LABOUR
Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. The committee will come to order. We are dealing with item 11.2. Labour Programs (f) Workplace Safety and Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits. Shall the item pass?
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, I was just giving a moment for the minister's staff to enter the Chamber, but I will ask my question in the meantime. When we left off with questioning this morning, we were in Workplace Safety and Health, and I asked the minister if he could provide for us information relating to the number of days lost due to workplace injuries in the province of Manitoba and also with respect to the more serious cases dealing with workplace injuries where the minister's department would be, I would imagine, putting forward a recommendation to the minister to the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) to proceed with court action where warranted. I wanted the minister to tell me how many cases he had recommended to the Minister of Justice, how many had proceeded to the courts, and how many convictions were secured as a result of that action, if any, and the amount of the fines by individual cases.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I assume the question is the prosecution cases that were recommended by the Department of Labour in the last year, and, if that is what the question is, I can indicate that presently there are a number of cases before the court. I cannot get into the specifics because these are issues still actively before the court, but certainly it is a matter of public record that there are at least eight cases presently before the courts. I can indicate that the names of these eight corporations are available, and I am wondering whether the member for Transcona wishes me to read the names of these accused into the record.
Mr. Reid: I think, Mr. Chairperson, that if the minister would provide us with a list of that information, that would be sufficient.
Mr. Toews: Yes, I can provide them with a list of people or corporations currently before the courts.
Mr. Reid: The minister references this information, Mr. Chairperson, indicating that it is current action being taken. Part of my question had dealt with a number of cases in the preceding year and the number of convictions and any fines that may have been levied as a result of those convictions.
Mr. Toews: I can list from the latest convictions going down. In January of 1996, Lansard Bros. Roofing was convicted under Section 26 of Manitoba Regulation 189/85 and was fined $750.00 plus costs. In the same month, Kansteel Manufacturing was also fined $1,000 and costs of $70 in respect of a general charge of failure to provide a workplace that was safe. In October 1995, Buchanan Printers Ltd.was convicted under Section 54(c) of The Workplace Safety and Health Act for a fine of $250 plus costs of $4. In the same month, Westeel, a division of Jannock, was convicted under Section 4(2)(a) of The Workplace Safety and Health Act for a fine of $1,000 and costs. In July of 1995, Silco Ltd. was fined under Section 203(2) of Manitoba Regulation 189/85 and Section 26 and Section 54(c) of The Workplace Safety and Health Act for total penalties of $6,000 plus $1,920 in costs. In June of 1995, the City of Brandon was convicted of two counts under Section 4(2)(a) and (b) of The Workplace Safety and Health Act for a total of $2,000 at $1,000 per count. In April of 1995, an individual by the name of Daniel Trudeau was convicted under Section 135(3) of Manitoba Regulation 189/85 and Section 112 of Manitoba Regulation 189/85. That individual received a conditional discharge and $150--I assume that was on a separate count--plus costs of $48. In the same month Jim Higgs, Jr. [phonetic] was convicted of Section 135(3) of Manitoba Regulation 189/85, was fined $150 plus costs. In the same month, the Rural Municipality of St. Francois Xavier was convicted of violations of Section 4(2) and Section 54 of The Workplace Safety and Health Act, was fined $500 plus costs of $160.
* (1550)
Now, I might just indicate that the other charges--those are certainly the convictions that occurred either during the time that I was Minister responsible for Workplace Safety and Health or shortly before that time. In addition, my staff advises me that in February of 1996 a company by the name of Alert Steel Erectors Ltd. was convicted under Sections 179(1)(d) and 181 of Manitoba Regulation 189/85 for total penalties of $2,500. A worker by the name of Ben Arsenault [phonetic] was convicted under Section 135(3) of Manitoba Regulation 189/85 $100 plus $32 in costs. Finally, Buchanan Printers Ltd. was convicted under two counts of Section 54 (c) of The Workplace Safety and Health Act for which they received a reprimand.
Mr. Reid: Well, if my addition is correct here, then we have some 12 businesses that have had sanctions applied by the courts, and that we have had some 35,000 to 40,000 workplace injuries in the province of Manitoba in the last year, and that the only action that is taken here is against 12 persons, including companies. In the minister's mind, in his opinion, does he feel that the fines that have been levied are in any way acting as a deterrent and a method of encouraging, as the minister likes to talk about, firms to act in a more responsible manner to ensure the health and safety of the employees working for those particular firms? Is the minister contemplating making any changes to the maximum fines provided under the act, wherein now the maximum fine is some $15,000? Is the minister contemplating making those changes to increase those fines, and can he tell us?
Mr. Toews: I would indicate, Mr. Chairman, that the maximum fine available under The Workplace Safety and Health Act is $30,000, and not $15,000, as indicated by the member. But in respect of a prosecution generally, I think it is very important to remember, as I stated earlier this morning, the philosophy behind the act that the previous NDP government brought in and that we continue to administer. The architect, if I could call him that, of that legislation, Mr. Rabinovitch [phonetic], said that while the division received new powers of enforcement and while they were higher than prior penalties, the principal goal of the legislation brought in by the NDP government, and which legislation is still in effect, is not litigation but co-operation. He stated, the main objective is to prevent accident and diseases, not to collect fines through the courts from offenders. Now, clearly, if one looks at the legislation and the prosecutions under the legislation and says, if a measurement of success is the number of fines that we get, then one might fall into the argument that the member has raised, and one might fall into accepting an argument that somehow the act is not effective. One could say the same thing, that there are other mechanisms under the act that in fact encourage companies, individuals, to obey the law.
I think the greatest impact in this area is education, and, while I would argue that education is not necessarily a mechanism which can be used successfully in all types of crime prevention, I think this is an area where education, co-operation, working together is an area where accidents are reduced. We can look at the statistics that have been provided by the Workers Compensation Board, and, going back to 1980 we can examine both the time loss claims per 1,000 workers and the average days per time loss claim, that is, the severity of claims, and determine whether or not this legislation has had an impact. So, if we start in 1980, we will see that the legislation or the time loss claims per 1,000 workers at that time was 45 accidents per 1,000 workers. During the NDP years, it dipped to about 41 accidents per 1,000 workers, and then started climbing in the course of the NDP years. So in 1986 it was at 46 accidents per 1,000 workers. After 1986, the climb began to go down--that is, the time loss claims per 1,000 workers began to decline quite dramatically, so in 1988 we were at about 43 or 44 claims per 1,000 workers, in '89 at about 42, '90 at about 43 again. Then in '91 it was at 37; in '92, it was 36. I might remind the member that this is claims per 1,000 workers. It has nothing to do with how many people were working; this is per 1,000 workers. So we have that, for every 1,000 workers working, the claims are dropping. In 1992, it is at 36; in 1993, it is at 33 or 32; in 1994, it is at 35; and in 1995 it is at 35 again.
