* (0900)

LABOUR

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Labour. Does the honourable Minister of Labour have an opening statement?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Good morning, Mr. Chairman. It is my privilege to present the expenditure Estimates of the Department of Labour for fiscal year 1996 to 1997. I would like to acknowledge the competent and dedicated staff of the department under the capable leadership of the deputy minister, Tom Farrell. It has been a pleasure to work with the employees of the department during the year. They have proven to be professional, loyal and hard-working public servants.

I intend, Mr. Chairman, on making an introductory statement at this time. For 1996 to 1997 the total budget request for the Department of Labour is $12,959,400. [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister happens to be making his opening statements. Those who are not interested in hearing it, if they could do their conversations in the hall, we would appreciate it.

Mr. Toews: As I was saying, the number is $12,959,400 representing a reduction of 22.9 percent from the amount provided through the Department of Labour appropriations in the prior year. This reduction largely reflects the fact that the Office of the Fire Commissioner has been set up as a special operating agency effective April 1, 1996, and that no funding is therefore provided for the Office of the Fire Commissioner in these Estimates of the Department of Labour. In 1995-1996 approximately $3.3 million was included for the Office of the Fire Commissioner.

The department recovers a significant proportion of its annual expenditures through its various sources of revenue. For 1996-97 the department expects to recover about 58 percent of its total budget as revenue.

In terms of staffing resources, the department's allocation has been reduced by 43.5 staff years, almost entirely representing the removal of the Office of the Fire Commissioner special operating agency from the department's '96-97 request. Other than the 43 staff years of the Office of the Fire Commissioner, only one staff year has been reduced in the department, and no layoff resulted as the position was vacant.

In respect to the legislation administered by the department, I am planning to introduce a number of amendments to labour legislation this session, including amendments to The Labour Relations Act, The Construction Industry Wages Act, The Remembrance Day Act, The Pension Benefits Act, The Payment of Wages Act.

The changes now being considered to The Labour Relations Act are aimed principally at enhancing the democratic rights of workers. The proposed change requiring unions to submit annual financial reports to the Manitoba Labour Board is intended to enhance the accountability of unions to bargaining unit employees.

It should be noted that a number of other jurisdictions in Canada have legislation in place requiring unions to file financial statements on an annual basis. Another proposed change will give employees in the bargaining unit the right to say whether or not they want their union dues to be used for political purposes. Proposed amendments requiring an expedient secret ballot vote on every certification application where the union demonstrates at least 40 percent support are intended to provide greater certainty that the outcome of a certification application reflects the wishes of the employees. A number of Canadian jurisdictions currently provide for such a vote.

As a part of this government's commitment to strengthen the economy and to support long-term growth and development of the construction industry in Manitoba, a number of legislative amendments to improve The Construction Industry Wages Act are being considered. Stakeholders in the construction industry, including representatives of employers and employees, have been consulted to provide advice prior to introducing the bill.

Amendments to The Remembrance Day Act are being developed which are based on unanimous recommendations of a review committee composed of representatives of veterans' organizations, employers and employees. Proposed amendments to The Pension Benefits Act will enable Manitoba to enter into a multilateral agreement with other Canadian jurisdictions respecting pension plan administration.

An amendment is also being considered to The Payment of Wages Act to allow for reciprocal enforcement of payment of wages orders with American jurisdictions. Work is currently underway on an initiative respecting employment standards legislation which is designed to consolidate, streamline and generally update a number of related pieces of legislation.

In addition to the legislative proposals, the government has introduced a program of regulatory reform to streamline regulations, to make them more user friendly, to reduce paper burden and to minimize disincentives to economic growth and investment. A review of the department's regulations was conducted by the Regulatory Review Committee, and we expect to be implementing the recommendations of the committee in the coming year.

In 1995-1996, a number of regulatory amendments were made including to the pension benefits regulation to facilitate the garnishment of pension benefits for the purposes of enforcing family maintenance orders. The Pension Benefits Act was amended to provide for this garnishment process. Also to the pension benefits regulation changes were made allowing for the establishment of a simplified money purchase pension plan to promote the establishment of plans by small employers by reducing administrative complexities associated with pension plans; finally to the reciprocal enforcement regulation under The Payment of Wages Act providing for the enforcement of Nova Scotia orders in Manitoba and to allow for Manitoba payment of wages orders to be enforced in Nova Scotia.

It is important to acknowledge, Mr. Chairman, the significant contributions made by members of the department's external advisory committees. These people have contributed their valuable time and efforts to providing advice and assistance. Over the past few months, the Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee was asked to provide advice on the proposed amendments to The Labour Relations Act. A committee chaired by His Honour, Judge John Enns, and composed of representatives of various veterans organizations, the Manitoba Federation of Labour, the Winnipeg and the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce, was asked to examine the closure requirements of The Remembrance Day Act in order to streamline the operation of the act while maintaining the sanctity of the day.

In addition, the Advisory Committee on Workplace Safety and Health provides a valuable forum for labour and management, as well as technical experts to regularly meet and advise the minister on safety and health matters of current concern. They are presently looking at a number of regulatory areas, one of which pertains to scaffolding safety.

The Department of Labour continues to be a pioneer in reform initiatives in the Manitoba government. Over the past five years the department has been committed to a strategy of change and improvement to ensure that services to the citizens of Manitoba were of the highest quality, responsive and effective. Our efforts were recognized with the awarding to the department of the first ever Manitoba Quality Award for government in 1993.

* (0910)

Our strategy is threefold. Number one, performance or program performance measurement. The department developed in 1995 the first program performance measurement and reporting framework in the Manitoba government. The framework requires that targets and service standards be established for all programs in the department. Our achievement of intended results is then reported against these pre-established targets. As well, benchmarking against best practices, client satisfaction assessment and continuous improvement plans are integrated into the ongoing reporting. The framework was reviewed by the Provincial Auditor and was well received by Treasury Board.

The framework is both an accountability strategy and a management tool. As an accountability strategy, the framework allows us to more adequately report on what we deliver, to whom, at what cost, and with what impact. As a management tool, it guides choices concerning improvement and possible re-engineering opportunities.

Secondly, continuous improvement is a strategy to position the department to grow as a learning organization, to be client focused, and to ensure that our programs and policies are consistent with and supportive of the economic and social well-being of the province. It involves a clear vision of reform, a set of values to guide choice, and the contribution of all staff in identifying and implementing improvement opportunities.

Measurement is an integral element. We need to know the extent to which changes are an improvement. As a result, we took the initiative to develop our program performance measurement framework.

Thirdly, one of the major system changes has been the delegation by Treasury Board over the past five years to the department of authorities beyond those accorded departments in the general manual of administration. Labour is the only Manitoba department to have these additional authorities. We have managed these delegations wisely as confirmed by the Provincial Auditor in 1994. These additional delegations have enabled my managers to more fully assume responsibility for the operations of the department.

As we show in our annual report to Treasury Board, these delegations have enabled the department to achieve efficiencies and improvement in the delivery of our services to the citizens of Manitoba. The leadership of the department in the area of government reform has been recognized with the involvement of several staff members in the government-wide strategies of Better Methods and Service First. My deputy minister, Tom Farrell, is chair of Better Methods, the goal of which is to change our processes and systems to enable us to deliver better services to Manitobans. As well, senior staff have been seconded from the department to develop Service First initiatives to transform the way government works in Manitoba.

I would now like to take this opportunity to briefly review each of the important programs delivered by the department. In the Labour Services Division, Conciliation and Mediation Services, the Conciliation and Mediation branch has continued to maintain its excellent record for resolving issues without a work stoppage. Over the past year the number of conciliation assignments increased from 147 in the previous year to 198 for the '95-'96 fiscal year. The branch was able to resolve 97 percent of those assignments without a work stoppage. They continue to be active in grievance mediation, handling 266 assignments and successfully resolving 84 percent. They have also begun working in the area of mutual gains bargaining and preventative mediation handling 12 new cases.

The Manitoba Pension Commission, in co-operation with small business and representatives of the financial industry, has created a new pension plan designed for small and medium-sized Manitoba businesses. This simplified pension plan is simpler to administer, less expensive and more flexible than existing pension plans, yet it offers the same level of legislative protection as the bigger plans.

Over the course of the next year the pension commission will be working in close co-operation with various providers to promote the simplified plan throughout Manitoba. Their goal is to expand by 10 percent annually the number of small employers offering pension plans to their employees.

As part of the Pension Commission strategy of using customer feedback to improve service, a series of focus groups have been held with local pension plan administrators to identify ways of improving communication. Responding to suggestions received, they have carried out a series of workshops explaining recent changes in legislation and distributed a publication list and order form. Currently, the commission is working on having their internal publications available via the Internet and hope to have this task completed by September 1996.

During the last several months, staff have completed the design and testing of a pension administration review program to be launched this spring. The program is an on-site administration compliance review and education program. The goal of the program is to identify areas of noncompliance and through the education of administrators improve compliance and administrative practices with respect to the legislative requirements of The Pension Benefits Act.

Regarding Mechanical and Engineering, in an effort to better serve its clients and at the same time reduce its cost, the Mechanical and Engineering branch is in the process of moving its boiler inspection database from an external provider to an internal computer system. By maintaining the database internally, they will be able to respond more quickly to requests from clients for information, provide up-to-date management information and eliminate the fees necessary at present to maintain the database.

In the last year the Canadian Standards Association developed a new maintenance standard for elevators. The Mechanical and Engineering branch, recognizing the stringent requirements of the new standard would not be necessary for all elevators, established a committee made up of industry, building owners, labour and government to review the new provisions under the code. The branch responded to the needs of its clients, understanding that safety was paramount but acknowledging that not all elevators based on their usage would require those code specifications.

In respect of the Office of the Fire Commissioner, on April 1, 1996, the Office of the Fire Commissioner became a special operating agency. As a special operating agency, the Office of the Fire Commissioner is presented with the opportunity to be creative in service delivery and to go the extra mile in marketing its products and services to nontraditional clients, both in Manitoba and in other jurisdictions. Their objective of financial self-sufficiency provides incentives to better control costs and to ensure that the annual fires prevention levy continues to satisfy the funding needs to service their traditional clients. The greater control and accountability for the management and use of the Fires Prevention Fund monies will ensure more decision making occurs at the client service level and will allow the office greater influence over its own destiny.

Within the first two weeks of the Fire Commissioner's office becoming an SOA, they were able to respond to six new contract requests from outside the Manitoba fire service. These contracts included an oil company in Libya, the City of Moose Jaw, a nickel company operating in Cuba, the City of Swift Current, a native band in northern Saskatchewan, and a critical incidents stress debriefing course for outside agencies from across Canada. The sum total of these six contracts has a projected potential profit of $105,000.

