Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to announce, before moving a motion respecting Supply, some changes in the order of Estimates as agreed to between the opposition House leader and myself. This is after consultation, but I suppose this is something that requires leave in order to make this change.
In the House, Madam Speaker, after review of the Estimates of the Department of Rural Development, we would then proceed to the Department of Education and Training followed by the Department of Northern Affairs. In other words, Education and Training and Northern Affairs simply change places.
In Room 254, Madam Speaker, following the review of the Estimates of the Department of Labour, the committee would move next to the Department of Energy and Mines, followed by the review of the Estimates of the Civil Service Commission. After Civil Service Commission, the vote called Employee Benefits and Other Payments, which is presently listed for consideration in Room 255, would then move to Room 254, following review of the Estimates of the Civil Service Commission, and after that the Department of Family Services and on as set out in the order that has been filed. We will cause a new document to be prepared and made available.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to change the order of Estimates as follows: to follow Rural Development in the Chamber, Education and Training, to then be followed by Northern Affairs? [agreed]
Is there leave to change the rotation in Room 254 as I will now list? Energy and Mines to be followed by Civil Service Commission to be followed by Employee Benefits and Payments and then Family Services? [agreed]
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), 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.
When the committee last sat, unanimous consent had been granted to revert back to line 11.2.(f) Workplace Safety and Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits. The member for Transcona, to continue his questions.
* (1440)
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, when we had ended on Thursday last, I had been asking questions with respect to farm safety and whether or not the department was in the process of getting further involved in farm safety programs in the sense of doing audits.
I know that Workplace Safety has an extensive workload now, and I do not know what plans the minister has, if any, with respect to doing audits in situations where we may have farming operations that would employ more than just family farm members; also, whether or not the minister is considering taking any steps to ensure that where you have larger farming operations in the sense where there are a number of employees of the particular farming operation that may be working perhaps on a year-round basis, that these would fall under the umbrella of the Department of Workplace Safety and Health and perhaps the Workers Compensation Board, as well, for the educational campaigns that I know they undertake.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, last day I had indicated that we would generate again the information that was asked for last year, and I would like to pass that on to my honourable friend for Transcona; also that we talked at some length about farm safety and the fact that there is a farm safety conference coming here in June of this year, June 21 to 25, called Sharing Knowledge for a Secure Tomorrow, and I have some pamphlets on that that I know he will be interested in.
I think that further to the question asked, we do have a good working relationship with the Department of Agriculture and are quite prepared to share our expertise when we are asked and are prepared to assist them when they present issues where they want a common approach and a partnership to direct our attention to.
Also, I believe I said last day that in addition to the Department of Agriculture I think it is very important in Manitoba to work with the major farm organizations and the major producer groups, and my honourable friend will know that the Department of Agriculture is not underrepresented in terms of organizations out there, starting with the department itself and the field officers that they have I think in 40 locations throughout Manitoba, and I know particularly over the winter months they hold many, many seminars on a wide variety of topics, often topics that are generated from the local community, and I know from first-hand experience that these are well attended; also that the department is not reticent to bring forth staff from other departments to address issues that may be of interest to them.
Similarly, the major farm organization, the Keystone Agricultural Producers, with the funding they have in place and the staff they have in place, similarly work in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture to work on issues that are of interest to farmers, including farm safety. Also, most of the producer groups, whether it is the Canola Council, Manitoba Pork, the cattlemen's association are well represented on many, many committees out there, and I would say that they, along with the Department of Agriculture, take the lead in this area, and if we can be of assistance to them, we would be happy to do so.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for the information which he has shared with us here with respect to the conference that is coming forward, and I would appreciate receiving a copy of the pamphlet if he would not mind. I just raise these issues with the minister knowing that 118 people have died in farming accidents, and by far the largest portion of them are in the 15 to 59 age bracket which is obviously people that are working in and about their farming operations, not to mention the children themselves living on farms that themselves are killed in accidents on the farms.