In respect of the average days per time loss, my statistics go back to '89, and they have been relatively stable throughout, if one looks at the figure from '89-95. I would point out that in '91 there was an increase from about 15 days in '89 to about 17or 18 days in '91, excuse me, in '88 it was 15 days, then '91 it was at about 18, 17 days, and then has continued to go down to a point at about 15 days. So, looking at the time loss claims per 1,000 workers and the average days per time loss claim, it would appear that the legislation is successful. Frankly, I do not rate success by how much money you can extract by way of fines. I think it is much more important to understand and to see how many workers are being injured, for how long their injuries have occurred, and whether that rate is going down, and that clearly is going down.
* (1600)
Now this is consistent with the philosophy of the act that was passed by the NDP government, that was drafted by Mr. Rabinovich [phonetic], and it was legislation that I had a long history of involvement with during the 1980s, the drafting of codes of practice, the drafting of regulations, the setting up of workplace safety and health committees, the development and strengthening of the internal responsibility system.
One can say, well, let us take a look at the number of inspections and inspectors. Again, I could have staff go out and double the number of inspections overnight--to what end? So that statistics demonstrate that inspections are being carried out. I have indicated earlier, Mr. Chair, that Saskatchewan doubled, very recently, their number of inspectors, and yet their inspections have been halved. What the Saskatchewan NDP realizes, as we realize here, is that the internal responsibility system is what is going to prevent serious injuries and address systemic problems. That is what we are working to do, by focusing on problem areas and bringing those injuries down in those problem areas.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, well, the minister will take a look at his own numbers here going back, because he likes to go back, to '89-90. In '89-90, we had 52 professional technical people, that is your field officers that go out and do workplace inspections, and today we are at 32, by your own numbers, your own department Estimates, your own numbers. We are still continuing to see people killed on the job, a high level of workplace injuries, and you think that the department would learn that you cannot have enforcement and people to be expected to act reasonably unless you have some enforcement mechanism there in having people go out and do that inspection. That is what causes us concern, is you have reduced the number of field inspectors from 52 down to 32 over that period of time, your own departmental Estimates numbers out of your documents.
So I do not understand how the department can inspect the number of worksites that we have in this province with 32 field officers. How does the minister expect 32 people to inspect--what is it? How many thousand worksites do we have in the province? We have a very, very large number. I forget the exact number. I have it in files downstairs. But I do not understand how the minister can say that 32 people in his field inspection people in his department can inspect those industries and ensure that we have adequate workplace safety inspections in place and to ensure that we have functioning committees, workplace safety and health committees, if we do not have those field officers to go and do that necessary work. How does the minister justify that reduction, from 52 down to 32 people?
Mr. Toews: Well, first of all, I think this gives me a wonderful opportunity to compliment my field inspectors, very, very competent individuals, very proud of the work that they have been doing. They are very highly trained, competent individuals, and they have demonstrated to me, over the short period of time that I have been the minister, that these are very, very professional people and can do a very good job at a quick moment’s notice. I think their recent involvement in the Headingley situation has, in my mind, demonstrated their worth, their capability, their professionalism, and I think that must be recognized.
In respect of the actual numbers, there has been a redivision of the inspectors in the Workplace Safety and Health Division so that in fact the field inspectors are essentially the same number as the 52 that the member points out in 1990. The Mines Branch has been separated out, and in fact we have brought people who used to be in Computer Services into inspection areas where that type of thing was appropriate. But very generally we have approximately the same number, and that is, give or take one position, of people doing field inspections. But I think, Mr. Chair, it is very important here to note that the member speaks of an enforcement system that is top down that I think is outmoded, that in many ways is draconian and is in many ways ineffective.
I was at a conference in Montreal some time ago where a professor from a university--and his name just escapes me, but I will think of it--wrote a very significant book on work councils, and this person would not be generally described as a regressive thinker in terms of workplace safety and health. Indeed, he was a very progressive thinker. He dealt with this issue of how many inspectors you need in workplaces. He stated that in the United States, and I am not drawing on that as a model, but he stated that in the United States, given the number of workplaces and given the number of inspectors, it would take approximately--there would be one inspection of every workplace in every 189 years. Clearly not an acceptable process if one thinks that is the way to enforce legislation. Clearly, if enforcement through the court system, through prosecutions, is the only way to proceed, one would have to double, triple, in fact, probably station a Workplace Safety and Health officer in every workplace in this province. I do not think that is the appropriate way to deal with workplace safety and health.
* (1610)
As indicated earlier, education and the support that the Workplace Safety and Health Branch gives to workplace safety and health committees through publications and other mechanisms, personal involvement, is, in fact, the approach to take. This is in fact what is strengthening our workplace safety and health record. As for the issue of prosecutions, the member says, let us raise the fines, and I do not have a philosophical problem with that. If the member wants to have a higher fine, perhaps he can propose what a suitable fine is, and I would be willing to consider that. I have no problem in raising the fines in the act. I have no problem with that. But, if the member thinks that by raising the fines in a piece of legislation, there are suddenly going to be fewer workplace safety and health accidents, I think he is mistaken. When one looks at the jurisdictions that have in fact adopted that philosophy--and I think it is a very short-term philosophy, raise the fines and prosecute--you will see what is happening is that, instead of having Workplace Safety and Health officers in the field assisting people, ensuring that accidents do not happen, what in fact happens is that as soon as they lay charges, because of the substantive fines involved, this system gets bogged down in the courts very, very quickly. So you have police officers, medical people, Workplace Safety and Health officers sitting in court day after day listening to lawyers harangue about the technicalities.
Mr. Reid: Darn lawyers.
