I thought it was excellent. I just --
Mr Mahoney: He wanted to answer.
Mr Thomas: The answer is yes.
The Chair: I thought it was excellent. The deputy wanted to comment again, but I would like to move to the Conservative caucus.
Mr Carr: Thank you very much. I'll ask a couple of questions and then turn it over to Ted.
I want to get back to the studies conducted on the introduction of uniform assessment. I want to be clear with the minister. While I understand you don't have any of the studies with you, I gather that you don't know whether a study has been done. I find it strange that we've got a minister, a deputy minister and quite a few of the staff here and we can't get a simple answer, yes or no, whether a study has been done. I'm not asking for the studies today. You said you'd get into it, but my question is, has any study been done, and if not, how come? Nobody within the ministry who's here, which is the most senior official, can tell me if one has been done.
Mr Thomas: What sort of study are you talking about?
Mr Carr: The studies I talked about earlier, conducted on the introduction of uniform assessment, any cost-benefit studies conducted on the introduction of the uniform assessment rate. Remember, in my questioning earlier, the minister said, "I don't know; I'll have to get back to you," and I took it from this that he didn't know. My question is, does the deputy know about any studies? Is there anybody else? Maybe they could come forward and let us know, since the minister doesn't know if there have been any studies done.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: There's been extensive discussion on the classification groupings at the board. That I know. Whether you call that a study in itself or not, I'm not sure.
Mr Carr: Okay, so a study's been done then and you're going to get it to us?
Mr Thomas: I don't know if there's been a cost-benefit analysis because I don't know that this is a cost-benefit analysis issue. We're talking about whether it is appropriate for the Workers' Compensation Board to move to a different assessment system and one that would be --
Mr Carr: Surely anything that you've looked at, you've done some studies on, and you've told me you looked at it. There must be some studies you're prepared to bring forward to this committee on what you've done. That's all I'm asking.
Mr Thomas: The fact of the matter is that we would not do the studies anyhow.
Mr Carr: So the ministry hasn't seen any? None has come forward to you at all as deputy, or to anybody else within the ministry? You haven't seen them?
Mr Thomas: I have not received a cost-benefit analysis of the assessment rates issue.
Mr Carr: Has anybody in the ministry received them?
Mr Thomas: I'll have to get back to you. I don't know the answer to that.
Mr Carr: Have you asked for them from the WCB?
Mr Thomas: No.
Mr Carr: If not, why not?
Mr Thomas: First of all, we would only ask for the study if we thought there was a particular problem with the plan that was being implemented by the Workers' Compensation Board. Secondly, it is the kind of activity, the setting of assessment rates, that would seem to me to be central to the mandate of the Workers' Compensation Board. There is no group that has more expertise to deal with the appropriate levels of assessment rates than people at the Workers' Compensation Board.
Mr Carr: Let me ask you from another standpoint then, because the impact is going to affect businesses, and the WCB may look at it from simply the $40 million unfunded liability. I'll ask this to the minister: Has the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade given you, as a minister, any advice on what should happen with regard to the assessment rates? Have they talked to you or spoken to you about the assessment rates, because they are obviously the ones who are presumably out there trying to protect the job creators in this province, and has that ministry talked to you about the assessment rates and said to you, "We don't believe there can be any increase in any assessments"?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Mr Carr, specifically, there hasn't been a briefing or message to us from the ministry that you're referring to.
Mr Carr: Okay. Is it your intention to increase the number of industries? For example, there have been some rumours that you're going to include, for example, financial services and so on. Is that your intention, Mr Minister?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: That's the increased coverage issue and that's an issue that's been on the table for a long time. There has been no decision made on that at all.
1730
Mr Carr: One final question and then I'll turn it over. There's been a lot of talk about the fraud involved in the WCB. I'll ask this to the minister: What do you believe is the amount of fraud within the WCB system?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I haven't got the foggiest idea as to what the amount is. We know there are some problems with fraud.
Mr Carr: Don't you think that as a minister you should have a foggy idea of what it is in this day and age? You have no idea what the fraud is within the WCB system? Have you not asked that question? Here you are, the Minister of Labour, and you have, to quote you, "not the foggiest idea." Why not?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it would be very difficult to come up with. You hear figures of from 3% or 2%; you hear figures higher than that. We have gone through a specific fraud investigative process that's ongoing, and it's an issue that I am just not prepared to discuss at the moment.
