Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, discussions with House leaders are ongoing with respect to the business for next week, and it is early for us to make any announcements in that regard. So I would say to honourable members that I expect on Tuesday of next week to be able to announce the arrangements for next week. However, should something arise later today that might require announcement in the House, I will alert the presiding officer or officers at that time. So, for the time being, I would make my motion to move the House into Committee of the Whole.

I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply will be meeting in Room 254. We will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Labour. When the committee last sat, it was considering on page 100, the item 11.2(c) Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $417,500.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, was it 2.(b) that you mentioned that we were on?

Mr. Chairperson: 11.2.(c). Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $417,500.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I want to ask the minister, are there any vacancies in this subdepartment?

* (1440)

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): I am informed that the director has just recently retired and that the position will be filled in not too many months hence.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me who the director was, refresh my memory on that person that was involved?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, it is the person we all spoke so highly of yesterday, Mr. Jim Davage.

Mr. Reid: Sorry that it escaped my memory that he was in charge. I thought that perhaps there was another individual that was directly responsible for that. Yes, I do recall Mr. Davage and his role that he played with some of the strikes and lockouts in the province.

Can the minister tell me, talking about strikes and lockouts, how many days have been lost? Does he have a record of the days lost to strike and lockout over the course of the last year?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Just for clarification, you are asking about the budget year 1996-97?

Mr. Reid: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I am asking for that.

Mr. Gilleshammer: The information I have before me is based on a calendar year, but probably it will suit the member okay. If not, I know that he will feel compelled to ask a further question. But the summary of 1996, from January 1, '96, to December 31, '96, there were 22 work stoppages in Manitoba affecting some 7,275 workers.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me if some of these work stoppages are still ongoing? From my understanding there are still some issues in dispute on some of the firms in the province. Can the minister tell me the status of those disputes and what role Conciliation, Mediation is playing to try and resolve them?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that at the current time there is one work stoppage in the province.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me which firm that is and what efforts his department is making to try and resolve it?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, it is a firm that is called Gateway Paper. I could stand to be corrected, but it is my understanding that there are two individuals there that are currently on strike.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me when that work stoppage occurred?

Mr. Gilleshammer: My understanding is it has been going on for about two years, April 30, 1995. So today I am informed that is the only work stoppage that is occurring within the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, is there Conciliation, Mediation Services that are involved to try and resolve, and can the minister tell me what the outstanding issues are?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The department, through the Conciliation, Mediation Services were involved in the earlier part of this dispute. There has been no involvement in recent months; and as to the outstanding issues, we do not have that information here at this time.

Mr. Reid: So then I take it that there has been no further actions on the part of this branch to try and resolve the dispute other than what you had made in your earlier attempts. Is that accurate? You have essentially washed your hands of this situation?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the vast majority of the workers have returned to work and, as a result, the work stoppage has been largely dissolved.

Mr. Reid: So the criteria here is that you quit stopping if there is not sufficient people on strike, even though the strike is still legally occurring. The department just essentially washes its hands of it because people have returned to work and crossed the picket line.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am not sure that I would characterize it in the manner that my honourable friend does. The department, as I had indicated, had been involved at an earlier stage. The disagreement has not been resolved, but I am told that numerous conciliation meetings were held with the parties, none recently, and I am told probably over 20 employees have returned to work and two have not. I think it is fair to say that if there was a role to be played that our staff would offer their services.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, does he have historical comparisons available to him here today for the number of days lost to strike and lockout work stoppages? Does he have that historical comparison available?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am sure we have some data. I do not know just how much detail my honourable friend wants, how many years he would like us to go back.

Mr. Reid: Ten years is fine.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Ten years. Would you like me to go back 10 consecutive years or do you want me to pick selective years? The department has given me some comprehensive information here dating back to 1901. I can read it all into the record if my honourable friend would like, or perhaps I could just start with last year and go backwards and whenever you want me to stop you can indicate that.

In 1996, there were 22 disputes and involved 7,275 workers. The previous year to that, 1995, there were 12 work stoppages involving 2,106 workers. In 1994, there were six work stoppages with 1,205 individuals involved. In 1993, there were eight work stoppages with 1,196. In 1992, there were seven work stoppages with 319 employees. In 1991, there were 10 work stoppages with 10,726 workers involved--that was 1991; 10 work stoppages involved 10,726 workers.

In 1990, there were six work stoppages, 347 individuals involved; in 1989, six work stoppages involving 221; in 1988, 11 work stoppages with 1,352; in 1987, 10 work stoppages involving 3,025 workers. [interjection] Those then are the figures for the last 10 years.

Mr. Reid: Could the minister repeat 1992 for me, please? I missed writing that.

* (1450)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I can. There were seven work stoppages and 319 workers.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, because it is my understanding that there is a potential serious situation that could occur, I think it is HBM&S, in Flin Flon, whether the parties are in some dispute at this time? Is the department playing a role in trying to resolve that issue to prevent any work stoppage?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I can say that we are taking a role, but I would hasten to inform my honourable friend that this is an issue under federal jurisdiction and the federal Minister of Labour and federal staff have been involved. We have a situation there where I believe six or seven unions have resolved and settled their contracts, and the total work complement in that area is just a little over 2,000 people. One of the unions consisting of somewhere around 240 individuals have still not settled its contract. A certain amount of work has been done by federal officials, and the issues have not been resolved.

I have talked to our colleague on a number of occasions, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), just to keep him apprised of things, and he giving me information that comes to him. Both he and I are very, very concerned about the situation, because we do not want to see over 2,000 people thrown out of work. There is also the issue that, if there is a serious and prolonged work stoppage, the company has suggested that they may simply close and not reopen, so we take it very seriously.

I have written to the federal minister and I have spoken to the federal minister and brought to his attention the seriousness of this issue. I believe that he is taking steps to do what he can to assist with the resolution of the issues.

Mr. Reid: I recognize that it is a federal responsibility. I am not suggesting that you or the department overstep the boundaries here or the balance that is in place. I am just trying to ensure that adequate steps are taken to try and resolve the dispute and if the federal department in some way is unable to, because I do not know the type of skill level that they have available to them. We have some relatively good or fairly good conciliator-mediators in this province, having known of the disputes that have been settled here in the past. If there is a role for us to play, then perhaps we can, in some way, share or utilize our expertise here within the province, should the federal department not be able to resolve the dispute prior to any work stoppage taking place. That is the reason why I raise it here. I recognize and appreciate if the minister has been having discussions with the member for Flin Flon.

I want to ask a question relating to Mr. Davage's job and when you are going to fill that job. I take it that that job is now out for a bidding process or you have some process in place where you are seeking out suitable candidates for that particular job. Can you tell me what process you have in place here to fill that particular vacancy?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that we will be proceeding with an open competition based on the civil service guidelines.

Mr. Reid: The civil service guidelines that apply particularly to that job and the skills, I take it then, would be the criteria used to hire an individual to replace Mr. Davage based on a job description that perhaps would be available?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, as I have indicated, it will be an open competition that will certainly be advertised. We would hope to be able to attract through that competition someone with the skills of Mr. Davage. I hasten to join my honourable friend in saying that the staff we have within the department do a good job, and I am very pleased and proud of the work they do. The competition is designed to find the best candidate for the job, and we would hope to be entering into that in the coming months and by perhaps the early fall have somebody in place.

Mr. Reid: Judging by the numbers of staff that you have available here and looking at the work stoppages that have occurred over the last 10 years, you may have available to you, I take it then, adequate people to deal at least with the numbers of cases that would be here.

Do you have any process in place where you bring in or train other mediator-conciliators? I am not sure of your staffing mix that you have based on age or seniority that you have within the department. Are you in a process now where your staffing component is--how do I put this properly?--increasing in years and maybe looking at retirement versus being available to the department for future mediation-conciliation services? Do you have any process in place that would allow for a training component, or do you rely on other areas to train people to do this type of work?