In addition, the highly successful Nero and Ashcan fire safety program will be marketed. The Office of the Fire Commissioner is currently negotiating with the International Fire Service Training Academy to be their international marketing association. A yearly profit goal of $114,000 on these kits has been set with every staff member becoming a sales person.

I think especially in respect of this initiative, it is very important to note that the government is not getting into competition with private industry but, in fact, is providing a service to many governments across Canada, to many people in Canada who would like to have training as firefighters. One of my concerns at the time right now is that we do not seem to have a co-operation with the City of Winnipeg, and that is something I would like to work out, that we utilize the offices of the Fire Commissioner, their training facilities, more closely with the training facilities that are presently being offered by the City of Winnipeg.

* (0920)

So I think that the Office of the Fire Commissioner has its task cut out for it in bringing about greater co-operation within Manitoba, a greater standardization of services and training across Canada, and I think it is making great strides in doing that. I think the public servants involved in that initiative have shown themselves up to that task.

In respect of the Employment Standards division, the division continues to develop tests and implement improvements in the delivery of our client service. The primary role of this branch is the promotion and enforcement of fair employment practices for the benefit of both employers and employees in the province. Through the process of complaints and audits, the branch investigates monetary and nonmonetary disputes to ensure the provision and maintenance of legislative benefits and working conditions.

I would like to point out in this respect, Mr. Chairman, that many people find the existing employment standards legislation very confusing given the number of acts that regulate the area, and it is certainly my desire that the department continue its standardization of the code so that people can, in fact, know exactly what the law is, whether they are employers, whether they are employees, whether they are unions.

The service that the branch offers, I think, is a very, very important one in terms of informational. Aside from all its legislative and regulatory authorities, the informational service is used very, very frequently by many companies, both large and small, and in addition to individual employees.

In the last year the branch responded to a 120,000 telephone calls and 8,000 walk-in inquiries. Approximately 3,500 claims were filed with the branch. Through the continued use of various voluntary mechanisms to expedite the settlement of claims, such as mediation and alternative dispute resolution, the branch is able to resolve 50 percent of the claims within 60 days. An estimated 80 percent of claims will be resolved in a timely and nonadversarial manner and, I think, given the volume of claims, that is a credit to the people who work there.

I know, working as the lawyer for that department for a number of years back in the 1980s, it is an incredibly difficult and time-consuming, challenging area. I think the Legislature has got to look at this whole issue and try to assist these people in performing an even better job for the people of Manitoba by modernizing that legislation. Although that is not on my legislative agenda in this particular session, I hope it is the government's intent in the future to do that.

In 1995-1996 approximately one and a half million dollars in wage adjustments were recovered by the branch for workers and employers in Manitoba. The branch actively promotes public education and recognition that awareness and knowledge of rights and obligations is an effective method to ensure compliance with the legislation. A notable initiative is a video aimed at the youth of Manitoba who are about the enter the workforce. The video was produced in partnership with the students of West Kildonan Collegiate and Stonewall Collegiate and attracted positive interest in other jurisdictions.

The branch also provides services to groups of workers affected by job loss. In the previous year the branch worked with 34 companies to mitigate the negative impact of downsizing. Working co-operatively with labour and management, the branch's adjustment of workers affected by job loss has resulted in approximately 57 percent of the people finding employment, 20 percent receiving further training or education and 5 percent becoming self-employed.

From April to June of 1995, 14 adjustment committees were established using the traditional federal-provincial model. Subsequently to July 1995 the branch initiated 20 new activities under the new provincial model. This model has resulted in greater flexibility, quicker response time, less administration, compressed time frames and increased cost-effectiveness in the branch's overall program and service delivery.

The Worker Advisor branch ensures that workers and their dependants receive the benefits to which they are entitled under The Workers Compensation Act, and it continues to measure the needs of its clients and to respond to those needs with operational improvements. The branch is committed to fast and reliable standards of service in managing over 1,000 active files and responding to over 1,200 phone calls in the year.

Following the assignment of a file to an advisor, first contact with the client occurs within four to six weeks. If required, a formal appeal to the WCB review office is made within 12 weeks in 75 percent of the claims. Claims at the review office level have been met with success rates in the range of 60 to 70 percent. Claims submitted to the Appeal Commission have success rates of 45 to 50 percent.

The Workplace Safety and Health division continues to work with employers and workers to strengthen the internal responsibilities system in workplaces to ensure that the parties in the workplace are undertaking their respective responsibilities in the most effective manner with regard to worker safety.

The Workplace Safety and Health Branch has been continuing a joint initiative in the logging sector, a traditionally dangerous industry sector where a two-prong process of training and inspections is being used. We are working with small business to improve communications and safety information flows in response to a need identified by our recently conducted client survey.

Our ergonomist has been working with a number of firms to reduce and eliminate situations of high risk to workers which have created a situation of ongoing high levels of time loss claim frequency. There have been a number of successful interventions resulting in significant reductions in worker injuries, which is gratifying.

Safety on the farm is an area of ongoing concern, and we have been working co-operatively with the Workers Compensation Board, the departments of Agriculture and Health to focus attention and develop co-operative efforts to address farm safety. Other industries where efforts have been increased in a co-operative manner with employer associations and unions include the construction sector, garment industry, autobody repair and the restaurant and food industry.

In the Occupational Health Branch, the branch has been working on a joint project with Health to introduce an agricultural injury and illness surveillance program in selected farm communities in the province to improve farm accident illness and injury data. The project has been so successful it is being considered as a national model.

Hearing conservation surveillance is a continuing program by the branch to ensure that workers exposed to noise in their workplace are tested each year to identify any changes in their hearing efficiency.

Well, as you can see, Mr. Chair, there are just so many good things to be said about the Department of Labour. I have not yet done the Mines Inspection Branch, as well as the very, very important work being done by the Manitoba Labour Board, which is an independent quasi- judicial body which has a variety of administrative and adjudicative responsibilities. It in fact, as you know, considers matters referred to it under The Payment of Wages Act, The Employment Standards Act, The Vacations with Pay Act, The Construction Industry Wages Act and The Workplace Safety and Health Act.

Just some of those acts give you an indication of the type of responsibilities they have but, also, the very separated pieces of legislation which it must always adjudicate on in the context of any particular claim. I think in speaking to people from the Manitoba Labour Board, the chairperson, Mr. John Korpesho, there is clearly a need to clarify some of the legislation to assist the board in doing the very important work that it is doing.

* (0930)

I did not mean to skip over the Mines Inspection Branch as quickly, but, if I have a minute or so, this branch has worked with an external partner to develop an emergency oxygen and carbon dioxide absorption system for underground refuge stations in mine rescue. The branch has developed a mine incident and hazard alert reporting system. The division is participating in many national level co-operative efforts through the auspices of the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation. The division has established an Internet home page and also participates in a co-operative manner with a number of professional organizations and safety conferences.

I will leave that at this point, Mr. Chair, and await the response of the member opposite.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), have an opening statement?

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I do, Mr. Chairperson. Thank you for the opportunity. I listened intently to the minister's comments once again where he referenced some of the things that his department is undertaking, and, of course, we will have, time permitting, numerous questions relating to those changes that the minister referenced. The areas that we will be looking at having some further questioning on, I will give the minister opportunity by way of referencing them now, where my interests will lie. We will deal with legislation and the policy that is attached to that. There are also questions that will be associated with the area of Workplace Safety and Health, which has come under significant amount of pressure within this province, looking at the number of workplace accidents and very serious incidents that have occurred in Manitoba over the course of the last 11 months since we had the last opportunity to debate with the minister in the Estimates process.

My other concerns which I will raise, Mr. Chairperson, will deal with mines and mine safety and the activities that the mine safety and inspection branch of the Department of Labour, and the efforts that they may or may not be undertaking to further the safe working environment for people that are employed in that particular industry.

I will also have questions dealing with the payment of wages and the decisions that the government has taken with respect to the elimination of the fund, and we will get into further debate on that as well. I will also be asking the minister questions relating to vacancies within his department, so I am giving him advance notice now that I will be seeking that information from him. I will also be looking from the minister any fee increases that his department may be contemplating for various licences or other activities for which his department has control. We will also be looking at areas relating to pending legislation that the minister referenced in his comment relating to The Construction Industry Wages Act and the changes that his department, I believe, are contemplating at this time because there is some consultation taking place with the stakeholders that are affected by that particular act.

We have other questions that I will not reference now, but I am sure I will have the opportunity to ask those as we move along through the course of the Labour Estimates. I will not go into an extensive opening statement, Mr. Chairperson, so that I would have greater opportunity to ask the necessary questions as we move through the Labour Estimates. I will conclude my opening comments with that.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the critic from the official opposition for those remarks. I would remind members of the committee that the debate on the Minister's Salary, item 1 (a), is deferred until all other items in the Estimates of the department are passed. At this time we invite the minister's staff to take their place in the Chamber.

Is the minister prepared to introduced his staff members present to the committee at this time?

Mr. Toews: My deputy minister is here, Mr. Tom Farrell; Mr. Jim Wood, who is the--I always get the title wrong here, but it is the Director of the Administrative Services; and Mr. Jim Nykoluk from the Policy Directorate, more or less.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the minister. At this time the item before the committee is item 1. Labour Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $361,100.

Mr. Reid: As I referenced earlier in my opening comments with respect to staffing and, since we are dealing with salaries and employee positions, I would like to ask the minister, are there any vacancies existing in this area of his department?

Mr. Toews: Yes, there are a number of vacancies in the Workplace Safety and Health division. There are two vacancies. One is an officer from the inspection unit in Brandon and the other is a safety and health officer in Winnipeg. The vacant date for the Brandon position was in December of 1995, and there is a competition in progress there, whereas the safety and health officer out of Winnipeg was vacant in January of 1996, again, a competition in progress.

In respect to the Labour Services Division, there are three positions in mechanical and engineering. One is a welding examiner, the other two are technical officers, and all three positions are based in Winnipeg. The last two positions, the technical officer positions, occurred as a result of voluntary service incentive program vacancies, and they are being held at the present time.

Mr. Reid: I take it then that those are the only vacancies within the department. There are no other vacancies? If the minister has maybe a list of those, I would appreciate that, as he had supplied last year.

Mr. Toews: Yes, those are the only vacancies I have been advised of, and I understand those to be the only vacancies.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister inform me with reference to the allotment of overtime within the Executive Support, what was the overtime for, and why was it that executive support to the minister is working the overtime for him versus the staff department?

