Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

ORGANIZATION

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

CONTENTS

Tuesday 25 June 1991

Organization

Ministry of Labour

Adjournment

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC)

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

Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)

Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)

Ferguson, Will (Kitchener NDP)

Haslam, Karen (Perth NDP)

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

Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)

McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)

McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)

Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)

Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)

Substitutions:

Offer, Steven (Mississauga North L) for Mr Carr

Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North PC) for Mr McGuinty

Also taking part: Rizzo, Tony (Oakwood Ind)

Clerk: Carrozza, Franco

The committee met at 1536 in committee room 2.

ORGANIZATION

The Chair: I call to order the standing committee on estimates. There are several agenda items we would like to take care of before we move into our first estimates. In fairness to the minister, if we could deal with these matters very briefly and bring them to a vote and resolution, it would be appreciated by the Chair.

The first item is before you in your agenda, the subcommittee report recommending that the committee meet during the summer recess for the three weeks of 12, 19 and 26 August to review the estimates. Could I have a mover for that, please?

Mr Daigeler: I will move that.

The Chair: Any discussion? Seeing none, I would like to call the question.

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: The second item is authorizing the Chair to write the House leaders and whips informing them of our request. Do I have a mover? Mrs Haslam. No discussion required.

Motion agreed to.

The Chair: Finally, the third item is that the committee approve a new 1991-92 budget that includes the anticipated expenses for the proposed request for three weeks of additional committee hearings. Do I have a mover? Mr Wilson. Any discussion? You have all had time to read the report.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Ferguson: Just on this, and perhaps this should have been said before we had the votes, I think there are some conflicts in that some of us, of course, sit on more than one committee. I am not sure how that is going to operate, given that a few committees are going to be travelling this summer. I think the request would be contingent on its being workable for all three parties to have at least a number of individuals available.

The Chair: I appreciate your comment. It will be presented to the House leader for the government and will be discussed by the three House leaders. It will have to be reported to and approved by the House by Thursday, so we will certainly have an answer by then. I suspect it is in their hands to look at the potential substitutions as well as to check on the availability of the ministers. The subcommittee was apprised that we would be completing precious few ministries during estimates unless we at least make the request. Otherwise we will not complete our estimates hearing process in accordance with the House rules as they now are structured.

Mr Ferguson: It was my understanding, after hearing from the Minister of Labour, that there is going to be a discussion on the viability of this committee and whether or not it ought to continue in the future.

The Chair: I do not think it was on the viability and whether it should operate in the future. There is not a jurisdiction on the North American continent that operates without a committee like this in some form. It was on how we could improve it. But in the interest of our primary purpose for assembling today, perhaps we could revisit the point you have raised. Also, your subcommittee representative from your caucus will be pleased to discuss with you matters that she has raised on your behalf.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

The Chair: Seeing no further discussion, I would like to proceed then to the next item on the agenda, which is to recognize that it is 3:40 and that we are welcoming the Minister of Labour, the Honourable Robert Mackenzie, to present his estimates for the 1991-92 year for the Ministry of Labour. I understand those are votes 2401 through 2407. In accordance with our standing orders, the minister has up to one half-hour to make an opening statement, followed by the official opposition, Liberal spokesperson for up to a half-hour, followed by the third-party, Conservative spokesperson. The minister reserves up to a half-hour for final summary commentaries.

Mr Offer: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: In the event that I or my party does not use the 30 minutes, for instance, if we use five minutes, are the remaining 25 minutes gone or does that in fact go to the tail end and allow for more questions to be posed?

The Chair: To answer your question directly, your time is gone unless you couch in advance how you wish to use your half-hour. If you were to inform the committee that you would like to take five minutes for a statement and use 25 minutes worth of questioning, the minister is quite amenable to that format, as would be the committee. It is not uncustomary for the critic, if I may so call you, to use his half-hour any way he sees fit. Is that helpful?

Mr Offer: For Hansard, yes.

The Chair: In terms of how the committee will order up its time, I would prefer if you let the minister commence and then, just prior to the summary commentary, the committee will discuss how we wish to proceed with rotation or whatever. But please, the minister has been kind enough to assemble several of his staff here and we would like to commence as quickly as possible.

I would state only one thing at this time, and that is that if any members of the standing committee on estimates know now of any specific personnel from the Ministry of Labour whom they would like to attend these estimates hearings, it would be most helpful and appreciated by the minister's staff if you could advise us of that fact. We will be sitting today and tomorrow until 6 o'clock and it would be helpful for them to give notice to those employees you may wish to have here. That also would stand for any specific questions you want answers to. The sooner you can share those with the minister, the more helpful he can be.

Having said that, I would like to hand the floor over to the minister, who can introduce his deputy minister and proceed. Minister, you have half an hour to use as you please.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: First, I think most of you know George Thomson, who is the deputy minister and who is here with me. We will introduce the other staff people during the course of or just before I finish my remarks, so you will know who is here from the ministry at present. If there are specific sections you want to ask questions on, I would appreciate knowing it, certainly before tomorrow's session at least.

I am going to take advantage, probably not quite, of the half-hour, but before I begin my report on the estimates of my ministry, I would like to tell you it is indeed a pleasure to be sitting here as the Minister of Labour. I have been involved in the labour movement for many years as a worker, an organizer, as opposition critic and now as minister, and I can tell you it is quite a difference.

Through my experience I have learned that to have a productive and just labour climate you must have both equality and fairness. Labour and management must work together in a spirit of partnership and must have the necessary framework in place to do so. This sense of partnership and co-operation was put forward in the government's speech from the throne, and much of our activity since then reflects that commitment.

As the Minister of Labour, I am determined to create programs and legislation that will reshape the long-standing confrontational approach to labour-management relations. We must work together to maintain our position and standard of living in an increasingly competitive world today. Ontario is in the process of restructuring its economy and we must strive towards creating highly skilled, high-paying jobs for our workforce, and we must assist our workplace to develop the skills to perform those jobs.

At the same time, we cannot ignore the fact that Ontario is undergoing one of the worst recessions in its history. Plant closures are at an all-time high and many of them are permanent. Workers in every corner of the province are being hit hard. These people are looking to us for assistance in getting their lives back together and working productively again.

In his budget the Treasurer spoke of the need to integrate social and economic policies. People need to be assured of income stability and to know they can afford to live in our society. They also need to know there is a form of social security around them, that they will not be threatened every time change or innovation is suggested.

When I became the Minister of Labour last October, we were faced with the need to improve workplace standards and relations, and at the same time we had to come up with short-term solutions to assist those who were victims of the current recession. This year you will see that our budget estimates have increased from $154 million from the last fiscal year to almost $356 million for 1991-92. Of this, $175 million has been earmarked for the employee wage protection program. These are funds necessary if we are to provide the service and assistance both the workers and employers of this province need.

I would like to tell you something about my ministry's accomplishments and our plans for the future. Last November we introduced our parental leave package which was passed and proclaimed into law. It allows for unpaid leave for parents of newborn children and newly adopted children. We wanted to make sure parents could spend time with their newly born or newly adopted children without the fear of loss of their jobs, their seniority or other benefits.

Since the law was proclaimed on 10 December last year, the employment standards branch of my ministry has received 97,100 inquiries as of last Wednesday regarding parental leave. The amount of interest shown proves this was a most necessary piece of legislation.

In January I announced our five-point labour adjustment program to deal with the immediate needs of laid-off workers during the recession. This package provided $32.5 million in various forms of assistance. We have greatly increased assistance to the joint labour-management adjustment committees set up in plant closures and layoffs that affect 50 or more workers. Funding for these committees has been increased from $500,000 to more than $7.5 million.

There was $25 million in new funds allocated for programs for displaced workers, jointly administered by the ministries of Labour, Education, Colleges and Universities, Citizenship and Skills Development. These programs include literacy and basic skills training and assistance to laid-off apprentices, as well as the Ministry of Labour's help centres program and the Transitions program for older workers.

1550

The co-ordination of all provincial activities relating to assistance for laid-off workers is now administered through the office of labour adjustment at the Ministry of Labour. The office of labour adjustment is currently involved in the establishment and financing of over 100 plant-level adjustment committees, with a total ministry commitment exceeding $2.8 million. As you can see, it has not taken long to take advantage of the labour adjustment funds we made available, and they are obviously needed with the plant closure climate we have. These committees ensure that the needs of laid-off workers are identified so that they can get assistance to look for new work.

The office of labour adjustment has hired an additional nine regional program advisers who will have hands-on involvement, along with their federal counterparts, working with the joint labour-management committees. Aside from its activities in plant closures, the office of labour adjustment also works with labour, management and the federal government on committees that address sector-wide issues.

One such committee consists of representatives from the United Steelworkers of America, the International Woodworkers of America, furniture manufacturers and both levels of government. Its primary purpose is to address human resource issues in the furniture industry.

Another committee, again made up of representatives of labour, management and government, is analysing the impact of layoffs and closures in northern Ontario and exploring the feasibility of establishing a union venture capital corporation. We will also be establishing two more similar sector-based committees shortly, one for the food processing sector, and the other for the garment industry.

We have greatly increased funding to the help centre program, which supports 15 community-based centres for unemployed and underemployed workers. Each centre has had its annual allocation increased from $90,000 to $100,000. This funding is guaranteed for a three-year period. The help centres are independent agencies serving as drop-in facilities that bring assistance programs from various levels of government into the reach of local clients. They serve the general adult population, including the unemployed, the underemployed, career changers, immigrants, refugees and others requiring assistance. By maintaining independence, these help centres are able to reflect the particular needs of their own communities.