I just draw that information to the minister's attention, that there is a large number which seems to be growing with respect to fatalities in farming operations, and I know there are a relatively large number of farming organizations that do try to provide some guidance to government in matters such as this, but if there is something that we can do to eliminate or at least, at minimum, to significantly reduce the number of farming accidents, I think it would be money well spent to assist and obviously to save the lives.
So I leave that with the minister. I do not know if he has other comments that he wishes to share with us, but I will leave that to the minister.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I guess a caution that is good for all of us is in our use of statistics and, without referencing a period of time, it can sometimes be misleading. I am looking at a chart that shows traumatic fatalities over a 10-year period, and I think the member said 118 fatalities. I am not just sure what period of time he was referencing there, but the information that I have is that over a 10-year period there have been 76 farm-related traumatic fatalities, giving you seven or eight a year.
I will certainly agree with the member that that is too many. Too many of them are in the age category that he references and too many of them come at times when there is a considerable amount of pressure within the farm community, either for planting or for harvesting. Where weather is a factor, certainly we must encourage farmers to be more careful to recognize the hazards that are there but, again, we will commit to working with our sister department, the Department of Agriculture, in any way we can to assist in that area.
Mr. Reid: Well, if the minister references assisting the Department of Agriculture in this area, which would be the primary department involved, do we have any dedicated resources in either Agriculture or under Workplace Safety and Health to assist in that prevention process?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have dedicated staff who are able to work with the Department of Agriculture. All of our rural offices in the south where agriculture is practised have people who have some training in that area and, again, the Department of Agriculture I cannot answer for. I know that the 40 offices they have do a multitude of things. I guess I would have to refer him to the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture, but for sure there is more work that can be done in this area and, if we can be of assistance to that department, I believe it is incumbent on us to offer them assistance.
Mr. Reid: The minister references 40 offices for the Department of Agriculture throughout various parts of the province. Have any of those people that are staffing those offices and going out and no doubt visiting farming operations and have some involvement with the farming community received any training from Workplace Safety and Health, or is this particular process left strictly up to agricultural people themselves to obtain whatever methods they would devise by way of preventing accidents?
Has the Department of Labour been involved in providing any instruction to prevent these accidents, to provide the training to the people?
* (1450)
Mr. Gilleshammer: The answer is yes. We have provided some training for those individuals in the farming area, and we have also assisted in building up a library of information, both hard copy and information that can be retrieved electronically on safety issues.
Mr. Reid: Will the Department of Agriculture people then have access to the data bank information that is held by Workplace Safety and Health dealing with involvement with chemicals, for example, or other hazardous materials that would be on a farming operation? Would that be something that would be held by Workplace Safety and access through your computer links from these various remote sites or the satellite offices from the Agriculture department?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The short answer is yes. I would also suggest that another very good source of information besides the Department of Labour is the chemical companies that have been under, I think, pressure over the years to be sure that the chemicals that they produce and handle and store and market do come with a certain amount of training. I know from individuals that I know in farming, and particularly in handling chemical, that that has become such a big part of farming. When you hear farmers talk about laying another layer of chemical on a crop because of whatever conditions, and how much money that costs per acre, it is a big part of their production costs. I know that from talking to professionals in the chemical business that have offices and plants across the province, my sense is that they have become more and more aware of their responsibility in terms of disseminating information. I know that they too put on one- or two-day seminars, particularly in the off-season when grain farmers in particular have the time and opportunity to attend those. So there is, I think, a co-ordinated attempt within government to work between our department and the Department of Agriculture and, through them, their field reps, but there are also producer groups, and there are also chemical companies, that have a role to play.
Mr. Reid: I am thinking specifically in the hazardous materials, involving with chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, et cetera. In my own personal experience, when the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System came out, there was a process whereby a certain amount of instruction had to take place for the people that were working with the particular products. Now, when you are not in a workplace where you have a management structure, and farm operations quite often--the family farm situation, in particular, does not have that, although if you are more into the larger farming operations, then there may be structure in there. What type of a process do you have, then, or do you leave it strictly up to the chemical companies and their distributors to pass on the WHMIS information to the workplace, to the farming operations to make sure that the people are aware of the precautions and any effects of becoming directly involved or in contact with those hazardous materials?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We do not have a direct relationship in terms of the information that is passed on to producers. That, by and large, is handled through the producer organizations, through the Department of Agriculture, but I believe we do have a degree of knowledge within the department of the chemicals. Also, it is my understanding that the Department of Environment also has people involved in this area.