Mr. Toews: Yes, I am advised that is for vacation relief, and that is in respect of secretarial positions.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

Item 1.(b) Executive Support (2) Other expenditures $69,700--pass.

We will now move on to Resolution 11.2 Labour Program (a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,101,200.

* (0940)

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, this section, I believe, provides policy for the minister's use, and also I believe provides some administrative support for the Labour Management Review Committee. I have several questions in this area, considering that the minister has referenced it. He has undertaken and has already tabled in this Chamber pieces of legislation, and I believe he is going to table some further pieces of legislation perhaps today and maybe more next week.

Can the minister tell me, the changes that he referenced with respect to The Remembrance Day Act, The Employment Standards Act, The Payment of Wages Act--Employment Standards, of course, is obviously one that has some potential to be quite controversial in its change. I want to ask the minister, what policy direction was provided to him by his staff through the Management Services division with respect to these various pieces of legislation?

Mr. Toews: I will answer that basically in respect of The Employment Standards Act and The Payment of Wages Act and essentially legislation governing workplace minimum standards. I believe that is essentially the question that member opposite is asking. If I am wrong in that, perhaps he can correct me during the course of my answering or with a new question.

I will let the member know that back in the 1980s when I was a lawyer for the Department of Labour, there was tremendous difficulty in understanding in fact what the law was. Many times Employment Standards officers, whom I provided legal advice with, would come to me and would say, what does this particular piece of legislation mean? I would look at it and I would give an opinion, and they would say, well, that is all well and good, but how does that fit then with this other piece of legislation? So I would look at this other piece of legislation and it would give conflicting signals, conflicting interpretations. So it was very difficult not only as a lawyer acting for the branch--I believe my view has been echoed by lawyers who continued in that position after I left--but by the Employment Standards officers who, while they are very well trained, very knowledgeable, very competent, are not lawyers for the most part, and also should not be expected to try to guess at what the law is.

Similarly, the same problems occur when employees and employers--and these are not just small employers that have trouble understanding the law in the area of employment standards in Manitoba, but very large employers. I speak from some personal knowledge in that respect. Employment Standards division was very helpful to many, many employers, many unions, many employees in trying to provide that guiding advice.

It was clear that the legislation had been developed over a number of years without really much thought given to what had happened in the past, what legislation was in place in the past. Many times well-meaning governments amended legislation to deal with specific problems not realizing the problems that they created in respect of other legislation.

At that time already it was clearly recognized that some kind of a comprehensive code had to be established in order to eliminate some of these difficulties. I know the prior government, prior to 1988, had embarked upon a review of employment standards legislation. In my role as counsel to the department, I was familiar with many of the suggestions and changes that were being made in that piece of legislation.

When I assumed responsibility for this department, I clearly agreed with the prior government that the area of employment standards needs to be reformed. The question is, what type of reform? The policy direction that I have been giving my staff in dealing with this issue--and it is a very complicated issue. It is not an easy one. It is not just a matter of putting four or five acts together and hoping it comes out all right. It is a very complicated process. But essentially what I have said to my staff is, put a code into place that is substantially, in terms of its legal impact, neutral. That is, that it does not change the law as it exists but rather it clarifies, it rationalizes, it simplifies the existing legislative requirements. Once that framework has been established, I think then governments can look at it and say, what new policy initiatives do we want to move in in the area of employment standards, but I think the first step should be to get that consistent, solid base into place so that people can understand what the law is.

The law is more than just something in a textbook and something more than just for lawyers to play with. Good, solid, clear laws, even when those laws are not necessarily the laws we would like, if they are clear they send out a message, and that is that they clearly identify the environment in which people can work. That in and of itself will encourage businesses to come to Manitoba, create jobs that pay the taxes that pay for our social programs. So I consider that piece of legislation, even if the substantive provisions are substantively neutral, will assist in creating a very positive environment for attracting more business to Manitoba.

So that is essentially the policy direction that I have given to my staff. It has taken somewhat longer than I had hoped but I am certainly not faulting the staff. The staff have been very, very diligent in working through the problems. I would like it right rather than to simply put a new code in and then realize that it has tremendous problems. So they are working on that now, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Reid: The information that I am seeking from the minister with respect to the policy is the advice that his staff would have provided to him with respect to the legislation that the minister has currently tabled before the House plus the legislation that we are expecting that he will table today. Also, can the minister provide for us a copy of the Labour Management Review Committee's recommendations on each of those areas of legislative change that the minister has currently tabled and will table in this House for this session?

Mr. Chairperson: I am going to be seeking some information pertaining to the line of questioning that we are just moving into at this time. The rules do give us some areas that we have concerns with and that is dealing with anything that is on the Notice Paper, so I have asked the Clerk to get me some information on that. So at this time I would ask the minister to be careful how he answers the question when he does answer it.

Mr. Reid: A point of clarification for both yourself and I believe the minister. I am dealing with policy, Mr. Chairperson, and I want to know, because the recommendations also deal with policy as well. That is why I am asking the question in this area because it does deal strictly with policy.

Mr. Chairperson: Just for the member's information, it is just that he was stating on legislation that was already tabled before the House, and that is what I am just going to clarify within the rules.

Mr. Toews: The issue raised by the member opposite relates to the advice that I have sought from the Labour Management Review Committee. I have not sought at this time any advice from the Labour Management Review Committee in respect of the employment or proposed Employment Standards code. That is still in a process of being developed within the department, and, in fact, will be in due course sent to the Labour Management Review Committee, but it is clearly not in a position to be sent to that body at this time.

In respect of The Construction Industry Wages Act, it has been an extensive process of consultation that was commenced by my predecessor in this department. Many, many representations were heard from contractors, employees, unions and others, and that has been an ongoing process. It has been a very, very consultative process, and it is clearly an area of the law where there is no clear consensus on many things.

* (0950)

The proposals that the government had sent to all the stakeholders, where we thought that there was some consensus, was then placed in a document, sent to all the stakeholders, and that document was sent to the Labour Management Review Committee in order to inform them of, in fact, the proposals that were being developed as a result of that extensive consultation period.

I have not received any report from the Labour Management Review Committee in respect of that particular document, and the government's bill in that respect is not yet before the House. Clearly even from the proposals that the government felt that there was some consensus on, there is some re-examination of that issue, but I continue to receive documentation comments from trade unions, from employers and from individuals in respect of those issues. That consultation is still ongoing. If Labour Management Review has any comments to make in respect of the document that I sent them, they are certainly free to do so as a body, and I would welcome that, but I know that members on the Labour Management Review Committee have been sending me letters and comments about where we should be heading in terms of a policy.

The only area where I have received a formal report from the Labour Management Review Committee is in respect of the proposed amendments to The Labour Relations Act, and that I can certainly provide to the member.

Mr. Reid: So the minister is telling me then that he has not sought the LMRC recommendations on The Construction Industry Wages Act and he has only received or sought the recommendations of the LMRC on one piece of legislation that the minister referenced here a moment ago, which I think he said was the employment standards. Was that the minister's comments? Did I understand him correctly? Is that the only advice that he has received from the LMRC was The Employment Standards Act?

An Honourable Member: Labour relations.

Mr. Reid: Labour Relations Act changes. Okay. Is that the only piece of advice that the minister has sought and/or been supplied from LMRC?

Mr. Toews: As I have indicated, I sent the comments or the proposals to the Labour Management Review Committee in respect of The Labour Relations Act.

In respect to The Construction Industry Wages Act, the proposals that the government was suggesting in respect of possible legislation was sent to the LMRC, and they were invited to make comments in that respect. Now the LMRC has not yet provided any comments in that respect as a formal body, but certainly members of the LMRC have provided me with comments in that regard, and continue to do so. I continue to receive all types of representations in respect of The Construction Industry Wages Act.

One must understand the process that was involved in that particular case. This is not a situation where the government drafted certain proposals in an in-house basis and then put it into a bill, sent it to LMRC for their approval or even in terms of a policy statement. This is a process that was commenced I believe in 1992 or 1993. Literally hundreds of proposals were received in respect of possible amendments to The Construction Industry Wages Act, oral, written and otherwise.

In fact, in May of 1991, that review was initiated and he initiated, the minister at that time, a review by requesting the Labour Management Review Committee to conduct an assessment of the act. The review was undertaken in order to address the growing concerns that The Construction Industry Wages Act was no longer fulfilling its intended purposes and was becoming increasingly more difficult to administer. So The Construction Industry Wages Act review committee under the chairmanship of Wally Fox-Decent held more than 50 meetings. And Mr. Fox-Decent, of course, is the same person who chairs LMRC, and he held more than 50 meetings on that act including several public meetings with labour and management to discuss problems with the act and to develop options to improve its administrative efficiency and effectiveness.

Now, the review committee's final report contained 54 recommendations for change, and these were submitted to the minister in June of 1993. The clearest message conveyed through the review process by both labour and management groups was that there was widespread support for retaining the act in some modified form. However, there were considerable differing viewpoints as to how this would be accomplished. There is recognition that the act needs to be modernized, needs to be streamlined and needs to respond to a very dynamic construction industry that changes.

As a result of the review committee's report and also a subcommittee's report which I believe contained somewhere in the vicinity of over 100 recommendations--I am not clear on that number, but a number of 124 or 128 comes to mind--under The Construction Industry Wages Act. So there was a subcommittee of the review committee that did that. As a result of all of these recommendations sitting around a recognition by everybody that the act needs to be amended, by everyone that the act needs to be changed and amended by some amount, there is a differing view as to what should be done.

* (1000)

But at that point in February of 1996, I initiated another consultation process with stakeholders in the construction industry regarding the proposed amendments. So we took The Labour Management Review Committee's proposals and then consulted with the construction industry for possible proposals. At that time, I provided the stakeholders with background information respecting a number of issues, and that was primarily exclusion of the housebuilding sector. This is a sector which has effectively gotten around the act. There are effectively no more employees in that industry, in the residential housebuilding industry. Everyone subtrades everything. [interjection] Well, that is right. That is exactly it. It is a problem right across Canada with flat housing starts. So there is something clearly wrong in the housing industry right across Canada, and my colleague across the way can answer that issue before, but I have met with the Winnipeg Construction Association, I have met with the homebuilders. This is a phenomena right across Canada.