Mr Carr: What have they told you? You say it's ongoing and they're looking at it. What are they saying? What are the figures they are talking to you about?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I just finished telling you that it's a process I'm not prepared to discuss at this point in time.
Mr Carr: Well, I would suggest to you, with all due respect, that for the Minister of Labour to have an answer that he doesn't have the foggiest idea is not appropriate. With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague Ted.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I just came in, as you know, Minister, about 10 minutes ago, so if any of the questions I may ask have been duplicated earlier, I hope you'll bear with me and help me out.
Some time ago, a couple of weeks ago, I guess, the Provincial Auditor wrote to the member for Mississauga South, my colleague who is Chairman of the standing committee on government agencies. That letter was dated September 29 and it was with reference to some comments Mr Brian King, vice-chairman of the board, made to the standing committee on public accounts.
I'll read you -- and if you want me to repeat, I'll read you the quote twice -- the comment from the Provincial Auditor. You may be familiar with this; I don't know. "The draft transcript of the September 15 meeting" -- and this is the meeting of the government agencies committee, Minister -- "contains certain testimony given by Mr Brian King, vice-chair of the board, relating to our report made to the standing committee on public accounts on the WCB's new headquarters which I consider either misleading or as factually incorrect."
My question to you, Minister, is, have you raised this issue with the vice-chair of the board, Mr King, about the auditor's statement, to inquire why this inaccurate statement, as is seen by the auditor, was made and what have you done about it?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have not raised it with him. I have asked for a copy of the auditor's detailed report when he gives it to us, and at that time I'll be better able to assess what actions we might or might not take.
Mr Arnott: Does it concern you that this misleading statement may have been made and inaccurate information --
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm not going to respond to that comment on the deal either. It's an issue that is out in the public now. Had you been here earlier, it's been well discussed in this committee already today.
Mr Arnott: Do you intend to report back to the House with your findings in any way?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: That's going to be very dependent on what we see in the report.
Mr Arnott: I understand $180 million is budgeted for the new building for the Workers' Compensation Board. Again, back to the Provincial Auditor's statement on the need for the new building, I'll read you a quote from the Provincial Auditor in his report: "In our opinion there was insufficient analysis of other alternatives by the Workers' Compensation Board to demonstrate that it is receiving good value for money by occupying and investing in the building. Analyses done were not designed to ensure that the best value-for-money option was selected."
You have received some degree of interest from a lot of people about the wisdom of this decision by the board, and I know you may have certain questions in your own mind about the wisdom of going ahead with that building, and I suppose more information will be forthcoming on that. But apparently you responded to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which has been very vocal in expressing concern about it. You said in a letter to them of September 7, "In my view the auditor's report confirms that the Workers' Compensation Board made a sound investment when it decided to relocate its head office to Simcoe Place."
Granted, I've isolated one quote out of the auditor's report, but it seems very clear that value for money was not a consideration, and I just can't understand how you would conclude in your response to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that it was a sound investment. I would like you to respond to that.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: My understanding is that the return on the board's investment is 13%, which I'm told matches some of their other investments. I'm not running their investment portfolio. There may be some question as to whether or not it was the best investment.
I also know, however, that we have a lease that's expiring at 2 Bloor, and I know that for at least 15 years -- 15, the entire 18 1/2 years I've been in this House, we've had complaints about the ability of that building to adequately handle board activities.
Between the need to make a move and the difficulties with the current location, I think the board was in a position -- and that was clearly what was passed on to me when I first took over in the ministry by the previous administration before the current one that we're referring to at the board: that they had to make some moves and that there was a time frame on it, that they had been working on a deal and that there were going to be some substantial costs involved if that was negated at this point in time.
That doesn't necessarily justify it all. Also, as I mentioned earlier during the testimony, there had been legal opinions given which clearly had a major impact on the decision to proceed that the board made. This is what was presented to me. Based on what's been presented to me, I'm not sure that there could have been a better decision. We'll see what specific concerns are raised in the auditor's comments when we get the details.
Mr Arnott: Yes, I think there could have been a better decision too.
I've heard a lot of complaints about the Workers' Compensation Board in the last three years. Three years prior to that, when I was working for the former provincial member for Wellington, dealing with the board was excessively frustrating for me as an assistant to a member. I dare say it must be extremely inconvenient for someone who's relying upon the board for a cheque. I don't know how satisfied you are about the board's performance in terms of customer service over the last three years. I'm totally dissatisfied and I think you've got more work to do in that regard, or the board does.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think that's one of the reasons for the process we're now involved in with the PLMAC committee, the Premier's committee. I think there is some evidence, if I were going strictly by the briefings I get on a regular monthly basis, that there is some improvement in some of the problems we've had at the board, a long way from what we want as yet, but certainly that they're working on them a good deal.