Mr. Reid: I am sure we could go on at great length, Mr. Chairperson, with respect to farm safety issues, and I know the minister is aware, through his department, of a number of fatalities, and the numbers that I was referencing went for a period of time, slightly longer than what the minister had referenced, so the numbers seem to be fairly close in relationship to the ones that I am aware of. But, if there is something that we can do to assist the Department of Agriculture, the various farming organizations in the province, to do preventative programs, educational programs with the farming community, I think it would be money that would be well spent with respect to personal safety for people living and working on farming operations. The minister, I think, is going to add a comment.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I guess the only point that I make, these numbers catch my eye from time to time, and we are probably better off to talk about yearly actuals and averages rather than global numbers. I know that I have some others that I may mention later on in our discussions. Sometimes they sort of jump off the page at you, and people get alarmed with the number that is being thrown around when it is not put in the proper context. I just feel that we have to do that, so that we are operating with really accurate and correct information.
Mr. Reid: I want to go on with another line of questioning now with respect to Workplace Safety and Health Branch. The annual report that we have is somewhat dated now, and the new annual report is no doubt due out sometime soon. I will be asking some questions with respect to the number of audits, for example, that have taken place and to give staff a chance to perhaps gather that information, but first I want to ask, I think the minister has an advisory committee that would meet on workplace safety and health issues. Can you tell me when the last time that particular committee met?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told they met this morning.
Mr. Reid: That is pretty timely.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I knew you were going to ask.
Mr. Reid: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Just kidding.
Mr. Reid: Thank you for being prepared. Were there any issues arising out of that particular committee meeting that would need to be referred to the minister with respect to, perhaps, changing of regulations or revising of statute?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have not seen the minutes of this morning's meeting, but I am sure that they will come forward on a timely basis.
Mr. Reid: Are these minutes only for the internal consumption of the department, or will critics have the opportunity to see that information as well?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that once the minutes have been approved at a subsequent meeting, that they are forwarded to the leader of the official opposition, amongst others.
Mr. Reid: With respect to audits that are taking place, I have read the annual report for Workplace Safety and Health from last year's information. Can you tell me the number of audits that were performed by the department for this past fiscal year, the one that ended on March 31, 1998?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that in terms of complete audits, there would be in the neighbourhood of 25. If we are talking about inspections, then it is a greater number.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me how many inspections would have been involved?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The year-end statistics have not been finalized yet, as the member can appreciate, but it would be in the range of 1,500 to 2,000.
Mr. Reid: That seems to be down over last year's numbers where there were 1,800 inspections that took place and you had just under 1,700 improvement orders. Is there a reason why there seems to be a lower number here? You are giving me a ballpark, I understand, between 1,500 and 2,000, but that is quite a wide range. If you take the low end of that scale, of course, there would be a significant drop in the number of inspections.
Mr. Gilleshammer: We would be pleased to give the member a more complete answer once the statistics are compiled, but I do believe the number from the previous year is within the range that I quoted to the member. If you are saying the range is too wide, that is, I suppose, an estimate at this time. As soon as the year-end numbers are in, so that we have the exact number, it will probably be between 1,500 and 2,000. It may actually be very similar to last year, but we do not know until the numbers are crunched.
* (1500)
Mr. Reid: Could you tell me the process that the department goes through with respect to inspections? I am going to ask the same question with respect to audits. How is it that you initiate these? Do your field officers, your hygienists, do they go in to a workplace unannounced on a random inspection? What type of a process do you have set up to make sure that the businesses--and I referenced the fact that the department, I believe, was undergoing an analysis of the high-risk occupations and looking to do some orderly inspections in those areas, but obviously that would leave out a significant number of other worksites in the province. How do you undertake to ensure that those other worksites that may, perhaps, not fall into the high-risk categories have inspections undertaken with respect to their operations to make sure that things are performing properly in those locations?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I think the direction the branch has moved is to look at the sectors where the higher risks exist. This, to some degree, is based on Workers Compensation Board statistics so that those audits and those inspections are more prevalent in that area. There are also random inspections across the system and an attempt by various means, publication, electronic means, conferences, to also bring forward that information that would help in workplace safety.