Mr. Toews: The issue may be darn lawyers, as the member from Transcona says, but once you get into the legal system and especially into the prosecutions area, which I have some familiarity with, having been a former prosecutor; this is an incredibly inefficient waste of government resources. I say that, not because saving lives and preventing accidents is a waste; I say there are many better ways of doing it. Having said that, I want to, Mr. Chair, make sure that the member realizes that I do believe there is an appropriate case in which one goes to prosecutions. It is important that that statement be made, where there are workers or employers or unions who do not co-operate, but rather--and having said that, I would like to take this opportunity to state there is a very important group of people in our workforce that has a tremendous influence on workplace safety and health, and that is the unions. The unions are there to protect workers, they are there to protect workers, and those unions have a very legitimate and strong role to play in workplace safety and health matters.
I know I have met a number of times with union officials who state that they are aware of cases where accidents are not reported. They are personally aware of those situations, yet when you ask these individuals to bring the records forward, to bring the cases, to report it to the workplace safety and health committee or to the inspector anonymously or otherwise, those reports are not forthcoming. So what I am trying to say is not to discourage the unions from what I consider their very important role but to encourage them, to let them know that this department views them as a very important partner in terms of reducing workplace safety and health accidents, because the union, unlike the government inspectors, is in every workplace that is unionized whenever people are on the job.
If there are dangerous practices, let the union bring those forward under whatever form that they wish, and when those complaints in respect of workplace safety and health are brought to our branch, we will investigate, and we will take the appropriate steps. We have been doing that, and I think to the extent that unions have been co-operating in this respect and individual employees have been co-operating in this respect, this has significantly influenced the downward trend of accidents today. Yes, I have said that we have approximately the same number of field inspectors, but I think what we have to realize is there is a much bigger picture out there. There are all kinds of people who are capable of assisting in matters of safety. Safety begins with the individual at work.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, it is interesting that the minister here is attempting to say that unions have a place or a role to play, and yet he is doing so much as the Minister of Labour to undermine unions and to take away the ability of unions to function as a representative of their members, looking at the legislation that the minister is in the process or has tabled in this House. So I do not think it is really fair of him to say that he thinks that the unions have a strong role to play and yet at the same time attempt to undermine their activities.
The minister also forgets to reference the fact that there are many nonunionized workplaces in this province for which we also have concern, because the employees of those operations themselves do not have the opportunity to have an independent voice for them, a voice that can go and represent the concerns to the employer relating to workplace safety and health conditions. That is where the minister's staff, the inspection people that are in the field, have the role to play to go into those sites to protect the health and the safety of those people working in unionized plants, yes, but also in nonunionized workplace sites. That is the role of the department to provide the level of security for all people.
The minister referenced that there has been no reduction, or maybe one person reduction, in his department. Well, I have taken the liberty of doing some calculations here, Mr. Chairperson. If you add the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, the Occupational Health Branch and the Mines safety branch of the minister's department, lo and behold, the numbers add up to 42.26 professional/technical people. Yet, now, here we are today, when you compare that to the staff, and I have got the book here in front of me, the Estimates, the Adjusted Vote for '87-88 we had 58 technical/professional people. So if you add up the numbers that we have in all of those categories, Workplace Safety and Health, Occupational Health and Mines safety, we are still 16 positions short on the field officer inspection side of worksites in the province of Manitoba. Your numbers, your books, not mine. So we have a reduction of 16 positions, not one that the minister is talking about here, and for some 14,000 worksites that we have in the province--I think that is the number--that we have a reduction in the number of people doing the field inspections. I do not see how we can protect the people in both unionized and nonunionized worksites with a reduction of that number in those worksites in the province.
I want to ask the minister, because he has not answered the question yet about the number of lost days. He has given a comparison by averages, but he has not given me the total number of lost days due to workplace accidents in the province for the last year. I want to ask the minister also what process he has through Workplace Safety and Health for monitoring the workplace safety and health committees in the various worksites in the province of Manitoba. What process do you have, what policy do you have, for ensuring that those committees are functioning properly and that the concerns that are raised are being addressed in a timely fashion?
Mr. Toews: I understand the member's concern, and I think perhaps it comes out of his background where everyone has a very, very clear job function, job description. If your job description is to pick up a hammer and hammer, that is what you do. I think we have moved in government beyond those types of very narrow job descriptions. I am advised by my staff that we stand by the statement that in terms of total people committed to field inspections, that number remains unchanged, no matter what category one wishes to classify that in. So we have a difference of opinion there.
Our staff advises that the functions of the field inspectors may also include other functions or other staff not in that category, in fact, carries out inspection functions, and that the numbers referred to in the earlier years were many people who operated in a support position and never went out into the field. For example, I understand there were people in a policy branch in Labour who were classified as inspectors, yet never were outside in the field--[interjection]
* (1620)
Well, what I have said to the member, Mr. Chair, is that the number of people who, in terms of staff years, are carrying out field inspections and inspections related to safety issues and matters related to safety issues have remained essentially unchanged since 1990. So I think I have to come back to the broader issue of how one defines functions of people. If one looks at very, very narrow definitions and excludes people who may have both functions, perhaps there would be some legitimacy in the member's argument, but in fact what you are finding more and more in government is people who are doing many tasks when those tasks can be accommodated by their schedule.
Mr. Reid: The minister may have missed the last part, Mr. Chairperson. I asked what process his department has in place for ensuring that the workplace safety and health committees are in place with people in position to perform those functions, both management and employee side, that the committees operate on a regular basis and the concerns that are raised at those committees are dealt with in a timely fashion and they do not drag on for an extended period of time and go unresolved. What process does the department have to ensure that those committees are in place and functioning properly?
Mr. Toews: There are at least three general ways in which this is done, Mr. Chair: Firstly, the committees will forward minutes to the Workplace Safety and Health Division of the various committees outlining their activities, and the staff reviews those minutes to see what types of problems or, in fact, whether there is a workplace safety and health committee functioning. Again, the second is the inspection process. The inspector is not just going to the worksite to look for dangerous conditions; the inspector is going to the workplace to determine whether the workplace safety and health committee is meeting its responsibilities under the act in terms of the internal responsibility system. So again here we see what on the face of it looks like a bureaucratic, if I can use that term, function by inspector, and yet it is a function that is integral to safety in a particular place.
(Mr. David Newman, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
We also have on staff a person who is attempting to facilitate difficult situations where workplace safety and health committees have particular problems, and that person is then attempting to facilitate and bring to a head a lot of the problems with a view to resolving those problems.
I think to look at a very recent example is the issue of the jail at Headingley in terms of Workplace Safety and Health orders. When one looks at the jail situation there, as my staff in fact have over the last number of weeks, one thing that is clear is that there were no orders that were unattended in the sense that they were not being addressed in the appropriate time frame established for addressing those orders.