We have also provided an additional $200,000 for the four help centres in Hamilton, London, Cambridge and Windsor to carry out innovative pilot and adjustment projects. These are specifically aimed at helping workers who are affected by smaller plant closures, which are not normally served by an adjustment committee.

Another six centres have received a total of $150,000 for a special initiatives fund to develop tools and resources related to vocational counselling for adults. The results of these projects will be shared with other community-based agencies.

We have more than doubled the funding to the Transitions program, which assists laid-off workers over age 45. The program for older worker adjustment, POWA, is another program administered with our federal counterparts. We want to offer more assistance to older workers who are laid off, and we are in the process of re-examining the criteria of the program. We are currently working with the federal government and other provinces on a comprehensive review of the POWA program.

By increasing the funding for these kinds of labour adjustment programs, we now have the people and the ability to respond in many more layoff and closure situations than when I took over as minister.

The fourth and perhaps most important element of our labour adjustment package is the employee wage protection program. The Premier announced this program last October, and it was also part of the speech from the throne.

As I mentioned in the House last week, the employee wage protection program is a most necessary piece of legislation, even more so in the current economic situation. The main thrust and purpose of the legislation is to help workers recover wages that are owing them when their employer goes bankrupt, becomes insolvent or does not pay due to other circumstances. It provides the statutory mechanism to allow workers to collect money that they have worked for in good faith and are unable to recover through other means.

Since the employee wage protection program was announced last October, over 13,000 workers have filed claims with the employment standards branch of my ministry, asking for assistance in recovering wages owed them.

After the introduction of Bill 70 to establish the employee wage protection program, many groups and individuals, including members of this House, expressed concerns regarding some of the sections, specifically those outlining the liabilities of officers of companies and volunteer directors of not-for-profit corporations. We listened to these concerns, and we acted. We will be introducing amendments removing the liability provisions for officers of companies. We will be limiting directors' liability to the maximum of wage debt equivalent to six months' wages and up to 12 months' accrued vacation pay that comes due only during their term of directorship. Although I believe that the other amendments will sufficiently allay the concerns expressed by all directors, I put forward an exemption for volunteer directors in the not-for-profit sector to reassure the people working in a volunteer capacity.

Bill 70 has now been sent to the standing committee on resources development for hearings and clause-by-clause debate.

The fifth point of our labour adjustment package had to do with amendments to the Employment Standards Act regarding reforms of the termination of employment provisions. This was also a commitment made by our government in the speech from the throne, and is a priority area.

Consultations have taken place with over 60 labour, business, community and other interest groups. We are now looking at options for changing the notice and severance pay provisions of the Employment Standards Act. Once the best course of action is clear, I will be going to cabinet for approval for these changes.

The most recent piece of legislation we brought before the House was amendments to the Employment Standards Act relating to a common pause day. Once passed, these amendments will give retail workers the absolute right to refuse Sunday and holiday work. Workers do not have to give any reason for their refusal. In addition, employment standards officers will be authorized to issue orders on the spot for compensation and/or reinstatement where employers take action against workers who seek to exercise their rights.

The government has clearly stated its support for a common pause day on many occasions, including in the speech from the throne. I feel that these amendments, in conjunction with the Retail Business Holidays Act, will ensure retail workers their right to a common pause day.

We have also made progress in occupational health and safety. Bill 208 was proclaimed in January and is now in effect in the workplace. The Workplace Health and Safety Agency was also created by the act, and has been in operation since last fall. The agency's bipartite makeup has been working well, with both labour and management representatives reaching consensus on most issues. Bipartite participation is a cornerstone of Bill 208, designed to promote the partnership between employers and employees both through the establishment of joint health and safety committees in the workplace and in the Workplace Health and Safety Agency.

At this time, the agency is in the process of setting up standards for health and safety education. The number one priority is to develop the process through which workplace joint committee health and safety committee members become certified. At present, a subcommittee on certification is discussing training modules and will soon be bringing proposals before the board.

Workplace health and safety is a major commitment of this government. The Ministry of Labour has received permission to hire an additional 83 inspectors. This hiring will be completed by the end of this fiscal year, and it represents an increase of over 25% from the number of inspectors for the enforcement of Bill 208 provisions.

The primary function of Bill 208 is to establish joint labour-management health and safety committees to institute safe work practices in their workplaces. We strongly believe that this is the best approach to ensure that worker health and safety is not in danger. However, if we see that this approach is failing, we do have recourse to an increased staff of inspectors and strict enforcement.

Health and safety is an area where we must exercise vigilance, and I am committed to maintaining a high priority on these programs.

In addition to getting Bill 208 up and running, we have also passed two sets of regulations concerning the health and safety of firefighters and construction workers. The firefighter's regulation requires that firefighters battling interior structural blazes will be provided with the safer protective coat and trousers of the improved bunker type.

1600

The construction regulations strengthen the protection of workers from falls from heights, trench cave-ins, electrocution and the improper use of cranes, and improve hygiene conditions on the work site.

The Ministry of Labour is also working on establishing new health and safety regulations for workers in health care facilities, and I hope to be able to announce them in the near future.

These are the key points on our accomplishments on the labour front during our short period of government.

I would like to turn now to measures that we are reviewing and consulting on. Just before I leave that, if I can digress for just a moment, we have new health and safety committees in the workplace being set up at a rapid pace. We anticipate 20,000 to 40,000 additional committees. It is one of the reasons for the major expenditure in terms of health and safety inspectors.

It is the way we have had to go in that part of the fight. When I was in opposition, as many people around this room will remember, it was the absolute right of the workers themselves to make the decisions in the workplace. Many of us favoured that approach. It is not the approach that was in the Bill 208 legislation, although we certainly made some gains in terms of the health and safety agency. We will see whether we can work it, and work it with the inspection facilities we have. That, I think, will be one of the major tests of the Bill 208 health and safety legislation.

As mentioned in the speech from the throne, we are pledged to increase the minimum wage to 60% of the average wage over the next five years. The government is also reviewing various means of providing assistance to the working poor, and we are committed to a substantial increase in the minimum wage as part of this effort.

During May we consulted with several business, labour and community groups regarding the next increases in the minimum wage. I will be making an announcement regarding this shortly.

On 18 December I announced new measures that would broaden the scope of the Pay Equity Act, 1987. The benefits of pay equity would be extended to women in the private sector and the public sector where there are only a few male job class comparisons, and to women in the public sector where there are no job comparisons. To date we have released a paper and have undertaken public consultations on how to extend the benefits of the act in the public sector where there are no male job comparisons.

The government remains committed to addressing the wage gap. However, pay equity legislation may not be the only vehicle. We are currently examining various other alternatives to providing equitable wages.

In December I also announced that the government would fund a pay equity legal clinic to help women, especially non-unionized women, assert pay equity claims. An interim clinic has now been set up by Parkdale Community Legal Services in Toronto until the new pay equity clinic opens on 1 September.

The government is also committed to assisting public sector employers to meet their pay equity obligations. The Treasurer has announced that approximately $125 million has been allocated to meet our commitment in 1991.

The Ministry of Labour is currently involved in long-range ongoing consultations on two major pieces of legislation, he Employment Standards Act and the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Over the years the Employment Standards Act has undergone periodic updating, but we believe a comprehensive review is needed. However, before we begin to think of any changes to the act, we intend to release a green paper before any specific consultation process is initiated. We are also in the process of reviewing the Ontario Labour Relations Act, with the aim of amending it to reflect today's workplace climate. The act has not had any significant review or change since 1975.

The government stated in the speech from the throne that one of our goals is making it easier for workers in the province to organize so they can work in partnership and co-operation with industry. For far too long labour-management relations in this province have been plagued by antagonism and confrontation. We believe business works best in a creative and productive partnership with labour.

At the same time, I wish to assure you that this government is aware of the need to maintain a healthy, viable and productive economy in Ontario, and as a result we are very carefully assessing the impact of the legislative proposals on employers and the economy as a whole. Reform of an act as important as the Labour Relations Act is a long and intensive process, and it is a task that deserves much consideration and deserves to be carried out responsibly.

The Ministry of Labour struck an external committee of labour law experts -- three management and three labour, chaired by Kevin Burkett -- who put forward two reports outlining labour and management opinions and suggestions for reform. We plan a more detailed consultative process for later in the summer.

The largest agency in the Labour portfolio is the Workers' Compensation Board. Improving service at the WCB is a big administrative challenge. Last year the workers' compensation system paid out $2 billion in benefits. This included temporary compensation, workers' pensions, rehabilitation, Bill 162 payments and survivors' benefits. Both workers and employers have long complained about the poor service delivered by the board in claims and adjudication, and I have told senior officials at the WCB that improving service must be their highest priority.

As a first step we named a new chair, Odoardo Di Santo, and a new vice-chair, Brian King. Both Mr Di Santo and Mr King have agreed that improving client service was to be their immediate priority. The standing committee on resources development has completed public hearings on WCB service delivery and I am looking forward to receiving that report. Senior board officials are reporting to me on a regular basis and I expect to see visible improvement in service delivery shortly.

I have now identified the major policy developments that we have taken since last October. The ministry has, in the past, seen itself primarily as a lawmaker and enforcer. We know, however, that to effect positive change in the workplace it is essential that people know and understand their rights and responsibilities. Yet laws are written in very precise legal language and it is sometimes difficult for laypeople to understand them.