I know that I have attended three workshop/conferences since the beginning of the new year where, I guess, one of the things that impressed me was the degree of partnership that has developed between individuals in the workplace with management and companies and government, and the relationships tended to be very positive whether I talked to people who were on the management side or people who were union members and union leaders. Those workshops were very, very productive, and the mood around there was very good.
At those, there were publications that were available to participants. There was a lot of information being disseminated. So, I guess, the question is always, where do we best put our resources? Through a variety of means, the branch is able to work with the various industries to provide safety training and safety advice, and we will use our inspection function probably where we see the risks are the greatest.
Mr. Reid: Well, I know you need to have some tool of measurement to look at the high-risk industries, and, I guess, the Workers Compensation Board statistics would probably be as strong as any. I am also concerned here that there are a significant number of firms in the province that do not fall into that particular classification. It does not seem to me from what you are saying that there seems to be any orderly way that the department would be able to go into any of these operations, perhaps, in a career.
I do not know if you make random inspections on any of these operations. Judging by the number of workplaces in the province, I think there are, what, 40,000 workplaces in the province. Based on the number of inspectors you have and if you are concentrating most of your resources into the high risk, that would have to exclude a fairly large number of operations in the province which may never see a random inspection take place.
Now, I guess, if accidents are not reported or accidents are not occurring, perhaps the department is not concerned about that. I would hope that they would want to do random inspections from time to time on every operation in the province to make sure that things are done in a safe and appropriate fashion. But there does not seem to be, outside of the high-risk industries or operations of the province, some plan to undertake, even in two to three years or four years of operation, to pay a visit and look at the operations and how they are controlled in their day-to-day activities with respect to safety and health.
Is there no plan that you can develop within the department to say that certain business operations fall without the parameters of the high-risk operations and set up some type of a timetable to provide some guidance to these operations, so that they can at least see the inspector come around to show the employees that are working there that there is some concern and some interest in their safety and health within that particular occupation?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I did say there were random inspections, so that does take place from time to time. There are also inspections that are complaint driven, and the member knows that there are committees in many workplaces that are mandatory with a certain number of employees--I guess, 20--that they do have access to people who can demand or ask for either an audit or a random inspection.
I know that I, you know, back in the '80s in my particular workplace, which was a school setting with upwards of 30 people employed there that we never ever saw an inspector come into that workplace, but we did have an active safety and health committee that found a way of dealing with these things with the support of the local maintenance people and the school board. Now, I know that there were boiler inspectors that came in the summer to do that part of the inspection but, in terms of the workplace, I do not think in the '80s we were inspected once by a safety inspector, but we had another way to address those issues, and it was very effective. People could either anonymously bring them forward or through either an employee or employer rep on that particular group, and little things were done to remedy those.
There are also complaint-driven inspections as well as the random ones. The complete audits can be reasonably time consuming where you go into a workplace for up to two weeks and you can occupy two people for those two weeks doing a very, very thorough audit of a worksite. I think the member offers some advice, and we can take a look at that. If he feels that we can be more effective, I think it is incumbent on us to listen and, if there are good ideas, to put them into practice.
I have not had a lot of concerns brought to me. In fact, I am not sure if I have had any in the meetings that I have had with Workplace Safety and Health people that were not being addressed or people felt that they were not empowered to address them but, if you are suggesting that we take a look at doing more random inspections and perhaps fewer audits, it is something I think we should review probably on a yearly basis to make the best use of our resources and our people.