But at this time what happens is that somebody who builds a house does not employ employees anymore. They just hire subtrades. There is a feeling, and I think it is borne out by what is happening in the industry, that in fact this act is causing incredible damage to that industry in terms of being able to train people, bring people into employment situations, train them and then have qualified apprentices and journeymen. So we want to change that by ensuring that the journeyman process, the apprenticeship process is respected. But under the present system, what happens in many cases, especially because these are small employers, they will say, well, we will hire somebody as an apprentice and the fee will be a certain hourly wage, and they can afford that. Then they will say that as soon as the person becomes a journeyperson they will lay that person off because they cannot afford to pay the wages.

Now it seems very troubling to me that we have an act that is supposed to set wages to protect employees when in fact what the act is doing is encouraging employers to lay off those employees because they cannot afford the wages, or in fact they move to subtrades which in my opinion does nothing to develop good quality mentoring of these people in their particular trades. So this is an area where I assume that there is not much opposition from anyone, including the unions themselves who have no union members in that sector because there are no more employees. The act is effectively destroying employment-employee relations in that area. So I think in order to encourage employers to hire employees, the house-building sector should be removed from that act.

Areas such as--

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. This is where I have got my concern. This is a very gray area that we are dealing with at this time. The honourable minister is referring directly to an act that is on the Notice Paper at this time, and the rule of anticipation does not allow us within this House to discuss matters that are on the Notice Paper before the House. So this is a very gray area. The minister is stepping a little bit too far when he is discussing potential amendments to or within the act that is before the House or on the Notice Paper. So I would ask the minister to choose his words carefully.

Mr. Toews: All that I am trying to say is that we consulted extensively on a number of areas, and now we have sent all of those proposals to the various stakeholders and say, what about these issues? Is there any consensus in this area? At this time we are now receiving input from these various stakeholders as to these proposals. So clearly the government bill, whatever it will be when introduced, will not be a reflection exactly of what in fact was sent to stakeholders, given that we have got to sit there and listen to what these people are saying to us.

But to suggest that we have not had any input from the Labour Management Review Committee or from the public or unions or employers or employees, is I think an unfair statement, and I do not believe the member suggests that.

There has been an ongoing process for the last five years of consultation with literally everyone in the construction industry, and we have attempted to come to some type of consensus, but it is a very, very difficult act to achieve any type of consensus.

Mr. Reid: Well, I am not sure. The minister would not want to put words in my mouth, but I did not reference the fact that the minister or his department has not consulted with people so I will not respond any further to those words. The minister, no, I never made those comments on the record, and for him to put them on there was uncalled for.

Mr. Chairperson, I would like to ask the minister, since he went off on a tangent here and I had only referenced The Construction Industry Wages Act and my question was pertaining to The Labour Relations Act. I want to ask the minister again, what policy direction, what advice did the LMRC provide to the minister on The Labour Relations Act? Was it a unanimous recommendation? Will the minister table the recommendation?

Mr. Toews: I have indicated that I will table the LMRC's report.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate when he will table that for me, Mr. Chairperson?

Mr. Toews: You can have it as soon as my deputy gives it to you.

Mr. Reid: And when will the Minister of Labour instruct his deputy to provide that document for me?

Mr. Toews: As soon as the deputy is free from here, I am sure that somebody in the staff in the Department of Labour will contact the member opposite and provide him with that document. This is a document that is floating out there in the public already, so I have no problem with it being released anywhere.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister then, and I take it that his deputy minister, the good person that he is, will provide that sometime later today.

I want to ask the minister now, because he referenced the fact that he had not sought any advice from the stakeholders which play a role in the LMRC, why he has not sought the advice or the policy direction from the LMRC on the Employment Standard code changes that the minister is contemplating.

Mr. Toews: As I have indicated on that issue, there had been some work done in the department in the 1980s. What my instructions were to the department was to review the bill, or the proposed bill that had been done in the 1980s, and using that as a guide, to put together some kind of proposal for a unified Employments Standards code which would be substantively policy neutral. Clean-up problems, yes, but I do not want to see policy being substantially changed in cleaning up the act. I want a clear act so that people know what in fact the law is in Manitoba. So the purpose there was not to change policy in any way, but in fact to ensure that the existing legislation, which is currently found in four or five pieces of separate legislation, is put into one code and insofar as it is possible to do so in a policy-neutral way. So at this point, there are no policy issues that the Labour Management Review Committee has to look at. I have not instructed any substantive policy changes unless they are problem areas that can be cleaned up. Once the department has looked at this code, has put a code together and has said we believe that this is in keeping with your instructions to us, then the proposal goes to LMRC. As I have indicated, we are not yet at the point where the code need go to LMRC because our own documents are not yet ready.

Mr. Reid: The minister has indicated, if I understand him correctly then, that he does not anticipate that there will be any policy changes in The Employment Standards Act and that he is only indicating that there will be clarification for any legislative changes he may be contemplating to bring into this Chamber. I want to ask the minister to explain the term “policy neutral,” and I want to ask the minister to identify the problem areas that he sees that need to be cleaned up--his words--in The Employment Standards Act.

* (1010)

Mr. Toews: Policy neutral essentially means exactly that. Each piece of legislation has a particular goal, has a particular intent. My intent and my instructions are that each piece of legislation is to be placed into one code being consistent with the original intent of that document. In the course of doing that, there may well be policy changes of a minor nature. That is recognized because there are problems, and every time you fix a problem--for example, if there are definitions and the area that is one of the primary concerns is the area of definitions--wages or employees or all these type of definitions are defined differently in different acts because it is for different purposes. Yet, it is very confusing when somebody looks at that legislation. Without getting into too much detail, that is essentially what many of the changes involve. There may be some changes and they may fix problems which may result then in, depending on what your interpretation is, policy adjustments or changes. But it is not my intent to bring about policy changes.

(Mr. Mike Radcliffe, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

I want an act that works as a cohesive whole. There will be changes made in that, and the member and I can sit and argue about whether those constitute policy changes or not. But once that code is put together in a package, then Labour Management Review can take a look at that. I will identify for Labour Management Review every change and why these changes are being made and then Labour Management Review will have an opportunity to look at all those and comment.

I might just state for the member's information that there is no intention of introducing a new employment standards code in this session. That may be introduced in the spring of next year, the fall of next year. We are just not at any stage. But I think the member opposite, and he probably has access to those documents, to the old report that was commissioned under the prior NDP government in respect of employment standards legislation. It identified many problems in the legislation which were of an administrative nature or a statutory definition nature in terms of inconsistencies. You can take a look at that document to see what kind of problems there were.

The one thing that the prior government did in terms of amalgamating that legislation was to introduce substantive legislative changes in that code, and to the extent possible, I want to avoid the introductional substantive policy amendments because there is much controversy about that. I want to get clear legislation first, then the member and I can discuss what policy initiatives should be put into that act. For example, one of the very large policy initiatives by the prior government in its documentation was for the reinstatement of nonunionized workers where there has been a termination. As the member opposite realizes, under our common law an employee is entitled, not to his or her job back when terminated, but they are entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal if there was no justification, no just cause for that dismissal.

One of the proposals that the former government had in that legislation was for there to be a reinstatement of certain types of workers who met certain qualifications to be reinstated to their job. If the member looks at the legislation in Nova Scotia, we have reinstatement for nonunionized workers. Indeed, that provision was the centre of a very important Supreme Court of Canada case called Sobey Stores. In that decision, the Supreme Court of Canada discussed Section 96 of The Constitution. As the member opposite understands, Section 96 deals with the powers that the provincial government or the federal government can give upon judicial bodies.

So superior courts, for example, in Canada, while created by the province, for example, our Queen's Bench Court of Appeal was created by the province, but they are staffed or the federal government makes those judicial appointments. That is as a result of the interpretation of Section 96. The province may only appoint people to their judicial positions who only have powers that are not analogous to the powers of superior court judges. In Sobey Stores and a string of other cases, the Supreme Court of Canada said that one looks at each of the original four confederating provinces to determine whether or not a province has the power to appoint those superior court functions or not.

Even if we are in Manitoba here looking at giving a provincial tribunal certain powers, we have to look at the original four confederating provinces to determine whether or not those are powers that are analogous to superior court functions.

So getting directly to the point raised by members opposite is then the issue of appointing a person, let us say the Manitoba Labour Board, to empower it to reinstate nonunionized workers upon a termination is a significant constitutional issue which, for the most part, has been addressed by the Sobey Stores decision.

Aside from the constitutional issue, there is a huge policy issue about whether or not that should be done. One can see the necessity and importance of the power to reinstate in a unionized context, and that is done all the time. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized the power of provincial tribunals to reinstate, under provincial legislation, workers who have been unfairly dismissed, and that is usually done either through a collective agreement process or through the Manitoba Labour Board.

Those are the kinds of policy issues. I do not think it is necessary to get into looking at the entire code. I think what is important is to, let us get a code that is clear.

* (1020)

Point of Order

Mr. Reid: I need some advice or some guidance from the Chair on this. I know there are rules in place in this House that said that the questioner is allowed to ask questions for 10 minutes and the minister is allowed to respond for 10 minutes, so I need some guidance on whether or not those rules are being adhered to in this Chamber.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): I can advise the member from Transcona that the rules are being adhered to and the Chair has indicated the timing to the honourable minister, and the Chair will expect that the honourable minister will be complying with it.

Mr. Reid: Same point, Mr. Chairperson, has the minister exceeded his 10 minutes and have the table officers been keeping time on this particular answer?

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The table officers have been keeping time, and the honourable minister is about to exceed his time. He is finished? The Chair is pleased to inform the honourable member for Transcona that the honourable minister has completed his question and would invite the honourable member to present another question if he is so inclined.

* * *

Mr. Reid: The minister went on at great length reciting particular law cases that I am sure he has either read or had some involvement with. I did not come here to have a lecture that he might have done in his past days when he was lecturing in labour studies at the university. This is a place where I ask questions pertaining to the expenditures of his department, the Department of Labour. If he wishes to have that particular type of dialogue, I am going to ask that you call the minister to order and keep him pertinent to the information and to the question that was asked. We do not need to go into long legal recitations here in this House. That is not the purpose of this committee.

I want to ask the minister, with respect to his experience when he was working with the Department of Labour as a lawyer either on staff or under contract, what advice and what areas of advice he provided to the Department of Labour?

Mr. Toews: Well, I am not sure what the member is talking about. My involvement with the Department of Labour as the solicitor for the Department of Labour ended in 1985, in May of 1985 in and about there. I left the department for a year. I was on a leave of absence, and I came back in May of 1986 and I joined the Constitutional Law branch at that time. At that time I had the privilege of joining that branch, eventually became the director of that branch and was involved in a number of labour relations cases, including one that dealt with the first contract legislation in this province, and I dealt with that labour legislation.