In May, the ministry finally launched Working in Ontario, a project that was five years in the making. Working in Ontario was a joint effort between my ministry, the Ministry of Citizenship and the women's directorate. It is a plain-language guide to workplace laws in Ontario, and aside from English and French it is also available in Chinese, Greek, Italian and Portuguese. We are also producing it on an audio cassette. Furthermore, we have sponsored training and outreach activities in different languages to enable community leaders to further disseminate the information Working in Ontario. I might also say that the book has received very good acclaim and is much in demand.

We are also in the process of renewing and decentralizing the administrative structure of the Ministry of Labour. As of 1 July, the ministry will change the way it does business in order to provide better service to the public, both workers and employers. Significantly more operational and decision-making authority will be given to officers in a new field structure of six geographical areas and 13 district offices. These will be supported by a network of satellite offices. In addition, we will integrate our management structure, placing all branches in a region under one roof and eliminating the need for the public to go to different offices for different problems. With these changes, clients of the ministry will find it easier to get the services they need, the services their taxes pay for.

I want to thank you for your attention. This concludes my report to this committee and we will answer the questions as they come up.

The Chair: Thank you very much, minister. That was a little under your half-hour. Well done. Mr Offer, it will be our intention to recognize you next. How would you like to proceed?

Mr Offer: Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I would also make a few opening comments. I do not know whether I will be using the full 30 minutes and certainly I would reserve our right to use the remainder in whichever way we think best at the end of my opening remarks.

Also, I understand it is permissible for us during the currency of these estimates to indicate our intent to provide written questions to the minister for response at a future time. I understand that to be a legitimate use of this committee and I would like to get your acknowledgement of that.

The Chair: Yes. The minister or his deputy can confirm that any written questions submitted during the estimates time he would endeavour to respond to. He would have to put that on the record.

1610

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have no difficulty, if we are able to. It depends on the difficulty of the question whether you will get an answer tomorrow or not.

Mr Offer: I understand that. Thank you very much for that.

I would certainly like to first thank the minister for the opening comments. They do shed some light on some of the initiatives currently being undertaken by the minister and his ministry in a variety of matters.

I look to the fifth paragraph of the minister's opening comments. He talks about the necessity to "reshape the long-standing confrontational approach to labour-management relations." I bring light to this area in that since I have been appointed as our party's Labour critic a number of businesses and individuals have been concerned, and I put this on the record, about their ability to make their concerns on any initiative known to the ministry.

There is a concern that the type of consultation, which I hope the minister does truly believe in, is one which a lot of people do not feel is in fact happening in the broadest sense. So some of my questions in these estimates will certainly revolve around the scope of consultation and the intent of the minister for future consultation. That is important when those particular groups respond to me, and I am sure they have also responded to the minister, to all members, in terms of the degree of consultation. We can then hark back to this particular committee and say, "The minister has said that on this particular issue this is the consultative process that will be undertaken."

Minister, there are a number of individuals who are concerned. I state that just as a matter of providing information to you. They are concerned in terms of their ability to take part in a consultative process. You will be aware of that type of information. It is something I have brought up in the House on occasion. I think it is necessary at this time, especially at this time as we are just breaking for the summer recess, to get some fair degree of certainty as to the form, shape and content of the consultation which you will be undertaking in a variety of areas.

The budget for the ministry, as the estimates book reveals, is going to be increasing by 130%, from $154 million to $355 million. We recognize that much if not all of this increase is due to the wage protection fund, where I think there has been a dedication of $175 million for startup allocation and associated administration. As such, we also recognize that there are some branch budgets which have been frozen or indeed are declining. However, the ministry administration has increased by 10.2% in the estimates. We will be giving notice of some questions as to why the ministry administration funding has increased more than most other areas as identified in the estimates. In fact, in other branches there has been either a freezing or a decline in the type of funding available.

I also note that under vote 2402, the funding for the office of mediation and the office of collective bargaining information has declined by 0.4% and 5.9% respectively. As well, the office of arbitration has increased only 1.5%. The minister will be aware that these branches provide typical and important assistance in helping to resolve private sector labour disputes. However, under the same vote, the funding for the Public Service Appeals Board, which is responsible for resolving Ontario civil service contracts, has increased by 16.7%. So I indicate by notice that we will be asking you why funding for resolving the Ontario civil service contracts has increased while funding for the private sector contract resolutions has decreased.

We believe these are important not only as questions to pose but as responses to be obtained. We will also, in that particular area, be asking why the program administration funding under the industrial relations division of the ministry has increased more than the services offered in other divisions and other branches of the division.

I want to move on to some other areas. The minister alluded in his opening comments to the minimum wage, and that is an area I think all members have received comments on, if not concerns about. That has to do with a very specific promise made in the Agenda for People. It has been reiterated by the minister in response to a question from myself last November that indeed it is your position that the minimum wage of this province will be increased to 60% of the average industrial wage. That would result in a minimum wage for this year of approximately $7.20. If we have a moderate, almost conservative -- but I will use the word moderate -- rate of inflation, in four or five years we would have a minimum wage in the area of $9.15 per hour.

My question to the minister is, will you be increasing the minimum wage of this province to 60% of the average industrial wage this year, meaning to $7.20 approximately, or not? And if so, when will that announcement take place? I think that has been the subject of some discussion and I recognize that -- I think it was just last week -- there was a report prepared by the policy and economic analysis program at the Institute for Policy Analysis at the University of Toronto. I had occasion to look through that particular report last week, and that report spoke to the impact of the minimum wage on unemployment, particularly for women and youth. The study concluded that the proposed increase in the minimum wage would lead to a 1% increase in the overall unemployment rate. In fact, according to their report, some 53,000 jobs would be lost, with a disproportionate impact on women and youth.

So on this particular issue, I would be posing these questions to the minister: Will you be increasing the minimum wage? When will you be increasing the minimum wage? When will the increase of the minimum wage take effect? How much will the minimum wage of this province be in terms of the coming announcement?

I also think it is important that we ask you whether you have conducted any studies as to the impact of an increase of minimum wage on employment or unemployment, as the case may be, especially in terms of youth and women. We would like to know if there are any studies which your ministry has undertaken and if you might be able to share some of the findings of those with us.

1620

If I might move to the area of pay equity, you have spoken about that in your opening comments. I recognize that last December you did bring forward a policy dealing with pay equity, stating that it would extend through the proportional value comparisons for the public and private sector employees and the proxy value comparisons for the public sector employees.

A discussion paper in that area was circulated. We all very much appreciate being given that discussion paper to look through. However, you will know that even when one incorporates the proxy and proportional value comparisons, there are still well over 100,000 women working in the private sector for firms with less than 10 employees who would be left out.

The question that naturally comes to mind is, will you be extending pay equity, by whatever comparison, so that all women will in fact be in the plan? You recognize, Minister, that this is a very specific commitment made by your party. What we want to find out is not only what are the plans to incorporate the discussion paper into legislative form, but second, what about all of the women who are still left out of the pay equity framework? Third, I think your timetable for action is an area which we are going to have to investigate in some depth.

I am not certain how much time is left, but I am sure the clerk will be able to tell me probably to the second.

I want to talk about the wage protection fund. The minister will probably have already heard from his colleagues on the standing committee on resources development that Bill 70, though having public hearings for three days, will not be subject to any hearings through travel. I think that is a mistake. I think that is necessary, even in light of the amendments you have indicated you will move. It is still a mistake that we are not travelling throughout the province to hear the comments and concerns of individuals in other areas of the province who do have some opinion on this. But that being the case, I recognize, and I know the minister recognizes, how committees work -- the vote is the vote.

I and my party did speak in that committee, Minister, for your information, very much in favour of not only the public hearings but also that there be travel. We think that is very important and we are very disappointed that the members of the committee did not see fit to take this bill to other areas in the province.

I do not speak about the amendments, because during the committee there will be opportunity to move the amendments, as you have indicated that you will, as well as additional amendments. We will await some of those hearings.

However, one of the concerns that is still rearing its head is, what about the funding? We recognize where the initial funding is coming from, but this is a bill -- and I think the minister has been very clear -- which will not disappear, for instance, after the recession. It is going to be with us for all time. We would like to hear in some fairly definite ways who is going to pay for the continued operation of the bill after the initial year it has been budgeted for out of the consolidated revenue fund. In other words, can we get a commitment as to whether there has been any ruling out of a payroll tax or any other tax measure which will provide the funding for this particular bill and whether there are any other new taxes contemplated to cover the long-term cost of this particular legislation?

We recognize that the statement was made in October and the wage protection fund has been retroactive to the date of the statement. I would also like to ask how the ministry has kept in touch with those employees. What have you done to make certain that when the bill does become law, in whatever form, you will be able to get in touch with the people who have previously contacted you through, as I think you have indicated in your opening statement, one of the worst recessions since the 1930s. These are areas which we will certainly want to explore in some detail with you.

The next point I wanted to bring forward is that dealing with the Employment Standards Act and some of the changes that are contemplated. I made a note about a green paper which you expect to be available. Again, I harken back to the first things I spoke about in terms of consultation. I wonder if you will share with us the type of consultation that is currently revolving around the Employment Standards Act, some of the areas that are under investigation. Is the investigation limited to particular aspects under the ESA or is it in fact the whole ESA? If it is parts of it, then what are the parts? What type of consultation is being undertaken? Who is being invited to speak? How long do you expect the time frame for consultation to extend? Matters of that nature.