Mr Arnott: So you're satisfied that it's going in the right direction at least.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it's going in the right direction; whether it's fast enough or not is another matter.
Mr Thomas: Could I add to that? I've been involved in workers' compensation matters since I went to law school in 1981. Back when I first got involved in workers' compensation then, it was fraught with its own share of problems, whether they be allegations of fraud or whether they be concerns about the lack of openness of the Workers' Compensation Board. So I guess I've seen some of the problems that have existed over the years get corrected and other problems come up. The openness problem, or the lack of openness problem, has been dealt with very well over the past decade or so. The liability issue has certainly come on the scene in the last few years.
I think the board has worked very hard the last couple of years to address the problems around customer service that became more serious in the latter part of the 1980s and I think there's some real work being done to try to address those. It's hard to imagine the Workers' Compensation Board ever being an organization that's free from a great deal of public attention. It's been in the public eye for as long as I've been involved with workers' comp.
Mr Arnott: The unfunded liability definitely is an issue, I suppose in the context of the fact that employers understand that there is a significant unfunded liability and see themselves as being on the hook for that. Then when a $180-million building is being erected by that same board, you can understand the questions that might arise in people's minds, at the very least.
But I wanted to get back. I think your suggestion was that the existing building, 2 Bloor Street, was deficient and that was creating some of the service delivery problems.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: That's been a claim for at least 18 years.
Mr Arnott: Because I've never heard that before.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: It's gone on long before I was a member of this House. It's certainly been a loud and vocal claim, but there was the additional problem that the lease may have been something that could have been negotiated. I don't know. It was expiring in the next -- I think it's 1995 or 1994. They were facing a lease expiry as well in the not-too-distant future.
1740
Mr Arnott: I'd like to change gears slightly to go to the issue of pay equity. It's my understanding that on August 19 the cabinet in a meeting decided to pass a regulation under the Pay Equity Act, and the regulatory change was designed to save the government approximately $109 million. The effect of it will prevent some women from automatically receiving the pay raises that men get through grievances over job classifications. It's my understanding the pay equity advocates argue that this regulation undermines the whole principle of pay equity -- in other words, the job-to-job comparison aspect of pay equity. Could you explain why this change was made in secret, essentially, in your cabinet meeting in the summer, and do you agree that the change violates the principle of pay equity?
Mr Thomas: I don't think that the regulatory change that occurred in August does undermine the Pay Equity Act. I think its intention is to clarify how maintenance is to occur in one very special circumstance. I should, by way of background, say that the Pay Equity Act says very little about how the workplace parties are to maintain pay equity. Normally, this isn't a problem, as maintenance is fairly straightforward. But in unusual situations, such as very large increases resulting from classification grievances, unforeseen consequences can occur. The purpose of the regulation is to help the parties find a substitute male job class comparator that is paid at least equal to the male job class that was reclassified. So the intention is very much to make sure there's going to be no loss of pay equity. It's simply that where a classification grievance arbitration award results in a very, very substantial shift to a male job class and therefore is an aberration that there is a mechanism to limit the maintenance.
Mr Arnott: Where did the initiative originate for this regulation? Was it in response to concerns from the public or in response to concerns that the public service had identified or was it an idea that perhaps one of the ministers brought the cabinet?
Mr Thomas: My recollection is that it was simply a fiscal concern that arose, that one would not want to end up with people getting a very, very large increase arising from what is essentially an arbitration award.
Mr Arnott: The budget in 1993 indicated that the government expenditure for pay equity in the broader public sector would be something around $448 million, something under half a billion dollars. My question is, has this money been allocated as of yet, and could you provide a breakdown of the amounts allocated to the various transfer payment recipients? The first question, perhaps, if you can give me some indication as to how much has been allocated and perhaps if we could receive a written response to the second question, that would be --
Mr Thomas: For which fiscal year?
Mr Arnott: This year. The current fiscal year.
Mr Thomas: Could I get back to you on that with a written answer?
Mr Arnott: Okay. It's my understanding that on March 18 the Minister of Labour announced $50 million to be given as down payments of up to $2,500 to 40,000 women in the broader public sector in respect to pay equity. Given subsequent events, such as the social contract, my question is, has this $50 million which was announced back in March of this year been allocated as of yet?
