Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume the consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Labour.

When the committee last sat, we were considering item 11.2. Labour Programs (a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 115 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): To continue on where we left off yesterday, I believe I had asked questions with respect to the vacancies and secondments for the department. I am not certain whether I got that information or not, whether it is available. I think I had also asked with respect to the LMRC, Labour Management Review Committee, meetings that have occurred and if there have been any recommendations made to the minister with respect to the work of that committee.

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Labour): I am told that there are currently five full-time equivalents that are in the vacancy management. There is one research assistant and one financial officer AO2 in Labour/Management Services located in Winnipeg. The vacancy date was July of '96 for the research assistant and October of '98 for the financial officer in the Labour/ Management Services department.

In Workplace Safety and Health, there was an industrial hygienist IG2 located in Winnipeg, became vacant in March of '99. Nextly, a mines inspector M15 located in Thompson became vacant January of '99, and Mechanical and Engineering person, oil and gas inspector IM2 located in Winnipeg. The department's plan is to fill this position. So I misspoke myself. There are four vacancy management positions that will be ongoing. This last one in Mechanical and Engineering is a vacancy due to retirement, and the department plans to fill it.

With regard to my honourable colleague's questions from LMRC, the minister received a report from Mr. Fox-Decent, the chair of the LMRC, touching on the labour code, the employment standards code. I am told that this is the culmination of a significant number of years of work from all members involved in the labour forum. A number of important issues have been identified and as a result, I believe, this report coming from LMRC formed the basis for the modification and update of the labour code which cleared cabinet and is now in force at this point in time.

* (1440)

Mr. Reid: So there have been no other reports that have come to cabinet, no other meetings of the LMRC since that last report that has been received?

Mr. Radcliffe: That is correct.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 11.2. Labour Programs (a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,074,300–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $318,400–pass. Item 11.2.(b) Mechanical and Engineering (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,694,500.

Mr. Reid: Dealing with the issue of Mechanical and Engineering, in the Expected Results you talk about inspections and reviews of plans and rides, elevators, et cetera. I am wondering can you give me an indication, do you have a breakdown of the revenues that would be generated for those inspections, if you have that breakdown by area?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am pleased to tell my honourable colleague that the revenue detail is as follows, and I will give him printed adjusted–well, I will ask him first of all, I guess. Would you like printed adjusted for '98-99 or just forecast for '99-2000?

Mr. Reid: If you have both. I do not know if you have a paper on this or a chart that you can provide. If you want to save some time, just perhaps provide us with a copy of that if you are agreeable to that.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told at this point it is more appropriate if I just give him the figures. We can isolate these figures and supply him with a spreadsheet on it. So '98-99 printed adjusted amusement rides $6,200. So all these figures, first of all, will be adjusted printed '98-99. Amusement rides $6,200; electrical inspections and approvals $90,000; electricians $25,000; power engineers $260; gas and oil $920; elevators $400; elevator design $10; design and shop inspection $60; boilers and refrigeration $775; welders $53; affidavit processing fee $20,000; registration fee quality assurance certificates $5; and fee for pressure piping systems $20.

Now, moving ahead to estimates for '99-2000: amusement rides is $12,400; electrical inspections $90; electricians $25; power engineers $230; gas and oil $920; elevators $400; elevator design $5; design and shop inspections $80; boiler and refrigeration $775; welders $53; affidavit processing $20; registration quality assurance $5; and pressure piping systems $2.

Mr. Reid: Two seems like a strange number for a revenue. Do you have the global numbers there too, a total for the revenue that would be obtained as a result of the licensing?

Mr. Radcliffe: Total licensing recovery is very close to $2.3 million.

Mr. Reid: Is the department contemplating any adjustments to the licensing and inspection fees that you have within the department? I know there were some adjustments with respect to licensing and there was a change in the duration and the amounts charged, but I am just trying to get an understanding whether or not you are contemplating or you are in the process of moving to changes in fees.

Mr. Radcliffe: The only rate or fee that is going to change, apparently, is an inspection rate for amusement rides. That is currently at $75 an inspection and is going to double to $150 an inspection. Other than that, everything else will be stable.

Mr. Reid: Is that for cost of recovery of the inspection? Is that why the fee is doubling?

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes.

Mr. Reid: Sorry for the jumping back and forth, Mr. Chairperson. I have an issue I want to raise with respect to boiler inspections, but first I would like to ask on the number of inspections that the department would perform on structures or facilities that have boilers contained within them.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am advised that in 1997-98, there were 7,206 inspections of boilers and pressure vessels, and in '98-99, there were 7,480 of the same equipment.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, is it a requirement to have boilers inspected at regular intervals, and, if so, is it the Department of Labour that undertakes those inspections or is it the responsibility of the owner of the building or the manager of the building to contract for inspection services to comply with legislation requirements?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that the general requirement is an annual inspection. The obligation is on the owner of the equipment to contact the Department of Labour, and the Department of Labour performs the inspection.

* (1450)

Mr. Reid: Does the department maintain a database on the inspections and the facilities that have boilers contained within them?

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes.

Mr. Reid: How are you made aware of a structure that is being constructed or modified that may have a boiler placed within a structure? Is there an obligation for when you apply for a modification or a building permit, for example, that the applicant would have to notify the department, Mechanical and Engineering Services, to make them aware that they have a boiler and that it should fall under the inspection protocol?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that on new installations, the procedure is that the boiler installers insist on an inspection prior to the start-up of the operation of the boiler, and then on any modification, the individuals who are performing the modification demand that the owner comply with the inspection process.

Mr. Reid: I received information that the Mechanical and Engineering Services' database may not be complete and that there are structures right here in the city even that have not had inspections performed, have never had inspections performed, from what I am advised. In fact, there are three buildings for which this has occurred, and there may be others.

That is why I am asking about your database. What do you do to ensure that where there are boilers in situations like that, when you encounter structures that have boilers in them that perhaps have never complied, what steps do you take, other than doing the inspection to make sure they are safe and issuing improvement orders where necessary? Are there any other actions that the department takes when you encounter situations like that?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that there are no penalties per se for failure to report, but I am told that Winnipeg is a small enough centre and Manitoba is a small enough field of operation that there is a close relationship between the installers of the boilers and pressure vessels and the government inspectors, that these do ultimately get picked up.

In addition, the utility people who deliver fuel to such an installation, if they notice that there is not a certificate, they will pick up on that issue, as well, and report it, and I would also invite my honourable colleague if he has some names, in specificity, that he supply it to us and the department will be reactive to it.

Mr. Reid: From my understanding, this information has been passed on to the branch already and the inspections, I believe, have occurred. This is just recently, and the question is: are there other apartment blocks or other office complexes or building structures that have boilers in them? How do we ensure where there are facilities that have boilers in them that they are going to comply with the requirements of the law with respect to inspections and the safety? If I understand the fueling that takes place for facilities that use boilers, some of those boilers have natural gas, so perhaps you would not have someone go into the building to do that inspection because they are on the natural gas system.

I am not sure that Centra, for example, would go out and do those inspections without being requested to do so, and if it comes to Bunker C fuel or other oil, sometimes there are external filling devices so that you may not ever have to enter a structure so at least that is my personal experience, my observation, so there may not be the time or the requirement of those who are supplying the fuel to do those inspections, so I would like to know how we ensure the safety of the public.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that there is a network of information here that Centra will not deliver gas, will not hook up gas to a location until the installer has satisfied Centra that there is a permit in existence at the location. I am also told, in many cases with apartment blocks in the city of Winnipeg or commercial establishments where there are large steam boilers and pressure vessels, that the custom of these people is to turn their gas off during the nonheating season. Then, to turn the gas back on again in the fall, you need another permit to make sure that the boiler has been inspected, so it is at the consumer end of the chain that the safety net exists, in addition to the requirements that the control is really on the installers themselves, if the owners are not self-reporting.

* (1500)

Mr. Reid: I guess it is a possibility that those structures that are using natural gas could lock out the gas service during the course of the warmer months like we are in now, but the information that has come to my attention is that there are buildings that have boilers in them that have not been inspected. Now how many I do not know, and that is one of the reasons I am asking the question with respect to public safety.

One of the buildings happens to be the constituency office for one of my colleagues, and it has been subsequently inspected after it was found out that no inspection had been done; they cannot even recollect the last time it was done. There were improvement orders that were issued and undertaken, but the word was that there was some likelihood that there could have been an explosion and perhaps injury or loss of life if that had occurred. So when I raise this, it is with respect to public safety because members of the public come into that building to speak with my colleague, and I know they do perhaps for the minister as well. He has constituents that come in with different issues to his constituency office.

This is not the only building that I have been told about that is in a situation like this, so I just draw it to the attention of the department, that there may be a requirement to do some communication with the owners of larger structures to kind of cross-reference with the information that you have in your database, to make sure that all of the stuctures that are there that are perhaps using the boiler system, which I think most of them would be in the larger facilities and to make sure that you have that information for inspections on your database to make sure that they can get their annual inspection. In a word of advice to you, that is what I am suggesting here if it is possible to do that.

Mr. Radcliffe: Just to pick up on what my honourable colleague is suggesting, if I could just push that envelope a little further, how are you suggesting that the comparison with the existing database be gleaned? You are saying contact the existing apartment owners or large building owners, but you have to get that list from somewhere. Where are you saying would be an appropriate place to get it?

Mr. Reid: Well, I guess you could use the phone book. There are lists of different types of business establishments that are within the city. There must be other databases that the Department of Labour keeps on different-sized structures.

I mean, I am not an expert on the internal workings of the department, but I would expect you would have some listing somewhere that would allow you access to those structures, just to ensure that those inspections are indeed occurring. Perhaps you have people who are wiser about the operations of your department than I am. Perhaps you could rely on that advice from within the department.

Mr. Radcliffe: Thank you very much, my honourable colleague, for bringing this to our attention. I think it is something that is worthy of merit, and this will be followed up on.

Mr. Reid: I have no further questions on this part, Mr. Chairperson.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Item 11.2.(b) Mechanical and Engineering (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,694,500–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $473,000–pass.