I would also like to talk about the Labour Relations Act reforms. This is one where I speak not to the substance of the contemplated changes but rather, in a very concerned way, about the process. The minister will know that the Burkett report had, I believe, 30 areas of investigation. Its consultative process lasted 30 days and the areas it was investigating were without doubt, I am sure the minister will agree, as all members will, very complex. They were areas which carried with them a great degree of impact. A number of people have shared with me their concerns that this type of consultation, in that period of time, was clearly insufficient in terms of the subject matter of the report.

In fact, I recognize that the Burkett report really took on a report A and a report B, one from labour and one from management. There was no meeting of the minds on any of the issues. I would like to share with you, first, the very deep concern as to the process of consultation. I posed a question to you in the Legislature -- I cannot recall the exact date, but it was certainly within the last six weeks -- expressing this type of concern. Though I do not have Hansard in front of me, I believe your response was that the legislation will be introduced in the fall and there will be ample time for public input.

1630

The concern I have heard is that just is not sufficient. Many people want to input prior to the introduction of legislation. They want to have the opportunity to shape the principles and the direction the legislation is going to take. Once legislation has been drafted and gone through all the cabinet committees and all of those things, it is along its way. So many people want to get a very clear commitment from you, Minister, that the Burkett committee was not the end of consultation prior to the introduction of legislation. What they would like to receive from you, and I will be asking you this question, is the form that consultation over the summer will take on these reforms as a result of the Burkett report. Will there be consultation? What form of consultation will take place? How will people be notified? Who will be notified? What is your timetable in that area? Those are some of the questions I will be asking. In fact, I guess it is too late -- I have already posed them.

I would like to question the whole area of decentralization. What is the status of the decentralization? How many employees will be affected? How many employees have been identified as intending to move? Are there job counselling and placement programs in effect for displaced workers? What is the current estimate of the cost for such a move and the current timetable for the components of the move?

We think this estimates process is very valuable in receiving this type of information. We hope the minister will be clear in response on consultation and timetable in terms of future changes to the minimum wage, the Employment Standards Act, the Labour Relations Act and matters of this nature.

In closing my opening comments, I basically end as I began. There is very grave concern about the degree, the scope and the breadth of consultation undertaken by yourself and your ministry in terms of these initiatives. One does not comment or pass judgement on the substance of the initiatives. We will await the outcome with regard to that. But there are many people who have concern as to being part of decisions which they see will impact on them, their business and their ability to expand, others in terms of creation in this province, and we all know what that means in terms of jobs, which is one we all share.

In conclusion, I do hope that in this process we will get a very clear direction and understanding as to the consultation and as a result hopefully be able to minimize some of the growing concern throughout the province. Those are my initial comments.

The Chair: I would like to inform the committee that in spite of our regular rotation, I have been approached by the critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, who has a severe bout of laryngitis. With the committee's indulgence and with prior discussion with the minister, we will yield that time at the moment, if it is agreeable. If Ms Witmer's voice returns tomorrow, we will proceed and the minister would then be given the opportunity to do his summary comments. That is what the Chair proposes. Is there any objection?

Mr Ferguson: If Mrs Witmer has laryngitis, we would be delighted to hear from her today.

The Chair: Is there any other input?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It is entirely up to the committee, but I have no difficulty at all with it.

Mr Ferguson: Does that mean the minister can come back another day?

The Chair: He is coming tomorrow anyway.

Mr Ferguson: Okay. The same time?

The Chair: Are you coming tomorrow?

Mr Ferguson: I will be here.

The Chair: Then we are going to do just fine.

At this point, the committee generally orders up the format it is comfortable operating with. I am open to a brief discussion but, failing that, I will begin receiving questions as people wish to be identified.

Mr Daigeler: On the format, perhaps you could explain a little bit, for those who were not here before, about what we used in the last round of estimates and whether we are going to use the same format or not.

The Chair: There is a range of options which can be used. I am in the hands of the committee. If you would like me to explain ways that the committee can operate, there are about --

Mr Daigeler: During the winter break, what we did basically was to allocate each caucus 15 minutes, I think it was, and then went in rotation. Each caucus had 15 minutes to ask questions and then went on to the next caucus, until we finished the whole seven hours.

The Chair: That is one method. The other method which has been utilized is simply having the Chair recognize those who wish to raise questions, and hopefully we will keep them within the varied votes if they can assist in identifying it. But I am in the hands of the committee.

Mr Ferguson: In the interest of fairness, perhaps you could start by dividing up the time so everybody gets an equal amount. Then of course, after a set period of time -- and I do not think there is any magic to 15 or 30 minutes -- perhaps we can just go in rotation.

Mrs Marland: There is no question that the time has to be equally divided. That is the whole process. As long as it works out evenly at the end of the seven and a half hours per ministry, I am happy to go along with however you and the clerk can divide that equitably.

Mr Daigeler: Do you have a stopwatch?

The Chair: Just to be completely accurate, our standing orders do not call for that as the process. This was something devised in the last session, but certainly committees are not structured according to time allocation once we begin estimates. I would not want to convey that that is the required norm. I am in your hands, but for the clarity of the record, we can go in a variety of ways. That was just a clarification. It was not to redirect.

Mr Ferguson: Do you want a motion?

The Chair: I am hearing no other suggestion, other than that we go by time allocation. If that be the case, we will proceed on that basis.

Mrs Witmer: Are you suggesting that we go vote by vote?

The Chair: We will stack the votes if that is the request, but it is sometimes easier for everyone if we identify the area of the vote which we are raising questions about. But we will stack the votes unless I hear otherwise, so we will vote at the very end.

Mrs Witmer: Are you going section by section? For example, vote 2401, administration, first? Or are you dealing with the entire estimates book?

Mr Daigeler: We can do whatever we want.

The Chair: What I said earlier was that it would helpful if you identified the section on which you are asking the question, but I am open to being directed if you would like us to proceed by vote. If we stack them, I must warn you that we will not complete the seven and a half hours before we rise on Thursday. We would only, with luck, get five of the seven and a half hours completed. If you wish to get certain votes completed, that is fine. But I am again in your hands.

1640

Mr Offer: I think maybe we should commence with the questioning in 15-minute blocks and just rotate. At the end of tomorrow, I think all we are concerned about is that every caucus get the same amount of time to pose the questions. By going in 15-minute blocks, starting shortly, we can start off with the question and save the votes to the end.

The Chair: Shortly would be right now. Are you ready to proceed with your first 15-minute allocation?

Mr Offer: I think we are.

The Chair: The Chair recognizes the official opposition.

Mr Offer: By way of a first question, Minister, in my opening remarks a number of questions were posed. I noticed you were taking notes. I do not think they necessarily have to be restated, but I hope that in your 30-minute wrapup those that we have not had opportunity to specifically restate would be the subject matter of your response.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If I can just respond to that one for a moment, we were prepared to respond to most of them but some of them will take a little bit of checking. I can do that all in one batch when I respond, or --

Mr Offer: Just by way of process, I guess after Mrs Witmer finishes her 30 minutes, then you would have your 30 minutes, however it works.

In terms of the question posed on minimum wage, I would like to specifically ask whether, as per your commitment, it remains that the minimum wage in this province will be increased to 60% of the average industrial wage and that the minimum wage of this province in this year will be 60% of the average industrial wage of the province this year. When will that announcement take place?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: First, I should tell you that it is not the average industrial wage any more. Part of the consultation -- and I ask my staff to correct me if I am wrong on this -- concerned the method of how we decide what the hours are and what you are taking 60% of. We actually based it on an old bill of mine that allowed for 44 hours, so the figure is probably a little lower than it would have been if we had -- they do not currently keep an average industrial wage in Ontario.

Mr Thomson: If I can just add to that, there is a figure for the average weekly industrial wage. The question then becomes what you divide that by. We have been using the cutoff point where you enter into overtime rules as the line, the amount to divide into the average weekly wage, and that is 44 hours.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I raise that only to point out that it is not quite correct to use the average industrial wage figure. That is the only purpose of that part of the response. The other part of the question --

Mr Offer: Let me put all of that aside. There is a stated commitment that it would be 60% of -- and I am not going to get into the term because you are just going to find a way to distinguish it -- but no matter what, 60% of the term would be probably in the $7 or $7.20 range, or would you share with me what 60% of whatever the term is will be, in dollars and cents?

Second, is that what the minimum wage is going to be this year?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can tell you that the commitment we made was to do it over five years, so it will not be 60% this year. That would be somewhere around $7.20, as near as we can tell, and that certainly will not be the minimum wage in the first year.

The Chair: You are doing fine.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have not made the announcement of it in the House. I am not going to tell you what the figure is.

Mrs McLeod: I am going to move to another area, although I think I will frequently want to return to the issue of minimum wage, as others of us may, over the course of the estimates.

One of the issues you raised in your opening remarks that I would like to come back to now is the question of the efficiency and effectiveness of the service of the Workers' Compensation Board. At the time the new legislation was introduced there was a commitment to undertake a review of the effectiveness of service at the WCB. If I recall correctly, it was with a particular emphasis on northern Ontario.

I would be interested in knowing whether that review has been carried out, whether it is complete, and whether it is possible to share with us some of the findings. I also have a particular interest in knowing the rate of appeals to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal since the new legislation was introduced and, if it is possible, in knowing how many of those appeals related to worker concern about refusal of work that was deemed to be available and appropriate.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I can only give you a bit of an answer now, and we will try to get some further information, maybe for tomorrow, on that. I do not directly run, as you know, the WCB. It answers to me and we meet with them on a monthly basis.