Mr. Gilleshammer: If I get the sense of my honourable friend's question, if I can maybe reframe it, are we developing other staff within the department that can be brought along from time to time? I believe the answer to that is yes. I know that in some areas we are involved in doing what is called cross-training, so that people in perhaps one segment of the department are taking training and becoming aware of what happens in other segments of the department. Yes, I am sure that all of these people are getting older a year at a time. I think the senior staff are aware of that and I think have a good handle on where people are moving and what their intentions are, and part of our reorganization as of April 1, I think, was to address some of those issues.

Mr. Reid: Well, I am happy to hear that you have a process in place that will facilitate a retraining to continue with people who have the special skills, because from my life's experiences, mediation-conciliation type of work, everyone is not cut out for that type of work. So it does require some training or some research to find those special people with those special skills. Perhaps, the minister wants to comment further on that.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I asked some of the same questions in recent weeks. I used to be involved in doing a little bit of bargaining at the school division level and--[interjection] Well, I see we have some kinship there. I often would ask how successful we are in terms of conciliation processes in bringing parties together, because I only saw such a small part of that. I sort of wondered whether at times in the education system that was sort of a necessary step you went through on your way to arbitration. I was impressed with the success rate that our conciliation officers have had in working with groups, and I think it is a testimony to the skills and talent that we have had there with Mr. Davage and others.

Mr. Reid: I am trying to educate myself here a bit about this. Before you move into the areas dealing with Conciliation, Mediation, do you have some other process that is in place here to try and resolve a dispute if it is not major in nature? I say "major" in the sense of affecting many employees. Is there some dispute settlement mechanism that you have in place other than Conciliation, Mediation?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am informed that we do some informal consultations. I think something that I am finding out about the department is that there is a lot of expertise there, and sometimes that expertise can be used by parties, as they are in the bargaining process, to clarify issues and get a better understanding of things like contract language, and wherever we can assist early on, I believe, that staff can be made available.

* (1500)

Mr. Reid: Because the Pay Equity Services form a part of this branch as well and there had been, from my understanding, a process in place established to provide for pay equity in the public schools and perhaps other sectors, can you bring me up to date on what is happening with pay equity, not only just in the school divisions but overall?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that we are continuing to monitor ongoing agreements that are in place with various school divisions including Assiniboine South School Division. Currently, there are a number of four-year and six-year agreements where the ongoing adjustments are managed by the Department of Education and Training and the Schools Finance branch. Any problems that develop would be reported to the Schools Finance branch who, in turn, will contact the Department of Labour for assistance. It is expected that this ongoing monitoring and the existing agreements will continue for several years.

Mr. Reid: Does the department have any other activities underway or planned dealing with pay equity in both public and private sectors?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the original mandate was to be involved in the public sector and that the department has all but completed their activities there.

Mr. Reid: There has been a reduction, a significant reduction in the--I guess it is the severance and vacation pay on retirement. Are those funds that are showing on the budget line item here, is that for the reduction or elimination of Mr. Davage's position? I take it he retired under the past year's budget and that is what this budget line was for.

Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.

Mr. Reid: No questions on this.

Mr. Chairperson: 11.2.(c) Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $417,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $84,700--pass.

11.2.(d) Pension Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I have a question dealing with the Pension Commission. I had raised this with the minister in my opening remarks. Since that time I have had the opportunity, and before, to talk with Mr. Gordon of the Pension Commission, and he has been very co-operative and has provided me with advice that both I and my constituents were seeking, so we thank him for that information.

I have a few questions dealing with Merchants Consolidated, and I did take the opportunity to make members of the minister's department aware of it so that they would have time to research; but, before I pursue that line of questioning, I would like to ask the minister with respect to the explanation line showing in the supplementary Estimates document here dealing with Service First Initiative. Can the minister explain that to me, please?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I would like to acknowledge Guy Gordon, who is our superintendent of the Pension Commission, who has joined us at the table.

If it is the budget line that the member is asking about, Mr. John Cumberford is active in another area but, I believe, shows up within our budgetary allocation here.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Cumberford, then, has been seconded by another area, another department, yet he still showing under this department's budget line?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me what department he has been seconded by?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, he is involved with the Service First Initiative, which is looking at better ways to do things within government.

Mr. Reid: Perhaps the minister can elaborate on that for me. I am unfamiliar with that. Is that part of Government Services or is there another department that is involved in--I guess the question that leads out of that is: if he is doing work for another government department, should that budget line not be better shown, or are you going to do a cost recovery from that other department?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, this is a group of people that has been put together to, I guess, bring recommendations to government under what we call the Service First Initiative, to look at how some target departments work and how they can bring recommendations back to government as a whole to make changes in the way we do business and to provide services to the public by the best practices that are found in other governments or in the private sector and, as a result, be able to, I guess, improve the service that our departments provide to the public of Manitoba.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister give me an indication since it is one of his staff that has been seconded out here and, I take it, that he must have some further knowledge of the type of business and the type of services to the public that are under review? Perhaps he can share that information with us.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I know that this was raised, I believe, with the Premier's Estimates, and the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, spent some time on that initiative with them. But it is again an attempt by government to examine government and how we do business and how our business processes and how we serve the public can be improved. It is some ongoing work that has been started within the last three years or so, and I am not sure whether this showed up in our Estimates last year or not. I believe it did. Perhaps questions were not asked last year, but this has been an ongoing process and similar, I think, to previous governments and governments elsewhere in the country that use some of the talent and some of the staff within government to, I suppose, see what position government is to respond to changing technology and the changing nature of the way we do business and how we can provide service to the public of Manitoba. This department in particular is, I think, a very service-oriented department, and I think it is incumbent upon us to offer the very best level of service that we possibly can to our clients and to the public of Manitoba.

* (1510)

Mr. Reid: The minister has given a general explanation again without getting into any specifics. He is talking about services. Are we talking particular government departments through Government Services? Is it dealing with other areas of government? Is it across all departments? I would just like to get an idea here. I mean I did not have the opportunity to sit in on the Executive Council Estimates, so I do not have knowledge of what discussions took place there, so perhaps the minister can give me some indication on the types of services that he is referring to here.

Mr. Gilleshammer: In our own department we are looking at how we use technology and how we can better use the new technology that is part and parcel of the workplace. We are looking at certainly the purchasing we do, looking at our accounting skills and abilities. I think I mentioned in my opening remarks yesterday that we cost-recover in excess of 60 percent of the total expenditures that we make, and wherever we can reduce the paperwork and reduce the red tape and improve the quality of the data that we have within the department and also speed up our response to the public, all of these things are part of this service-first initiative.

Mr. Reid: I will not pursue that line any further. I guess if I need more details, I will have to go back to the Premier's Estimates and have some detail out of that. I understand it may be more difficult for the minister to talk about what is happening in other departments. I am just trying to get an understanding here. It shows that about a little over $28,000 has been moved, so I take it that a portion of Mr. Cumberford's salary is being picked up by another area while he is doing that particular type of work. Am I accurate in that statement?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I would certainly encourage him to go back and read Hansard from the Estimates of a number of departments. I was not being glib when I said that, but this is an initiative that a whole host of departments are involved in including the Department of Finance, the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, I believe Highways, and Agriculture. Again I do not think it is something that has a lot of mystery surrounding it; it is just an attempt by government to examine themselves in how they do business, and how we can provide better service to our various clients, and how we can more efficiently do the accounting and the paperwork and use the modern technology that is presenting itself in the workplace and in departments.

You can appreciate that millions and millions of dollars are spent on new technology, and that is across many, many departments. Sometimes departments were set up to do business in a certain way, and it has been historical. Change can be difficult to bring about, particularly if it cannot be easily and clearly demonstrated that there is a better way to do it. I think that it is incumbent upon all departments to be able to train their staff and bring them up to a certain skill level and to be sure that they are using the new technology appropriately and learning from others, learning from other departments and learning from other governments and learning from the private sector, if there is a better way to do things, and that we can free up resources within each department or within many departments.