I have, outside of the employment, while I was an employee of the Department of the Attorney General or the Department of Justice as it is now, never acted as a lawyer for the Department of Labour in providing them with advice in any formal way. I do not remember meeting with anyone in terms of even an informal way that I would have provided them with advice as a lawyer. Certainly my involvement was I acted on behalf of the Attorney General from 1987 to 1991 when I left government. I had no connections with providing advice to the Department of Labour since that time.

I mean, I have come back now as the Minister of Labour in 1995, and I do provide direction and advice to the people who work with me in that department. Unless the member has some specific information in mind, I certainly do not recall or know anything as to what he is suggesting, other than I was a lawyer acting for the Attorney General's department from 1976 to 1991.

Mr. Reid: My apologies, Mr. Chairperson, I did not explain that question very clearly. I was just looking to see where the minister had provided some advice to the Department of Labour during his time there and what his area of expertise in providing that advice was. I know he has some legal background, but I did not know what his labour background was with respect to providing the advice, and that is why I was looking for the areas in which he may have provided some advice to the department.

I want to ask the minister, has he provided any direction to the Minimum Wage Board since this is still a policy area? I know that we have had some changes to the minimum wage in this province. Is the minister contemplating any further changes to the minimum wage act in this province?

Mr. Toews: The minimum wage, which is, as I understand it, a regulation under The Employment Standards Act, was amended recently, that is the regulation which I believe in July of 1995 the minimum wage went to $5.25 from $5.00 an hour and then January 1 of this year, 1996, rose to $5.40. The Minimum Wage Board met on a number of occasions over the period of November 1994 to February of 1995. The Minimum Wage Board has submitted its report with recommendations to the Minister of Labour on February 20, 1995 and the report submitted by the employer representatives recommended that the minimum wage be increased to $5.15 effective July 1, 1995, with a further increase to $5.25 on December 31, 1995.

The report submitted by the employee representatives on that board recommended an increase to $5.75 per hour on July 1, 1995, and the chairperson proposed an increase to $5.50 per hour effective July 1, 1995. One can see that there was quite a bit of division in that. I might point out that the recommendations that the board had made were based on an extensive public consultation process. Approximately 115 written submissions were received during that consultation phase, and the board heard from approximately 40 individuals or organizations. The rate that was eventually agreed on by the government through regulation was a rate of $5.40 an hour, which places Manitoba ahead of six and behind only three other provinces at the time; that is British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The new rate of $5.40 represents an 8 percent increase over the previous level of $5.00 which is comparable to the cost of living increase during the period of time from March '91 to December 1995. At this point there is no further contemplation to raising the minimum wage, the wage having just been raised in January of this year.

Mr. Reid: I was just interested to see whether or not the minister was contemplating any further changes or the striking of that body to have further review, Mr. Chairperson. I am not sure whether the minister answered that and I will ask him again. Is he contemplating striking out that Minimum Wage review board?

Mr. Toews: As indicated in my answer, we have just finished a very, very lengthy review process. The wage rates were established at $5.25 an hour and $5.40 an hour, the last rate being effective January 1, 1996, and no, I am not contemplating putting the board back to work on that issue presently.

* (1030)

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for the response. I have one further question here. Under the changes the minister is contemplating with the Fire Commissioner's office, and this is dealing with policy, Mr. Chairperson, it references that certain services will be provided under Management Services Division to the Special Operating Agency, Fire Commissioner's office. Can the minister define for me what those services will be that will be provided?

Mr. Toews: The services that will be provided to the Special Operating Agency of the Fire Commissioner's office by Management Services will include services from Human Resources which is payroll and recruitment, Financial services which includes things like voucher processing and revenue handling, Information system services which includes computer systems, development and support, and legislation and policy co-ordination. The total estimated cost of these services being provided is $150,000, and this amount was netted out of the Management Services 1996-97 request.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The item under discussion at the present time has been paragraph 11.2 (a) Management Services, (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,101,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $259,000--pass; (b) Mechanical and Engineering, (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, $1,786,900. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Reid: The minister indicated, Mr. Chairperson, that there were two vacancies, I believe, under the Professional and Technical Support. The minister, I believe, also indicated that there was competitions currently underway to fill some of the vacancies. Can the minister tell me what duties were performed by the people who had currently been in those jobs before the vacancies occurred?

Mr. Toews: I indicate that two other people from my department have joined me, Mr. Tom Bleasdale, who is the assistant deputy minister, and Terry Rieger is the supervisor of Mechanical and Engineering. I would just--in respect of an earlier commitment I made to the member opposite, I have the report of the Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee dated April 24, 1996 in respect of The Labour Relations Act, and it is available for the member and on the table.

In respect of the question regarding the Mechanical and Engineering positions, there are two positions which have been very, very recently vacated. One is an elevator inspector and the other is a welding inspector. The elevator inspector's services are being carried out within the department, and the welding inspector's services are being carried out from the Brandon office. These were positions that came vacant as a result of the government's voluntary separation insurance incentive program.

Mr. Reid: I understand that vacancies occur from time to time within the department and that there has been a voluntary separation program for some government employees. The minister referenced the fact that there were vacancies, one in the elevator inspection area, another one in the welding inspection. Can the minister tell me, is the department, since these vacancies have been existing for a period of some time now, several months, is the minister's department able to keep up with the number of inspections that are required by his department in the issuing of certificates, for example for elevator inspection for which a large number of members of the public utilize that type of service? Is the department able to keep up with those inspections in the issuing of the applicable certificates?

Mr. Toews: As I indicated earlier I believe that these are very recent vacancies that occurred at the end of March and the two functions, one being a welding examiner, not a welding inspector, a welding examiner, those duties are being carried out by a person out of Brandon at this time, and the department is functioning very well at this time with that provision of services and under the method that they have incorporated to ensure that those services are still being provided.

In respect of the elevator inspector, that was a supervisor's position and, again, the actual inspections of the elevators are continuing in accordance with our normal policy of elevator inspections. As I indicated earlier in my opening notes, in respect of elevator inspections we are working very closely with the industry to ensure that the code is reflective in fact of the needs that are out there, and so we believe that we are meeting the requirements of the public of Manitoba.

Mr. Reid: I want to ask the minister then--he indicated that one was a welding examiner, one was an elevator inspection supervisor. Is the department, because he says that he has staff that are capable of doing this and it was only a supervisor that was missing and I take it from that that the supervisor did not go out and do the inspections to determine whether or not there was going to be a renewal of certificates issued for the continued operation of elevator services, is the department delayed in the issuing of renewal certificates for the uses of elevators in the various buildings within the city of Winnipeg and within the province of Manitoba? Are we up to date on the renewal of those certificates?

* (1040)

Mr. Toews: The vacancy of that position as of the end of March has had no effect on the usual renewal process, so there have been no changes in the regular way in which these renewals are being done.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, is there a lag time then? Are there elevators in service within this province that are currently operating without renewed certificates attached to them?

Mr. Toews: In respect of the elevator permits, there is a new database that is being made. We believe that generally speaking we are up to date. If in fact there are elevator permits that have expired, it is an issue of getting to them just as quickly as we can. I do not think there is anything unusual about it. From time to time an elevator permit may expire, but that is a totally different issue from an issue of safety of the elevators. The issue of safety of the elevators is the responsibility of the owner, and the owner contracts with people to ensure that that elevator is safe. That is the primary responsibility of the owner. The permit and the inspections are done, not in order to ensure safety which is the responsibility of the owner, but in fact to monitor and audit the situation.

The department certainly has responsibility and capability to respond to any problems that are identified because often problems in an elevator are identified, the staff comes out, does the inspection, and makes the orders. That in many ways is not unlike any other inspection unit in the Department of Labour. We believe that in respect of the permits our new database will ensure that permits, once that database is fully implemented, will be renewed at the appropriate time. The issue of safety, which I consider a much greater issue, is, I believe, being met by firstly, the primary responsibility of the owner of the elevator to ensure that that elevator is safe, and then the backup of the Mechanical and Engineering branch to make sure that any problems that are reported are dealt with very, very quickly and that the appropriate orders are being made.

Now, I do not believe that there are any lag times in respect of any safety issues. If there is a safety issue, the staff is well aware of their responsibilities to get out there and to ensure that everything is all right with that elevator.

Mr. Reid: I understand the minister says that the owners of the elevators have a responsibility to ensure that the equipment is functioning properly and that it is in safe operating condition, but if the department is not inspecting and keeping up to date with the renewal of the certificates that are attached to each of the elevators, what steps do we take to ensure that those owners of those pieces of equipment, the elevators, are indeed keeping up with their responsibilities and doing the necessary work that is required to ensure the safety of the elevators for public use?

Mr. Toews: As indicated earlier, we go out on an ongoing basis to look at all these records to ensure that these contracts are in place, to ensure that the safety steps are being taken by the person who is under contract to deliver those services. That is the responsibility of the Department of Labour. We are meeting that obligation and will continue to do so. These two positions have not had an effect on us being able to meet the regular auditing of these elevators and ensuring that people under contract are, in fact, performing those services. The Department of Labour does not do the safety checks of the elevators. That is the responsibility of the elevator company or the person who is under contract to service them, but we are under a responsibility to ensure, on a regular basis, that the safety checks are being done, that the safety program in respect of elevators is being done.

As I have indicated, the department, together with industry and union representatives, are looking at the way that inspections are being done to ensure that in fact the appropriate number of inspections necessary for the safety of the public of Manitoba are being carried out.

Mr. Reid: I will not go any further into this, but I will just leave with the minister and his staff that it has been drawn to our attention there are elevators operating within the city of Winnipeg here that do not have their certificates renewed. It causes me some concern that members of the public are continuing to use those pieces of equipment, and if the department has a vacancy either with an elevator supervisor or with the elevator inspection, professional, technical people within the department to do that work, it causes me some concern that we are not continuing to ensure the safe operation and the inspection of those pieces of equipment to make sure that the public is not put at risk. So I will just leave that with the minister for his attention and his staff I am sure will no doubt deal with this in short order. I am prepared to pass the rest of this section.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The section of discussion is 11.2.(b) Mechanical and Engineering

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,786,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $427,100--pass.

11.2.(c) Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $450,200.

Mr. Reid: We are in 2.(c) now, Mr. Chairperson? The questions I have are under this section Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services. I had asked these questions last year, and I would like to have an update of the information relating to the number of cases that the minister's department has dealt with with respect to conciliation, mediation. I know that he has certain information provided through his annual report, and I have looked at those numbers, but I would like to have an update of those numbers if he has it available. I would also like to have statistical information relating to the number of days, lost time due to strike and lockout, if he has that information. If he has historical comparisons, as well, I would appreciate that information.