11.2.(c) Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $376,800.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, there has been a reduction in the Professional/Technical line in staff years for full-time equivalents. I was wondering if the minister can tell me why we have reduced the conciliation and mediation officer position. Who was the person that was performing that job? Why was that position eliminated? When did that position become unnecessary within the department?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the former director, an individual by the name of Jim Davidge, retired. He retired in the spring of 1998, and he has been replaced on an acting basis by an individual by the name of Al Fleury, who has moved up into the director–oh, I see, I am sorry, I misspoke myself. Mr. Fleury is, in fact, performing as manager, confirmed as manager of the department. Mr. Fleury's former position was then eliminated, so there was a domino reaction here.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me the statistics related to, and I am asking this for the current year. I mean, the annual report references the previous year '97-98. Do you have the information available for '98-99 that ended, what, two or three months back?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am told that there is one administrative secretary in this department and there are five conciliation officers, the fifth being Mr. Fleury, and Mr. Fleury is acting as the manager as well. The Estimates of Expenditures: Managerial is one staff year at 67.9; Professional/Technical at 244.0; Administrative Support at 32.0; Employee Benefits or soft costs at 29.8; and Salary Accrual at 3.1, for a total of 376.8.

Mr. Reid: I am not sure that was my question. Was that my question? I thought I was looking for the overall numbers, time lost to strike and lockout.

Mr. Radcliffe: From January 1 to March 31, 1999, total person days lost to strike or lockout is 2,604. That is 5.9 days per thousand paid workers. That ranks Manitoba third lowest in the country in this series of 10 units.

Mr. Reid: Is there a breakdown on strike versus lockout in those numbers?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that we can produce that figure. The figures we have do not distinguish between strike and lockout, but that is something we can undertake to produce.

* (1510)

Mr. Reid: That would be fine. Later is not a problem. Lately we have been seeing, this year, a number of strikes and lockouts that are occurring and also the possibility of work stoppages. I know one of your mediators, Mr. Fox-Decent, is actively involved, as we spoke to him again this morning, trying to resolve those issues and has been somewhat successful in the ones he has been involved in, at least to this point.

Can you tell me with respect to the lockout of the workers at MTS–I believe it is the operators and CEP is the union, I believe–has the department been requested to appoint a conciliation officer or mediation officer?

Mr. Radcliffe: No. The provincial Department of Labour of Manitoba has not been involved at all, because that is a federal jurisdiction, so we have had no contact from either side of that discussion, collective agreement.

Mr. Reid: So then there is no role for the department to play in that and it would be left up to the federal Department of Labour to appoint a mediator in that process.

Mr. Radcliffe: That is correct.

Mr. Reid: With respect to services, conciliation, mediation services, you have one less position now and a person, a manager, doing double duty. Do you have the ability within the department to hire in contract mediation services or conciliation services? If so, do you have a list of people that is utilized by the department or do you leave it to the parties to determine or make a selection that is perhaps mutually agreeable?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that we have two retired employees who are available to provide services on a contract basis to the department. The department has not had the need to call on these individuals at this point in time, but I am advised that they, in fact, are still current on their knowledge and skill set and still very vital and are a value to the department. My honourable colleague mentioned as well, that it is often left to the mutual choice of the parties involved. He is correct in that assumption in a number of cases.

Mr. Reid: I often wondered how one gets to be a conciliation officer or a mediator. Is there a special training that is provided? Are there courses that are available through university or community colleges, or is this just on-the-job experience over a number of years that one would gather and put them in a position to be competent at resolving disputes?

Mr. Radcliffe: Well, I asked that very question of Mr. Fox-Decent because I, too, was curious about that. One of my former partners took a mediation course in dispute resolution which is offered I think by the University of Manitoba. So there is some training on it. Mr. Fox-Decent advised me that he just fell into this by happenstance and gained experience and training on the job and developed an expertise. His background, as you know, I think is either political science and/or history from the University of Manitoba. He does not lecture anymore.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that information. In your annual report for '97-98, it references a database that conciliation, mediation officers can use with clients. It says: can be beneficial in clarifying and in resolving disputes. Can you describe for me the type of information you may perhaps keep in that database that would assist that process?

Mr. Radcliffe: I would liken it to a bank of precedents that these officers have access to. What it is is current collective agreements that are of similar job activity, and it sets out particular terms which might be negotiated or terms that are at issue that are the flavour of the times in which we live, plus the significant amount of money that is awarded on account of or agreed on account of wage levels and employee benefits.

So it is all the minutiae and nuts and bolts really that go into a collective agreement. These are recorded so that people who are in this business can resort to them so that, for example, registered nurses could look to collective agreements in other provinces perhaps or LPNs could look to the registered nurses, the minutiae of their agreement, support workers, et cetera, and on down the line just in the health care industry. So it gives somebody a context and background when they are coming into this market.

Mr. Reid: In the annual report, it also references statistics relating to conciliation, mediation services for public schools, and I do not know if you have the numbers available for the past year, '98-99. But, in the last two years, the percentage of assignments settled prior to compulsory arbitration has been decreasing. I am talking page 20 of the annual report.

Do you have numbers for your assignments that are settled prior to compulsory arbitration for the past year?

Mr. Radcliffe: The collective agreements in the public school environment are directed and controlled by The Public Schools Act, and those officers are not found in the stream in which we are referring right now. There is another separate list of individuals. The custom in the collective bargaining milieu, I am told, with public school units is to go to arbitration because it is a compulsory nature. I guess, from the advocacy skills of both sides, that it is the preferred custom to go right to arbitration.

* (1520)

Mr. Reid: So I take it we do not have the new number for this year, '98-99 year, which was ended a few months ago, in percentages.

Mr. Radcliffe: We do not have it here, but we can get it for my honourable colleague.

Mr. Reid: I am just trying to get a picture of why we are unable to resolve the disputes prior to going to the binding arbitration process. Perhaps it has something to do with the funding levels and perhaps a more hard line in the decision making that would be associated with that versus settlement prior to arbitration. So, if you can provide that number, that would be appreciated.

With respect to the changes in The Labour Relations Act that occurred on, I think, it was Bill 26, there was a change in procedures with respect to expedited, I think, grievances that occurred as a result of that. In the '97-98 report, there were 49 that were listed. Do you have the number for the current year, '98-99?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that there are 15 expedited grievances last year.

Mr. Reid: Do you have any background information on the nature of the grievances there with respect to suspension or job loss? Is that what would make up the bulk of the grievances?

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes, my honourable colleague is correct. They were job-loss situations or more significant grievances, and that was the nature of the expedited field.

Mr. Reid: One last question. Looking at what has been happening in the labour front in the province here in almost the first six months of the year, there have been a considerable number of operations, business operations, and employees who have been affected as a result of contractual problems. I am not certain that that number is going to shrink.

Does the department have any planning or forecasting with respect to contracts that may be coming due that might require the services of a conciliation or mediation officer?

Mr. Radcliffe: I cannot anticipate which negotiations are going to fail or fall apart, but I can tell my honourable colleague some of the significant agreements that are coming up that we anticipate. They are, for example, the Thompson General Hospital, MGEU home care, Holy Family nursing, Lion's Prairie Manor, Neepawa Food Processors, North West Company, Manitoba Lotteries Foundation, Amsco Cast, Versa Services, Boeing, Bristol–Bristol is out, I think, yes–Inco, MacDonalds Consolidated, Brandon School Division 40. Tolko has settled now after an 18-day strike. That just gives my honourable colleague a flavour of what is brewing at this point that is still out there.

Mr. Reid: So there are a considerable number of contracts that are coming due that would represent a very large number of working people, and I am wondering how it is at this time that we could reduce our officers that would be utilized to resolve outstanding contractual difficulties, or is it the anticipation of the department you will bring in your experienced officers who are now retired to fill in those instead of having a full-time staff available to do that work?

Mr. Radcliffe: I would suggest to my honourable colleague that we are probably over the hump now in the year. We have worked our way through or are working our way through some of the more significant potential labour negotiations. There has not been an excessive demand over supply for conciliation staff at this point. The department has been able to meet all the demands placed upon it without having to call upon the reserve individuals. So, in fact, what my honourable colleague is suggesting is hypothetical because it has not yet come to pass. Now, I hesitate to say that it will not because, sure as I say it, then it will happen.

Mr. Reid: Murphy's law.

Mr. Radcliffe: Exactly, but from our experience to date, the department has met the need.

Mr. Reid: The minister has indicated that we hope that there are no work interruptions either by lockout or strike for which we have some care and control. I hope that because conditions change from year to year and what you have put in here now by reducing one officer, if I understand the budgetary process–and I am sure that the minister does better than I from behind the scenes on cabinet discussions, caucus discussions, for his party–once you have lost an officer or a staffperson, it is sometimes much more difficult to recover that position, to bring forward the arguments that would restore or recover versus elimination of that position.

So I guess if you make the argument now that you can do without that position and down the road a year you decide you need to have that because we are into a position where we require more people to do the work, I would expect it would be much more difficult. Perhaps you have experiences you would like to share on the decision that was made to eliminate that position on a permanent basis?

Mr. Radcliffe: I can only tell my honourable colleague that my experience, having had the responsibility, now this is my second department, that when I see a need I have been reasonably aggressive about going after the resources to fill those needs. I do function on the basis with my colleagues that if you do not give me the tools, I will not give you the results. So it is a collective decision, and you have to suffer the results if, in fact, the resources are not there. I think it is a very straightforward rationale.

I have, as I say, been very aggressive with my colleagues from time to time when there has been need, and I have gone after individual resources for departments. I am quite prepared to do it again if, in fact, our collective bargaining situation should change.

Mr. Reid: The contract negotiations, I think there is a mediator, Mr. Teskey, who is involved now with the paramedics. Can you tell me the reporting date for Mr. Teskey and whether or not his report will be made publicly available from the minister?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Teskey is the mediator with the City of Winnipeg and the paramedics, and his return date is June 16, 1999. While he will be issuing a report to me, I am hopeful that either one side or the other would make the report available to the public. They usually are made public, and I cannot say anything more than that at this point in time.