The member will be well aware the tremendous pressure there is on all governments across this country to spend their resources wisely and the difficulties we have on the revenue side from the federal government withdrawing some of the historical payments that they have been responsible for. If we can free up resources to provide those services within each and every department in a better way and at the same time our priorities as government has always been health and education and social services, they, along with the payment on the debt, take up I think in excess of 70 percent of our budget. So if there are ways we can do business better, learn from others, learn from our own staff who often are a tremendous resource in coming up with better methods and better ideas. I think you have to create that culture within a department and within government to encourage people to bring forth these ideas and examine how we can better do things.

Mr. Reid: Do those better ideas and ways of operating government include bringing in other fees to move toward full cost recovery?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, certainly we have to be mindful in our department, where we do cost recover over 60 percent of the cost of doing business. I think our fees have to reflect the cost of those services in many cases. I think we have to be aware of what it costs other people to do the same thing and, also, doing cross-Canada comparisons. I know anytime we look at fees in this department or in any department I have been in, I immediately say, well, what does it cost in Saskatchewan to do the same thing? What does it cost in Alberta? If our fees are out of proportion, they are significantly higher, then I think you either reduce them or freeze them. If they are lower, then I think we have to look at raising them, but I think we always have to be able to have the ability to justify what those fees are.

If it costs our inspection people or some of our services that we offer a certain amount that we can quantify and quantify accurately, and if we are providing that service to outside sources, we have to be sure those fees are fair.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, is the department--are you as minister contemplating or are you in the process of adjusting any of those fees?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes. I can indicate that there are some licencing areas and some inspection areas where we have or we are in the process of adjusting those fees.

Mr. Reid: Does the minister wish to read them into the record or would he just like to provide a copy of them to me?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I can give some examples here. These are fee increases from existing revenue sources. Fees payable for gas and oil fitters licences and licence renewals is going to be $40. Fees payable for testing and licensing of welders will be $26.50. Fees payable for inspection approval of elevator drawings and design specifications will be $5. Fees for services of conciliation officers appointed under The Public Schools Act, the hourly rate there is going to be $85. Those are some examples. If we had them in an appropriate format, I can maybe commit to getting some of that information for you.

* (1520)

Mr. Reid: I would appreciate if the minister--I realize they are in departmental documents. If he has a summary of the fee changes, I would appreciate his sending that information to me. If he could do it in a--I am not going to say I need it tomorrow, but if you have the opportunity in the next week or so, I would appreciate that information.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am not even sure I was interpreting some of those columns correctly, but I will commit to get some information in an appropriate format for my friend.

Mr. Reid: Did those fee increases also include building permit fees? Does that fall under this department as well?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes. I am told that the building permit fees would be under the Office of the Fire Commissioner.

Mr. Reid: Then perhaps that would be the appropriate place to raise that with respect to fees. I will hold that until we are at that point then.

I will move on, Mr. Chairman, to Merchants Consolidated, dealing with more directly with the Pension Commission. I have received a piece of correspondence that I have available here, and perhaps even the minister's department has already received this or is aware of it. If you are not, I can provide a copy to you or at least let you read this one. It is a letter that was sent to the Pension Commission on May 12, not that many days ago, and it is dealing with former employees of Merchants Consolidated. Of course, the minister may know that particular firm folded operations some years ago and has been under the care of a receiver, Peat Marwick.

The employees are contesting the fact that the receiver has said that the surplus of the pension fund be split 50-50 between the receiver acting on behalf of the creditors of that particular company and the former employees, the other 50 percent. We are talking about approximately $137,000, so they indicate here, of surplus pension funds.

(Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

I realize on an individual basis this may not be a huge dollar value by comparison to what we are dealing in departmental Estimates here; but, to the individuals involved, it is nevertheless monies to which they feel they are entitled, based on their comments that they have provided for me, that they were greater contributors to the pension fund asset itself and that therefore they feel that it would be fair if those funds would be split on a 70-30 basis in favour of the beneficiaries of the pension fund versus the 50-50 formula that the receiver Peat Marwick is proposing.

Can the minister tell me what process you have in place and whether or not this is considered reasonable, or other process we have in place to deal with this, so that these employees can feel that they have in some way received fair treatment through the disposal of the assets that are remaining in this particular fund?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, a pleasure to have you with us this afternoon.

There is an ongoing process that is before the Pension Commission at this time, and it is my understanding that they have received submissions from interested parties. There is a date in the not-too-distant future by which time all of the involved parties who want to make their ideas and feelings known to the commission--it is still just a little bit further down the road. At the end of the process it is my understanding that the Pension Commission will make a decision on this. It seems that we have a situation where the receiver and the union did come to some agreement on how these funds would be shared to a certain extent, but there are individuals who are approaching the Pension Commission to give their thoughts on it, either for or against, or adding their wisdom and their feelings as to how this eventually should be resolved. So all of that, it is my understanding, is now before the Pension Commission, and in the coming weeks they will be rendering a decision.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me the date that he is referencing here?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I believe it is this month. The last date at which time the Pension Commission is accepting these submissions is May 18. Then the commission will have to set a date for their meeting. That has not been set as yet dependent on the availability of the individuals who comprise that commission, and at that time they will be proceeding with their decision-making process.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, since the date is fast approaching, we do not have many days before this is to be dealt with. It seems to me to be a reasonable request and fair to the employees if they were to be involved in this process since it is essentially at least some or in part their money that they be given all of the facts so that they can make what we would term informed consent of whatever decision would occur.

So I have to ask: Have all of the former employees of Merchants Consolidated who were members of this particular pension plan been contacted and have the facts been provided to them with respect to the funds and the process that is to be followed and the decision date and other facts that they may require to allow them to make that particular informed decision?

* (1530)

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the receiver, in this case Peat Marwick limited, did inform the individuals involved of the details of this pension issue and that in addition to that ads were placed in the Free Press to indicate to interested parties that this was the information and that there was a process in progress and that people gather their information from there. I suspect if more information was required that they would probably contact the receiver and perhaps some of them have contacted our staff for information and clarification. I think what the member is asking is, has it been a fair process and has it been an inclusive one and have people got the information? I am told that we are comfortable that that information has been provided.

Mr. Reid: So I take it then that the Pension Commission itself is not the party that is informing the former employees or the beneficiaries of the pension plan, that it has been essentially left up to the receiver, who is acting on behalf of the creditors of that now defunct firm to do the consultation and advice to the beneficiaries of the pension plan.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the receiver certainly provided the information. That was shared with and accepted by the union, and they came to an agreement. I am not sure if the member is saying that there is some component of this that has not been fully examined that he would like information on, or is it just comfort that everything that can be done has been done?

Mr. Reid: I am concerned here. I am not questioning the capabilities of the particular firm acting as the receiver. What I am saying though is that they do and are acting on behalf of the creditors; they are appointed as the receiver. I could be wrong in this, and the minister can correct me. When you are acting on behalf of the creditors of the firm and you are trying to dispose of the assets, you have no real responsibility to the beneficiaries or their entitlements to any pension fund surpluses and, therefore, the employees themselves, while they do have some union representation, they may not continue to be members of that particular union now because that firm has folded and those employees may have dispersed and gone off to other employment, perhaps in the nonunion sector or as members of other unions.

So in a sense there is not that cohesiveness or that sense that all the information has to be provided, because there is no balance in there that says you have to represent me or a duty to represent both on the part of the receiver acting on behalf of the creditors and the union itself that is obviously no longer representing the former employees at that firm because the firm is now out of business. So I am worried here that the employees--and this is what I am asking the minister--is to make sure that the process is as open and clear as can humanly be expected to make sure that the former employees who may have some entitlement to the surpluses of those pension funds are treated in a fair manner and can make an informed decision, and at the end of the day they have all of the facts available to them to allow them to make that decision.

I am a bit worried here, judging by the letter that has been provided to me, that while an agreement may have been struck between the union that was formerly representing these employees and the receiver, that the employees themselves, judging by the names that I have here--and I know it is not the majority, but there may be others that the Pension Commission may know about--are not happy with the arrangement that has been made to the 50-50 split, because they say they contributed more to the pension fund itself, to the base asset, and therefore should have a greater entitlement to any surpluses that are resulting or accruing as a result of those investments, and that what they are calling for is a 30-70 split in favour of the beneficiaries of the pension fund.