* (1510)
Mr. Reid: Well, at no time have I ever suggested nor will ever suggest that there would be a reduction of any type of an inspection, which would include audits. I am just looking for a process here that would allow for the, as based on what the department is terming high-risk versus non high-risk sectors, where we can ensure that there are activities of inspections that take place in those areas. Now, when the minister references times when they had their committee meetings, but you also had in your process the Manitoba Teachers' Society that could get involved should there be outstanding concerns, and you could address them that way. But you must admit that there are many places in the province that do not have the availability of that particular type of representation.
I guess an individual could go to Workplace Safety and Health and could file a complaint but at risk of losing their employment. I have seen situations like this happen before. When we get into Employment Standards I will reference what happened with some of the employees that filed complaints that I drew to the minister's attention last year. These people who work in nonunion or nonrepresented areas are at risk of losing their employment should they raise these issues and the employer become aware of it.
I have asked the department of Workplace Safety and Health to provide for me information relating to a particular industry here in the city dealing with committees to see how the committee structure is working and to see what the issues are with respect to the woodworking industry. I just chose at random one particular industry, and the department denied me the information, the minutes of the particular meetings. I did not ask for any third-party confidential information. That could have been stricken from the records if it was in there. I doubt it would be in there, but it could have been stricken, and yet I have been forced now, as the critic responsible for Workplace Safety and Health, to go to the Ombudsman's office and ask for some assistance in looking at minutes of Workplace Safety and Health committee meetings.
I am not asking or in any way going to jeopardize some process that the company may have, and I doubt that information would even be contained in the minutes of a Workplace Safety and Health meeting, so I do not know why the department is denied that information. This is one of the ways of third parties, in the sense of a person being involved in the process--myself in this case--kind of keeping in touch with what is happening.
Yes, you can go into workplaces, but it is pretty hard to go into 40,000 workplaces in the province as the critic responsible for Labour. It is a physical impossibility. Yes, I would never be in this building probably for the rest of my working life.
So I draw to the minister's attention that I have asked for the information; your department will not release it. Now, I have had to turn it over to the hands of the Ombudsman to find out why, because I do not see anything in The Workplace Safety and Health Act of this province that prohibits critics such as myself from gaining access to this particular information to make sure that the committees are first functioning and that regular meetings are being held. I have to accept at face value from the minister that these meetings are being held. I cannot see if there are issues that are being raised that are of a very serious nature. I cannot see if there are issues that are being raised over and over again that are not being resolved, because I do not have access to the minutes of these meetings.
So there are many pieces of information that are missing from the puzzle here that I just drew one particular industry and asked about it because it is a fairly large employer in the province.
I could have picked another firm in Steinbach, for example, not one here in Winnipeg, that does a similar type of operation and asked for the information, the Workplace Safety and Health minutes from that particular firm. I could have picked a furniture company that does woodworking or works with wood products and chosen that one. It was a random selection here that I asked for some information to find out about the process. There seems to be a growing business with respect to the manufacture of windows, and there is a fairly large number of people who are involved. In fact, I believe, if I am not mistaken, there may be a large turnover of people involved in that particular business.
Now, is the turnover in staff related to the Workplace Safety and Health issues? I do not know, because I have not been given access to the particular operation's Workplace Safety and Health minutes.
Now, I do not know what reasons you have for denying access to that, but I say to you, very openly, that if there is something, third-party confidentiality, about their particular manufacturing process that needs to be stricken from those records, I do not have a problem with that. I am not here to jeopardize any business operation in the province or to jeopardize the jobs that are attached to it or the investment that the owners have made. All I wanted to do was find out about the process of the committees and the issues that they are dealing with, and yet you have denied me access to that as the critic, and I do not understand. Perhaps you have a reason that you can share with me here why you have denied that access because I cannot find it in the act anywhere where it says you cannot give it to me.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would like to go back to the initial comments. Yes, we were all members of a very powerful union, the Manitoba Teachers' Society, but I tell you, in the years that I worked in the school system, we never ever had to bring in the hired guns from Harcourt and Portage Avenue to resolve workplace safety issues, that where there was good will between a school board and a local association and the school administration, the division administration, these things were worked out very well. As a result, we did not have to bring the heavy hand of the MTS into the equation, and I was just making the point that it worked reasonably well.