If I thought it was going to be helpful to the bargaining process to resolve any disputes, I certainly would not hesitate to make it public, but that is speculation on my part at this point in time. I would hesitate to say what I am going to do in the future until I am faced with an actual confrontation or dynamic labour negotiation.

Mr. Reid: I understand there are a variety of circumstances that can occur and you may not want to release. Correct me if I am wrong. You have the ability as minister to release the report if you so choose to do that without having to have approval of either or both of the parties. Is that correct?

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes.

Mr. Reid: Those are all the questions I have on this section, Mr. Chair.

* (1530)

Mr. Chairperson: 11.2.(c) Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $376,800–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $95,300–pass.

11.2.(d) Pension Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $275,300.

Mr. Reid: I think Mr. Gordon used to be involved with the Pension Commission. Is he still seconded to other duties within the government?

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes. He is with Service First Initiatives.

Mr. Reid: How long has he been gone now? Is that going to be made a permanent vacancy with his departure?

Mr. Radcliffe: He has been gone for over a year at this point in time. His position has been backfilled. We cannot say at this point, because we do not know how much longer he is going to be gone. So this is a matter of some flexibility at this point with the management.

Mr. Reid: His salary, is that forming or a part of the Estimates of Expenditure for the Pension Commission? Is his salary shown in this total?

Mr. Radcliffe: The net effect is, no, his salary is not in this line. From a theoretical basis, it is there, but it is recovered from Service First, so, in fact, it is zeroed out. So the 275 as a bottom line does not represent Mr. Gordon's salary at all.

Mr. Reid: I have received calls from a number of people, in large part from Winnipeggers, with respect to contribution holidays. It is an issue that seems to come along every once in a while. Then you get several calls on it, and then you do not hear about the issue for a while.

Can you tell me, because I look in your annual report and it talks about planned amendments and planned windups and conversions, et cetera, but I would like to know what your contribution holidays are for the current year, if you have that information available, '98 and '99.

Last year's report shows that you had four surplus refund requests. That also does not tell me whether the requests were granted. It just says they are requests. I would like to know whether or not they were granted as well.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that the parameters or the jurisdiction and authority for declaring a surplus pension holiday is governed by the document or the trust agreement or the indenture that creates the pension in the first place. I guess indenture is not the right word, but the document or agreement that creates the pension plan in the first place.

Last year, of the four that were requested, two were granted. This year, there are none requested at this time.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me the grounds on which the requests were granted for the two of the four refund requests that came in?

Mr. Radcliffe: The pension act requires that the document creating the fund must show that the employer owns the fund. In the two cases that were under discussion right now, that was the case, that the employer was the owner of the fund, so, therefore, the surplus was paid back to the owner.

Mr. Reid: It is interesting the term that is used, the employer is the owner of the fund. I have always viewed pension earnings as deferred wages, as I would hope and expect that most of us would for those of us who are entitled to some form of pension. Had we not had pensions, I am sure that our wages would have been adjusted perhaps upwards and that therefore the wages would have been paid directly, and the employer would have had no further control over those monies.

So I am trying to understand the concept here, how we can say that the employer continues to hold those monies when, in fact, they are deferred wages.

Mr. Radcliffe: One gets into a concept here, I would suggest, of legal theory. Ownership is a relative term. I can, for example, describe to my honourable colleague that you may or may not own a freestanding residential dwelling, and if so, you have what is called a fee simple in our parlance here in western Canada. That is, in fact, a bundle of rights which you exercise over a certain tangible object.

In different civilizations, in different jurisdictions, say, for example, India, you can have a landlord who owns real property. The real property stands in the name of the particular landlord, but there are obligations that go with it. He does not have the right of sole occupancy. He does not have the right, say, of alienation. There could be serfs or indentured individuals who reside on that property who have the right to sharecrop with the individual owner. So I give him a bit of a history lesson only to illustrate that ownership is a defined issue, a defined object. With personal property, with intangible hereditaments is what they are referred to or personal property, these two will be a defined object, defined by the document that the two parties have attended to sign which governs their behaviour.

One person may think, ah, in all cases they are deferred wages, but, in fact, they are not, that there will be shading, and other people will have rights over that fund until such time as it becomes vested. If it is capitalized, it is held, and there are competing rights to that fund, but if it does not crystalize, then there may not be a payout, and therefore the employee may have no rights at all to the fund until it crystalizes.

* (1540)

So I share this with my honourable colleague in the fact that legal theory, legal ownership, the concept of ownership is, in fact, a moving, flexible, transitory thing, and that is where the Crown derives the right even to tax on death, on succession duty, because traditionally in the feudal state, the theory was that all property reverted to the Crown, and the Crown would then have the right to reissue the property to an appropriate recipient. So on the movement of any wealth, which we still apply today, whenever wealth moves, the Crown tends to tax it.

So that is the background of why these things come into existence today. You have to look to the underlying document which gives rise to the fund in the first place in order to understand the relative rights of ownership or claim, and it is really the bundle of rights. The bundle of rights are who has the right to enjoy it, who has the right to invest it, who has the right to receive an accounting, who has the right to alienate it, and on and on it goes. There is a whole myriad of rights that come into play with that issue.

Mr. Reid: The minister says that the Crown has the right to tax wealth. I guess that is the case except where we have the Bronfman family and Seagrams and you are allowed to take several billion dollars of your wealth out of the country without having to pay any tax on it. So there are different rules for different people with respect to taxation in this country. No doubt that will continue to be an issue that will be debated for some time to come.

With respect to the pensions, has the University of Winnipeg applied for a contribution holiday or a refund request with respect to their pension plan?

Mr. Radcliffe: I would for the purposes of the record point out, in fact, the illustration that my honourable colleague referenced did not happen in Manitoba. Therefore, that was not subject to the vigilance of our tax department, which I am sure is hands-on.

With regard to the University of Winnipeg, I am told that this is confidential information. It is available to the policyholders, but it is not something we are at liberty to disclose and make public.

Mr. Reid: I have a pretty good idea that it occurred because I have had calls on it. Some of the plan contributors or beneficiaries are upset that that is occurring. Can you suggest ways that we could give the beneficiaries of the plan the opportunity to have some say on whether or not those refunds are occurring or those contribution holidays are occurring? In other words, they are involved in the decision before the decision is made to issue those monies back to whoever the contributors were.

Mr. Radcliffe: I guess the only thing I can do would be to direct my honourable colleague and through him the individuals which he is referencing to inspect the trusts document, the trust deed which gives rise to the fund. That document will set out who has the rights. Again it goes back to, it is a repetition of my previous answer. Who has the bundle of rights on that particular issue? Who has the right to control or influence the decision?

I think that any policyholder or pension holder would have the right to inspect that document so they could satisfy themselves as to who has the contractual right, because here, what we are talking about is a contractual legal right. That is what the whole issue turns on. Apart from the frustrations and sense of, not fairness exactly, it is not an issue of fairness. It is an issue of legality, of terminology, and the answer to the question is found in the terms of this document.

Mr. Reid: I think it is an issue of fairness, because it goes back to my original comment about deferred earnings. That is the way members of the public perceive the pension plans to be. In that case, the calls that I am receiving, the people are quite irate that those refunds are being given and that they have no ability to have any input or control over the decision-making process.

To modify those plans, I guess in cases as the case I am describing here and perhaps many others, we would have to move to a joint trustee plan to have any control or say in the decisions made with respect to distribution of any refunds. Can you tell me how many plans we have in the province that are joint trustee and how many plans we have in the province that are perhaps sole funding source, like the employer, for example, or the employee side?

Mr. Radcliffe: We do not have that information here. We can undertake to provide it to my honourable colleague. That information is apparently available.

Mr. Reid: In the annual report, it talks about funding on page 23 of the annual report. It talks about funding under the heading of performance indicators. It talks about adequate funding of promised benefits. We have seen the drop in adequate funding by 5 percent year over year. I am wondering if you could explain to me what that is an indication of. Are we seeing shortfalls? Are we seeing unfunded liabilities in these pension plans as a result of short contributions from whichever source they come?

Mr. Radcliffe: The funding of these plans is basically a function of the current interest rates, and the liability remains a relatively fixed liability to provide the pension on the date and time and amount to the individuals designated within the plan. So, therefore, if the interest rates were to drop, then a higher premium would be demanded of the employer, if that is, in fact, the case, if it is a single payor instead of a mix in order to sustain a consistent level and it is inversely proportionate to the interest rates.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, in the annual report, it also references the number of Manitobans that are involved in pension plans as being very stagnant at 51 percent. I think our workforce, if I recall correctly, is around 540,000 or thereabouts, people employed in the province. So there is a large number of people that do not have the benefit of pension plans involved here.

What efforts are being made to encourage Manitobans to take part in planning for their future with respect to pension plans, or are we just going to leave them to their own devices, considering that we have essentially an aging population? If the sheets that were given to me by the department is any indication, there is a large block of people that are in the 40 to 55 bracket. What are we doing to encourage Manitobans to become involved in pension plans and, in fact, encouraging both employees and employers to even perhaps establish joint plans?

* (1550)

Mr. Radcliffe: Pensions, I think, for the large part in the workplace are a product either of collective agreements or significantly large employers where the pension is a benefit or emolument or term of payment for the wage earner. Where you have self-employed people or where you have people working for small establishments, I do not think there is the custom or I do not think we find many pension plans among the small employers–and I am looking to the staff on that. Is that a correct analysis? [interjection]

Oh, I stand corrected. The majority of pension plans are for small employers, but the bulk of the pension plan members are from the larger employers. I think the field or the path that my honourable colleague is walking down at this point conceptually is that it is prudent and it is wise to encourage wage earners to start up RSPs. I think that we have insurance salesmen and we have financial planners and we have all a myriad of folk right now in our financial industries who are selling these sort of plans and advocating this sort of prudent activity. I can relate to my honourable colleague's and my personal experience that right now we have the opportunity to contribute to an RSP where the government pays half and we pay half. They match our contributions up to, I think, $13,500 a year, up to the limit; yes, that is 7 percent of our wages.