In that sense, if that is accurate, I would like to know whether or not the Department of Labour through the Pension Commission, or through other parts of the department, can play a role in this process to make sure that indeed the number is 137,000 in assets. While it is not large in dollar value compared to the departmental budget, to these people it is a significant amount of money and they want to make sure that they receive their fair entitlement. That is the essence of what I am asking here of the department.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I think in his conclusion, I think we share that concern. I am certainly not going to be critical of the union. I do not know which one it was or who their staff were. I just know that the union involved did reach agreement with the receiver because the amount of money was not large and because if this ended up in court, the legal fees easily would have exceeded the amount of money available to be redistributed. So this was seen as a way of solving it between the receiver and the union to split it 50-50. The alternative was to get lawyers involved representing both sides and perhaps representing individuals and because of the amount of money involved, there would have been nothing to share.

This proposal, it is my understanding, was put forward to resolve the issue in a format or an agreement that was acceptable to the receiver and acceptable to the union. Now I recognize that the union maybe did not have the complete membership involved and, in fact, my understanding, because this receivership goes back to August of 1988, some of the individuals had passed away and are actually represented by other family members here. So it was seen as the best way of resolving the issue without having the principal, the funds involved, completely eaten up in court costs and legal fees.

So, at the present time, I guess the appeal mechanism here is the Pension Commission who have invited concerned parties to put forward their case, to put forward their thoughts. Obviously, a deadline had to be set and it is later this month, May 18, and they will, at a subsequent meeting of the commission, render a decision.

Mr. Reid: I need to know--and I am sure my constituents will want to know the trigger point as well. There are four names shown on this list here, and they may have other names. I am not sure how many names the Pension Commission has collected with respect to these surplus funds. Can the minister tell me how many former employees or their beneficiaries or family members have made application to the Pension Commission disputing the decision that has been reached between the union and the receiver?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed about 8 percent of the beneficiaries have formally notified the Pension Commission of their opposition to the proposal.

Mr. Reid: Eight percent of how many employees?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The 8 percent translates into 30 beneficiaries.

* (1540)

Mr. Reid: Can the minister, because I asked what the trigger point is--I am not sure of the process that is followed by the Pension Commission. Is there a hearing that takes place to allow these former employees who stand in dispute of the decision that had been reached between the union and the receiver? Is there a process that would allow them to come out and appeal that particular decision or at least voice their concerns and have that taken into consideration? What process is there that would allow, or mechanism that would allow, for them to have their voices heard?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that, in the process that is followed by the Pension Commission, they will review all of the information that has been presented to them, and the individuals have until May 18 to, in some form, present their information to the Pension Commission.

Mr. Reid: So I take it then that, since these four individuals, and 30 in total, have presented their viewpoints to the Pension Commission, now am I to conclude from that that there will be a hearing that will occur, and that these members will have the opportunity to sit in, at least hear, be part of the decision that is being made or be involved in the decision-making process? Can you tell me, because I am not familiar with the activities of the Pension Commission? How is it that a decision is arrived at so that I might inform my constituents?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that their process, the process of having input from these individuals, is the process that is going on at this time, that they have been asked to submit their concerns, their ideas, their opposition, their thinking on it, by a certain date. When that information is gathered, after that date the commission will be holding a meeting, and, based on the information that has been presented to them, they will render a decision.

Mr. Reid: I know time is short here. With respect to the decision date, I just wish there was a way that was more open in a process that would allow them to more actively pursue or impress their viewpoints upon the decision makers in this, because it is their money. I understand that, if this goes to court, there is potential that lawyers will eat up through legal costs any of the funds that are said to be in surplus. I am sure we do not want to see that happening. We would like to see this money returned to the beneficiaries of the plan. But it is unfortunate that, if there was a contribution greater by the employees than by the former employer, those funds could have been dispensed or split more equally along the lines of the contributions on a ratio that would represent the contributions that had been made. So I am just basing that comment on information that has been supplied to me by my constituents, and that is why I have raised that matter with the minister.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, just to help the member maybe put this in perspective, and he may have this figure, but I am told that the average amount paid per beneficiary would amount to about $175. So that is the level of money that is involved, and you can readily understand that, if you are going to launch into a court process here, there will be nothing. So this, again, was the recommendation of both the receiver and the union as a fair way of splitting up these proceeds, and there are 354 beneficiaries. So I appreciate the sum, the $175, is a significant sum, and if they feel they are entitled to more of that, it might grow to $200 or $250. But to others this is not--and, I mean, I do not know any of these people. I do not believe any of them have written to me. If they have, I have not seen the letters yet.

Mr. Reid: Do you want to read it?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, sure. So, again, given the numbers of people involved, given the amount that would come to each beneficiary based on the receiver and union agreement, at some point this has to have closure brought to it because it has been almost 10 years now since the company went into receivership. I guess it could be argued that it is even not timely now, that it should have been resolved earlier. But it has been in front of different people for 10 years. I am sure the Pension Commission will review the information that has been brought forward by the union and by Peat Marwick and by the 30 beneficiaries who have had their input into this. At some point, as I say, closure has to be brought to the matter and a decision has to be made.

Mr. Reid: Well, I shared the letter with the minister and, I mean, there is nothing to hide in the process. I am just here representing the interests of my constituents on this matter and some of the others that may have some concerns with respect on how these funds were split. I will leave that. I hope that the best decision is made to represent.

I have never made any secret about my feelings with respect to pension funds. It has always been my belief that pension funds belong to the employees for which that particular pension fund was established, and that includes the surplus. The funds should remain in there for the benefit of the employees. That has always been my feeling. I have been involved with pension funds in the past, and I know that there is a bigger question that needs to be answered in this country with respect to the ownership of pension funds. We are going to see more problems in the future as companies, as we are seeing with Eaton's employees right now, where Eaton's want to take the surplus out of that particular pension fund, feeling that they have some entitlement to it. But it has always been my understanding, my impression that those pension funds were established for their employees, either in union or nonunion operations, for the benefit of the employees, and there is a formula that is set up to put those funds in place.

Yes, if those funds are set up in a proper way and the investments are made and there is an experienced gain from those particular pension fund investments, those funds should go back into the pension fund for the benefit of the employees, for enhancing services to the people that are retired. That has always been my viewpoint with respect to pension funds, and I hope that sometime in my lifetime that that question will be addressed, perhaps even through the courts. We will have to make that decision because I think that question needs to be addressed on who actually owns the pension funds in this country.

I want to ask the minister, with respect to the LIRAs and the life income funds, the locked-in funds, whether or not there is going to be some move. Is some research being done by government department through the Pension Commission dealing with the flexibility?

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

I have received phone calls on this, and I know I have talked to Mr. Gordon about this on more than one occasion. Members of the public have consulted me about the lack of flexibility of their particular pension funds having to be put into LIRA or to an LIF. They are not happy with that process. They would like to have their funds made available to them at their discretion. So if they choose to take out certain amounts of money in a period of time when they have health available to allow them to travel or for whatever purpose, they want to have that flexibility.

* (1550)

Is any research being done with respect to policy in the Pension Commission or in the Department of Labour allowing for further expansion or flexibility to allow these funds to be transferred into an RRIF versus into the only two available options, which are the LIRA or the LIF?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told, as a department, we are continuing to monitor this and to make adjustments where it is deemed appropriate.

Mr. Reid: So when you say you are monitoring this, then, you are registering the number of phone calls that come in and the people that are worried about the lack of flexibility and, at this point, you have not made any move to have any further policy research done.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I think the member is maybe making light of the work that is done by the people in Pensions. I believe that they not only record phone calls but take very seriously the information that is brought to them by members of the public and groups representing pensions and clearly analyze those issues and try to understand them. Where necessary, as I have indicated, we make those adjustments that are needed. So it is not just a question of registering phone calls. When I use the word "monitor," I believe that the issues that our pension people will be looking at are issues that are common right across the country.