There are three types of situations that one could look at. The first is grievances under the collective agreement. There were no workplace safety and health grievances that were unattended in the sense that they were totally ignored, that they were outside of the process. They were in the process of being resolved.
The second source is the Ombudsman, and of all the complaints handled by the Ombudsman's office, again, there were no complaints that were at a dead letter office, so to speak. I understand there were no workplace safety and health complaints insofar as the Ombudsman was concerned, but even all of his complaints were being dealt with insofar as they might incidentally relate to workplace safety and health issues. The third is any outstanding Workplace Safety and Health orders or, even if one wants to get a little broader, Fire Commissioner's orders. This is not to say that there were not orders in effect. What I do want to say, Mr. Chair, is that the orders were being attended to in the time frame allotted, that is, no orders were in breach.
So, if one looks at the system that has been established under The Workplace Safety and Health Act and one looks at the administrative support that this department has provided to those workplace safety and health committees--and might I remind the Chair that workplace safety and health committees are present in unionized and nonunionized places; and, even where there are no committees, there are other individuals who are charged with those responsibilities. So there is a system. Someone should be there in almost every workplace, and the way we determine whether or not there is somebody there is through some of the mechanisms that I have indicated to the House. So this is a much broader system, much more, in many ways, invasive system than simply having an inspector coming to the door on a random basis and see if there are any violations. In effect, we have inspectors there all the time, and the inspectors are the people who work at the worksite who realize whether something is dangerous or not. This includes union officials, this includes nonunionized employees, this includes unionized employees, and it includes management because in many workplaces we have to remember managers work side by side with the workers. A dangerous working condition is not just a dangerous working condition for the person on the lowest end of that pay scale. It is a dangerous working condition for the manager. That manager goes home to his or her family as well. They have a vested interest.
The member, I think, draws a point that is important. Is there a mechanism by which these people can report and ensure that their concerns are addressed by Workplace Safety and Health? I think there is. It can be done without revealing identity. These reports can be made over the telephone, alert the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, and inspectors can be dispatched. It can be done in a more formal way, but whatever way that is available--and there are many ways under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, and they are spelled out either in codes of practice or in regulations or in other mechanisms--I think, one can see in the way that Workplace Safety and Health orders in Headingley, which is a very, very difficult situation, that the workplace safety and health process is an ongoing process. Provided that the government is there to continue to give that support, provided that the department is there to give that support, we will, in fact, continue on this trend of reducing the time loss and accident rates.
* (1630)
When we talk about inspectors, who are the inspectors? I say that every worker in the workplace is an inspector. The education that this branch provides, the WorkSafe document, for example, that is published, gives workers education to enable them to understand what access they have in enforcing the law. Where an employer does not co-operate, there is the arm of the law that is either through Workplace Safety and Health, Fire Commissioner's office, the general police, because one cannot forget that there are Criminal Code provisions that also deal with workplace safety and health that have tremendous penalties attached to them for criminal conduct.
Mr. Reid: Well, our concern here is that the workplace safety and health committees are in place and are functioning and that the minister references that employees can bring concerns to the attention of the department through the Workplace Safety and Health Branch. What I need to know is in what level of confidence those reports are kept when field officers may be dispatched to a worksite to investigate a complaint that would be received by the Workplace Safety and Health Branch. Is there a level of confidence with no information provided to the employer about which employee was providing that, for raising that concern, with the branch?
Mr. Toews: Mr. Chair, I have discussed this issue with the executive director, and the policy is that the complaints are absolutely confidential until such time as they can be released.
Now, this is a complex area, and it is not just an issue that is peculiar to Workplace Safety and Health. For example, if a person makes a complaint in the middle of the night and phones up the police, for example, and says, please do not involve me, but there is something going on. The police get to the situation, and they cannot find anything, but they know where the phone call came from. What do the police then do? Do they walk up to the door, knock on the door and say, look, we have received your complaint; we are concerned about it, but we do not know where this is happening or what is happening?
Clearly, by the mere fact of the police walking up to the door, knocking on the door and talking to somebody, that might be a jeopardy of that complainant's confidence. That is a tremendous problem in the area of law enforcement generally. It is certainly something that one realizes in the area of prosecutions and organized crime and those types of things, very, very serious thing.
Similarly, if one looks at Workplace Safety and Health, the policy is to keep these things confidential, but there may well be a point where the confidence, if the integrity of the prosecution or investigation is to be maintained, might have to be revealed. I think the member would admit that when there is a violation of a statute, it is not just a wrong against the person who has been injured or the person who has been endangered, it is a wrong against society. So the Workplace Safety and Health officer, like any police officer, like a fire commissioner, must weigh that very, very carefully.
Of course, one wants to maintain the integrity of a complaint by keeping it confidential as much as possible. That is our policy, and that is what we strive to do, but then one is met with the difficult task of, do you allow an offender to go free because you want to preserve confidentiality, or do you open that confidentiality because of the greater duty to society to ensure safety generally? That is a problem that we are going to meet everywhere. I think I understand the member's concern. I think it is a valid concern, and that is something that the branch takes into account in every sensitive case where this kind of thing happens.
(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Reid: There is still one comment that the minister made that concerns me about the confidentiality. He referenced the fact that information brought to the department's attention is kept in confidence until it can be released. I am not sure what he means: until it can be released.
Mr. Toews: For example, if the department goes down--and let us take a very simple example. We have a worker phoning up and saying, my employer is sending me down into an unshored trench. I am just on a coffee break, and, if I want to save my job, I got to go down there. So I am going to go down there, but I want somebody to come there.
Well, the inspector hops into his car, gets down to the site, and they can see the inspector coming a half a mile away. Everybody is out of the trench, and so all of the shoring is removed. The inspector walks over. There is just a big hole in the ground. There is no violation of any act. What does the inspector do, turn his or her back and get back into the car and go downtown and say, well, confidentiality, it is not my concern if the trenches collapse? I think the member would agree that that kind of an attitude would be totally irresponsible.
I would not blame an inspector who, in that kind of situation, approaches the employer, speaks and, in very, very careful circumstances, may well have to indicate that he has evidence that people have been working down in that trench. But again it is very, very difficult to make general statements and then try to enforce them in a practical way once issues of safety are involved because, once a trench collapses on a worker in that trench, it does not just become the concern of that worker who was killed or injured, but it becomes a concern of society. The cost to society, not to mention the heartache and the grief of somebody dying, but the cost that society is put to because someone deliberately violated the law.