There is a green paper process going on in terms of changes that are needed to the act. Some of the questions you are raising will probably be answered or discussed, of course, in the green paper discussions or consultations. We have also been giving the new chairman and vice-chairman of the board time -- and they have some ideas of their own which they have put forward as well -- to come up with some of the ways that they would like to deal with some of the problems.

That is not a good enough answer, I know, and there may be staff people of mine that would respond further, but we may have to get some of the answers from the board as well.

Mr Thomson: I can add to that. We can give you tomorrow the appeal rate since Bill 162 was passed. Concerning the issue of appeals relating to refusal of appropriate work, my understanding is that this part of the bill has only been enforced for a fairly short period of time. I do not think there has been much business, if any, at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal on that issue, but I will find that out.

I am not aware what commitments were made when Bill 162 was before the House with respect to reviews of service, but I can find that out. I know there have been some internal reviews of service which are ongoing and I think we can have the board provide those to you as well.

Mrs McLeod: My recollection may be faulty, but I thought it was a very public commitment to review and that the review was actually ongoing. I would appreciate your following that up.

It seems to me also that one of the central issues when Bill 162 was introduced, in terms of the next steps, was a regulatory definition of the term "deemed suitable." I am not sure whether those regulations had been completed and, if they had, whether those could be tabled for us.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: To my understanding, they have developed policy on it, but I do not think they have the wording yet.

There were two areas that have been the most controversial, other than the straight service delivery area. There has been older workers' pensions, and that has some difficulties because it is a very expensive item as well, and there has been the deeming issue you raised. Those are two of the major items before the board. The board also is asked to make some suggestions of its own in this area, and of course there are others that have been feeding information in on it on a regular basis.

Mr Thomson: The board has developed a policy position on the deeming issue and we can make that available to you. My understanding is that they have not reduced that to a regulation at this point. I think they are implementing the policy and determining how it works as part of the process of determining what, on an ongoing, permanent basis, that policy ought to be.

Mrs McLeod: Is that not subject to government regulation, the deeming clause?

Mr Thomson: It is dealt with in the act. There is not, as far as I know, a requirement that it be dealt with in regulation, although the board has power to propose regulations in any area covered by the act. Generally their practice has been to do it by way of policy development, not regulation, although they have been developing some regulations in relation to some parts of Bill 162 and they have a bipartite committee that is making recommendations with respect to regulations.

Mrs McLeod: I think I will pass on that. I am anxious to have the information because I know all of us made personal as well as political commitments to follow through on some of the concerns. It would be good for us to have the direct information.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: There are very few items that have brought as much mail or as much concern as WCB questions.

1650

Mr Daigeler: I would like to ask a rather general question first because I think we have some time to go into the details. It relates to the basic philosophy of the Ministry of Labour, and perhaps it applies to the previous Minister of Labour.

You indicated in your statement, quite frankly with good reason, that you have been a labour advocate over many years, that you have been working very hard -- and I certainly can attest to that -- in the interest of the workers. You are now the minister and obviously you wish to implement some of the things for which you have been fighting for many years.

On the other hand, I have just come back from our budget tour in eastern Ontario. We were talking to many business people, small business people for the most part. They are very, very concerned about not just your own initiatives but about what is happening to the business community through all levels of government, and in particular what they perceive to be an attack on the entrepreneurial spirit. They say: "Is it still worth it for us to create jobs? We're getting taxed to the hilt, and this regulation and that regulation. Why should we go through the hassle? It is better to become a government employee or whatever."

How do you see your role and the role of the Ministry of Labour in this whole question? Is your ministry strictly an advocate for the employees, the working group in society? How do you see your role as Minister of Labour with regard to the employers and job creation? How is your relationship to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology? Who within the government is advocating, as it were, for the employer? There were many who came to us and said: "Well, who's speaking for me? Who's protecting my rights?" Do you see that as part of your portfolio as well?

It is a bit of a philosophical question, but I think an extremely important one, because to some extent there is a mood out there that is not very good for the economic future of this province. Even though I am in opposition and ultimately if the mood stays sour it may be good for us, I still think it would be bad for the people. Therefore, I would like you to address that question and share with us how you see your role in that interrelationship between support for the business community and support for the workers.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have no difficulty with the question. Whether my answer, which probably would be a little bit philosophical as well, will satisfy you, I cannot tell you. I can tell you that in anything I do, there is no attack on the entrepreneurial spirit. I would like to see more of it in the province and in the country. But I would also like to see very much more of a partnership arrangement.

The confrontational mode -- and I understand it; I came out of it myself as an active trade unionist for a good many years -- has probably been what has built the trade union movement side of our province and our economy into the force it is. It was the only tactic that really seemed to be effective for a good many years.

Many people, many of the leaders in the trade movement union and others who have left it in recent years, have recognized for some time that we have an entirely different world out there in terms of trading patterns. Whether we bitterly opposed free trade or not, the fact is that it is now with us and that it may very well be extended. We also know there is a corporate world out there -- I am not talking so much about the small business community -- that is bigger than governments in many, many cases and that can move plants and capital around the world. It simply means we have to concentrate on using the expertise that is there among workers as well as the capital that is available in terms of industry and entrepreneurial spirit. We have to see if there is some means by which we can come up with a much more co-operative partnership arrangement.

This is not the place to get into individual examples, but one I like to use, and I will not go into the details, is the effort the workers made in my own town in terms of the Canadian Porcelain plant, to keep it going when we had a viable market and guaranteed markets, through a worker buyout deal when the intent was simply to shut that operation down and eliminate a competitor, which is exactly what happened six months later, and the absolute frustration of both workers and the business community in trying to sell that particular proposal at the time.

Most of the people on the shop floors in our manufacturing industry in particular, and I think it exists in the other industries as well, understand when something is wrong with the plant and something is not being done right. The one thing I get from top business leaders today is an admission that nobody can top the quality of the work that Canadian workers do, one of the reasons many of the auto parts plants are not rushing to Mexico, even though we have some trouble with some of them. They know the kind of quality work that is available here.

The expertise on the shop floor with our workers as well is underutilized tremendously in this country. The feeling they have of having no part in the decisions that are made that affect their futures is also a cause of concern, I can tell you, not just to people like myself and others but to a surprising number of people in the business community as well.

My philosophy is simply one of setting the stage where there is the kind of protection, the kind of support programs and the kind of utilization of workers that gives them a heck of a lot more say in the decisions that affect them and in how a plant can successfully be run. I think if we are going to meet productive increases, if we are going to meet continued quality in the workplace, we have to develop this kind of a partnership. You will not do it if one side or the other -- and this is where we have a disagreement, of course -- feels much weaker than the other or feels that it cannot adequately express its opinion.

It is a partnership I am working for. It is an attempt to get people working in a co-operative and not a confrontational approach to things. It is philosophical. You asked a philosophical question. I cannot do it any other way to you.

Mrs Witmer: My first question to the minister is as follows. You originally had indicated you would be introducing legislation concerning the labour law reform by June of this year. I would like to ask you now, when do you anticipate introducing that legislation, and also, will you be introducing a green paper prior to the introduction of the legislation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: You are talking about OLRA?

Mrs Witmer: I am talking about the labour.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Originally I had hopes, which turned out to be not very realistic, of having a package of changes in the OLRA field -- there have been no major changes there since 1975 -- ready for June. It became obvious early on that that was not going to be a possibility. We have not yet finalized our decision on what form the consultation is going to take. The exercise we went through, which was a very useful one -- and also got a lot of flak out in public -- was the use of labour lawyers on both management and company side to produce their ideas of what was needed in the way of reform.

That was deliberately not done as a combined effort. They were asked to submit separate packages simply because we probably would have taken a year or longer if we had tried to reach any kind of consensus on something as vital as the OLRA. We wanted to have before us what besides that had to be done in terms of labour relations reform in the province of Ontario. We are now in the process of looking at what we got from both sides and trying to accurately put together a paper people can understand that says exactly what it would mean or not mean and what the options are.

Some form of that paper, based on the two discussion papers we got back from management and labour, will be the consultation paper we will use. We hope to have that out late this summer and probably in the early part of the fall. I am guessing on that. We are going to try to concentrate the consultation as much as we can, but we also recognize fully the interest in this particular field. When we get the consultation back from that paper and when it has also gone through various cabinet committees for their feeling as to what is and is not possible, I will have the responsibility for drafting the actual legislation that will come into the House for the usual process.

I am hoping to have that in the House some time late this fall. I suspect it will be out to committee over the winter break. If I meet that schedule, that is the intent, and we will probably be on it some time next year in terms of the clause-by-clause work in the committee. That is not a guarantee. That is currently our hope.

1700

Mrs Witmer: I would like to move on to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I would like to know, how many times did that that board intervene in a labour dispute because of bad-faith bargaining in 1990?

Mr Thomson: We would have to get you the answer to that. I think we can probably do that by tomorrow.

Mrs Witmer: Okay. A follow-up to that: What impact does the proposed change in powers for the board have on case workload and staffing complements? What would be the estimated cost of the proposed changes?

Mr Thomson: You are talking about the impact on the board if the proposals that were made by the labour side of the group that got together were turned into legislation.

Mrs Witmer: Exactly.