What we have done, which I guess modified the financial environment somewhat, is where people have the heel of a plan or a very small amount sitting in a locked-in pension, and we have changed the rules in order to allow them to roll that out in order to give them some sort of authority over their own investments and to move those monies around. We also started up the LRIF plan in order that folks could have another investment vehicle, so we have been proactive in that respect. This is, again, almost the passive governance, offering the facility, offering the resource, but it is up to the individual earner to avail themselves of that benefit. We have provided the framework for it to the best of our abilities to date.

Mr. Reid: Now that the minister raises the issue with respect to the ability to transfer or to withdraw from small plans–and I think there is criteria that, perhaps when I talked to the department, I got some background information on, on the amounts that you could withdraw if the plan could not provide X number of dollars per month, et cetera.

I have received calls, not a lot but some calls, on that level being inappropriate. In other words, they would like to have more flexibility to withdraw funds at a slightly higher level, even though the criteria would–or the money is there that would provide slightly more income per month. The individuals still want to have more say and more flexibility over how those funds are cared for and, in fact, paid out to the beneficiaries of the plan. So I just reference that for the minister's information. Perhaps his department is getting calls on this, as well, with respect to this issue.

I look at the recent information that came out with respect to RRSP contributions, and we are not that long past the end of the contribution year, the contribution time for last year, and it showed that there were a significant number of Canadians that were unable or unwilling to contribute to RRSPs, and there was some suspicion that perhaps that was as a result of levels of income being insufficient to provide for discretionary funds being set aside for other purposes, for future purposes.

So I always see pension plans as a mandatory deduction, yes, and it does create some hardship, but it is in smaller amounts in the beginning, and it does give the beneficiary the ability to have some source of income further down the road in retirement years, or survivors of that beneficiary. That is why I am inquiring as to whether or not there is any kind of effort on the department's behalf to encourage Manitoba employers and employees to commence pension plans, to allow for protection of a standard of living in retirement years, to make sure that an individual is not just going to be solely reliant upon the Canada Pension Plan over which there is a lot of dispute right now about its longevity.

So when I reference those two, I look at this as a means of providing some future security for the individual and their families, and that is why I am asking about the efforts the Pension Commission and others are making to start up more pension plans.

Mr. Radcliffe: The department apparently issued a scheme a number of years ago, and perhaps scheme is a loaded word. I should not use the word "scheme," but perhaps a plan entitled a Simplified Money Plan, which is now being sold by financial people in the industry which enabled smaller groups of employees with an employer to enter into plans similar to a pension plan, and apparently there has been some uptake on this issue. The rules are simpler. The forms are simpler, and the groups are smaller, but it follows a similar principle. This came out approximately three years ago in Manitoba.

Mr. Reid: The annual report references that the Pension Commission last year received 6,300 phone calls. This year's Supplementary Estimates indicate 7,500 inquiries, plus 500 written inquiries. It seems like a lot of communication, written correspondence, for a total of five staff.

Can you tell me what are the general concerns that the public is raising with the Pension Commission, and are they common issues that are being dealt with within the branch?

Mr. Radcliffe: The inquiries that come from members of the public cover the full spectrum of requests. Basically, individuals are phoning in to find out what their rights are or what their entitlement is, what are the particulars of the legislation, how it applies to them. There is no one particular pattern that these inquiries follow. It is a broad-stroke level of inquiry.

* (1600)

Mr. Reid: Seventy-five hundred different complaints or inquiries for information. I would have expected that there would have been some common thread or theme that would have been running through them that would allow for some understanding of where changes may be required to The Pension Benefits Act, which the department may be able to respond to, and that is why I was making inquiries in that regard.

Mr. Radcliffe: There was a body of calls and information by individuals asking what they could do with their money, and there was considerable concern and interest over the LRIFs, and that was a concern that was met. So that would be one particular category of requests that we can identify.

Mr. Reid: Okay, thank you for that information. Of the 51 percent of Manitobans who are in pension plans, that includes federally regulated plans as well, or is that just provincial?

Mr. Radcliffe: Just provincial.

Mr. Reid: There is a discrepancy in the numbers there, unless my math is wrong again as it was this morning, and I could stand corrected on this. If you have 51 percent of Manitobans in pension plans and your Supplementary Estimates indicate 140,000 plan members, so 50 percent of 540,000 working Manitobans–[interjection] Right.

So I am just wondering why the discrepancy in the numbers between the annual report and the Expected Results here indicating the total plan members.

Mr. Radcliffe: Staff advise me that they are quite prepared to sit down and analyze the numbers and work it through and see if there is some logical explanation for this. One suggestion at this juncture is that with the migration of MTS employees from provincial jurisdiction to federal jurisdiction–

An Honourable Member: Not that many, though.

Mr. Radcliffe: 45,000–that is one item that we can point to, but there would have to be some analysis done to come up with any other intelligence.

Mr. Reid: Well, perhaps then I will just leave that with the Pension Commission and the minister. They can advise when the information is available and let us know, please.

I am prepared to move to the next section then, Mr. Chairperson.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): 11.2.(d) Pension Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $275,300–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $90,000–pass.

11.2.(e) Manitoba Labour Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $699,800.

Mr. Reid: Are we on 2.(e), Mr. Chairperson?

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): That is correct.

Mr. Reid: I forgot to ask one question. Perhaps the minister can explain with respect to minor capital items that are referenced in the Supplementary Estimates, are we talking with respect to the desktop computer initiative, additional items that would be required?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told these are really minor capital items. These are chairs and clocks. We are getting almost down to the paper clip category.

Mr. Reid: I did not know you did that detailed accounting in the Supplementary Estimates book, but I will know what to expect in the future.

With respect to the Manitoba Labour Board's operations, I welcome Mr. Korpesho here. We have had the opportunity now to see the effects of the changes with respect to The Labour Relations Act in the province and the effects on the Labour Board. I do note that there has been an increase in the professional/technical staff that are attached with the board's operations.

Can you give me some background on the duties that would be assigned to the additional individual? Are they conducting the mandatory secret ballot votes that are ongoing with respect to certifications or decertifications, or are there other duties?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told there was an addition of one board officer and, in fact, my honourable friend is correct that that individual is involved in certification and decertification.

Mr. Reid: I have asked this question in the past, as well, with respect to access to information for issues involving the new legislation. Can you tell me: have you had any requests for information regarding contracts or financial matters that may be now covered as a result of Bill 26? In the past I know that there were one or two requests that were made and I think they were denied. I am just wondering whether or not there have been requests made in the current year or the past year.

Mr. Radcliffe: Currently there is one pending request right now for financial information from a union. That is still before the Labour Board at this point.

Mr. Reid: Is that an employee request or is this from some other source perhaps, such as media?

Mr. Radcliffe: All employee requests.

Mr. Reid: This would be employees contained within the bargaining unit to which the information is being sought?

Mr. Radcliffe: That is correct.

Mr. Reid: With respect to the annual report from the Manitoba Labour Board, and perhaps I am not looking at the exact right document, but it is under Labour department. It references Manitoba Labour Board operations, page 25, Applications filed with the Manitoba Labour Board have significantly increased year over year. In fact, in Labour Relations Act applications for the board, they have doubled from 386 up to 756. It is page 25 of the Labour annual document.

If you look at The Employment Standards Act and The Payment of Wages Act, the number of applications filed, we are seeing increases there as well. Can you provide some background on the types of applications that the Labour Board is receiving and the requests that are being made for some resolution of these matters, I suppose?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told the largest increase is for the financial statements that the labour unions are obliged to file on an annual basis.

Mr. Reid: I take it that is dealing with The Labour Relations Act then. Can you tell me, are those requests that are coming to the Labour Board as a result of information not being freely forthcoming from the organization? Between the organization and, I take it, it would be the member of that particular union or association. Is that part of the problem or is there some other factor that is involved?

Mr. Radcliffe: I was getting snarled up walking down the same road as my honourable colleague. The law now requires that the labour unions file their annual statements on a regular basis. The Labour Board sends a request to the labour union. The response from the labour union back to the board supplying the financial information is considered a file or an application, because, in fact, the Labour Board deals in applications.

So it is a problem of nomenclature here. These are not members of the unions or media people or mischievous people or whatever coming in and saying, I want to know about A, B and C. It is, in fact, the operation of the whole structure or network of supplying the financial information to this structure. So they call them applications, but, in fact, the increase of 375 files or entries or responses are called applications just because that is the term that is given to them. But, in fact, what those applications are is the labour unions supplying their financial statements. I went the same road you did.

* (1610)

Mr. Reid: I was wondering about the number of applications. I thought perhaps there was suddenly a skyrocketing of people making requests for information. I would have thought would have been more readily available, but knowing at least my involvement in my past years with respect to associations and unions, financial information was freely available and any questions to the organizations I belonged were openly allowed and desired as a part of the process. I am glad to hear that it is just the various organizations submitting the financial applications.

Mr. Radcliffe: There were apparently four applications or requests for disclosure of information last year–oh, since the act came into place, even better. So that gives my honourable colleague the context of there have been four requests, period.

Mr. Reid: So if there were four requests, and I believe one of them was from media, were there others? Perhaps I do not recollect exactly. Were the majority of the four from the employees of those various associations or unions?

Mr. Radcliffe: The Labour Board would not entertain a request from the media. They would only entertain a request from an employee.

Mr. Reid: So a member of the plan or the union itself.

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes.

Mr. Reid: There has been an increase in the staff. I take it there has been obviously an increased workload. I know this has been a problem at the Labour Board for some time, and I am happy to see there has been further staff assignment in this regard and funding attached. Can you tell me the number of votes that were conducted in the year 1998-1999, votes related to The Labour Relations Act, which are mandatory secret ballot votes on contracts?

Mr. Radcliffe: There were approximately 60 votes.