I think an inspector may well have to consider those issues in determining at what time it is appropriate to release information. As much as possible, we try not to release that information. If the prosecution or the offence can be remedied without the release of that, I think it is fine, but I think we have to remember the wrong done is not just to the individual. The wrong is done to society as a whole. This is public legislation; the public has an interest.
Mr. Reid: Well, we could debate this section at considerable length, Mr. Chairperson. I have a few comments, and then I am prepared to pass this section.
The minister referenced Headingley. I have here in my hand information provided to us relating to a December 4, 1995, meeting between corrections management and corrections staff, Headingley Institution, relating to the fact that the corrections staff members were concerned and raised concerns about the removal of the range bars at Headingley. I also have in my file here the fact that the management at Headingley Correctional Institution was going ahead with the removal of the range bars.
I have the letter here that says that they were going ahead, regardless of the concerns that were raised by the corrections officers at Headingley. That puts at risk those people that are performing the necessary functions on behalf of society to protect us, the rest of society, from those that have been convicted of the various lawbreaking acts. So that is why I raised the concerns about how the workplace safety and health committees function when the issues are raised, as this was, and the minutes here clearly indicate it. Yet the management was going ahead.
* (1640)
That is why we need to have people from this department's staff going into those worksites to ensure that the concerns of the people that are working on those sites are addressed, especially in a matter like this where you have a riot that ensued, we think, as a result of the decisions to move the intermediate wall in the range barrier system. I mean, we have already raised this in Question Period in the House here, but I will leave that with the minister as well. That is why I raised the concerns about the problems with the functioning of the workplace safety and health committees and that the serious concerns that are raised are not being addressed, that management goes ahead, in some cases, unilaterally to make changes that are not in the best interests of the people that are working there, both unionized, nonunionized, and management people, including the inmates as well because they are part of the process. Some of them were injured as well, and some of them perhaps did not take place in the riot activities.
So everybody that was involved there was put at risk because somebody was going to move ahead with decisions that were not done on a consensus basis. That is why the functioning of the workplace safety and health committees is critical.
The problem we have with the level of fines that the minister referenced, he said, it is $30,000, I stand corrected. My figure was somewhat lower; it was half that. The problem that we see is that businesses in this province, not all businesses because by far the majority of them are responsible business operations with responsible management and responsible owners, but for those that decide, for whatever reasons, they want to skirt the laws of this province, we have to have in place the necessary sanctions to prevent them from endangering their employees and endangering members of the public and endangering the management of that operation from unsafe practices.
If we do not have the necessary sanctions in place, which I think should include perhaps even jail terms for the more serious offences, the businesses that skirt the law look at these level of fines that the minister referenced here were in the range of under a thousand dollars to around the $2,000 mark, when he referenced the 12 companies out of the 14,000 in this province that had been prosecuted, the level of fines that are being levied as sanctions for workplace safety and health violations, obviously very serious violations. The businesses that skirt the law look at this as just the cost of doing business. I do not think that is the right attitude for those that break the law and skirt the law of this province. That is why we need to take a serious look at revamping the level of sanctions that are available to the courts to levy in cases where in their estimation and in opinion of the courts that action needs to be taken.
I will leave that with the minister for his consideration, Mr. Chairperson, and I am prepared to move on to the next section.
Mr. Toews: I just think I should respond very, very briefly to the range-bar issue. I would indicate that the range bars were the subject of an order in approximately 1980. At that time, Workplace Safety and Health was involved and said, those range bars are not to be removed, and I am paraphrasing the order here, unless there was an equivalent safety mechanism in place that met with the approval of the Labour Management Committee there. So clearly Workplace Safety and Health had already made an order. That order was still in effect, and in respect of anyone doing anything unilaterally, had they done so, and I do not think they have, they would be in violation of that order. So that is something that has to be looked at.
I am just summarizing the facts very, very quickly because there have been all types of intervening activities which may have allowed some persons to do one thing or another, but clearly Workplace Safety and Health, and that is a perfect example, has been involved in that issue, monitoring that issue, since 1980.
In respect of the fines themselves, we have had a long discussion about that and I agree with the member that fines can be a very important aspect of the enforcement system. Although the act in the words of Victor Rabinovich [phonetic] was that it was to increase the capacity of all persons involved in the workplace to anticipate safety and health problems and to change the conditions which give rise to these problems.
There may well be situations where that type of change is not forthcoming. Perhaps because of employer reluctance, perhaps because employees are not in favour of it, but whatever it is, fines are a necessary element. I would be prepared to discuss with the member what he considers an appropriate fine, and I may well be persuaded to bring a bill if there is time to change that. I do not want to destroy what I think we are accomplishing in terms of workplace safety and health, but if the member feels so strongly about that issue, I would be prepared to consider.
If you look at the fines that have been levied, $1,000 fines, $500 fines, $2,000 fines, the issue is not the limit. The limit is up to $30,000 for cases of second offences. So the court system, for whatever reason, has not been imposing the maximum available. If we changed the fines, let us say, to $50,000 and courts continue to levy $1,000 fines, simply raising the level does nothing, and then we are simply frustrated because the efforts that we have expended in one particular case have come to very little. I think the intervention of a Workplace Safety and Health officer in the workplace in the way that they have been doing is a much more effective case. I think, by and large, the employers have been receptive and have been willing to work with Workplace Safety and Health.
Again, my offer remains open to the member opposite. We can deal with the issue of fines if he thinks it is that important.
Mr. Reid: Well, that is something that can be discussed at some length, I guess. It may be more appropriate then to take a look at this issue with respect to sanctions, whether it be fines or jail terms and to pose the question more directly to the Minister of Justice and ask the Minister of Justice what actions the Crown is taking when they represent the people of the province before the courts in cases that have been recommended to them by the Workplace Safety and Health Branch through the Minister of Labour. If the Crown is not doing their job and they are not seeking fines that would more represent the severity of the infractions, then we need to take a look at that side, and perhaps it is the enforcement through the Department of Justice that needs to be addressed more so than through the Department of Labour, Workplace Safety and Health, although I still think that there is some room for a rethinking of the level of sanctions for first-time offences and perhaps for second-time offences or subsequent offences, including jail terms. I will not go into any more comments about that, Mr. Chairperson.