Mr Thomson: I do not think we have that because there has been no decision made as to whether we would be moving in the direction those proposals propose. We might be able to give you a general answer with respect to impact on the board if all of those proposals were made. I think we need to take some time to determine that.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It would be very difficult, too, because there are some presumptions. That is not, obviously, the package we are going with, although it has formed the basis for some of the discussions and certainly is what has raised some fears out in the business community as well. But some of the changes suggested, the feeling is, would cut down some of the workload of the board considerably. There are others that probably would work in reverse. Once again, it is whatever the final package is that it is decided to go with, but some of the input we will get on that will lead to the final decisions on it.

Mr Thomson: Mrs Witmer, just to clarify your earlier question, you would like to know how many times last year an allegation of bad-faith bargaining was brought before the board. Is that your question?

Mrs Witmer: Yes.

The Chair: Is there a presumption that the board operates on a calendar year for reporting purposes?

Mrs Witmer: Is it 1990-91 or 1990?

The Chair: Is it on our fiscal year?

Mr Thomson: I think we can do either. Shall we assume the calendar year would be sufficient for you?

Mrs Witmer: Thank you. Turning to vote 2404, the strategic policy and analysis unit is currently reviewing the exemption of the domestic worker on the farms from the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. I would like to ask you, what type of consultation have you taken with the interested groups up until this time?

Mr Thomson: The area where we have begun consultation relates to the issue of the exemption for farming, the agricultural community. We have had a number of discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the major farming organizations, and we have agreed with them to begin an exercise this summer that would have persons from the farming community plus inspectors from our branch actually going on to farms and looking at how our present industrial regulation, how the act as a whole, would work in a farming setting. That will take a number of months to complete. That would give us the feedback on whether: (1) this is feasible; (2) it would require a special regulation so there would not be any unintended application of the industrial regulation in ways that would not work in the farming community; and (3) it would be possible to adapt the present regulation in a way that would work. The plan would be to begin those discussions involving the farming community once again in the fall of this year, depending upon the results of the summer discussions.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think it is useful to mention just a couple of other things in terms of the farming community and any changes we are looking at. The priority in my mind, to begin with, in terms of the OLRA end of things, is the exclusion of what is in effect an industrial farm operation, that is, a moving shift mushroom farm or a chicken farm or something like that, the processers.

A separate issue, also in the farm community, is the matter of health and safety. There is a fair amount of work being done on that because I think most people recognize you would have difficulty in just blanket exclusions of the family farms. I do not think that was ever our intent. At the same time, we have an accident rate in the farm community that is disturbingly high and some of the groups we have had looking at it tell us that as well. So we have a couple of different problems we are trying to deal with in terms of the agricultural community.

Mr Thomson: The discussions in the fall will involve the release of a consultation paper as well.

Mrs Witmer: I appreciate that response. If it is considered that these regulations should be introduced, when do you see that happening? Are we looking at next year in the spring?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It is a little difficult to tell you with the consultations that are going on and with, quite frankly, the workload we have had, the material we have had before the House and is still to come. I just cannot give you a hard answer on that.

Mr Thomson: If the regulation were introduced, if the exemption were limited in part or in whole -- and that is an if -- a whole separate issue would be the pace at which that would become effective. There clearly would need to be a phase-in period and also there would be a need for real education of the farming community to help people be ready and able to make use of the regulation in a positive way and also to train our own people on how to apply it to the farming community so it would be effective and not cause any unintended results. I stress that is if the decision is made to introduce the regulation. It may be that Naomi Alboim, who is the assistant deputy minister of policy, could add to that for you.

The Chair: Please identify yourself for Hansard and proceed with your answer.

Ms Alboim: Naomi Alboim. I am the ADM of policy at the Ministry of Labour. If, as a result of the exercise that we undertake this summer with the visits to the farms, it were determined that a further process was in order, we would write up a consultation document. We would proceed with the consultation exercise, likely in the fall. Depending on the results of those consultation processes, assuming we had cabinet authority to proceed, we would likely establish some kind of committee process that would actually sit down together to work out the regulation, including members from the farm community so they would be involved in the development of that regulation. That would likely take some time.

Mrs Witmer: As far as the regulations respecting the health care facilities are concerned, when do you anticipate they would be introduced?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: You were asking about the health care regs?

Mrs Witmer: Yes.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The health care regs have been in the process, I guess, since 1985 or 1987 and we are currently having meetings. What we have found was that there was agreement between the parties on the vast majority of the health care regs but there were still some five specifically that had some major cost implications and I think about 15 of them that did raise problems with other ministries. We have had the other ministries together working on them to see if we can find a way around the problems that exist. I do not think a decision has been made yet to proceed with what is currently agreed to. We are trying to see if we cannot reach agreement on the remaining items that are still in some dispute, but we have left open the possibility of proceeding without those particular items. That probably will not be very long, is about the best I can tell you. The ministers involved as well have given their staff instructions to fast-track the issues that are still causing some concern.

Mr Thomson: The Ministry of Health and the Ontario Hospital Association are engaged in some analysis of the some of the regs and some costing. But what is not yet decided is whether one waits till all of the issues have been resolved or, as the minister says, whether some portion of those regulations might be carved out where there is not a major disagreement or it does appear likely the regulation can be introduced, and introduce those while further work is done on some of the more contentious issues, for example the issue relating to the handling of patients.

1710

The Chair: You have another two minutes.

Mrs Witmer: My final question is, when is the ministry going to release the definition of a "poor performer" to comply with Bill 208?

Mr Thomson: This is the issue of when an employer could be seen to be a poor performer, which would trigger specific possible orders under Bill 208. We are in the midst of a task to develop a proposal for consultation. My understanding is that we are hoping later this spring, early this summer, to have a proposed regulation that then can be sent out for consultation.

That needs to be a fairly lengthy period of consultation. That regulation would not become law until we are further down the road, which would include having certified worker and employer members in workplaces, and we are still some distance from that. The agency is still working on how to identify and train those persons. So there is still a fairly lengthy process to go on that issue.

Mr Ferguson: Minister, in your opening comments you stated that assistance has been greatly increased to the joint labour-management adjustment committees of the province set up in plant closures and layoffs that affect 50 or more workers. You talk about funding increasing sevenfold from $500,000 to about $7.5 million. Could you give the committee a little more of an idea of specifically what those funds are allocated and used for?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: They are basically for setting up, and there are people here with some expertise on this as well, the joint labour-management committee in the plant where there is a closure, and for assisting the workers in establishing what is needed in the way of retraining and, in some cases, actually assisting them into another job.

One of the things that did surprise me was the speed with which this is up and running. We now have over 100 such committees in place and working. Unfortunately, as well, a good chunk of our money, I think about $2.8 million, is involved in them, as of about a week ago when we last checked out the figures on the labour adjustment committees in the plant.

Mr Thomson: I think Harry Shardlow, director of the employment adjustment branch and the new office of labour adjustment, can speak to how those funds have been allocated to date.

Mr Shardlow: I am Harry Shardlow, director of the office of labour adjustment. The $7.5 million is basically, as the minister was saying, to help facilitate the establishment of adjustment committees, bearing in mind that that forms the provincial share in these adjustment committees. That is matched by a corresponding amount from the federal government, from the industrial adjustment service, and, in the great majority of situations, from the employer community.

The amount of money we have allocated to date, in the order of $2.8 million, is actually matched, on almost an equal basis, by the federal government and perhaps a little bit more so by the employer community. So for the 100-plus committees we have, those funds would actually be approaching $7 million, $8 million or $9 million that have been allocated to date.

The usual use of those funds is for the actual establishment of the adjustment committee itself and for the provision of wages for the employees and the company members on the committee during the committee business for acquiring one of the more important elements of the adjustment committee process, and that is for actual needs assessments so that the individual workers have an opportunity to express what help they feel they need. Then the committee can actually summarize that type of information and formulate an adjustment plan for the workers themselves.

Mr Ferguson: I think there is a perception out there that a lot of dollars go into buying coffee and doughnuts, and people sit around in the morning and talk about how tough times are. I am glad to hear that some concrete programs have been put in place.

The Chair: Does it sound like one of your caucus meetings?

Mr Ferguson: No, not at all.

Under the office of arbitration, could you tell me how many arbitrators are on the list recommended by the labour management committee? How long does the average arbitration hearing take? Is there any plan to improve the arbitration process in order to resolve outstanding issues both on the labour and management sides? There has been some concern in the past about the length of time it takes to get a case to arbitration as well as the hearing process. Is there any plan to fast-track?

Miss Read: I am Jean Read, acting assistant deputy minister, industrial relations division.

We have 93 arbitrators on the list. These people are recommended to the minister according to criteria established by a labour management advisory committee comprised of three members from management and three members from trade unions. They also have a training program to develop potential arbitrators to assist them to enter the field.

In terms of delays, there are two processes by which one can proceed to arbitration. One is under the collective agreement route, which is a three-person board. Under that system the parties are in a position to select their arbitrators. They tend to select the busy arbitrators, who take somewhat longer to get to a hearing and to issue their awards.

Under section 45, which is the expedited arbitration process, the minister appoints an arbitrator to hear the matter within 21 days from receipt of the application by the party.

We do not have current figures on the time it takes to issue awards, but we do advise the arbitrators that we are looking for awards within less than three months from the date of the hearing.

Mr Ferguson: I have a number of other questions, but I am sure my colleagues do as well, so I will bow to them at this point.