Mr. Reid: That is for the certification process. Did that deal with decertification as well?

Mr. Radcliffe: No, it just dealt with certification.

Mr. Reid: The actual number for last year on certain occasions, I think, was 22, if you look in the annual report again, so we have seen a significant increase. You said there was 68?

Mr. Radcliffe: 6-0.

Mr. Reid: So we have seen a 40-vote increase on the certifications, or am I looking at the wrong numbers here with respect to numbers? Perhaps you can give me the number, then, for the last year prior to the '97-98 year, if you have it.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chair, '97-98 apparently there were 72 applications for certification. We do not know, we cannot say at this point how many of those applications actually went to votes.

Mr. Reid: The question I think I asked earlier was with respect to expedited grievances. That would be the expedited arbitration proceedings. Are they one and the same, the numbers you have given me, which were 15?

Mr. Radcliffe: Apparently, the number of expedited grievances filed year to date, '98-99, was 26.

* (1620)

Mr. Reid: Are there any difficulties that the board is having with respect to the change in The Labour Relations Act or changes with respect to The Payment of Wages Act that the government has introduced for which the board has some responsibility in adjudicating any claims that may come forward? Are there any difficulties that are being encountered?

Mr. Radcliffe: This would be other than collection from people who do not have any money, yes. Apparently, the Labour Board has not seen any applications under The Payment of Wages Act yet. This is still back in Employment Standards and takes a while for these cases to work their way through the system.

Mr. Reid: You have an increase of staff, and their duties, obviously, involve some travelling with respect to the votes process that is in place. Your Transportation line has remained stagnant year over year. If you had five people that required 45,000 for travel, would there not be an expectation that if you have six people now, perhaps there may be more travel that would be required? I am trying to get an understanding how you determine if you are going to remain stagnant for this year.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that over the last several years the number of cases being considered is a constant number. So the reality is that we have had more employees servicing a constant number of cases; therefore, the total amount of travelling is constant. Each individual member is doing a little less, but there are more of them. So it is a constant pool.

Mr. Reid: I understand that you are spreading the workload out a little thinner than it was before, which is, I suppose, unusual for government to do that, looking at other sections of the department that are trying to double up duties for individuals.

In fact, I think we just referenced that a few moments ago with Conciliation, Mediation. We have the manager now doing double duty. I know the Labour Board was underresourced for some time. It has been even back to previous governments. So I am happy to see that there has been some change in regard to their requirements, and I hope that they will be able to meet their anticipated workload with the resources that have been made available to them.

I have no other questions at this point.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Item 11.2. Labour Programs (e) Manitoba Labour Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $699,800–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $403,100–pass.

Item 11.2.(f) Workplace Safety and Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,569,300–pass. (2) Other Expenditures $773,400.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I have a number of questions under the Workplace Safety and Health. In the past I have asked for information. I will ask again with respect to the number of workplace accidents that have been investigated by the branch and also the number of recommendations for prosecution. If you have a list of the names of those that have been prosecuted and perhaps fined, I would appreciate receiving that information once again.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I have for my honourable colleague's perusal and attention a series of persons charged, the contravention, the penalties found. This is public information; it starts in January of '97 and runs through to January of '99. This is our only copy and I am quite willing to share it with my honourable colleague at this point in time.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for the information. Unfortunately, we are seeing an overall increase in the number of reported accidents in the province, and it has gone up substantially in this last year. For a period of time it had been on the decline and perhaps part of it can be associated with the number of people in the workforce. I know that argument has been put forward before. The difficulty that we have with using that as the argument is when accidents decline, of course, it looks like we are doing a great and wonderful job in prevention. When accidents go up, things do not look so rosy and it leads one to conclude that there are things that we can do in our efforts on the prevention side.

Can you tell me what efforts you are making? Because in the paper that came out recently with respect to the Advisory Council on Workplace Safety, which no doubt members of the committee have, you talked about one particular program, project Minerva, dealing with increase of knowledge for university students about safety matters and raising awareness of high school students.

Can you give me some background on this particular initiative? Are you going into all of the universities talking to the students? Are you into the high schools and speaking to all of the classes? What are the criteria that are used to decide who you communicate with?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told the Minerva program is targeted at the faculties of law, the faculties of engineering, and the ambit of the program is to give case studies to, say, for example, engineering people, engineering students, so that they have a familiarity with the rights, privileges, limits of behaviour, et cetera, according to the act in the workplace. Minerva does not enter into the high school program. There is an individual by the name of Ellen Olfert, wife of Peter, and she apparently runs a speakers' bureau that dispenses disks to the high school and information packets that go out into the high school process. The Minerva program is financed by Workers Comp, and right now it has been targeted at those two faculties which were felt to be faculties that would not necessarily have exposure to this body of information otherwise.

Mr. Reid: If one looks at the likelihood of what Workplace Safety and Health would mean in the educational component, to instruct law students in this regard, I understand someone perhaps would be able to make use of that information with respect to legal matters in the future once they have graduated. I understand in engineering that, if you are designing and taking part in the building of projects, you would require that as a part of your engineering.

Maybe I should put this in the form of the question, because there seems to be a split in the jurisdiction here between the Workers Compensation Board and Workplace Safety and Health with respect to the prevention programs. Whose duty and responsibility is it to undertake to instruct our youth, for example, our young people prior to their entering the workforce? So I would expect 15 years of age and up that we would want to look at doing some instruction.

Who has the budget for instruction, and what efforts are we making to instruct our youth in Workplace Safety and Health prevention programs or initiatives? And what is the budget that is set aside for this? Perhaps I should be asking this question more appropriately through the Workers Compensation committee, which may be coming back again.

* (1630)

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that the training component and the prevention side is exclusively the jurisdiction of Workplace Safety and Health. However, what is going on right now is that the Workplace Safety and Health is working in partnership with Education, with WCB. The WCB right now funds the Minerva program to the extent of $20,000. This is a pilot at this point in time.

What I did not explain was that the first step is to take it to Law and to take it to Engineering. This is then proposed to expand it down the line, say, to the colleges, other institutions as the program grows. So this is just the beginning on the issue.

The Manitoba Federation of Labour, Workplace Safety and Health, and Employment Standards are all involved, as well, in a program called Skills for Living. The expertise for the program comes significantly from Employment Standards.

Mr. Reid: I guess it goes back to the question with respect to the increasing number of accidents, and it is not just associated with industry. I mean, if you want to look at the number of farm accidents that are occurring, we are seeing an increase in that area as well. I know farming is not a direct responsibility or not involved with the Workers Compensation Board with respect to prevention programs. I think there are inspectors from the Department of Agriculture, or perhaps they work for Workplace Safety and Health that do those inspections, but we are seeing an overall increase in accidents.

I am looking for ways that we can facilitate or move in the direction of reducing the number of accidents. I think we are in the range of over 42,000 reported accidents this past reporting year in 1998, which is a significant increase over the previous year, and looking for ways where we can decrease the number of accidents that are occurring. We have it broken down sector by sector. We know what time of the year the majority of those accidents are happening. We know what time of day the majority of those accidents are happening, and we can almost take it right down to the minute detail of what the individuals had for breakfast, telling what the influences would be with respect to matters leading up to accidents.

I am wondering why–and perhaps I should put this in the form of a question. What type of resources in dollars are we putting towards prevention programs, since you say the branch Workplace Safety and Health is directly responsible for those programs? What kind of dollars are we investing into prevention-awareness programs for the public, the public of all ages?

* (1640)

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I have just had a very quick briefing on safety and prevention in the workforce, and I am told that in categories such as mining and retail, a lot of the different areas, the accident levels are down. The level that is hot right now that is increasing significantly is the manufacturing area. So my honourable colleague is correct when he states that one of the reasons why there is a rise in accident rates in the workplace is because there are more people involved. Then an additional reason is it is the type of people who are involved as well. I am told that if you have an experienced senior worker, you tend to have fewer accidents, and I guess that is the product of wisdom. If you have younger people who are a little more enthusiastic and a little more involved as risk takers, then that tends be borne out in its results and reaction.

Approximately 30 percent of the department's resources will be devoted this year to the manufacturing sector, because it is a flexible moving market at this point in time. I am told that the department has produced a disk, and I can share these with my honourable colleague–[interjection] You have two already, good. All right. If you want more, you know where they are. We would not want to burden him.

I am told that there has been an increase of 40 percent in the safety committees in the manufacturing workplace at this point. It has moved from 900 to 1,400, so there is activity in this area. But you specifically asked what resources were being allocated to that, so 30 percent of the departmental resources are moving to that. In addition to that, there is a grant from the Workers Comp Board of $130,000 for a special project which employs two ergonomists, a student, a kinesiologist to study and review the frequency, I guess, the background of these types of accidents, and to create a body of knowledge on it so that we can be reactive. So this gives you an overview of what the department is doing and some of the special projects that are ongoing.

Mr. Reid: I thank you for the information with respect to the WCB grant for the ergonomists. That is referenced in the advisory council's minutes. They are available. Yes, I understand that there is a need to undertake this type of work to evaluate work stations, work environment, to make sure that we minimize the risks for the people who are doing the work, especially where you have repetitive-type work which seems to be more along the lines. And yes, we do have an increase in the number of repetitive strain injuries associated with that type of work.

When it comes to advertising, do we leave it up to the Compensation Board or does the branch undertake the work with respect to doing advertising, because in your comments, Mr. Minister, you referenced the fact that it is the responsibility of the Workplace Safety and Health, and yet I see the Compensation Board undertaking to do advertising at specific times of the year with respect to prevention. I do not know if this is a duplication of efforts. I guess the question I should put is: is there some co-ordinated effort that is taking place between the two branches, the Workers Compensation Board and the Workplace Safety and Health? Because there was a problem with budget allocation at the Compensation Board a couple of years ago. They were allocating $60,000 for a whole year's prevention work for the entire province. One knows that the cost of advertising and one television commercial can run several thousand dollars, so $60,000 does not go very far.