I would indicate that part of our legislative package this year is a bill on pension reform, and I did offer a couple of weeks ago to have staff come in and go through that in some detail, to give my honourable friend a good understanding of it. These are, I am finding, complicated and complex issues, some of which are new to me, and I think it would be very beneficial if we could set up a meeting just on that particular bill, because the process that I have been through with the department and by others who have viewed this legislation feel that we are making some very, very progressive changes there which are for the benefit of individuals who have paid into pensions.

I am not sure when this legislation was last looked at, but we have been looking at it and have tabled a. We would be pleased to go into the detail and the thinking behind that with the honourable member.

Mr. Reid: Yes, I realize the minister did make the offer to have a briefing with respect to the various pieces of legislation that he has, and I appreciate that offer. I will attempt to find the time to have that briefing.

I am just trying to get an understanding here, and I am not trying to minimize the efforts of the department. When I said, "registering phone calls," I should have broadened that and said that any correspondence you may have received in this regard too. The calls that I received, there have been a couple, but I could tell you that the people were very irate when they found out that they did not have any flexibility. They thought that they were responsible adults. They had been that way all of their working years and had very carefully managed their own funds, but they get to the end of the day and they find out that their monies have to be transferred into an LIRA or to an LIF, and there was little flexibility for them. They are quite concerned, because they had been responsible; they wanted to have the care and control of their own funds and how those funds are spent in their retirement years.

One of the reasons why we participate in pension plans or invest into RRSPs is to provide for our retirement years, and then to have someone say that you are only going to have X number of dollars a month until your expected date of death based on actuarial evaluations says that you are not responsible. So that is why they are irate, and those are the comments that they have made to me. That is why I ask with respect to further flexibility that the department may be researching in regard to RRIFs, to allow them some greater flexibility to make those individual decisions.

I understand there are consequences potentially. Mr. Gordon has drawn to my attention, and I appreciate that, with respect to potential social costs down the road should the people not manage their money appropriately. But I think that by far the majority of people would be responsible with their own funds in providing for their future years and through their retirement years, and that is why I raise it with the minister.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Transcona that nothing is more near and dear to the hearts of people who are in a pension plan, particularly as they get into their 40s and 50s or nearing those retirement years, that they want some certainty about what their income is going to be in retirement.

I know from my experience as a high school principal in this province that every year as we approached May 31 there would be from time to time people on my own staff, but certainly throughout the division, who were contemplating retirement. It is a very emotional thing. I think maybe one of the most difficult letters to write is that letter of resignation, because they know that, once they sign it and convey it, it is a done deal. I had many experiences where people said early in the school year, yeah, this is it, my last year, told everybody, and, you know, along about Christmas I would say: "Well, do you want to make that official?" "No, I am just going to wait awhile," and inevitably, sometime in May and sometimes in the last hour of the last day, they would eventually get that letter written.

In the meantime, I think a tremendous amount of work had been done by them and their advisers and their pension plan people to examine in minute detail what their pension plan meant, what their retirement income was going to be, what the rules were, and nobody wants the rules changed in sort of mid-stream. They want to examine what other income they would have, whether it was from Old Age Security or CPP, and then they wanted to examine what sort of money that they would need to live in retirement and try and understand that, if they are not paying their union dues and they are not paying parking fees and so forth, they could live with less. But it never seems to come down to sort of exact numbers that people felt they could count on or that they felt were identified in an exact way so that they could make that decision.

So I certainly accept my honourable friend's comments that pensions are just so important to people. I know that, with a recent mining story about a company that has been on a roller-coaster ride in recent months, people were finding that certain pension funds had been invested there and were quite angry, upset, worried. Fortunately, most of these pension funds have a balance to them and they have some in high risk and some in low risk, and it sort of balances out. But it was, I am sure, going to be brought to their attention very straightforwardly that they should not have been playing around with mining stocks of that nature. I mean, it is unsettling. So all of these things, I think, are part of pension funds. It is incumbent upon different pension funds to ensure that they are well managed, and we as a government have a role to play, and I believe, from what I have seen in the last four months in this department, it is a role we take very seriously. I look forward to being able to go through that legislation with my honourable friend, and I think he will see that the changes that are being proposed are going to be good ones and well received.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I have dwelled on this area a fair amount. I appreciate the minister's comment, and I will attempt early next week to take him up on his offer for a briefing with respect to the legislation.

I have no other questions in regard to the Pension Commission at this time.

* (1600)

Mr. Chairperson: 11.2.(d) Pension Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $240,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $79,400--pass.

11.2.(e) Manitoba Labour Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Reid: There have been some changes to the Manitoba Labour Board as a result of Bill 17, I think, Bill 73 and Bill 26 last year. I take it that the Labour Board has taken on some new duties and responsibilities with respect to those pieces of legislation in addition to the duties that they held previously.

At the time I had to ask the former Minister of Labour because it had been drawn to my attention that there was perhaps insufficient funds to allow for the Labour Board to continue with its work. I am happy to see that the Labour Board has received some increase in funding this particular year, and it is under the heading of Other Expenditures.

Now I guess the question I need to ask here, because the former Minister of Labour--and I say this in all seriousness--denied that there was going to be a requirement for further funds even though I know full well that it was necessary that they have the ability to continue with their duties in addition to the new duties being assigned. Is the increase in funding that has been provided here for the Labour Board activities sufficient to carry on with their current role and mandate that has been now increased for them, or is there some further requirement that they may have to allow them to complete their mandate?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I would like to introduce John Korpesho, who is the chairperson of the Manitoba Labour Board, who joined us here at the table. There was some $40,000 that has been added to that particular line, and I am told this reflected the thinking within the department that there may be some other resources that were required there. Again, I guess it is difficult to precisely pinpoint whether that is too much or not enough, but as the Estimates were being prepared there were some new resources put into this area.

Mr. Reid: I understand it is fairly early in the year to get an accurate picture on whether or not this is going to be sufficient funds, but from my understanding of board activities in past years they have had to really stretch their budgets at the end of the year to try and make ends meet to allow them to complete their mandate. I am not saying this in a political way because I realize that there were different governments that were involved here and perhaps there were insufficient funds provided by both types of government.

I am just trying to get an understanding here based on the anticipated caseload or workload that they have that this will be sufficient funds. I am trying to get an understanding from the minister, does he feel that, based on the assumptions that the department has made, that this will be adequate funding?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, various parts of various departments operate in areas where they are volume driven. I know that when I was Minister of Family Services the amount of resources you put into social allowances was based on the best information available from the department and the statistics that they were able to gather as to what volume would be anticipated for in the coming months. Often they were pretty close to being right. Sometimes they were low and sometimes they were high, and I guess any part of any department where you have to deal with certain volumes you make the best efforts to assign the appropriate number.

On the other hand, you have some departments, and I know in Culture, Heritage and Citizenship you have got a very well-defined budget that is very easy to live within each and every year because you simply make expenditures as deemed appropriate, and when you are done you are done. There are no additional funds that you can put in there.

The member is correct, it is very early in the year. We are just six weeks into the budget year. These things were I am sure debated and discussed within the Estimates process of the department, and this was the figure that was added to this particular budget line.

Mr. Reid: Last year the former Minister of Labour said that on average there were about 73 certification applications that the Labour Board would deal with. It is my understanding that with the new process as a result of Bill 26, it could potentially involve considerably more travel. I see that the budget line for transportation has increased, including personal services for fees. I take it you are anticipating there will be more of those secret ballot votes that are held throughout the province, and that is why that budget line has increased.

Does the department have some idea, do they expect that the certification applications will remain somewhat constant compared to what the former Minister of Labour had said, which would be around 73 or so a year?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that it is fairly consistent with the previous year, marginally up from last year.

Mr. Reid: When you say marginally up, can you give me a number associated with that? I am not saying that it has to be a hard and fast number here, but I know you must have some estimates that are anticipated.

Mr. Gilleshammer: The number last year was 70. In the first few weeks and months of this year, there have been 11.

Mr. Reid: Eleven secret ballot votes that have occurred so far this year, is that what the minister is indicating?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Staff are indicating, since February 1 there have been 26.