I think we have debated that one quite extensively, and I am prepared to pass this section.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 2.(f) Workplace Safety and Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,382,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $683,700--pass.
2.(g) Occupational Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $214,000.
Mr. Reid: I would like the minister to provide me with some information relating to the activities of his department to establish an occupational disease panel, a permanent panel that would look into the various occupational diseases and to establish some process whereby we could deal with what appears to be a significant number of claims through Workers Compensation Board that deal with occupational disease. What process does he have in place, or is he working on something to establish a permanent panel that would look at making recommendations through his department or through the Workers Compensation Board?
* (1650)
Mr. Toews: Just one matter of clarification in respect to that range bar order. That order was from '87-88, not from 1980, so I do not know if that clarifies anything for the member but I certainly did not mean to mislead him. It was a communication problem here, but the Workplace Safety and Health Branch has been involved in that issue since 1987. I just leave that.
In respect of the occupational disease issue, I would indicate that we do not have a panel here in Manitoba that works with the Workers Compensation Board in the same way, for example, that the occupational disease panel does in Ontario. It is a process that is fraught with some controversy in Ontario. We believe we have a very good system here through our own doctor, Dr. Redekop, who is a medical doctor with various degrees of expertise in occupational disease and works quite closely with the Workers Compensation Board in looking at those types of issues. Dr. Redekop, again, works with outside professionals from time to time to assist him in arriving at conclusions or in providing advice to the Workers Compensation Board. We believe that this is an issue that we are continually monitoring. We believe it is a good system and we have not yet seen any reason why we should be persuaded to move to another type of system.
One thing that we have to remember in Canada is that because we have these 10 different workers compensation boards and various adjunct boards and government departments advising, the advice that is given is often given in public reports. It is shared by boards right across Canada, by government departments, workplace safety and health right across Canada. So in many ways, a smaller province such as Manitoba gets the benefit of larger provinces' expertise or indeed larger provinces get the benefit of the expertise that we acquire through people like Dr. Redekop, who is well recognized as an expert in his field. So we cannot just look at Manitoba's direct resources, but I think we have to look across the country to look at new ideas, to look at new ways of doing things, and I think that is just another exercise in co-operative federalism.
Mr. Reid: How many other jurisdictions in Canada have occupational disease panels?
Mr. Toews: I can advise that in terms of a formal panel, I am only aware of Ontario, but, if we look at British Columbia and the medical component that is attached to the board, that is British Columbia, it performs many of the same services. Quebec, as well, has a similar medical component that gives advice to the board. Again, we benefit many times from the advice that is given because this advice is shared. Alberta has a system much like ours in that they have an occupational health doctor much like Dr. Redekop here. Saskatchewan, I understand, has nothing in that respect, nor do the Atlantic provinces. Perhaps it is not necessary in Saskatchewan or in the Atlantic provinces. I think we are very fortunate to have someone like Dr. Redekop and the people who advise him, but we are also very fortunate to be able to share some of the findings and advice that some of the larger provinces have been able to provide.
Mr. Reid: I take it then that the minister is content to rely on other jurisdictions, Ontario, B.C. and Quebec, which in one form or another have occupational disease panels, and that his department is intent to rely on the expertise of those people outside of our jurisdiction, content to rely on their willingness and ability to share their information and knowledge with us and that he sees no need for us to have an occupational disease panel inside the province of Manitoba, in our jurisdiction, investigating and looking at the various occupations of the province, which may be in some cases different than other jurisdictions. Is the minister content with that position?
Mr. Toews: I think the member misunderstands my point. The point is that we have different systems. That is the wonderful thing about Canada. Ontario might have one system. British Columbia has another system. Quebec has another system. Those may be more like panels. Clearly, only Ontario has the panel. We have a very strong medical component that does the research that is relevant to Manitoba. We, in fact, are prepared to share it with other provinces, such as Saskatchewan, that have virtually nothing in that respect.
It is not an issue of political boundaries or even political parties. We want to share with Canadians whatever. If we can reduce injuries and accidents and disease in Manitoba, there is no reason why we cannot take our knowledge and share it with Saskatchewan, which may not have those types of resources that we have available to us or indeed the type of personnel that we have available to us. So I do not want to leave the member with the impression that Manitoba is without resources in that respect. We are very well served by someone like Dr. Redekop and his advisors working with the Workers Compensation, working with Workplace Safety and Health.
Unless the member can demonstrate why a specific panel in the form that Ontario has is necessary, I do not see any need to change a system that seems to be working. But I may stand to be corrected by the member.
Mr. Reid: It seems logical to me that, although I do not know the extent of the resources available to Dr. Redekop, if he has limited resources available to him versus resources that may be available to the panels in the Ontario, B.C., Quebec models, they may be able to undertake more extensive research and activities into determining what constitutes an occupational disease and the necessary corrective steps to prevent those types of diseases from occurring.
* (1700)
That is why I raised this with the minister so that if there are limited resources through Dr. Redekop's office--which I expect there probably would be--and he would be somewhat limited in his abilities to undertake the necessary research in all facets of occupational disease, that a panel may be having greater ability to undertake the necessary research on a permanent basis that would allow for some discovery of the facts and also some ability to undertake corrective measures to prevent those type of diseases from occurring from people who are employed in those particular industries, whether it be mining or other industries. That is why I raised this with the minister that there may be a greater opportunity for us to have panels to do that type of research, and that is why I raised that question with the minister. Maybe the minister wants to comment on that.
Mr. Toews: I thank the member for those comments. Of course, we try to do the best we can with the resources that we have. We clearly cannot have everything that we would like. I would equate this position much like the position that you see right across Manitoba. There are certain schools, for example, that develop a centre of excellence. There are certain universities in Manitoba that will develop certain expertise. For example, Brandon University has a very good music school, but that is no reason why the University of Winnipeg needs to develop a music school if it does not have one, or, for example, we have a very fine medical school run by the U of M.
What I am trying to say is that in Canada there is very, very much co-operation between governments of all political stripes on issues such as this. There is a growing recognition that we have to pool our resources, pool our talents in order to arrive at satisfactory health conditions for our people and the prevention of disease in the workplace is clearly one of those issues. We have to work smarter with what we have, and it does not make any sense for 10 separate provinces to come to the same conclusion after spending 10 separate amounts of money if we could do the same thing through a co-ordinated effort. I am sure that is what the member is essentially saying, look at your resources, make sure that you are not duplicating, but where you can and where it is necessary spend the money. I think that is what the staff members are trying to do as much as possible and certainly that is my direction to them. I want us to spend smarter.