I am looking for some efforts you are making to go at the public to reinforce that message over and over because I think it has to be a repetitive message–we cannot let down our guard on that–to make sure that they are aware of when accidents are occurring, the type that are occurring and who is most affected so that we get the message to sink in.

I am looking for some understanding on what efforts are being made, what resources–and I am talking dollars here now–are being allocated to that. You said 30 percent of your time for the Workplace Safety and Health. I would take it that would be your field inspectors going out and doing inspections in the high-risk area because in past years you have mentioned that you concentrate or focus in on high-risk industry to do that type of inspection or audits. What I am looking for is prevention work here, as well, with respect to advertising or information programs or outreach.

Mr. Radcliffe: My honourable colleague is correct that it is a very significant issue, the co-ordination of resources and expertise between the Workers Comp Board and Workplace Safety and Health. I can advise my honourable colleague that staff is very much aware of this. There is a strategic alliance between the two arms of government, or the two arms of administration I guess you could say, because the WCB is really independent of government, and this is effected by constant communication, a transpolation of ideas really, where the Workplace Safety and Health people will have input on the focus of the advertising campaign, for example. There is a $300,000 advertising campaign that the Workers Compensation Board underwent last year. This was done in conjunction with both arms of government. The Workplace Safety and Health logo was involved on the adverts.

In addition to that, there is a bulletin that goes out three times a year to over 40,000 business locations, setting out informational items of Workplace Safety and Health issues. There is a website that Workplace Safety maintains. I am told in the last year it had over 100,000 hits on it, so this is one of the more busy electronic centres or focuses in government.

There is also a joint guideline program that is issued by the two branches, the two departments, setting out how to set up a safety program. So these are a few of the initiatives that the department runs, co-ordinates with, and it really is truly a partnership between the two groups.

* (1650)

Mr. Reid: So the program that I have seen, or the advertising that I have seen undertaken, I think it is by the compensation board, is the back to basics program in advertising, which I would expect would have consumed a fair amount of that $300,000, because there was a fair number of advertisements that were occurring on television during prime time viewing, so that I would expect that the majority of that budget would have been consumed by that process.

Do you have a breakdown of that particular $300,000 expenditure that you are talking about so I might see more clearly where and how that money is being expended?

Mr. Radcliffe: We do not have that with us right now. That is information that is held by the Workers Comp Board. We are prepared to undertake to request it and, upon receipt, forward it to you.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, I think you keep statistics on this with respect to the number of lost-time accidents, I think it is per thousand workers is the calculation that you would have in your records, and also the number of farm accidents that have occurred in the past year. I am not sure if you do it by calendar year now, from January to the end of December, and whether or not you have a breakdown by age as well, particularly of the farm accidents, so I might have an understanding of where those accidents are occurring and which age groups?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, we can undertake to have that here tomorrow.

Mr. Reid: Perhaps you can explain this term that you have in your Supplementary Estimates. It is on page 34. It says: developing standards that provide for the maintenance of reasonable standards for safety.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I have just been reviewing this term actually with my staff. When one uses that term to somebody who is a lawyer, "reasonable" has a very specific meaning. I am told that, in fact, many of those attributes apply to this term as well.

I harken back again, and my honourable colleague may be sick of my history anecdotes, but there was a case in, I think, 1896 involving a Mrs. Donoghue with a snail in the ginger beer. She drank a bottle of ginger beer, and noticed halfway through imbibing the drink that there was a decomposed snail in the bottom of the ginger beer. She suffered gastroenteritis. That lawsuit started a whole new branch of law called tort law.

One of the fundamental terms of that branch of law, and therefore loaded in the term "reasonable," was that the loss must be foreseeable. The behaviour must be foreseeable. It must be sequential. The reaction must flow from a given behaviour and must be a logical sequential product of it. So there has been almost a hundred years, well, over a hundred years of litigation now on defining the term "reasonable."

Reasonable in this context has those attributes as well. It is not an absolute or vicarious level of standard of behaviour but rather that which one–again another euphemism, is the behaviour of the common person. The Brits refer to it in the legal books as the person on the Clapham omnibus, and that is a euphemism for saying the average person who would be normally cautious, have a duty of care to the people around them and would behave in the common parlance of a reasonable fashion.

So these are some of the attributes. This is some of the background for the definition and use of that term. The term is used in the statute itself and so is rolled out into the programming as well. It is an adoption of a legislated term. But in the courthouse, the term "reasonable" is a very specific test, and that takes on some of the characteristics here as well.

Mr. Reid: When I raised the issue a few moments ago with respect to communication, advertising prevention of workplace accidents, it is interesting to note in the newspaper today that workers' safety is an issue and has been referenced with respect to changes that are affecting the global economy and how workplace safety and health, our health and safety system needs to be revamped to focus on prevention of workplace injuries. That is happening at a conference that is occurring. So it is an ongoing problem, and as we see increasing numbers, of course–the previous, previous Minister of Labour and I agreed to disagree on the effectiveness of sanctions and what I would consider to be a serious hard line for those that fail to protect employees in a workplace.

I have referenced on a number of occasions that I think there is room, a strong place for sanctions to play a role in prevention as a means to discourage, because one of the things that business understands very clearly is the effect on the bottom line. If one has to pay for any fines or any other actions imposed by the courts, of course that is the deterrent and will affect ultimately the bottom line of that operation. So there is a potential for cost-saving if one takes prevention seriously and implements measures to protect the health and safety of employees versus waiting for the courts to impose sanctions and then also impose improvements as well.

In the information that you have tabled here with respect to contraventions and charges, can you tell me, because this list only goes up to January of this year, are there other charges or recommendations that have gone from the branch to Justice pending that perhaps you can advise of at this time and give me some background on those, if you will?

* (1700)

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told, Mr. Chairman, that there are another six cases that are pending before the courts right now on information received from the department.

Mr. Reid: Can you reference perhaps some information so I might be aware of which ones they are with respect to the industry that is involved?

Mr. Radcliffe: Manufacturing and construction are the two industries that are involved.

Mr. Reid: Okay, I see, looking at the minutes of the advisory council meeting, manufacturing represents 12 percent of the workers and yet has 40 percent of the lost-time cases. So I take it that there is some significant room for improvement in dealing with that. I hope that these cases will send a message. This, I believe, falls under the new legislation.

I am not certain on whether the branch plays this role or not because I have asked this question in the past with respect to advice, and I know the branch does the ground work, the inspections or the investigations and then provides the report through your staff to the Justice department, and then the Justice department–and they go back and forth for a while before they make a decision on whether or not prosecution is going to occur.

Are there also recommendations that will occur with respect to whether or not the Crown prosecutor that would be assigned to these cases would work directly with Workplace Safety and Health, in other words, in communication, or are they totally isolated from any involvement from the branch while that matter is before the courts? I am looking for some understanding here on whether or not the branch is able to look at the seriousness of the contravention that has occurred, the breach of the law that has occurred, and whether or not you can make recommendations in that regard, or do you leave it still strictly up to the Crown prosecutor and the Justice department to make that determination?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the department has a point person who is a liaison from the department of Workplace Safety and Health who relates to a counterpart in Justice. So there is communication back and forth between these two individuals; however, the discretion to prosecute, the penalties sought, the conduct of the case and all the case management issues, once the initial platform is prepared, rests solely with the Crown prosecutor, and that is how our system works at this point in time.

I can attest to a certain familiarity with the system that our prosecutors are a very independent bunch and are very careful, I guess, to maintain their independence either from the political arm of government or the bureaucratic arm of government, and they guard this jealously. I once can recall that I very innocently encountered a situation just after I had been elected. I was going to do a remand on a particular case in PJC for one of my partners while I was still a backbencher, and I had phoned the Crown to get particulars. It was a domestic violence issue. I was starting the case off and doing all the normal routine things that one does.

At that point in time, I had phoned the consultative process, the consultative branch where people receive independent advice as victims of violence. I had phoned the Crown prosecutor and I was trying to establish a date. I had given my phone number here as a 945-exchange return. I was walking down the hallway about two days later and a senior member of government came up to me and said, Michael, what are you doing? You must never do this again. I said, why, what have I done wrong?

It was explained to me how, in fact, this was a significant faux pas and that the Crown looks upon it as a very significant invasion of their jurisdiction and authority if one even makes a phone call other than through the appointed process. Ultimately, you have to respect that if you start nibbling away at that path, then they could fall prey to political persuasion or political interference, and that is not a place where we want to go. I can assure my honourable colleague that I promptly withdrew and apologized all over the mat because of what was, in fact, innocence on my part at that point.

Mr. Reid: I understand what the minister is saying with respect to the independence of the prosecution. There are times though, from my experience in dealing with the branch, that prosecutors come and go, as they do for any other profession or trade, and in that sense the prosecutors may not be familiar with the severity of the contravention or the breach of the law that has occurred.

I would want to have the opportunity for that Crown prosecutor to become familiar very quickly and utilizing the experience of the Workplace Safety and Health branch to impress, and I have said this and I will say it once again, to impress the seriousness of the offences that are occurring and what this meant to the individuals, to their families and to other people in that particular work area that may have also been traumatized by events that have occurred. The branch through their investigation unit has that ability and the experience to be able to provide that education or that knowledge and pass that on to the Crown prosecutor.

So I do not see that as an interference, but I see that as a means of assisting the process.

Mr. Radcliffe: What I did overlook putting on the record, as well, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a designated Crown that does handle all these prosecutions. So my honourable colleague is on the mark on that, that, in fact, there is somebody with experience on the Crown side who has some history, continuity and background, because you are quite right that Crowns do tend to come and go just like everybody else does.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me who the designated Crown person is that the branch deals with then, and how long has the individual been handling these types of cases, if you have that information?

Mr. Radcliffe: I know the individual who is in charge and I can tell my honourable colleague that I helped train this individual. She served her articles under me. I am loathe to disclose her identity at this point in time for fear of subjecting her to harassment, not from my honourable colleague obviously but from putting this name on the record. Perhaps this is something that we could share through Mr. Finlayson's office or at a later time.