Mr. Reid: I take it that is when the legislation took effect, and that is why it is only back to that point in time? February 1 was the trigger point and that is why your number starts February 1?

Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.

Mr. Reid: If we are only three months in since this legislation has taken effect, and we have 26 applications so far, if you extrapolate that out to the end of the year, you are going to be looking at well over 100 secret ballot votes this year when your historical average has been 73, based on the minister's statement, last year, and 70 last year. Do you anticipate that those funds that you put in place are going to be adequate to handle this extra workload that is anticipated?

(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Gilleshammer: It will certainly be an ongoing process of monitoring this. I do not know if you can always assume that you are going to get the same volume month over month throughout the year. I guess the reality is that we have put some extra funds in there. If we need to find a way to provide the service which is going to require more funds, then the challenge before us will be to find those funds.

* (1610)

Mr. Reid: It had been stated that--I believe I am correct in saying that five to seven days would be the time for those votes to take place. If the present trend of secret ballot votes continues for what you are seeing in the first quarter of operation under this legislation, do you anticipate that you will be able to find the necessary funds should the Labour Board require it to allow them to continue to meet the deadline that they have to make sure that those votes can take place within the five to seven days? I am trying to get some assurance here that, of course, the Labour Board is not going to be starved, and, of course, there are repercussions down the line for those that are involved, both employer and employee.

Mr. Gilleshammer: My sense is the attitude within the senior staff is that the work of the Labour Board is extremely important work, and that we have been able to conduct those votes in the past and we will continue to strive to meet those guidelines. I think the track record has been very, very good. If you are asking, is the department up to the challenge to find more funds if they have to? I think they would take that very seriously and find a way to do it.

Mr. Reid: That is the part that bothers me, if they have to find it internally to the department. then somebody else gets starved out of the process instead of going back to Treasury Board and cabinet for having made the decision on the legislation in the first place. That is the part that concerns me here. That is why I want to get an assurance here that the minister will not just starve another part of the Department of Labour if additional funds are required, and that you would be prepared to go back to cabinet and to Treasury Board to request that particular financial support to carry on the mandate that cabinet has indicated through your government that they must undertake. That is why I need that level of assurance that other parts of his department will not be shortchanged as a result of increased activities of the Labour Board.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I think we would do everything we can to treat everybody fairly. If we need more funds, I hear the member saying is to go back to Treasury Board and get some more. Concurrent with that, I suppose, if we needed to raise more taxes, the member would be in favour of that as well.

Mr. Reid: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I feel the minister is taking the debate here and the discussion to a little lower level than it has been here for the last three hours. I hoped we had not chosen to pursue that course of action, and I am hoping we could keep this on the high road. I am only concerned for other portions of his department that may be starved for funds, because the mandate given to the Labour Board has become, perhaps, onerous, too onerous for them to handle financially, and I want to make sure that he is not going to shortchange other parts of his department to ensure that the Labour Board activities can continue, because it was the legislation of your government through you who, as a member of cabinet, had the ability to pass decision on it.

What I am trying to make clear to you here is that I want the debate to be on a higher plane here. I have not degenerated it to a lower level at this point, but I sense by the comments that you are making to me here you want it to move in that direction. I am not adverse to that. I mean, I have played at this game now for a number of years, and we can move to that level if you want. But I am trying to play this at a higher level here and have some constructive debate take place, and I want to make sure that the department is not going to be shortchanged down the road here. I am the critic responsible, and I want to make sure that they are able to do the job to which they are mandated to do, whether it be in Employment Standards, Workplace Safety and Health or any other area of the department.

I understand the Labour Board has a job to do. I want to make sure they have sufficient funds to do it, because your government has mandated that they undertake that work. That is what I am trying to ensure here that you have the ability as minister to go back to cabinet and say, you said before I came to this job that this is going to be the role of the Labour Board. If the best guess was not accurate, because it is only a guess at this point, I understand that, that when it comes to the end of the year, if there are not sufficient funds, the cabinet has to understand that they mandated the changes and they mandated the additional workload. Therefore, they have to find in some way without raising taxes, as the minister suggested, because he wants to move this to a lower level of debate here--that Labour Board would be the cause of having to raise those taxes when it was the legislation that was the cause.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, this is not a game. I take this very seriously. I think the department worked diligently on preparing the Estimates, and their determination was that this part of our department required additional resources. I have already indicated that we have found those resources, and it is the very best thinking within the department that this is adequate. It might be too much. It might be not enough. We will have to deal with that at the appropriate time.

Again, the work of the Labour Board has to go on, and we will have to wait, along with the member, to see what volume of work they have and to see if this is adequate or not. I have indicated that the challenge to the department would be to find those additional resources if necessary, and they are confident that they can do that.

Mr. Reid: Okay, I will continue to monitor the situation with respect to the Labour Board activities, as I am sure the minister would expect me to do.

I want to ask the minister, since the legislation is now into effect, have there been any applications for information as a result of Bill 26 legislation, and if so, how many?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed there has been one application.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister shed more light on that particular application?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that there was one application and it was rejected, because the individual who brought forward the request was not deemed to be an employee.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate, was the person who made the application part of the company itself to which the request was made, or was this made by a member of the public?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told it was a former employee.

Mr. Reid: So that is the only request that has been made so far since February 1, the one particular individual that was a former employee of that particular operations, or member of that particular unit has made that request. That is the only person.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, the member has it right. This was the only formal request.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, because he says there was only one formal application, were there any informal applications for information?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister shed some light on who the informal request came from?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told it was a media request.

* (1620)

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me which particular media made the request?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told all the information we have here is that it was a radio station.

Mr. Reid: When you say a radio station, can you identify the radio station or a particular individual that, perhaps, by name would shed some light on this, so that we do not have to continually go down the road?

Mr. Gilleshammer: That information was given to me a few minutes ago, when you asked the question. I am told staff here do not have that information.

Mr. Reid: So as my leader so clearly points out here, there is no disclosure on the disclosure of who is asking for the information. Is that where we are at here? We cannot have access to the name of the company or the individual that was involved in the informal request for financial information?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I have given the committee all the information I have.

Mr. Reid: Perhaps the minister, if he does not have the information here, perhaps he can tell me, can he get that information provided to me at some point in the next few days?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I will make every effort to do that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): Do you want to let this pass?

Mr. Reid: I am just trying to get an understanding here. I guess, I am trying to recall the legislation and what the requirements were with respect to disclosure. Have there been at this point in time--and it may be too early in the year and the minister can advise with respect to the financial disclosure provisions--has the Labour Board encountered any difficulties with respect to the completion of their mandate with regard to Bill 26?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I recall when I met with the leaders of the union community, the Manitoba Federation of Labour, this was an issue and an area we had some discussions on. I think our attitude was presented to them that we were prepared to be flexible as we moved into this new piece of legislation, to work with the various unions to give what assistance we could to establish a new way of doing business, and that flexibility was going to be accompanied with whatever assistance we could provide. I am told this information, by and large, in this new way of doing business, has developed in a manner that nobody has been unhappy about.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, one last question here, there is an individual that is in the managerial capacity here, is there a secretarial or administrative support that is provided full time for that particular position?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there is suitable support available.

Mr. Reid: Is that support dedicated full time to that position?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): 11.2.(e) Manitoba Labour Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $567,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $375,000--pass.

11.2.(f) Workplace Safety and Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Reid: I know the minister wants to skip over this one quickly, but unfortunately that is not going to occur. He must expect--[interjection] No, I would not do that. I told you I am going to try and take the high road. It does not mean that we will not get into some debate or some discussion over what is occurring here. This is an area that I told the minister that when we were in committee on the Workers Compensation Board that I would be raising some questions with respect to prevention in education, because it is from my experience working in heavy industry for over 20 years, that--

An Honourable Member: What did you do there?

Mr. Reid: I worked as a labourer for a private firm for a number of years, and then I worked as an electrician for about 11 or 12 years in heavy industry in the railway, and then into middle management capacity. It is no secret. It is my life's experience that we have an ongoing process that is required to not only teach the new employees that are coming into the workplace, but to continually refresh the memories and to encourage both management and line employees to work in a safer fashion, and to encourage that all activities that are undertaken in the performance of that business are done in the safest way possible.