* (1050)

Mr. Toews: In respect of the statistics regarding work stoppages, I am not in possession of any more updated information, but as soon as that information is made available to me by the department when it compiles those statistics, I can pass those on to the member opposite. In respect of the actual services being performed by Conciliation and Mediation Services, I can indicate that the number of conciliation assignments increased from 147 in the previous year to 198 for the '95-96 fiscal year. As I have indicated in my earlier opening statements, the branch was able to resolve 97 percent of those assignments without a work stoppage. In the area of grievance mediation, they handled 266 assignments and successfully resolved 84 percent. As I indicated in my opening statements, they have also begun working in the area of mutual gains bargaining and preventative mediation--it is a new area--and they have handled 12 new cases in that respect.

I continue to see Conciliation and Mediation as performing a very, very important job. We continually look at the services being provided by this branch to see how those services can be made more efficiently, cost effectively, and will continue to ensure that that happens.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for the information. The section dealing with Severance/ Vacation Pay and Retirement has taken a significant jump this year over last year under Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services. Have we had a significant change in staff or reduction in staff in this department?

Mr. Toews: Yes, at this time there have been no changes in the staffing of the Conciliation and Mediation Branch.

Mr. Reid: I take it that the minister is contemplating there will be some changes because there has been some $34,000 that has been allocated above last year's amount which was zero. I take it then that the minister is contemplating that there will be some changes with respect to severance?

Mr. Toews: I am not really at liberty to talk about any possible retirements, but that clearly is an issue that may occur in terms of a retirement in the future. This is normal practice in terms of putting this in for potential retirement.

Mr. Reid: Then I would like to have some understanding here from the minister that if a person is severed either through retirement or voluntary separation, is it the minister's intention to fill the vacancy that would become vacant as a result of those decisions?

Mr. Toews: I cannot really speculate, but what I am prepared to say to the member is that I view this branch as a very, very important branch. The services that they provide are very, very important. Depending on what type of retirement there might be, we will have to look at the situation to see whether or not we could continue without that person who is retired. There are always administrative efficiencies that can be made in the department without affecting primary service areas, and those are the things that I hope to look at if, in fact, a retirement occurs.

I think that would be the first responsible thing for any administrator of a government department to do, to look at the administrative setup to ensure that the service can be provided without expending further money. If the service cannot be provided without expending money, that is another issue. So we will have to take that one step at a time, but at this point I cannot make any commitment other than the services being provided by that department, that branch, are extremely important.

As indicated, the number of assignments have increased. There is a demand for it, there is a recognition of the professionalism of that branch, and I think the industry generally, that is both the trade unions and the employers, recognize that this is a branch that has been performing very, very good services, and I would like to see that continue.

Mr. Reid: Okay, I understand that the minister cannot speculate on whether or not employees under Conciliation, Mediation, Pay Equity are going to sever or retire. That is obviously a personal decision each of those people would have to make themselves, but I am just looking to receive some level of assurance that--because this is such an important function to labour harmony, labour management relations within the province in that we bring the two sides together and have them come to a consensus position or compromise position during negotiations that both can live with, and this department, this function, assists in that. It is important that we make sure the positions that would become vacant as a result of retirement or severance are filled to ensure those services can continue to be provided for the people. That is why I raised it with the minister. I wanted him to be aware that we are aware of the function and the duties that this section performs.

I want to ask the minister here, what progress has been made with respect to pay equity as it applies within the province? Is he encountering any difficulties? He has referenced the fact in his document here that the school divisions, as we know, are in the process of implementing pay equity, but it is my understanding that there are several school division that have not totally complied with that to this point. I want to know what efforts the department is making to move school divisions and other areas towards the full implementation of the pay equity policy.

* (1100)

Mr. Toews: I just might indicate to the member opposite that in respect of the school divisions it is my understanding that is a voluntary process. We, as the government of Manitoba, have an officer available for the school divisions if they want to utilize that person. That person is presently spending most of her time in the conciliation, mediation area but she is certainly available to do pay equity.

I think one also has to remember that in government, generally, there is another body that is very effective in dealing with issues like pay equity which can deal with many of these same issues in a broader way, and that is the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission over the years has done very good work; they have broad powers. So in addition to the pay equity services that may, in fact, be offered by the Department of Labour, there is also a quasi-judicial tribunal that can enforce pay equity if there is a violation of human rights legislation. That is in respect to the school divisions. If there is any issue by anyone that there is a breach of the law, there is clearly a remedy that is available, if there in fact is a breach, and there is certainly the services of the Department of Labour to assist them should they require that.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister. I am aware that it is voluntary for the school divisions to comply with that. I just was interested to see what progress we might be making moving towards some improvement in that area. I am prepared, Mr. Chairperson, to pass this section.

The Acting Chairperson ( Mr. Radcliffe): The item under consideration has been 11.2 (c)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $450,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $85,100--pass; (d) Pension Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $268,900. Should the item pass? The honourable member for Transcona.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I have a question here relating to an area which I believe was under the minister's responsibility, because the minister, I think, in his department is responsible for the negotiations with MGEU and its members. It is my understanding that there were some changes negotiated with respect to pension provisions relating to the Headingley correctional officers. I would like the minister to give me some indication of what those changes were and what the impact will be upon the pension plan itself.

Mr. Toews: That is an issue that is presently the subject of a ratification vote by the MGEU, and I am not prepared to get into that discussion here.

Mr. Reid: Well, I do not understand that, Mr. Chairperson. The minister negotiated this; it was obviously acceptable to him. Whether it is to be acceptable to the members of the MGEU, that is for them to determine themselves. I am just interested to determine what impact this is going to have on the pension plan and what changes the minister has agreed to. That is my question for him.

Mr. Toews: I do not think it is appropriate for me to start discussing about what a potential collective agreement may or may not do. When that collective agreement is ratified, then we know certain things flow. Consequently, I am not prepared to answer questions about the impact of those changes at this time. The membership may well decide otherwise. For all intents and purposes I believe that the membership will ratify. I do not know, but to speculate, I think, is not appropriate at this time. Collective agreements, as the member opposite knows, are very, very sensitive. I prefer not to talk about the ramifications of a collective agreement, especially where the government is the employer until that collective agreement has been ratified.

One of the points I should also mention is that the Civil Service Commission which expenditures will be coming up would be in a better position to address these concerns, and I think let us leave it for that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): The item under discussion has been 11.2 (d) Pension Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $268,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $79,400--pass.

11.2.(e) Manitoba Labour Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $563,000.

Mr. Reid: The minister has referenced during his opening comments and his further comments here this morning, changes that he has currently before us on the Order Paper with respect to legislation dealing with labour relations. It is also my understanding that there is legislation dealing with payment of wages, act changes, and that the minister has Remembrance Day Act changes and he is contemplating Employment Standards Act changes.

I would like to know, since the minister has several pieces of legislation that are of interest to and will affect the working people of this province and also the unions which represent them, can the minister give me some idea--because he has said in his comments that when it comes to certification that his department will be able to handle in a time-efficient manner the certification or applications that will come to him for certification--what the historical comparisons have been for the processing of those requests for certification in the past and what he intends and what he expects will be the case with future certification requests after this legislation passes. I am looking for the time frame here.

Mr. Toews: The proposal that has been forwarded to the Labour Management Review Committee deals with an issue of having a secret ballot vote for each certification application. It is a process that has, in fact, been--

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Radcliffe): Could I invite the members of the committee, if they are going to have private conversations if they could adjourn to the loge. It is unfortunately disrupting some of the members of the committee, and I invite the co-operation of all members. Thank you very much.

The honourable Minister of Labour, to continue. I apologize for the interruption.

Mr. Toews: The proposal, as I have indicated, calls for an automatic vote if the union has signed up more than 40 percent of the employees in a proposed bargaining unit. This obviously requires then a vote in every certification application. At present there is only a vote required where it is between 40 percent and 65 percent. Where it is over 65 percent of signed applications, it is now an automatic certification without a vote. The changes will in fact include areas now where the union has signed up more than 65 percent so that there will be additional votes and in a shorter time frame.

This is a system that is utilized by a number of provinces, and those provinces through their Department of Labour and their labour boards have been able to meet the requirements of the legislation. In those other provinces the quick votes are held anywhere from five to 10 days. In speaking with the chairperson of the Manitoba Labour Board who is here now, Mr. John Korpesho, he indicates that the board is prepared to meet that challenge and will be able to meet the deadlines placed by any new legislation in respect of quick votes in that time period.

* (1110)

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me--and he must have this information at his disposal. I have asked for a moment ago the historical comparisons of a number of certification requests that have gone to his department--does he have that historical comparison and can he give us an indication? He has indicated here a few moments ago that all the certification requests are now going to have to go to a vote and are going to involve the Labour Board. What is his anticipation of the increase in the number of certification requests that are going to have to go to the board, and how does he anticipate that this is going to be met by the Labour Board to meet this in a timely fashion?

The third point I want to raise with the minister is what time frame does he consider reasonable to have the requests determined by the Labour Board, what period of time is he looking at?

Mr. Toews: In respect of the number of certification applications filed with the Manitoba Labour Board, I do have those statistics available. In the year '86-87 there were 79; in the year '87-88 there were 91; in the year '88-89 there were 83; in the year '89-90 there were 77; in the year '90-91 there were 88; in the year '91-92 there were 56; in the year '92-93 there were 64; in the year '93-94 there were 54; in the year '94-95 there were 65; in the year '95-96 there were 70. Those are the numbers of certification applications that have been filed with the Manitoba Labour Board in each of those years. It is approximately an average of 73 a year. As you see the last year was about 70, so not far off from the average over the past 10 years.

In respect of the issue of what is an appropriate time frame, again there is a large philosophical debate about what that time frame should be. The present--and the member has asked me what in my opinion is the appropriate time frame, and I will respond to that. In the present system what happens is that each person or each union, when it files for certification, the wishes of the employees as expressed in their membership cards is frozen. So as of date of application the wishes are frozen as evidenced by membership cards. The employee has no opportunity to change his or her mind if they wanted. If, for example, the card had been signed three or four months earlier, the employee, once that certification application has been filed, may not change his mind or her mind even if, in fact, that employee no longer wants the union to represent them.

The reason why the government back in 1985 went to a date of application was as a result of certain confusion in the law at that time and certain fear that employers would improperly interfere with the wishes of the employees once it was known that there was a certification application there. To that extent it solved the problem, however, to the extent that it now left employees with the only evidence of membership of their true wishes in the hands of the union that is applying to certify.