We know that the federal government keeps on cutting our funding in various areas. They have their own problems, and it is an issue we have to live with. But it is not my job here to throw stones at Liberals or New Democrats, but rather it is to find out how we can co-operate better as a nation. I think, without losing sight of the point that has been raised by the member for Transcona, is that if one listens to what people in Quebec are saying, for example, it is not an issue of, well, let us get a new document. It is respect for each other as a people; it is working together as various provinces. Many of the complaints that the people in Quebec have are echoed by people in Alberta or British Columbia or Saskatchewan or Manitoba. These are often the difficulties of working in a federal system. We have to learn to work closer together. I think that if we learn to work closer on some of the smaller issues in a broader context, we will learn to get along much better in the larger picture.
Mr. Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed. (2) Other Expenditures $34,500--pass.
2.(h) Mines Inspection (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $568,500.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister explain the reduction in the professional/technical staffing from eight positions in the previous year now having seven positions? The Estimates document indicated that it reflects the elimination of the district mining engineer position. Can the minister tell me what function was performed by the district mining engineer? What were the duties?
Mr. Toews: I thank the member for the question. In the 1996-97 budget process, a Winnipeg-based mining engineer position, this was a Winnipeg-based position, was deleted from the Mines Inspections Branch. This position had been vacant for approximately two years and there was no incumbent in that position. The position--and I can give you a bit of background on that--had historically been used to review occupational hygiene data; that is, measures of airborne exposure of miners to dust and gases produced by the mine's personnel, and the person in that position also reviewed mine ventilation data. This position had been established prior to the creation of the Occupational Health unit and the hiring of the chief occupational medical officer and prior to the Mines Inspections Branch having access to the services of the Occupational Hygiene Unit.
In recent years, both the Occupational Health Branch and the Occupational Hygiene Unit have provided services to Manitoba mines. The presence of the chief occupational medical officer allows for the professional review of chemical exposure and health-based data, while the Occupational Hygiene branch has verified mining company chemical monitoring methods as needed. These services have actually expanded to include verification and professional consultation of the mines' hearing conservation and noise control programs and ergonomic consultations from the division's--ergonomist?--ergonomist. I know what they do, I just cannot say it very well.
The current lost-time accident data, I might indicate for the member's information, demonstrate an overall 10-year downward trend, so we know that this position has nothing to do with that. In the 1970s, mining was one of the most dangerous occupations, but it now has a lower lost-time accident rate than construction or manufacturing sectors which also have been going down.
I would point out for the member that in September of 1994, a district mining engineer was established as our northern manager in Flin Flon where the majority of Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting mines are, and this position had been transferred from Thompson. Mines inspectors are at Flin Flon, Snow Lake, and there is one each in those, two at Thompson, two in Winnipeg, along with a branch director who is a mining engineer.
I might point out for the member's information that Saskatchewan, by comparison, has twice the mining sector of Manitoba and only two mines inspectors. So I think, given the number of mining inspectors that we have, the amount of mines and, again, the internal responsibility system, coupled with the creation of the Occupational Health unit and the hiring of the chief occupational medical officer, that allowed us to make this deletion. In fact, these responsibilities are now being more than adequately--in fact, the responsibilities are enhanced in terms of the responsibilities being carried out.
I might just mention--it is always the title that I have the problem with. I just want to introduce the fact that Mr. Kesari Reddy, who is the director of the Mines Inspection Branch, has joined us.
* (1710)
Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I have raised this with the minister during Question Period, relating to the number of mine deaths in the province. I have had the opportunity to work the better part of my life, before coming to this place, in heavy industry, so I am not a stranger to the conditions that occur in heavy industry. I categorize mining in that area, as well. It is very, very labour intensive, and it has certain conditions that one would not normally find in many other worksites.
One of the things that struck me in touring various mines was the conditions that exist on the worksite, just the general working conditions, the uncleanliness, the hazards that were apparent to me, as someone not having worked in the industry, where you have personnel doors, the small doors that people walk in and out of as employees of the plant, where they were blocked with ice in the wintertime. If you had a major catastrophe in the plant and that door was blocked with ice, you are not going to have the opportunity or the ability for people to exit from the plant in the short time under emergency conditions.
When I raise workplace safety and health conditions and the inspections, whether it be the mines inspectors or the field officers for Workplace Safety and Health, I mean it is the little things that sometimes indicate whether or not there is an adherence or nonadherence to the safe practices of a business operation. It is the little things that tell you so much about an operation. I was concerned when I saw that those personnel doors were blocked by ice and, because mining is a heavy industry, that the personnel could potentially be put at risk if there was, for example, an explosion or some other catastrophe within the plant.
I do not want to dwell too long on that, but I just want to raise that for the minister's information. I do not want to point fingers at any particular mining company because I think, at this point, it would be unfair, but I am just telling the minister of my observations in going to those sites.
I want to ask the minister, because I do not know the information; I only know of the recent numbers where, I believe, we have had six mining fatalities in this province, I think, in the last year and a half to two years. What are the historical numbers with respect to injuries in the mining industry and the number of deaths that have occurred, and what steps are we taking to prevent those injuries and deaths? Have we stepped up the level of inspection?
I see here that the minister has provided me with the list of prosecution cases now before the courts which includes one mining company, and we will not mention that name right now. I need to know what steps are being taken to prevent further deaths in the mining industry, since it is my understanding that this one particular company had been directed by the field inspection officer to take the necessary corrective steps before a fatality occurred and yet did not take the steps.
Mr. Toews: I have a document in front of me which I am prepared to share with the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), and I will give that after my comments here on that point. The member is correct that there have been a number of deaths in the last number of years in the mining sector, but I think the historical trend is the one that we should be mindful of. The years in which the accident rates were the highest appear to be somewhat irregular. That is, one year there will be for example 12 or 13 deaths, the next year there will be eight deaths. That will happen. So there will be quite a variance in terms of the number of deaths.
What is clear, for example, I can just briefly note, in 1968, going back as far, there were 12 deaths; '69 there were eight deaths; '70 there were seven deaths. Then in 1971 there were 13 deaths; 1972 there were eight deaths; 1973 there were 11 deaths; '74 it dropped to three, and then '75 there were nine deaths; '77, for example, there were 12 deaths. That number of 12 at that point seems to be the last time that we have had that number of deaths in the mines.