I would like to know what efforts the Workplace Safety and Health Branch are undertaking to continually educate and to train and to upgrade and to ensure that companies and employees are aware of the proper procedures, the proper equipment that is available, and if they do not know, to ask the questions.

I understand there are, and have been involved for a number of years in the Workplace Safety and Health teams that are there. I have been involved from both sides of the fence, both management and employee side, in those committees that deal with issues internally, but from my experience there was always a lot of wrangling that takes place. You do not have adequate ducting for an area that has a lot of welding, and it is an issue that is raised, and it can sometimes sit on the Order Paper for that particular operation for a period of many months, sometimes even into years. Sometimes there are various reasons, the equipment is not available, there is a technology or an engineering that has to take place. I understand that. Sometimes there is just foot dragging that takes place. That has to be dealt with.

So I need to know what type of an educational approach you are taking to ensure that the employees themselves, and that the managers in those particular operations, are fully aware of what their legal requirements are, and also the procedures that are involved to ensure that they are working in the appropriate, safe fashion. Do you have an educational process or program that is in place to continually allow for the training of the workforce?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I would like to introduce Geoff Bawden who has joined us at the table. He is the executive director, Workplace Safety and Health Division, and someone that I have come to know and work with over the last four months. I am certainly interested in my honourable friend's background in the workforce, and I told him earlier that we had a lot in common. I too worked for the CN for a short period of time, and my father spent all of his working life working for the Canadian National Railway.

* (1630)

This whole area of safety is a concern, certainly a shared responsibility amongst employees, employers. The government most definitely has a role to play in terms of monitoring and working with various Workplace Safety and Health committees. I recall that I was in the school system when this initiative first became prominent. I recall our early attempts at setting up Workplace Safety and Health committees in a school setting, which to a lot of teachers and principals and auxiliary staff seemed rather strange because, other than ducking some flying chalk from time to time, it was not deemed to be a place that was particularly dangerous or where a lot of injuries could happen; yet, always very conscious where you had young children that you had to have all the fire safety programs in place, and where we had chemicals in the labs had to be sure that we had ongoing programs to be sure that both staff and students were aware of what could happen.

I recall in my high school career being in a lab when a piece of phosphorous was being cut and went across the room and started a fire. Later, when I was a principal, we had a supervising teacher out of the room and children were playing with burners, and we had a young lad, who is probably in his 40s now, get burned rather seriously. He was in Grade 11 at the time, but it was a wake-up call to many people in the system that these things can happen.

I recall when we first got into the ski programs back in the late '60s and early '70s, broken legs were the order of the day. We used to strap those skis on as tightly as we could and as soon as that young skier fell, often they broke a limb. So I think in my experience in the school setting that we became more and more aware of safety concerns, and that it was everybody's responsibility.

The department has some ongoing programs right across the province. I think the member probably is aware that we have offices in places like The Pas, Thompson, Flin Flon, Brandon, Dauphin, as well as here in Winnipeg, where staff are employed that are concerned with Workplace Safety and Health training. We have a rather lengthy list of activities that go on pretty well year round to be sure that individuals, whether they are management or whether they are employees, who are in the workforce have an opportunity to take these training courses.

I am told that last year some 7,000-plus hours of safety training was offered by the departmental staff and that over a hundred training courses were offered. So I guess the provincial government's role as part of the partner with employees and employers is to put in place training programs that have to do with safety issues in the workplace. This is something that has to be done on an ongoing basis as new staff come into the workforce, as new techniques are used, as new technology comes into place.

I mean who would have thought even 10 or 15 years ago that people who were doing repetitive office procedures would find themselves in some difficulty. We probably a decade and two decades ago thought of people getting injured mainly from lifting or falling or, you know, something happening on the job site and I guess have become more and more aware. Those employees and those problems were there before, but probably while they were known to the employee in a general sense probably were not understood in some cases and went undetected and undocumented. So the activities have changed a good deal.

I can recall that back probably in the '70s, the first time somebody from the Hazardous Materials came along and said we would like to check your lab to see what you had there, and I mean across western Manitoba truckloads of old chemicals were taken out of the schools. Some of them that had not been used for years and years, and with changing staff and changing students, people did not even know what it was, and if they did, they probably would have disposed of it just in the local landfill site. So things have changed a lot.

I think the department has taken a rather comprehensive leadership role in providing information, providing courses and raising the awareness of employees and the general public to a degree that we have not seen before. At the same time, we have to be aware that certain occupations, people are involved in more difficult and dangerous work and where we have serious injuries and fatalities. I know of particular interest to me, and I think I mentioned it in my comments yesterday, is the whole issue of farm safety. We have too many fatalities, too many injuries on the farm. In fact, just yesterday, a former colleague, known to the honourable member and members here, had a serious injury on his farm where his shirt was caught in a power takeoff and his arm was--I am not sure the extent of the damage, but these things happen when people are working alone and when people are tired. People have deadlines and serious injuries happen.

I know that on Hutterite colonies where we have a lot of activity, we have a number of injuries and accidents. The reference I made in my speaking notes is that there will be a farm conference here in 1998, a conference that is often held in the U.S. So I am pleased that Manitoba is hosting it. For too long I think, we thought this was the normal business that these things happened, and it tended to be human error in most cases, but I think government, Department of Agriculture, farm machinery operators and sales people as well as agents who sell chemicals have become much more active in that area.

* (1640)

I recall the first time I heard of somebody dying very quickly from mixing chemicals, and this was an elderly, well-respected gentleman just west of Minnedosa. He actually had his sleeves rolled up, and he was mixing the chemicals by hand, using his hands and his arms without any protection. I think there was a time when we did not fully realize the dangers that these chemicals could bring on to people. So, again, we still have a lot of work to do here, and I think the department in putting forward all those courses in the last year, all of those hours, across a whole number of areas through these offices spread throughout the province are taking an active role.

I know that probably later we are going to get into talking about the Fire Commissioner's office. I had the opportunity to visit there a number of times in recent years, and in many of our rural communities we use the volunteer fire brigade as another line of services that are given in small communities. I am not exactly sure what I was doing in April of 1995, but there was an accident on Main Street in Minnedosa where a small bridge was being built, and there was a crane operating and it was snowing. He was trying to lift something, and he was on unlevel ground. The whole thing tipped over, pinning two people underneath. Again, weather conditions, somebody taking some risks and obviously some training that either had not sunk in or had not been received, an issue that needed to be addressed.

I can recall in my student days when I worked for the federal government at Riding Mountain National Park, and we were doing water and sewer lines, somebody was sick, and the boss came along and said, well, who wants to learn how to operate the backhoe today? It is sort of humorous now when I think of people getting in there pulling and shifting levers and this awkward looking arm just flipping all over the place. But I suspect there are areas of the province that maybe that could still happen. So, again, this shared responsibility that we have with employers and employees and government leads us to believe that these ongoing training programs have to continue.

So, with those few words, I would say, yes, we have a role to play.

Mr. Reid: I understand that there is a role to play, and it is a broad role that you have. It is not just the industrialized workforce that would require your observations and interventions from time to time. There is indeed, having worked on the farm from time to time with friends and having been involved with equipment and knowing of my former colleague Mr. Plohman, who is now back into the teaching profession, his brother was killed in a farm accident where he got caught in a PTO. So I remember the stories that he was telling, and the effect that it had and the devastation that it wreaked on his family.

So I understand what is involved in it, and having been involved and watched farm operations and the amount of chemicals that are involved, and having been involved in the workforce when the WHMIS legislation came in federally, there may have been some warts in that system, but it did provide a level of information to the workforce and made us all aware, because we had to stop and take stock of what was around us and the way we conducted our business. So, if nothing else, it was an education for us in understanding of the product that we were working with. I know it is federal in nature, but is there a requirement that the chemical information that should be available to the products that are used on the farm--does the WHMIS legislation apply also to farms? Is that information distributed to those that are operating or working on farms or own farms so that they may be aware of the risks that are involved and take precautions to protect themselves?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told that the labelling of pesticides and farm chemicals is under its own legislation, federal legislation. So it is lodged there. Again, I see small companies across this province dedicating a lot of staff time to being sure that individual operators who purchase product and sometimes rent equipment--I think they have taken a very serious effort to be involved in disseminating that information, although there is so much more to be done.