Mr Thomas: I can answer that if you wish me to go ahead. In mid-April, the government released down-payment cheques to over 700 eligible agencies representing down-payment funding for 1992, and to date over $26 million has been provided to the lowest-paid workers in the broader public sector. Payments for --
Mr Arnott: Is the $50-million commitment still on?
Mr Thomas: Yes.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: The balance of it, yes.
Mr Arnott: You're still paying for 1992?
Mr Thomas: Payments for 1993 will be delivered to all targeted agencies later this fall.
Mr Arnott: Will that be in excess of $50 million?
Mr Thomas: It won't be in excess of it. I think it'll be close to the range --
Hon Mr Mackenzie: Yes.
Mr Thomas: The intent is that we will spend essentially the $50 million.
Mr Arnott: How much time, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: About a minute.
Mr Arnott: Minister, some time ago I asked you about the Workplace Health and Safety Agency in the Legislature. I don't know if you recall, but I had a concern. A number of constituents had written me letters expressing concern about the tone and the content of the letters they were receiving from the agency. I asked you at that time if you did not think it would be appropriate to allocate the existing training resources that were available to the most dangerous workplaces first, such that the resources that you had were having an immediate impact on some of our most dangerous workplaces. I'm not sure; I think your response indicated that the agency was autonomous or something.
I subsequently wrote to the agency. They haven't responded to me from last summer, and I wrote to you to bring this to your attention June 16 and I've not received a response. But don't you think it makes sense to fix the most dangerous workplaces first if we're going to have safety training, and prioritize them based on the assessment that comes through the Workers' Compensation Board?
Hon Mr Mackenzie: One of the quick answers I can give you to that is that normally some of the places that have been considered the most unsafe are mines, steel mills, a number of other assembly operations --
Mr Arnott: Construction sites.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can also tell you that in those areas, in many cases, they're further ahead in terms of the health and safety committees that they have and the standards they're now meeting. Some of the real gains that led to much of what we've done came out of the mining industry in northern Ontario.
The decisions on the training programs and the duration of them, one, two or three weeks, and everything from the size to the danger of the workplace to the kind of toxic substance they may be using enter into the classification groups that they have set. The decisions are made by the agency, and that agency is a bipartite board. It's a joint labour-management deal and it's not something, unless somebody presented me with proof that it just wasn't working, that I think I would want to interfere with.
I think the certification program that they've got under way, from the early sessions they've had where the people have graduated, have indicated a very successful operation, and from both sides, I might say.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Minister.
Mr Arnott: I have a lot of other questions.
The Chair: I'm sure you meant to add that you'd love to get an answer to that letter as soon as possible.
Mr Arnott: It would be appreciated.
Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Chair: The minister made a comment with reference to the previous administration. He said that when he arrived, he was given advice by the previous administration with regard to the building.
I'm not attempting to put words in the minister's mouth, but I want to make it clear that the previous Minister of Labour has written to Mr Di Santo to state that at no time did senior management at Workers' Comp discuss the possibility of a new building in Toronto with him and that the auditor's report clearly pointed out that in July 1990 the Workers' Compensation Board said it made a decision to further explore and analyse alternate site options.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mahoney. That's a point of clarification --
Mr Mahoney: It's just to clear, for the record, that the previous administration --
The Chair: -- and is definitely not a point of order, but I appreciate --
Mr Mahoney: As long as it's on the record, I don't care what you call it.
Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): That was quite a play on words.
For a long time, just the last 20 years, I guess, health and safety in the workplace -- of course the corporations and even the government did not really recognize the health part, and also the corporations pretty well had control with inspections and any kind of training and things of that nature. Even the government inspectors wouldn't recognize the workers' representative.
Times have changed and of course in the labour movement they've negotiated full-time health and safety representatives, which of course worked at putting training programs together and joint instruction with management. But the areas where we have the full-time health and safety representatives on the workers' part, are there any statistics showing where accidents may actually have been reduced as a result of the joint training programs, and also with the full-time representative there? Do we have any stats in comparison to where they don't have full-time representatives or people who have a say on behalf of the workers?
1750
Mr Thomas: I'm not sure that we have statistics on the full-time versus part-time, but we certainly have a number of pieces of evidence that would support the notion that where the workplace parties are jointly responsible for health and safety, the workplaces tend to have better accident records.