Mr Johnson: With regard to the industrial relations program, I was very pleased to hear the minister say that with changes to the Labour Relations Act there will hopefully be a less adversarial and a more co-operative relationship between labour and employers, labour and business. The Labour Relations Act is receiving a great deal of attention. I think it has been a very necessary act. It has been viewed to be in the interest of the employees and looks after many of their concerns when dealing with the relationship between business and labour.

Has the minister consulted with the representatives about any changes that will be made to the act? What kind of response have they received at this time?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Consulted with whom? Are you talking about --

Mr Johnson: With business representatives.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure how to answer that. The answer, generally, is yes. It is a topic that gets raised at just about every business group I speak to these days, and I speak to a fair number of business groups. It is a topic, until there is more of a framework as to what we want to try to do, that raises all kinds of concerns.

I think that is why we have seen some of the press we have and some of the concerns raised. If you based it strictly on the labour people's first report we did, which looked at the entire act and suggested more than 30 changes, you would get one picture; if you looked at the other side -- "Leave it alone; don't touch it" was the basic theme but a few suggestions -- you would certainly get a different picture. You would soon realize there was not an awful lot of agreement on any changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act, because it can have a fairly fundamental effect in terms of some of the procedures and processes we go through.

It will not be helpful if we are not able to achieve a more of a partnership operation. On the other hand, I am not sure that partnership is at all possible without some changes to the OLRA. As I say, it has not been touched since 1975 and there are some things that are seen as prohibiting workers' rights to organize; basically, in the field of organization. That is one of the emphases we have been taking a look at.

1720

Mr Johnson: If I can just add, there is a perception that one part of the relationship -- maybe labour would like to be more co-operative than business, but that would not necessarily be fair. I like to think that business would like to co-operate with labour to the benefit of the operation of business and to the benefit of all concerned.

We sort of know what the potential benefits are to workers, but what is really important to business and to the employers is what kind of benefits there are for them in changes to the act. I wonder if you might elaborate on that.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I would not want to get too specific, because once again you get into areas that can cause you all kinds of problems. I can tell you that in much of western Europe they have reached a better accommodation between companies and the workers than we have in North America.

In this country, if you are active in a trade union you would know very quickly that to talk about changing any seniority provisions or talking about a social contract, or a social wage, even, that might cover a whole sector would be almost akin to being a heretic of some kind. Yet some of those issues are commonly discussed in some of the western European countries. Part of the reason they are not discussed here is that I think there is not the level of trust or the level of co-operation that is necessary to bring about that kind of frankness between business and labour. I guess that is the area I am really thinking of.

Mr G. Wilson: It follows on what Mr Daigeler was saying, the question of looking at it from the other point of view, that is, the question of jobs versus the entrepreneurial spirit. It would seem that jobs follow from the entrepreneurial spirit, but there are jobs and jobs. One expression used now is McJobs to suggest service jobs that are low wage and low security. I think the changes to the Labour Relations Act we have been talking about might do something to redress this problem, give workers in those areas more authority.

Part of this speaks to something the minister raised in his opening remarks about the speech from the throne, where he said that one of his goals is making it easier for workers in the province to organize so they can work in partnership and co-operation with industry. From the workers' point of view, what are some of the things that could happen here to make it easier to organize and perhaps some of the things that would follow from it to make it more of a partnership to, as I would see it, enhance those jobs? What role could workers play in increasing the value of their jobs?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure I want to go into details of what might be contained in any piece of legislation. What I will tell you is that one of the things that always impressed me and that I really hung my hat on as Labour critic for 12 or 13 years in this House, was the preamble to the Ontario Labour Relations Act which simply says it is in the interest of working people in the province to be able to organize and engage in free collective bargaining. Yet there are a number of situations that make it very difficult in some cases to do that. You can get into arguments over petitions, for example, and you can be tied up, if they go to court, for a year and two years and three years in court challenges.

There needs to be some movement in terms of the workers' ability to take advantage of what the preamble to the Labour Relations Act says. I think that in itself would make some surprising changes. It may surprise people, but interestingly enough, you do not get much opposition to that, from most of the big business community at least. I think they recognize that is a fact of life that actually exists in their plants, and some of them even agree when you are talking to them.

Where you get more concern is the small business community. They are not exactly sure whether this would not mean they would all be organized overnight, which I do not think is what is going to happen in any event, and whether it would somehow or other inhibit them from using their entrepreneurial skills, if you like. That is a little more delicate area, and we have to understand that when we are looking at changes in legislation.

Certainly, the intent is to make the climate a little easier for real access to what the preamble of the Labour Relations Act says. I think, personally -- I have come up through the field -- that this would be better for business and labour in this community, if we can ever break down some of these barriers and change some of the attitudes and do away with some of the sacred cows that all of us have lived by for a long time.

The Chair: Moving from sacred cows to Liberals, Mr Offer, you have the floor.

Mr Offer: There is a difference.

The Chair: I thought they were an endangered species nine months ago.

Interjections.

Mr Offer: This is eating into our time. I know your tricks, Mr Chair.

I have a short question on pay equity. Last December, you brought out a consultation paper. I am wondering if you might be able to share with us where we are with respect to legislation. Second, even the consultation paper excludes at the very best over 115,000 women. Could you share with us your timetable for legislation to include all women in the workforce?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure of the numbers, but basically we are talking about the under-10s. In most cases, they are mom-and-pop operations. Some of the suggestions we have made have raised some concerns as well among some of the people who are involved in pay equity, and that was one of the reasons we wanted to get the paper out for discussion. But we also were not satisfied ourselves that we had the best answer to dealing with the smaller workplaces and the under-10s; part of the purpose of the consultation was to see if we could come up with a better method of dealing with this. If you talk to most of the organized women's groups and pay equity groups, they want to see even the under-10s kept under the legislation, and that may very well be the case. It is just finding the best means of dealing with it.

I think we have somebody here from the pay equity committee who might give you more information or a better answer on what we are doing. We are still in the consultation process, I can tell you, on the smaller operations.

Mr Thomson: I perhaps can say a few things. I do not think we have anyone here from the Pay Equity Commission today, although I think there will be somebody here tomorrow.

The consulation paper dealt with the introduction of proportional value first. That consultation really has been completed. We have had a fair amount of feedback, a lot of discussion around what legislation might look like with respect to proportional value.

With respect to proxy comparisons, a lot of issues were raised in the consultation that we are doing further work on. Some relate to the concern of those in favour of pay equity about what the comparison ought to be. Should the comparison be to male or female external jobs? Should the comparison be to the adjustment? Should one receive the adjustment that was paid in the proxy organization? Should one be receiving the actual amount being paid in terms of salary to the person in the proxy organization? As well, there are a lot of administrative complexities with respect to the implementation of proxy, so we are doing further work on that in light of the feedback we got.

There was a commitment made as well, if I could add to what the minister said, that at some point we would release a consultation paper for further discussion on the various ways those women excluded from the acts, specifically the under-10s, might be assisted with the Pay Equity Act being one of a number of routes by which their wage situation might be dealt with. That paper is not yet completed and ready for consulation.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If you could raise the minimum wage high enough and fast enough, it would probably do more for the under-10s than anything else, but you would also have a minimum wage that would scare everybody in the province.

The Chair: How high would that be?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am not sure.

1730

Mr Offer: That was my first question to you and you are very clear on that one. I know my colleague wants to ask a question on this issue also, but I want to go back to the consultation on the Labour Relations Act. You have indicated there will be consultation. You have also indicated that you hope to have legislation by the fall session.

Before you can have legislation, you know there are a certain number of cabinet committees and things that have to be gone through. We are sitting here at the end of June. What type of real consultation can take place to meet your timetable? That is exactly the concern that business is voicing across the province. What is proposed for a consultation on reform that, without any doubt, people see as very important to their ability to continue in the province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The message has been given both by my leader and myself on a number of occasions. The message is clear that there is going to be consultation. The documents we are going to use will certainly be some of what we are preparing or working on in within the ministry right now. It is going to take a bit of time. Our hope is that we have the consultation documents out before this summer is out. That means we will need a bit of the fall as well to get the consultation. We are hoping it can be as concentrated as possible, but I am not prepared to give any time frame on that. My hope is that we will be in a position, based on the consultation, to start drafting legislation late this fall and hopefully get it out to a committee over the winter break. I would not want to make any firm commitment on that.

Mr Offer: That is exactly the concern. The time period which you apparently are giving to thousands and thousands of people to comment on something which they view as very important is one which they feel is much too narrow. By your own statement, you seem to want the legislation in by the fall. It seems to me that in order to accomplish what it is you wish to accomplish, something has to lose, and that will be consultation prior to legislation.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: You still have a few months before we leave this place in the fall. That is the pre-consultation. I agree with you that that is very important. But once any legislation comes in, you also have a long period of time in the House and in committees. Something like that would undoubtedly go out to hearings over the next break as well if we are able to put together a package.

I think the other thing you have to recognize is that the final decision on what we do will be a political decision. That is going to have to be made.

Mr Offer: I recognize you have every right to do that, but what we are hearing clearly is that with respect to this particular initiative, people want to speak to you prior to the drafting of legislation. They recognize the committee process. They recognize that there is the possibility, though not the inevitability, of public hearings. They also recognize that the possibility is not an inevitability in terms of a committee travelling. We have suffered that in terms of Bill 70 -- that the committee is not travelling.

What people really want to do is talk to the ministry and yourself prior to the policies being etched in principle in legislation. What you are saying to me in terms of legislation being ready in the fall and not having a consultation document today and potentially not having one until at very best mid-summer or late summer just speaks to the same type of process that the Burkett committee went.