I can recall aerial applicators using students to mark the field so that they knew where to make the next pass, and that does not go back very far. There is lots to be done there. I mean, the whole area of student employment, as we get into that area--you are reading items in the paper now about the dangers of this whole flood cleanup, not knowing exactly what has been washed north from the U.S. and what has been picked up by that water. I know that there is going to be a lot of student employment there.

I think part of the responsibility of the agencies, whether it is the Green Team or what have you, is going to have to be sure that these young people understand that there are some potential dangers there. I know that efforts are being made with individuals, who were into cleaning up their homes, to be sure that they take whatever precautions they need to to protect themselves from some of the potential dangers that will result from this flood.

So there are so many areas where there is work to do. I think it is a challenge to the department. To their credit, they seem to be ahead of most of these things in providing the training, providing the leadership and providing the partnership that is needed with individual companies and individual operators and employees. Again, I cannot stress enough what a shared responsibility this is.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Reid: Just so I do not get a call from Hansard later too, I should indicate what WHMIS stands for: Workplace Hazardous Material Information System. It would be appropriate so that they know when they put that designation in the record later, they will have an idea what the acronym is for.

An Honourable Member: You will probably make somebody in the basement very happy.

Mr. Reid: Yes, hopefully, I do not get the call now. Can you tell me, because you have a farm conference, you say, that is coming up here--it would be the first time. I understand that WHMIS is a federal responsibility here, but if you are going to have this conference relating to farms, chemicals, and the potential workplace accidents that can occur there, is there not some monitoring that takes place when our inspectors go out to the various business establishments where there are chemicals, pesticides that are sold, fertilizers, et cetera, and where there is equipment that is sold, whether it be combines, tractors, augers, whatever, that the appropriate guards are in place and protections are in place, and the training, not manuals but, perhaps, brochures or pamphlets are available to those that are in the farm communities? Do you make this information available? Do you do inspections of those chemical companies to make sure that the information is available and disseminated to the farmers themselves in the province or those that are working on farms?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we have a role to play there with different companies and corporations that are involved either on the hardware side with machinery or on the chemical side. I am told that all of the Ag offices across the province have literature available, some of it provided by our department. I am sure other information is provided by other sources and that there are courses available to be sure that the Ag reps are up to speed on some of the latest technology and equipment and chemicals that are out there. I know the member said that he did have a bit of a farm background, and he will probably recall that--pardon me, some experience in the rural area, and I am sure he is the better for it, but that the local Ag rep tends to be the individual who is the local expert. The Ag office sometimes consists of not only an Ag rep, but home economist, who also tends to be a source of a tremendous amount of information for rural people.

The Ag reps, of course, have historically played that role. In fact, farmers often would go to the Ag office to get the latest government information on what they should plant, and then they would plant something different on the basis that government did not know much about seeding and what the crops should be that they put in the ground. We do work through the Ag offices, the Ag reps and the home economists to provide the information pamphlets and a challenge to keep up to date on the latest technology and chemicals and so forth.

* (1650)

I know those Ag offices are very, very busy and dispensing information to agricultural producers across rural Manitoba, and I think they have developed real partnerships with chemical companies and distributors with organizations that sell farm machinery. Even the most experienced operators out there can get into difficulty and, again, I think part of the role that those offices have to play is to encourage people to look after their own health and be sure that they are not working 16-hour days, whether it is seeding or spraying or planting, and often that is where the accidents happen.

Again, the Ag reps have to really stay current so that the advice and the information they are providing to producers is accurate. Again, we have a role to play there, and the conference of which we speak, we will have a role to play there as well. Now I believe that there will be many partners involved in this activity. Certainly, departments of Agriculture, provincially and nationally, have experience from previous years in presenting these conferences and trying to do it in the best way possible.

We have an agricultural committee of the Advisory Council on Workplace Safety and Health and they, again, are active in assessing issues and providing information, so it is apparent that the partnerships that have been developed between Workplace Safety and Health spans many other partners out there, whether they are government or nongovernment.

Mr. Reid: I am happy to see that there is some involvement, although I guess there is always room for improvement to reduce or eliminate the accidents that are happening in farm-type operations, so I hope the conference that is planned is successful and that we can improve on the education of those who are working in that particular occupation.

I want to ask a question to go back more directly to the Workplace Safety and Health. Can you tell me how many actual field inspectors you have this year working in Workplace Safety and Health, and are there any vacancies within the department currently? If so, if there are any vacancies, when do you anticipate that you will fill them?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there are no vacancies. I have an organizational chart here and it would be my estimation, without taking the time to count them, that we have around 25 to 27, that area, 25 to 30 people involved in this area of the department.

Mr. Reid: How many worksites would fall under the category of being eligible to be inspected by these field officers that you have? How many firms would be required to be part of the mandate or inspection?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that there are about 40,000 worksites across the province and about 20,000 of those have a relationship with Workers Compensation Board, and we spend about 95 percent of our time at those worksites.

Mr. Reid: When you talked about the number of field inspectors being 25 to 30, I would like to have an idea here on what your field inspectors are. If you are inspecting 20,000 firms and you have 25 people--let us give them the benefit of the doubt and say you can inspect three or four firms a day--that does not mean you get to those firms very often, those 20,000 firms. So I have to ask--I take it these 20,000 high-risk firms, because they have experience with the Workers Compensation system, do have workplace accidents--how often would you get to these firms, these 20,000 firms?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, as my honourable friend can appreciate, that will vary from one sector to another, and as one would expect, the activities of the inspectors will be focused on those areas where they feel that there are issues that need to be addressed. Some of them are complaint driven. I know that in the whole mining area that I did see statistics on the number of inspections there, and a fair amount of time is spent in that particular sector of the economy.

I am just waiting here for the final tally, and it appears that there are 33 folks that are working in the field related to Workplace Safety and Health. The member raises the question about whether that is adequate or not. I guess, in the four months that I have been here, I do not have an opinion on that, but, you know, the member raises a good question that we would probably need some time to get some feedback on.

There may be some particular sectors where they think there are too many inspectors and others that perhaps have not seen one frequently enough. So it becomes kind of a judgment, but I can commit to the member that it is an area of some interest to me and that we will be monitoring this as time goes on. I am heartened that the information brought forward by the department shows that the number of fatalities and serious injuries has declined substantially in the last 10 years. The trend is going in the right direction. I know we have talked about this before, that any death or injury is too many, and we are going to have the ongoing challenge of trying to reduce that even further. It becomes more difficult to keep reducing it further than now, but it is still a challenge that I think we have to accept and to meet.

So, again, whether we have enough inspectors or not sometimes is a judgment that people make on anecdotal information, and it is always good to be able to look at the statistics so that we can see where the accidents and injuries and fatalities are occurring. I think it is incumbent upon us as a department to shift our resources appropriately if we feel that there is a sector that needs additional support and observation from government. We need to have the capacity to do that.

Again, there are a lot of partnerships out there. I know that I have met with the Manitoba Safety Council, probably six or eight weeks ago, and there is an outside agency that has a tremendous interest in the safety of Manitobans. Some of the work that they do is similar to what we do within the department. Their emphasis is, of course, on awareness and education, information and prevention. I think another challenge there is to ensure that we are not replicating what they are doing or they are not duplicating what we are doing. Again, I sense that this has been a positive partnership where we are not competing with one another but in turn working together in sponsoring events and exchanging ideas and trying to work towards the same goal.

So I can assure the member that we will monitor the statistics. We will monitor the sectors where incidents are occurring, and, if need be, make staffing adjustments recommended by the department to try and be as comprehensive as we can across the province in working with people to resolve these issues.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour, committee rise.