Now, very recently we saw an example of a former or maybe still current MGEU employee

who went down to Nova Scotia to organize, and that MGEU employee assisted a Nova Scotia workforce to organize. In the course of that there were 168 signatures on membership cards; 100 of those memberships were forged. So one would say, well, the system picked it up on these membership cards, but I am very concerned about how membership cards are signed. If three friends come up to a person and say, you are the last person who has not signed, please sign, even if the person does not want to join the membership, they may feel persuaded, not because of intimidation but just because they do not want to offend their friends.

So there has to be a better way. As members opposite know, many people will tell them at the door when they are knocking, of course I am going to vote for you, and when the results come in it does not quite shape up that way because the person took--[interjection] I took 46 percent, but it was a secret ballot vote that in the end, the employee, similarly we are saying, should have that right in an impartial, quick way to indicate in fact what their true wishes are.

So the membership cards are there, that is correct. That establishes the threshold, but if there has been any impropriety, for example, the 100 forgeries that the MGEU employee assisted this workforce in obtaining, you know, and I am not saying that that employee did that, I am just saying that there was a membership drive that this person was involved in, and I am thinking to myself, we have the same system here in Manitoba about people being able to sign membership cards and that then becomes the wish of the employee.

What the secret ballot vote does is give the employee that protection, that second thought, to enable that employee to say whether or not truly they wish to have that union represent them, because once a secret ballot vote is done fairly, I do not think any of us would argue that is the best way of resolving true wishes, a secret ballot vote done fairly.

The issue then is what is fair. Now in the United States they have secret ballot votes on all certifications, and they have, I believe, now a 120-day process. They do not have a quick vote; they have a 120-day. It could be 90 days, I know there were amendments that were being proposed to bring it down to 30. Those amendments were defeated, went up to 60, those amendments were defeated, and I believe it is probably up at 120 days. What happens in those situations is that employers mount a political campaign because certification in that context is seen as a political issue. Will you have the union represent you or will you maintain the status quo as the employer advocates?

Now, in our tradition we do not have that political campaign. In our legislation we have never seen that as appropriate. An employer is entitled to say what the appropriate unit should be and submit that to the Labour Board, say. He will take into account things like community of interest, he or she will take into account all types of factors, but other than being able to speak about factual issues, an employer cannot improperly influence the wishes of the employees. So many provinces have said, we need that secret ballot vote to protect the integrity of the system. But how quick then do you have that vote? Provinces right across Canada have said anywhere from five to 10 is appropriate in order to ensure that employers do not improperly interfere. [interjection] Oh, I am sorry, five to 10 days. That is the range that we are looking at. [interjection] Five to 10 working days.

* (1120)

Mr. Reid: The minister has referenced an example, a single example of a problem where employees may have been involved in some activity that was determined to be illegal. Can the minister tell me, does his department have any information on file--and I know they exchange information between various governments across the country--is the minister aware, does the department have any information relating to any employer intimidation activities so that the minister, in the sense of fairness--and I know he wants to be fair, or at least I hope he wants to be fair--put that on the record as well where he has some experience or some knowledge of employer intimidation activities.

Mr. Toews: There are numerous cases, Mr. Chair, where employers in fact have been found liable for unfair labour practices and many of those cases are reported. I think out of Ontario, for example--I think the best example is Tandy Leather, Radio Shack, and it was a classic example about how an American company used American techniques in a Canadian organizing drive that clearly offended our legislation and was found to be an unfair labour practice. Now, the American employer that came up to do that believed that he or she was in her rights to do that. Clearly, it did not correspond with our legislation. The kinds of activities that employer was involved in were clearly unfair labour practice, and those are the types of activities that would be not affected by this type of legislation. That type or legislation or those types of activities demonstrated a course of conduct well before the certification application was filed that stretched right back to the company's headquarters somewhere in the United States--in Texas, I am reminded, yes, that is correct.

There are many, many cases where employers have in fact interfered improperly in determining the wishes of the employees. The case that prompted the government in 1985 to go to a--and it could have been '86 or '85 that that date of application--'85 that the date of application legislation was passed here in Manitoba, but there was a curious case that the Labour Board was faced with a group of employees, the majority of whom the union said supported it. The hearings were continuously adjourned for one reason or another, and at each adjournment date more and more employees would be laid off, coincidentally, it seemed, with the fact that those were also union members. So every time the board reheard it, there were union members who had been laid off.

Now, counsel for the union--in that particular case, Mr. Cherniack, I believe it was--admitted there was no evidence of an unfair labour practice, none at all. But the issue then became, when do you determine the wishes of the employee. The board had to make a legal decision, not specifically justified by the act, but, in fact, that was common practice. The board had followed that practice for years. The court, in reviewing the board, quashed that decision. At that time the government said, we have to come in with some kind of mechanism that crystallizes the wishes of the employees at a particular point in time. So in respect of improper employer interference, the solution was good.

The issue then is, what about other improper activities? What about the employee who may well want to change his mind, but given the very open and public process in respect of how these certification cards or these membership cards are obtained, how does one protect the employee? The solution adopted in 1985 did nothing to address the protection of the employee. It would be much like requesting all citizens to vote openly in a provincial or a federal election. Clearly, it is not acceptable, not an acceptable standard. So we have gone to the secret ballot model in order to protect the employee's right to make that decision in private, in confidence.

The issue then becomes, are we then opening the door to improper employer interference? The solution is a short period of time, five to 10 days, which most jurisdictions accept as the appropriate period of time in which the employer cannot do that kind of damage. The time frame then becomes irrelevant.

So we believe that this proposal is a very balanced one and takes into account not only the union's right to organize people, but the employee's right to make a decision free of any intimidation or in fact being forced to make a decision that he or she does not want to, bearing in mind that the employer has no right to improperly interfere in that process.

Mr. Reid: With all of the responsibilities of the Labour Board and looking at the number of cases that the Labour Board has had to deal with that the minister has put on the record here a few moments ago and as we have in the annual report from the Manitoba Labour Board, how can the minister say that he is going to be able to reduce the number of days to process the request for certification and to conduct the vote? First, he said seven to 10 days; now he saying five to 10 days.

An Honourable Member: I said five to 10 is what the other provinces--

Mr. Reid: Okay, that is two days. I prefer to see it on the short side versus the extended side.

How can the minister say that he is going to be able to do that same level of work at the Labour Board, with all of the responsibilities that they have and looking at the budget line item that you have in your document, with no increases in resources? How do you anticipate that you are going to be able to meet that need without providing more resources to the Labour Board?

Mr. Toews: Sure, there are a number of things that we are looking at in terms of improving the administrative efficiency of the board, at providing the board with additional assistance. That does not necessarily mean the hiring of staff or anything like that. There are all types of efficiencies within the department that we can discuss and that we are confident will allow us to meet those obligations.

I might point out that in Ontario--because we are not doing this in a vacuum, we are looking at other provinces and seeing what is their experience with this type of mechanism. For example, Ontario handles approximately 1,000 votes a year and those votes are conducted within five days, and there are no significant problems to date, no more than any other legal process would raise. Many jurisdictions have done this. It is not a complex process and we believe that there are sufficient resources in the Labour Board to meet this. If, in fact, there are any issues that way, we can address them I believe in a very quick way. We are preparing. We have other provinces' experience to guide us and we believe that we will be able to meet those deadlines. The board assures me that they have the capability to do it.

Mr. Reid: The minister referenced that he had certain efficiencies that he could find within his department to assist the Labour Board in the processing of the applications for certification. Can the minister define for me what those efficiencies are?

* (1130)

Mr. Toews: We are looking at the administration of the board generally to ensure that there are not things that other people can be doing now that they are not doing presently, or that they can be doing then that they are not doing presently. But just in the process of changing from the former system which involves a lot of inspectors going out and making detailed reports, moving to this system, we will not have the necessity. It is a lot less administratively intensive system. That will, in itself, free up resources.

The board advises that by making those changes, we will be able to meet the 70 or so votes that we would have in the course of the year. Most of those votes, as the member will well appreciate, do not involve large bargaining units. The average bargaining unit that is applied for is about 20 people, and so collecting 20 votes within five to 10 days is not a large job, especially if some of the other system administrative responsibilities are no longer required under this new system. So counting up the 20 votes or so in this new system should not be a very difficult task and should be easily met within that five- to 10-day period.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, because his staff is now going to have to deal with and respond to compulsory votes where we have 65 percent sign-up and beyond, what number of applications do we have in our experience where there are 65 percent sign-up ratios that are now going to have to be dealt with as a matter of the compulsory vote, and how will that add to your workload in the Labour Board?

Mr. Toews: Approximately 80 percent of certification applications involve sign-ups of 65 percent or more, so there will be then the average of 20 votes that are now--oh, excuse me, five votes that are conducted annually now become about 20 votes--[interjection] 10 to 12 votes. I was confusing the number of people in the bargaining unit being 20, so there is an increase by that amount.

Mr. Reid: So what the minister is telling me then, that the average number of applications for certification is 73 and that he currently has to conduct votes for 10 to 12 of the average number, which means that the minister's department, through the Labour Board, is going to have to conduct another 60 votes as a result of the legislative changes that he is proposing, with no more staff allocated, or no more resources allocated, to perform that function.

Can the minister tell me how he can go from 10 to 12 certification votes with the staff that he has and increase that fivefold with the same staff? How does he contemplate he is going to be able to handle those changes?

Mr. Toews: When you substitute one system for another, you are no longer doing the jobs that you were doing under the other system. The other system involved many more hearings that you no longer have, so all types of hearing processes no longer become involved, freeing up many staff in that respect. So, on average then, we will be looking at one vote per week, one, one and a half votes per week.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister define for me what hearing processes will no longer be required as a result of his legislative changes?

Mr. Toews: What the experiences of other boards have been across Canada is that under this new system, the parties get together to determine issues such as the appropriate bargaining unit without going to the formality of a hearing process. Those processes occur much more frequently in Manitoba under this system than under this proposed system. So many of the workforce involved in those types of hearings are no longer necessary, given the parties co-operate in terms of the proposed bargaining unit.

The experience indicates that there are less hearings and this reduces our administrative issues. There are other factors that no longer need to be expended, or other issues that no longer need manpower, and we believe that our experience here will be no different from any of the other boards where, in changing the system, they are able to free up people to do the new tasks of conducting the vote, which as I remind the member deals with approximately 70 votes a year, on an average of 20 people in each bargaining unit. We believe that we can accommodate that and the board is confident it can do it with the existing resources.