The mining industry itself is an example of an industry that for many years has been working on a joint internal responsibility system model. The chances of being injured in a mine are much less than the chances of being injured in the health care sector. The statistics on the number of injuries per 100,000 hours worked are much better for the mining industry and are much better for the petrochemical industry, which has also more recently seen the importance of joint responsibility systems, than would be the case, say, in the health care sector, which perhaps hasn't moved that far.
There's also a recent study within the last year, I think, and we can get it for you if you'd like, that looked at the effect of internal responsibility systems in Ontario and Quebec. The statistics in that report indicate that those workplaces that have implemented joint internal responsibility systems have a much better health and safety record than those that haven't.
Mr Cooper: On the Ontario mine rescue program, I was at the awards ceremony up in Thunder Bay for the teams when they competed. The initial funding is from the consolidated revenue fund and then reimbursed from a special levy on the mining industry by the Workers' Compensation Board. Are any other training programs set up that way?
Mr Thomas: I don't think so. Pierre?
The Chair: I'm getting furious nods of "No," or "Don't know."
Mr Thomas: The answer is that I don't think so, but I'd like to get back to you with a better answer.
Mr Cooper: Obviously the mining industry has taken ownership of the training program, to its benefit, and I was just wondering if anybody else had taken that same ownership in any other industry.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'd have to go back to my experiences in opposition days, some time back --
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Those were heady days.
Hon Mr Mackenzie: -- but the cry from the workers was always that they weren't really going to enforce health and safety unless the committee itself or the workers on the job had the authority to make decisions, including the shutdown of an operation. What really, I think, led to the changes in health and safety legislation, while the workers didn't get that right in itself, was the fact that the mines had already gone that route, set up the committees, and the committee itself could order a shutdown. The results have really been tremendous in many of the mining operations. I think that put the pressure on to change the health and safety legislation to the extent it was changed.
The Chair: I would like to say at this time that by mutual agreement, the time for which we've agreed to complete estimates for the Ministry of Labour has come to a conclusion, and I thank the members for that cooperation.
Before we go into a series of votes, the Chair wishes to put two items on the record. The first item has to deal with the fact that the Chair wishes at this time to remind all members that they can at any time during the process, and it's always helpful prior to the commencement of a given estimates, invite any parties who are part of the estimates to the process. The Chair noted that there were several questions directed to the minister regarding the WCB, and the minister attempted to answer them to the best of his ability. However, it should be noted that this opportunity is there for members. That's part of the process, and for whatever reason, that was not done. I thought that for the record we should be reminded of that.
The second issue which the Chair feels very strongly about and wishes to place again to the record is the process of the minister calling upon the deputy for support with respect to answers. Although the Chair exercised a lot of latitude in recognizing the minister's desire to rely on his deputy, there were occasions when, in my view, the deputy wandered and proceeded into the discussions with matters of opinion and policy. Although I did not say anything at the time of the estimates because no member complained, I do wish to place for the record that the process is a new one and one which the committee may want to examine before future estimates. As I say, when the minister referred matters to the deputy, that is the process, and the minister did that without any difficulty, but I did wish to place for the record that concern, and that is now on the record.
At this point I'd like to proceed with the votes, because we'll be called to the House in a matter of minutes. Having completed the estimates, I'd like to now go through the votes.
Mr Mahoney: I have a point of -- something.
The Chair: I can't recognize a point of something, Mr Mahoney, and you know that.
Mr Mahoney: A point of order then, if you want to --
The Chair: Then what is the point of order?
Mr Mahoney: In relationship to your comments, I don't know if I understood that to be an admonition of opposition members for not hauling Di Santo or Mr King up in front of the committee or what. We clearly had an opportunity at the Legislative Assembly com- mittee to do that, did so, and the purpose of today and the other day in dealing with Labour estimates is to hear from the minister, and, I might add, from the deputy, and I appreciated the deputy's contributions to this.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mahoney. That's not a point of order.
Shall vote 1901 be approved? All in favour? Opposed? That's carried.
Shall vote 1902 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall vote 1903 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall vote 1904 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried.
Shall vote 1905 be approved? All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall vote 1906 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall vote 1907 be approved? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Shall the 1993-94 estimates of the Ministry of Labour be approved? All those in favour? Opposed? That's carried.
Shall the 1993-94 estimates of the Ministry of Labour be reported to the House, as approved? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried.
This committee stands adjourned, to reconvene tomorrow, Wednesday, October 13, immediately following routine proceedings, at which time we'll commence the estimates of the ministry responsible for women's issues.
The committee adjourned at 1758.