Mr. Reid: I understand what the minister is saying. It is not our intent to create any more difficulties for the Crown than they already have to deal with. Perhaps if the minister could write that name on a piece of paper for me and forward it to me, that would be the same way of receiving the information.

With respect to the six cases you have outstanding or that have charges pending, can you provide me with a list of the names of the companies that are involved without putting them on the record perhaps and the contraventions of the act for which prosecutions are occurring?

Mr. Radcliffe: Just out of an abundance of caution, and this is again my legal background, I guess, surfacing, but I am loath to disclose the names of the individuals who have been charged at this point in time or the names of the corporations that have been charged. I certainly do not have a problem disclosing the charges, the sections of the act, but at this point until, you know, the matter before the court, I do not know that I would want to comment any further than that. But we can bring a list tomorrow morning with the list of the charges.

* (1710)

Mr. Reid: Well, it is my understanding that when charges are filed before the courts that the respondent is, I think the proper term is listed on there, the person who is being charged or the company name that is being charged. That is a matter of public record. It is available to any member of the public who wants to see that. The charges that are there are a matter of the court records as well. That document is available to the public. I do not ask for it to be put on public record here. All I am asking for is access to the information if you have that on a sheet that you could forward with the names of the company or perhaps with the individuals who are charged and the charges that are pending to be dealt with by the courts. That is the information that I am seeking, not necessarily to put it on the record, but to have access to the information.

Mr. Radcliffe: I certainly understand my honourable colleague's request. I will take counsel on disclosing their identity, but I am most happy to disclose the nature of the charges and the sections that are involved. If counsel has no problem with my disclosing the identity, then I would be delighted to reveal that information as well.

Mr. Reid: Whose counsel?

Mr. Radcliffe: From our government's legal branch inside government.

Mr. Reid: Well, I hope the minister will impress during that discussion that is going to occur that this is already public record. I am just asking for the courtesy of having to avoid walking across the street to get the information. I know it is available. I have accessed it in past when it was necessary for my investigation and research, so I know that it is available. I am just asking for the courtesy of that information, which is probably available within the branch, to be made available to myself as the critic.

I want to deal with the issue involving a matter that was raised earlier by the minister with respect to the way he is going to transform the department over the next period of time in the reassignment of work and using laptops, I think he referenced as one of the ways where people could get their assignments at home. There are bigger questions that come with that as a result of moving in that direction. I do not know if the government has contemplated or not, because if someone receives their work assignment at home and they have a space set aside for that, it becomes a tax deductible provision because you are working out of your home. So therefore there are tax ramifications for the province in that regard as well.

Leaving that issue aside on that part, there is also the matter of equipment that is assigned to staff, particularly within the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, because your inspectors go into the field and they take this equipment, these monitors and other testing equipment and the laptops along with them. There are problems with security of equipment.

Does the department cover any loss, for example, of the laptop if it was left, whether it is in a locked vehicle, whether in the trunk or in the backseat of a car? Is the department insured for that? Are they responsible for any loss in that regard? Will there be any ramifications for the employees who are utilizing that equipment?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, my honourable colleague raises some very good points, and these are matters that will be the subject of an ongoing debate and discussion between the employees in the department and management. Management maintains a flexibility on this issue. They want to make sure that it is a successful operation for both management and employees.

With regard to liability, which my honourable colleague has touched upon, if, in fact, employees of government are reckless or negligent with government property, then there will be consequences that would flow, which would be replacement if they were deliberately malicious and damaged property, and this were ascertainable. Then obviously there would be consequences. But, in the normal course of reasonable behaviour, if reasonable–and again we go back to this ubiquitous word–measures were taken, then there would not be consequences flowing from mistakes from unfortunate incidents, whatever.

With regard to the appropriateness of equipment, this is something that would have to be worked out with the employees. The skill sets would have to be discussed and worked out together. I guess the entire environment of how these changes will be implemented and effected is something that will evolve over the course of time. It is something that I think behoves management to keep their ears open and to react to what they learn from their own employees who are the front-line people operating this technology.

* (1720)

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me how many people from Workplace Safety and Health Branch, how many of your staff that you have farmed out or seconded to other government functions or services?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that there are three individuals involved in the department that are seconded at the present time. One individual will be returning within six weeks to that person's former status and capacity. There is one full-time person who is seconded out and has been backfilled with an occupational hygienist, and that is a term contract. The second person, 80 percent of this person's time is seconded out, and again that person has been backfilled with a safety and health officer. So the net result within six weeks will be–so there will, in fact, be minimal diminution in the department.

Mr. Reid: From what functions were these people seconded?

Mr. Radcliffe: One individual is the manager of Occupational Hygiene, and the other individual is a safety and health officer.

Mr. Reid: You mentioned I think that someone has been brought in on a short-term basis; perhaps the name Paddy St. Loe will mean something to members inside the branch. My understanding is that St. Loe had retired late last year. Has the branch brought this individual back in to fill one of those seconded positions?

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes.

Mr. Reid: Which position?

Mr. Radcliffe: To backfill the safety and health officer.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me how long that person will be filling that position?

Mr. Radcliffe: Six months at 80 percent of the FTE.

Mr. Reid: Is this a common practice, to bring people back into the branch, into the Department of Labour that have already retired from service?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told this is very rare.

Mr. Reid: Last year I raised the issue of parking passes with respect to field officers that need to go out and do the work within urban settings, and the department had, in its wisdom, taken those passes away. Can you tell me the disposition of the grievance that has currently been filed with the department?

Mr. Radcliffe: It is going to arbitration in August.

Mr. Reid: So I take it then that while last year I was laughed at, this year it has become a more serious matter then that it has gone to arbitration.

Mr. Radcliffe: There is obviously due process, which is inexorably grinding on, and there will be a conclusion.

Mr. Reid: Since your field officers no longer have the ability to utilize those parking passes, they must plug meters and then put in a claim for any expenses occurred. Can you tell me what your practice was with respect to reimbursement of those claims for the month of April?

Mr. Radcliffe: April of '99? Yes. Apparently the government policy is that one is not compensated for parking at headquarters. I am told that there are practically no inspections in the downtown area of the city of Winnipeg where there are parking meters. At the present time, staff is not aware of any significant claims for compensation in this regard at all. However, we will make due diligence and if there have been claims, we certainly will bring that forward and let my honourable colleague know.

At the present time, our best information is that from a factual point of view–we are not talking about the principle now, but we are talking about the facts–there have been no claims, there has been no compensation, just by virtue of the nature of the work.

Mr. Reid: Well, I was going to ask the next question. What is your policy for the month of May and what is your policy for the month of June? Because it is my understanding that your policies vary month by month. So I would like an understanding here of what your overall policy is going to be with respect to reimbursement of your field officers that are required to go into the field, whether it be in the downtown area of Winnipeg or anywhere within the province that requires them to perform inspections for which they have to park at metered parking, whether it be in a parking lot or on the street. It is a performance of their duties. Since the ministry took away the parking passes, we are looking for some understanding here of what the policy is.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am a little askance at where my honourable colleague is going on this matter, because I guess for the record I will say most emphatically that the policy is consistent from month to month. There is no variation. If he is suggesting there is, then I want to disabuse him of that impression forthwith. My honourable colleague is gesticulating in a fashion that would lead me to think otherwise, but for purposes of the record, I am told that it is a consistent package and a consistent form. The matter is going to arbitration. There may be compensation flowing, I do not know, but I would hesitate to comment any further on that at this point in time, other than to say that if there have been claims, we certainly will make them known to my honourable colleague.

Mr. Reid: Well, I guess the only comment that I could make is try and make sure that you have all of the facts with respect to this issue, because what I am hearing is that there are problems. Last year when I raised it, while it seems to be a relatively minor cost for the department, it is an issue of the ability of the people that are doing the field inspections to be able to do those without having to worry about plugging money into a meter or being responsible to pay parking tickets.

So there is a bigger issue with respect to freedom of mobility with respect to the inspector out in the field, and there appears, from what I am hearing, to be some inconsistency in policy. It is not a major issue at this point, but perhaps it could become a larger issue that I would prefer not to see go to arbitration. It would be more appropriately dealt with in-house in a fashion that would lead to some consensus.

With respect to travel by the department heads or your staff within the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, I know there are conferences that are required to be participating in and attending throughout the course of the year, and I know the minister referenced this in some of his opening comments. Can you tell me, you have your travel expenditures and what conferences you anticipate participating in for the year?

* (1730)

Mr. Radcliffe: I have for my honourable member's perusal and consideration the 1998-99 completed staff training and development paid by Workplace Safety and Health. This sets out the level of the officer involved, the type of course the person went to, the name of the staffperson, the date completed and the cost of the course. These are some four sheets of information, totalling $23,742.59, which I will share with my honourable colleague. I am advised in addition that there are a number of other trips involving airline costs, hotels, meals, ground transportation, et cetera. We do not have those at hand today. We can produce them by tomorrow morning or tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Reid: That would be fine. I imagine we will be continuing with the Estimates so we will have a chance to collect that information.

Can you also tell me in the course of last year what travel was incurred by the department, who travelled, where did they travel to, and what were the expenses that were involved for those trips?

Mr. Radcliffe: Certainly.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, with respect to travel, does the deputy minister also travel on some of those issues? Do those funds for travelling, if he does, come out of the budget from Workplace Safety and Health?

Mr. Radcliffe: The greater part of the deputy's travel budget comes out of his line designation, save and except we are told that Workplace Safety and Health did send the deputy to Thompson on one occasion last year for a mine safety program course or workshop, and it is anticipated that Workplace will do the same again this year. Save and except for that one item, his travelling is allocated in his own line.

Mr. Reid: You have indicated most of it, I think was the term you used. Were there other parts of travel, other than to Thompson, which is his old stomping grounds, that perhaps the deputy minister travelled in the past year?

Mr. Radcliffe: The only exception to his line of budget is the trip to Thompson which I referenced.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me was there an instruction issued to the Workplace Safety and Health Branch staff people prior to March 31 of this year indicating that they must cease travel in the performance of their duties due to a shortage of funds?