I speak not to substance; I speak to process. The process and the criticism of process is that 30 proposals of such impact in 30 days is one which causes concern. I just leave that there.

Mrs McLeod: I will take you back to the proposals for the extension of the pay equity plan and would be interested in knowing whether the ministry has done a fairly detailed cost-impact analysis of the extension of the plan as it relates to the broader public sector. I recognize the difficulty at looking at cost impact in the private sector.

I am obviously concerned about a realistic assessment of the cost implications for community agencies which are in fact funded by government and which could reasonably be seen to be government's responsibility in funding transfers, and whether you have a realistic cost-impact analysis for plans to extend the pay equity plans.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: It is not inexpensive. I think we do have some figures on that.

Mr Thomson: Yes. We can provide you with those. You need to break it down almost into four parts: the costs of implementing the act as it presently stands, because it has had an impact on the broader public sector; then the costs of proportional value comparisons, which would bring in some people who were left out in the initial act; and then third, the issue of the cost of proxy comparisons for those that the first two would not cover. With proxy, there is the problem that it depends on what kind of proxy is ultimately introduced. If it is a proxy approach that involves getting the percentage adjustment or dollar adjustment from the proxy organization, that is a different cost than actually moving to the job rate paid in a proxy organization.

We do not have firm figures on the last two of those because we are still working on the options that are possible if we moved in that direction. But I can give you perhaps tomorrow our best understanding of the kinds of costs involved in implementing pay equity thus far and the kinds of costs that might be involved with proportional comparisons.

Mr Daigeler: How much time do we have?

The Chair: You have five minutes, Mr Daigeler.

Mr Daigeler: Coming back to my earlier question, it is a bit awkward, but I think still the best way we have found to give them an equal chance. You indicated, Minister, that you are interested in a new partnership between labour and business. I certainly share that goal. It is a philosophical one, but sometimes philosophy is important because it does, at least hopefully, lead us to certain specific actions. If that is your goal, I share the goal. Let's see the specifics. Perhaps you will indicate some of those specifics over the next few hours.

The first specific one in that area I would like an answer to is, who within your government has the responsibility to advocate on behalf of what can be called the business community or the employers?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I personally think we all have a responsibility. I do not think there is any question, because of the nature of my ministry, that it does get involved and will get involved with workers and their problems. When you are involved in employment standards complaints or plant shutdowns or health and safety complaints, you are more often than not dealing with a problem that has been brought by a worker or group of workers to the ministry. But that does not absolve us from responsibility in terms of the business community as well.

Probably the ministry most directly involved with business is the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. I am not sure of anybody else. I do not think we have operated on the basis that there is one minister or one ministry that has a responsibility for business and not the others. When I made my case in our little back and forth philosophy earlier, it is on the basis that I want to establish a partnership. I think that is beneficial to both sides if we can do it.

Mr Daigeler: Do you have, in terms of your own ministry, an ongoing advisory group that represents the employers' group? I do not want to appear as being only interested in the employers' group, because I appreciate the work you are doing on behalf of labour, but at the same time I think a lot of resources, from looking at the estimates, are spent in helping the legitimate case of the workers. I am just wondering who and what resources are available for the legitimate case of the employers. Do you have an ongoing link, and if so, what does that link look like?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We have some advisory committees. I think the deputy may give you a couple of answers on it.

1740

Mr Thomson: As an example, we have created an advisory group of people from a range of employer organizations who meet with us periodically to review any policy proposals we are working on and to give us feedback. In fact, we met yesterday afternoon on the Ontario Labour Relations Act. We schedule regular meetings with the employer organizations. We have also established a labour-management forum that has senior leaders from both management and labour who come together periodically to review issues of common concern. Their next meeting is in a couple of weeks.

Mr Daigeler: To be specific, can we have something in writing of what has happened since you have taken office in that regard?

Mr Thomson: The kinds of consultations we have entered into with the employer community?

Mr Daigeler: Yes, who the people are and when you have met with these groups.

Mr Thomson: I think we can give you an overview of that.

Mr Daigeler: I would appreciate that.

The Chair: Is this a specifically named committee, an advisory committee, and does it have a defined membership and mandate?

Mr Thomson: It depends on which committee we are talking about. The ones I have mentioned thus far do have defined memberships and broad mandates, at any rate.

Mr Daigeler: Anything you have in writing, I would appreciate.

Mr Offer: It is not just -- you said it was about the Labour Relations Act.

Mr Thomson: No, I understand. You are talking about the employer organizations or groups of organizations with which we consult that give the employer community an opportunity to be heard on the issues we are raising. I think we can give you an overview of that.

Mr Offer: When you give that overview, could you also share with us what information you have given to the many employer organizations in the province, if there is such a group?

The Chair: I think you would need to be a little more specific here. Are you talking about ministry promotional material or are you talking about consultation papers?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: For example, we get all kinds of requests for both the labour and management documents in the first OLRA deal, and they were sent out to any management group that requested them.

The Chair: Naomi, if you would like to come and respond to that, and then I will recognize Mrs Witmer.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Naomi is on policy, so she gets involved in it more than would most people.

Ms Alboim: What I would propose that we provide for you for tomorrow is, for each of the significant policy issues that we have consulted on, we can provide to you a listing of the organizations that participated in the consultation process, when we issued the consultation document, over what period of time we consulted with the individual groups, and give you a sample. For each process we involved different employer groups, but I can certainly give you a sampling of the kind of mailing list we use to send out our consultation papers and the people we invite to consult on a variety of issues, if that would be helpful to you.

Mrs Witmer: The Employment Standards Act is being reviewed and I would like to know two things. When do you plan to release the green paper on the Employment Standards Act, and also, is this going to include the increased notice provisions and a reduction in the employee thresholds for severance pay, or are you going to introduce that as a separate package of amendments?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The green paper on the Employment Standards Act, which deals with a number of issues -- notice and additional information in terms of plant shutdowns -- will probably not be ready until late in the fall.

Mrs Witmer: Are you going to have a separate package of amendments?

Mr Thomson: If I can clarify, we do have the adjustment proposals that were dealt with in the earlier consultation paper. We have gone through a consultation exercise on those and the government has yet to make a decision on when and to what extent amendments in that area will be introduced, but we have a separate exercise to review the whole Employment Standards Act.

That exercise has been ongoing for a period of time. We went through an initial stage of asking people, "What are the issues we ought to deal with?" We are now having work done on each of those issues.

At the earliest, as the minister has just said, that consultation paper would be out near the end of the year, and we anticipate a fairly lengthy period of consultation on that because that is a really broad and fundamental look at the Employment Standards Act. That would not lead to legislation for a period of time to come after the consultation begins.

Mrs Witmer: There is talk about establishing the worker venture capital funds. Will your ministry be involved in those interministerial discussions?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Yes, we will, and that is also part of a broader look at investment capital that the government is undertaking at the moment as well.

Mrs Witmer: When are those discussions anticipated to start?

Mr Thomson: There will be, as I understand it, a consultation, not led by our ministry but led, I think, by Treasury or MITT -- I think Treasury -- that is intended to begin some time, I think, this summer, with possible legislation at some later date. We are part of an interministerial committee that is looking at the issues from a policy standpoint, but the actual managing of the consultation exercise will be done by another ministry, not by us.

Mrs Witmer: Right. The consultation paper on the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act has just been released. What type of time line are you looking at there for consultation?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: You are talking about CECBA.

Mrs Witmer: Yes, the one that was just introduced on Monday.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: We cannot give you an answer on that until one of my colleagues, who has been doing a bit of a study on CECBA and possible reform there, finishes the report. When they have finished, Frances Lankin has the responsibility for doing the consultation that is ongoing now. The results of her consultation will be turned over to our ministry to tie in with anything we do with the OLRA and to make any recommendations.

Mrs Witmer: So at this time you really do not have --

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I do not really have a time frame on that.

Mrs Witmer: Okay, but it will be eventually coming back to your ministry.

Mr Thomson: Eventually the results of the discussions that are now going on will come to us, which is really the beginning of a process for our ministry as the ministry responsible for the act in a public policy sense. That could take a short or a lengthy period of time, depending upon the issues raised in the discussions.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: You get into a lot of areas when you are looking at both CECBA and the OLRA and how they do or do not come together in one package.

Mrs Witmer: Actually, when I took a look at that estimates paper, it is unreal what is going on in the Ministry of Labour.

I would like to go back to the employee wage protection program. Once that is approved, if that happens, how many staff do you anticipate you are going to have to hire?

Mr Thomson: We have figures on that, if I could provide those to you tomorrow. I do not have them here, but I can give you some idea of the size of the program and the number of people it will take to administer it. It is a very large money distribution program, and it does include a fair amount of work to validate the claims when they are made, so there will be a number of people added to the employment standards side of the ministry. I think I can give you those figures in some accuracy tomorrow.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Your question ties in as well with one that came from Mr Offer, and that is that the wage protection program we have -- the $175 million -- is for an 18-month period. That figure is 18 months, not a year as we were talking. I just wanted to be clear on that.

Mrs Witmer: I guess I would like to know as well, what would the annual administrative costs be?

Is the bell going to ring pretty soon?

The Chair: You have seven minutes, and I doubt the bell will ring until close to 6 o'clock. Then there will be probably a five-minute bell.

Mrs Witmer: Okay. I would like to turn to the --

The Chair: Shows you what I know. Mrs Witmer had seven minutes remaining of her time.

The committee adjourned at 1749.