If there are issues in respect of resources, if the member opposite can indicate any experience in other provinces where they have been unable to meet these deadlines, I would be more than happy to look at that information and make adjustments accordingly. But we can only look at and base our program on the experiences of other provinces, for example, Nova Scotia, which has had this system for probably in excess of 20 years, and they do it without any administrative problems in conducting that vote. So you trade one administrative system, you lose certain aspects of work that has to be done, you gain a new process which I think is fairer to employers, employees and unions generally. It is a more balanced approach.

Mr. Reid: The minister seems to be comparing apples to oranges here. He did not give us an indication on--I think it was the Nova Scotia experience that he is referencing--whether or not they applied more resources when they made the switchover in their policy. So I mean, the comments that he made do not carry any weight.

I want to ask the minister, because he is saying there is going to be less hearings, how many less hearings are there going to be, and how many staff, his department staff, Labour Board staff are associated with those hearings?

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Toews: I am not prepared to speculate. The board has looked at this issue. They are confident that they can carry out the task with the existing resources. I cannot speculate on all these things but we believe that is the appropriate system and we will have the appropriate resources there. If the member opposite can point out where--

* (1140)

An Honourable Member: The number. How many?

Mr. Toews: Well, I cannot speculate how many hearings there are going to be.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Transcona, on a point of order.

Point of Order

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I want to provide some assistance for the minister because he does not appear to grasp the information that I am seeking. On a point of clarification, I am asking the minister if he can give us a historical number of hearings that were held that are no longer going to be held and the staff that had been attached to that function to perform those duties, the hearings themselves. I want to know how many hearings there have been in the past on average per year, and I want to know how many staff performed those functions? So if that provides the minister with some assistance in answering the question.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order. It was a dispute over the facts, and there is no such thing as a point of clarification.

* * *

Mr. Toews: I can get that information for the member. It is obviously not as simple a task as saying, well this person is freed up and that person is now going to be doing this. It is a question of reassigning duties as new tasks are put into place as a result of a new system coming in, and we believe that the tasks that will be created as a result of the new system will be no greater than the tasks that are presently under the old system. But I will get--as much as I can get that information without being too speculative, I will get that to the member.

Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass?--pass. Item 2.(e)(2) Other Expenditures $303,000--pass.

(f) Workplace Safety and Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,382,200.

Mr. Reid: This has been an area that has been much on our minds of late although it has always been an issue that has been important to us, and I am sure to the working people of the province. All of us like to go to our employment, people that have employment, and we like to be able to return home safely to our families at the end of the workday.

We have seen several incidents that have occurred in this province over the course of the last number of months that have caused us some distress with respect to the level of inspection and the level of enforcement under The Workplace, Safety and Health Act.

I want to ask the minister, can he tell us, do the inspectors--maybe I should ask the question first, are there any vacancies in the Professional/Technical support of Workplace Safety and Health, and can the minister tell me, of those people under Professional/Technical, how many of those people--34.26 staff years that are showing in the document--are field inspection officers that go out into the field and conduct workplace inspections?

Mr. Chairperson: Prior to the minister answering the question, he may want to introduce the new staff present at this time.

Mr. Toews: Yes, there is Mr. Geoff Bawden, who is the Executive Director of the Workplace Safety and Health Branch; and Mr. Garry Hildebrand, also of the same branch.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the minister.

Mr. Toews: Of those 34.26 positions, approximately 32 perform inspection services.

Mr. Reid: Because I am not familiar with the job description or the duties that are assigned to these field officers, can the minister give me an idea, on these 32 people that he says are field officers, approximately how much of their activities are spent in office or administrative function versus in-the-field inspection where they actually go out to the worksites and spend their time in the worksite inspecting for workplace conditions?

Mr. Toews: I can see what kind of statistics I can provide the member with in respect to that issue. One thing I think should be made clear is that the inspectors are in the field, they are in their office doing work related to inspections, related to workplace safety and health issues. It is a very difficult figure to obtain to say, well, what percentage of their work relates to inspections. I mean, all of their work relates to workplace safety and health in the workplace of Manitobans. How they accomplish that particular end is through various mechanisms. One is inspections, another is research, another is co-ordination of activities.

I could ask the member the question, is participation or helping a workplace safety and health committee part of an inspection process? I would certainly say that is part of their duties as being inspectors. The amount of time that they spend in court, that is certainly related to their inspection duties. [interjection] The member opposite asks if they do go to court. They do go to court.

The member seems to have some kind of an idea that inspectors just go around to workplaces and write down little notes and that is what an inspector does. An inspector has a much more integrated position into the whole position, and one has to go back and look at how our workplace safety and health legislation is set up. Then perhaps the member opposite can understand why or how inspectors operate in this province.

Now, we can look at the issue of a police officer. Yes, a police officer spends time in a cruiser car, a police officer spends time knocking on doors, but a police officer, in furtherance of the activities that he may have uncovered on the street, spends all kinds of time inside.

One of the very important functions of this act--and perhaps I can describe it no better than the drafter of this act. The drafter of this act was an individual by the name of Victor Rabinovitch and I know when I was a lawyer working for Workplace Safety and Health back in the '80s, this man had assumed God-like proportions. Everyone quoted Victor Rabinovitch, and clearly in terms of insight, he had incredible insight in terms of what the future of workplace safety and health legislation was all about.

* (1150)

The old idea of a beat cop making arrests on the street is an outmoded concept. I mean we have all kinds of concepts now about police officers, community based or very technically proficient people. Similarly, workplace safety and health. In setting out this legislation Mr. Rabinovitch stated in the fall of 1976, yes, the new Workplace Safety and Health division had new powers of enforcement, and while the penalities in force now were higher than they had previously been, the principal goal of the new legislation, he said, was not litigation, that is, prosecutions, but co-operation. The main objective was to prevent accident and diseases, not to collect fines through the courts from offenders.

Now, that was the legislation that members opposite put into place, so they put in a whole system of legislation that was designed to create what is called an internal responsibility system. The whole legislation brought in by that government at the time was, this act is not to be used for prosecutions, that is not its main aim. The aim of this act is to create an internal responsibility system. One of the main mechanisms of that act was workplace safety and health committees.

So you get workers in a workforce and employers sitting down together to look at what the problems are in the workplace, to come up with solutions, instead of having a foreign inspector coming into a workplace, seeing a situation and saying, this has got to be changed, that has got to be changed, this has got to be changed and if you do not, I am going to fine you. What the act does is create an internal responsibility system, because many times we know that the best way to make meaningful, long-lasting changes is by allowing the people most directly affected in the workplace to have a say in that. So the role of the inspector became, in many ways, a facilitator to ensure that the opportunities for accidents were diminished, not only through the resources of the inspector which are still very, very important, but through the active participation of workers and employers. How much more democracy can one bring to the workplace than that type of activity?

Rather than having a foreigner--if I can use that expression--come into a workplace and demand changes, we have workplace democracy saying this is what has to be done. This is how it should be changed. So the focus then of inspections has changed. The role of inspectors has changed, as brought in by the government in the 1970s. Now whether it was the insight of the government of the time or just Mr. Rabinovitch who was the drafter of the legislation--and Mr. Rabinovitch was not a lawyer and there were many problems over the years in terms of the legal drafting--but that insight that you achieve lasting change and lower accident rates through that co-operative rather than litigation process has borne fruit.

Our accident rates in terms of time loss, as verified by the Workers Compensation Board, continue to decline. One of the things that if you look at statistics, Manitoba's is going down on a year-over-year basis from 1986. It has continually gone down and despite the fact that inspections have also gone down. I mean, I can tell inspectors to go out and make all kinds of inspections in the morning. Walk down the halls of Safeway, there is an inspection. Boost up your inspection rate. But that is not smart thinking. What we have to do is focus in on the problem areas, work together with the internal responsibility system.

In Saskatchewan, for example, they doubled the amount of inspectors and halved their inspections. The number of inspectors and the number of inspections have absolutely no relationship. It is a meaningless comparison. What is a meaningful comparison is how that internal responsibility system has worked to reduce, in the long term, the rate of time loss accidents, and that clearly we have been doing in this province since 1988. The figures demonstrate that.

So the question is how much work is done on inspections? Well, it depends what the member means in terms of what he defines as inspections. I prefer to define inspections in a very, very broad way because those inspectors are the reinforcements, the co-ordinators, the guts of ensuring that that internal responsibility system works, the internal responsibility system that was brought in by members opposite in order to not to collect fines and to prosecute but bring about co-operation to reduce the level of accidents, and that is what we talk about in Workplace Safety and Health.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, let us use the Headingley example. We have copies of what the minister calls the democratization of the workplace to involve employees in the decisions where there are workplace safety and health problems. It did not work in the Headingley situation, Mr. Minister. We have seen the reports. We have had a chance to look at the outstanding issues that we think led to the problem in the Headingley riot. I know it is under review and perhaps the minister cannot comment on it, so do not tell me, Mr. Minister, that these democratized workplaces work in all cases.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would rather the member came through the Chair rather than presenting directly to the minister. It does not add to the decorum. The honourable member, to continue.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, let not the minister say that democratization works in all cases. I believe that the workplace safety and health committees that are in place are there to perform a very, very necessary function, but if you do not have an enforcement arm that deals with the complaints that are outstanding and not resolved in a short period of time, you are going to have other Headingley situations. That is what the department should be trying to prevent through increased enforcement activities and inspection procedures that they have within the department.

Take, for example, the Westray situation, just last week, where the inspector said very clearly that he would give two days notice to the company before he went in to do his inspections. How is that random inspection? How is that helping to make sure that we have a worksite that is going to continue to have safe working conditions for all its people every day, not just the days that the inspector is coming to inspect? We have to take the steps necessary to protect people in the worksite, both the employees themselves and the management people, for all people who work in those worksites.

I want to ask the minister that if he does not have the information here for the questions I am about to ask, he can table or bring that information back to us this afternoon to give us the opportunity to take a look at the number of days that are lost due to workplace injuries. The minister referenced the fact that the number of injuries in the province have gone down, just relating to the Workers Compensation Board statistics. Well, if memory serves me correctly, the number of workplace injuries increased last year. It did not go down. It had gone down during the period of the recession, but I believe that the numbers have increased. I will have to go back and check my numbers to verify that. If the minister could also provide for us and table some documentation relating to the number of cases that his department takes to court, the number of convictions that his department has been successful in achieving for those cases that have gone to court and the amount of fines that his department has been able to achieve through the convictions.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 12 noon, as previously agreed, committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

IN SESSION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being after 5:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.