Mr. Radcliffe: I just want to pick on the question for a moment so that I understand the total question. Was that that staff must desist on travelling for workshops and education purposes, or must they refrain from travel in the normal course of their duty, to fulfil their regular duties?

Mr. Reid: Your field officers are required to travel in the performance of their duties. They would be required in some cases to be reimbursed for mileage for the use of their vehicles, and in other cases, if there was requirement to utilize other modes of transportation, they would then be reimbursed for that as well. I am looking for indication here on whether or not the employees were instructed that they would have to seek prior approval prior to doing any travelling before the end of the past budget year which expired March 31?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I can advise for purposes of record that as a general matter of frugality in government and a matter of principle, each department is given a budget and each department is told they have to live within the confines of that budget line. So management tells their employees that they have to be reasonable and function within those lines. Was there a specific admonition given to staff that they could not travel? Absolutely not. There was, I am told, a significant amount of travelling that was done at this particular time of year, i.e., March 1999, because staff were involved in a safety committee development program which did involve a significant amount of travelling.

I would presume that management was in communication and on top of where staff was travelling and what they were doing, and that would be just good administration from my perspective. In addition, I could share with my honourable colleague that the Department of Labour lapsed some $60,000 at the end of the year. So if there was travel that was required, there would have been excess funds that would have been available because the department and the deputy has the ability to move funds around as required in order to make sure that the service is maintained at the appropriate level. So that is as specific as I can get.

If my honourable colleague has some specific information that a particular employee has an anecdotal experience that he wants to share with us, I would be more than happy to hear it and obviously follow up with it. I obviously, as well, respect the privacy of the individuals who choose to talk to my honourable colleague.

Mr. Reid: So when you say there was lapsed $60,000 from the last budget year, are you talking the entire department or are you talking specifically from the budget allocations for the Workplace Safety and Health Branch?

Mr. Radcliffe: The entire budget.

* (1740)

Mr. Reid: So, if there was a problem with respect to the travel budget allocation for the reimbursements for that travel within the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, the ministry would have upon request given some serious consideration, perhaps approval, for further allocation of the funding necessary?

Mr. Radcliffe: Absolutely.

Mr. Reid: Did you receive such a request?

Mr. Radcliffe: No.

Mr. Reid: Then the branch itself with respect to travel at the end of the budget year for the people working within the branch did not run short of funds then. Is that my understanding? Is that accurate?

Mr. Radcliffe: The branch would have access on request and through the authority of the deputy minister, if it were appropriate to these funds. They did not use them all up, so therefore there was more than enough money available.

Mr. Reid: More than enough money available within the department with the $60,000 lapsed amount. It is my understanding that there was some difficulty with respect to travel that prevented your field officers from undertaking their duties and responsibilities. I am just trying to determine, if that is the case, I am trying to find some new funds for the branch that you can access, that may be available so we would have a continuation of inspection services and audits by the field officers.

I do not want to put them in a position of–yes, I want them to be responsible for the way they perform their job and the travel which they undertake on behalf of the department, to do it in an efficient manner and responsible manner. I also want to make sure that there is nothing preventing them from fulfilling their mandate and their obligations as the inspection and the audit arm of the branch.

That is why I raised the matter with the minister. Perhaps he would undertake further discussions with his branch to make sure that they have the resources necessary. If they require the resources coming near the end of this and perhaps future budget years, they would be able to have some discussion on that issue without fear of any repercussions in that regard.

Mr. Radcliffe: I certainly will, and I challenge my honourable colleague if he can share with me without jeopardizing the individuals involved any more particulars than we already have. Then we would be glad to share it, and I appreciate the confidentiality of the information he has received. If he can be of any more help, I certainly would appreciate it.

Mr. Reid: I think I have indicated already where the minister might find that information. It is within the branch. I am sure he has senior managers that have open and frank discussions with him. At least I hope that would be the case, and if there were any difficulties, they would feel comfortable enough in talking to both the deputy and the minister with respect to any budget shortfalls at the end of our budget year so that we would have continuity of inspection and audits by the field officers.

I had recently applied for information relating to a particular industry, a manufacturing industry here in Winnipeg, Buhler Industries. Perhaps the minister has been advised on this matter already. I am sure that his access to information officer would keep the minister informed of events that are occurring within the department or the deputy minister would. I have not received that information yet. It has been a period of time now, and I have sent the necessary funds over for that freedom of information application. I am wondering when I might expect to receive that information.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am advised that the FOI is in process right now. I think the termination date for the ultimate production of information is June 18, and staff hope to get that to my honourable colleague well before that date. Obviously, it depends on how long we are here in Estimates and being consumed at this point in time.

With regard to the issue of Buhler Industries, I am told that, in fact, there was an inspection. There was a significant delay, and this arose out of error in the department, that a Workplace Safety and Health order did not flow. The department went back a significant length of time later, almost a year, I believe, and readdressed the issue, and issued an order which was then alleged to be on stale-dated facts. So in order to try and come to some sort of meeting of the minds, the order itself was withdrawn.

The parties are negotiating and discussing the issue at this point in time to see if there is any satisfactory and reasonable solution that can be reached. There is no explanation–excuse, sorry. I have given you the explanation. There is no excuse for the fact that the file got lost. It was misplaced. The department is moving at this point in time with all due dispatch to try and solve the problem that has arisen on this issue. I think the steelworkers' union, Mr. Hunt, has been involved, obviously Mr. Buhler and a number of employees. So that is, in a nutshell, the parameters of the problem and what the department is trying to do about it.

* (1750)

Mr. Reid: I am trying to get an understanding here of what has occurred. I have not seen the information that is going to be coming in the FOI, and I am taking my information secondhand. It is my understanding the field officer went into this work environment, which is heavy manufacturing. There is welding involved. The field officer undertook to make a direction or provide orders for improvement. I do not think it was stop work orders. I think it was orders for improvement.

With respect to no respirators being utilized and no exhausting of the welding fumes for the people that were working in that work environment, correct me if I am wrong, I think part of the improvement orders, and we will see this when we have the information forwarded to us, dealt with air sampling to make sure that not only was there monitoring taking place but there was an improvement to the actual worksite to protect the health and safety of the people doing that welding.

Can you confirm that that was part of the order that the field officer had provided as a direction to Buhler Industries and that that was contained in that particular file?

Mr. Radcliffe: First of all, my honourable colleague has the correct basis of information. I am not sure what the exact machinery or rectification of the problem was, but it was to do with the air purity in the particular workplace. I am told that as late as last week an individual from Workplace Safety and Health was at Buhler Industries ensuring that, in fact, the employees were not at risk. There are ongoing discussions right now with management and with the union individuals and the safety committee to ensure that, in fact, it will be a safe environment for the employees in this particular location.

Mr. Reid: What did the improvement order say?

Mr. Radcliffe: It was to improve the ventilation system in the workplace. The safety committee is working right now with Workplace Safety and Health with regard to a new kind of helmet which has an air purifier in conjunction with the helmet and this is under discussion at this point in time. The improvement order was a generic improvement order to improve the ventilation. There are obviously different ways to obtain that level of rectification, so that is what is under discussion at this point in time.

Mr. Reid: That does not sound like a very heavy-handed improvement order from my experience. I am not an expert in these matters, but it seemed to be pretty straightforward, looking for some improvement, in the sense of wanting to protect the health of the people that are doing that particular work. Can you tell me: was there some direction given to the field officer who issued this order to have this order pulled?

Mr. Radcliffe: Apparently an order was issued, as I tried to tell my honourable colleague, some 11 months after the initial inspection. At that point in time, the order was challenged and the basis upon which the order was challenged was that the information which formed the basis for the order was almost a year out of date, and that was a valid basis for challenging an order. So the order was withdrawn. Then Workplace Safety and Health and the inspection officer who I think is the shop steward has been attending on a regular basis to move forward from that position and improve the environment in the workplace with regard to the specifics that I have just related.

Mr. Reid: I am not sure exactly what you mean by 11 months. Correct me if I am wrong, is it not a standard practice of the field officer conducting the audit or the investigation and finding any deficiencies in writing those up immediately and giving that information directly to the plant managers and also directly to the health and safety co-chairs for that particular operation, and did that occur in this situation?

Mr. Radcliffe: You are correct. That is the appropriate and that is the normal routine flow and due process that should occur. It should have occurred in this case and I do not want to beat a dead horse, but, in fact, it did not occur in this case. There is no excuse for the fact it did not occur. There was an error on the part of the individual health inspection officer, that those steps were not taken. It came to the attention of the department 11 months later, and the department now is moving to rectify the situation as quickly and as effectively as possible.

Mr. Reid: How did they come to the attention of the department 11 months later? What was the trigger here that caused this to become more of notice to the managers of the Workplace Safety and Health Branch?

Mr. Radcliffe: The order apparently issued 11 months later, and management looked, when they saw the order issue, and did their mathematics and realized that there was a significant error here and moved to rectify the situation immediately upon the issuance of the order.

Mr. Reid: Had the issue for which the order was originally issued been dealt with or resolved from the time the order was issued to the time when the plant principals or managers received the order, you say some 11 months later? Had that matter that had been identified in need of improvement been rectified?

Mr. Radcliffe: My information is that the owner alleges that the environment has been improved subsequent to the inspection and prior to the issuance of the order. The department wants to satisfy itself that the improvement that the owner alleges has been effected is, in fact, appropriate, and has had the effect that is required in order to ensure that the employers are safe. In other words, they want to do their due diligence at this point because there was an error in the passage of time.

The owner alleges that the environment has changed, and therefore he should not be subject to an order now because an improvement was effected. The department wants to assure and do its due diligence to make sure that, No 1, the improvement was effected, and No. 2, is the improvement that was effected sufficient and appropriate in order to ensure the safety of the employers in the workplace? So they are in the process at this point in time of working with the safety committee to ascertain that fact.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): The hour being six o'clock, committee is adjourned.