Since 1977, mining fatalities have been steadily climbing down. For example, in '80 there were six deaths, again in '85 there were six deaths. But never since '85 have there been that many deaths. Now in '94 for example there were three deaths I believe. So what we are seeing is a levelling off of this death rate.
Also, what one sees is that the frequency in terms of accidents per 200,000 hours worked has also been declining quite rapidly from a high in 1973 where it was very, very high. It continued very, very high throughout the '70s and throughout the '80s, and for some reason at '88 it started dropping. This is not to do with the amount of workers, it is the amount of accidents per 200,000 hours work. So you have 200,000 hours work, you have a certain frequency, and since '88, for some reason, these statistics just seem to be going down, down, down. So I think, personally, it is some of the work that our mines inspectors have been doing. Mr. Reddy, I think, is a very qualified individual who has been very strong on health safety, workplace safety, and his branch is, no doubt, contributing to much of this.
But I have to go back to the original point that I was making, Mr. Chair, and that is how many inspectors we put onto these mines will not make the difference. Inspectors are necessary, inspections are necessary, but again we have to educate the miners. We have to educate the managers; we have to get them involved. Everybody who walks into that mine has a mandate to promote safety, and I am sure that when the member for Transcona saw that ice against those doors, blocking those doors, and with his knowledge I am sure that what he did was immediately go to a manager and say, that is an unsafe condition. It clearly is part of his responsibility and would be part of my responsibility if I had that kind of trained eye. I might not have that trained eye. I do not have the qualifications that the member opposite does, but clearly he bears that responsibility in walking into a mine.
Every union member who sees that door blocked with ice has a responsibility, and I can attribute I believe in most part to the actions of people like the member or the worker in the mine who go and say there is something wrong with that door, fix it, and that is what makes the real difference. Yes, we have the mines inspectors; yes, we have the power of the law, but when we have responsible citizens like the member for Transcona and other workers or managers at the mine making those specific requests, that is what brings our accident rates down. So by the member pointing that out, showing that iced door and an accident occurring let us say an hour later, the member may well have saved five lives because the member is responsible for ensuring that that ice was not there. So I commend the member for his actions on that day and, hopefully, that all of us who have that kind of knowledge--unfortunately, I do not have that kind of knowledge--but all of us who do have that kind of knowledge and note those types of things right from the lowest paid worker to the highest paid president, they all have that responsibility for safety.
* (1720)
Mr. Reid: The minister is absolutely correct. It is everybody's responsibility and we were conducting the tour of the plant with a mines official and it was pointed out to that individual at that time, and unfortunately I was not there in subsequent days to ensure that that corrective action was taken. I hope it was taken, but that is something that was left in somebody else's hands that is employed in that plant.
I have several questions but for the sake of time, Mr. Chairperson, I am prepared to pass this section.
Mr. Toews: I undertook to provide that document to the member.
Mr. Chairperson: I am just going to revert here for a second.
2.(h) Mines Inspection (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $568,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $175,800--pass.
2.(j) Employment Standards (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,874,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $573,600.
Mr. Reid: One question, Mr. Chairperson, in this area. There has been a change in funding, a decrease in funding in program delivery. Can the minister provide me some information on how it was changed in the program delivery and why he has made the change?
Mr. Toews: Just to introduce the staff from the Employment Standards: Kim Riddell, who is the Acting Executive Director; as well as Pat Devonan, the Manager of the Employment Standards branch or division.
In respect of that issue, I just indicate that prior to July of 1995 the provincial Labour Adjustment unit and federal Industrial Adjustment Service cosponsored downsize adjustment committees involving 20 or more affected workers, and the federal government announced that for the '96-97 fiscal year it is cutting 9.5 million from job training. It is the federal government doing that, and re-employment measures in Manitoba representing a 10 percent cut from the previous year.
In a move to reduce duplication of services of federal and provincial programs on July 12, 1995, the Director of Human Resources Development Canada advised the Industrial Adjustment Services--or advised that Industrial Adjustment Services would no longer support human and financial resources for downsize activities, and instead IAS will concentrate on employer-based activity.
This has resulted in restructuring of the Labour Adjustment unit as having primary responsibility to facilitate mitigation activities for all provincial downsize activities, and this restructuring has resulted in greater flexibility, quicker response time, less administration, compressed time frames, and increased cost effectiveness in the unit's overall program and delivery service. But we no longer provide grants that used to go out in this respect, that is, actual monies going out. We now provide staff to facilitate meetings, to chair meetings, but we no longer provide direct grants in this respect, so that is the difference.
Mr. Chairperson: 2.(k) Worker Advisor Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $552,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $120,000--pass.
2.(m) Office of the Fire Commissioner (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits and (2) Other Expenditures--just for information.
Resolution 11.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $12,503,400 for Labour Programs for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.
We will now revert to the Minister's Salary, Resolution 11.1(a).
Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I know the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and I have a few questions under Minister's Salary, and I should have raised this, I guess, but I think the minister will probably know the answers to this anyway--I could leave it with him for the sake of time--in that the Payment of Wages Fund has been eliminated totally. It had been a historical high, I believe, of about over half a million dollars. It was reduced last year to $225,000, and now it has been totally eliminated. I need to have some indication from the minister why he has eliminated this and what other funds are in place or policy does he have in place to allow for the payment of wages to people that have been shortchanged their earnings and that have filed claims with the department.
Mr. Toews: I can provide the member with some of that information. I have some familiarity involved with the Payment of Wages Fund from years ago. I was involved in a drafting of the regulation that originally set up the fund. The reason that fund was originally set up was to get quick interim payments to workers who had been deprived of money. In fact, because of the legal process, that function is no longer occurring, that workers do not get their money in time, in that two weeks, because of the legal process. The UIC funding kicks in a lot sooner than the Payment of Wages funding, and therefore the workers are getting their money within the two- or three-week period that it takes to get the UIC funding. Therefore, the Payment of Wages funding is no longer necessary. In fact, it no longer serves the purpose it had been serving. So that is the very general broad explanation. I could get into more details, if you want more.
Mr. Chairperson: Should the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
Mr. Reid: No, no. It is the Minister's Salary, I believe, Mr. Chairperson, and I think the sitting time for today has expired and whatever questions--
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour now being 5:30, committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The hour being 5:30, this House now adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m., Tuesday next.
Have a good weekend.