We have to, of course, make decisions every year on a workplan for this branch of the department but still leave the opportunity to deviate from that if there are complaints or if there are changes indicated by the statistics from the Workers Compensation Board, and we will have the ability to continue to do that, so that our inspections will always be in the best interests of the safety of workers and the safety of Manitobans. I do recognize that the member would have great difficulty in visiting 40,000 workplaces. I am sure he would be welcome at most of them, but it is a task that is pretty daunting, and he would not be able to perform his other duties here or in his constituency.
In relation to the release of Workplace Safety and Health division minutes, these documents are internal to that company, and I think that the best avenue for him to follow would be to approach the company to see if they were available. I do not think that we as a government and as an outside party want to pass on internal documents to just anybody, and if he wants to pursue that with the company, he should do so. But he has already indicated that--I think you indicated that you had approached the Ombudsman on this, and I think everyone in the province respects the Office of the Ombudsman over the years and the work that they have done, and I am sure that we should just let that process take place and we will see what happens.
The member did reference some of the industries that are growing in the province and I think referenced one in Steinbach. In fact, I heard staff from that company on the radio the other day, where all employees were asked to see if they could find additional employees because the company is growing so rapidly, with sales worldwide, that an employee could get a bonus of $250 if they brought someone to work who stayed for two weeks. People were taking advantage of the fact that they could bring friends and relatives and others who needed employment and could secure a job with an outstanding Manitoba company.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, where does it say in The Workplace Safety and Health Act that the company has ownership of the Workplace Safety and Health minutes?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I do not have the act, and I am not sure it is the practice that we have followed within the department not to release documents that are internal to the company. I do not know. I suggested the member approach the company to see if they would make those minutes available. I do not know whether he has done that or not.
* (1520)
Mr. Reid: I repeat my question, Mr. Chairman. Where in The Workplace Safety and Health Act does it say that the company, any company in the province of Manitoba out of the 40,000 companies operating here, has ownership of the Workplace Safety and Health committee minutes? Where does it say anywhere in the act that the company has ownership?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that there is no requirement for those committees to file their minutes with the department, and many of them do not, and a feeling within the department is as soon as we release them we will not have any of them filed with the department.
Mr. Reid: So you are telling me in your operations--and I believe there is a requirement in the act that says that companies must make the Workplace Safety and Health division aware of the functioning of those committees and any issues that they are dealing with and are perhaps outstanding, and you tell me that you are not aware through the minutes that should be provided to the Workplace Safety and Health inspectors?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I guess to be blunt, I am told that there is no such requirement in the act. The requirement is to have a committee and to keep minutes of those activities.
Mr. Reid: Then if you only inspect high-risk businesses in this province, and you do not have a process in place to investigate or to do random inspections of the other businesses in this province and there is no obligation to submit minutes to the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, how do you know that these committees are ever functioning? You never go in there and you never receive minutes. How do you know what is happening in these operations?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, just a minute, we do go into many operations across the province. My honourable friend is right. There is not time in any given year to go into all of the businesses. There are 2,000 workplaces in Manitoba with 20 or more employees where it is necessary to have a workplace safety and health committee. If the member is aware of any of those companies that do not have a committee, he could certainly pass that information on to us, and we would take that as information and do the appropriate thing. The member in his question, however, said--or at least intimated, if not said--that we only go into high-risk operations. That is not correct. Not too many minutes ago I indicated that there are random inspections--
An Honourable Member: Some of them.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, there are some audits; there are some inspections; there are some companies. Yes, we go into some. Also, I have indicated that some of the inspections are complaint driven, and I guess it is incumbent on the leadership in the department to deploy the workforce within the department in the most appropriate way.
If my honourable friend is saying that they are not being deployed appropriately, we would listen to his suggestions.
Mr. Reid: Well, I am not happy with what I see taking place with respect to the inspections. I have made no secret about this over a number of years. I have drawn this to the minister's attention. He says there are 2,000 businesses of over 20 employees, some more. In those I guess I need to ask you: of those 2,000 businesses, how many have you inspected this past year?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I have indicated that there were somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 inspections last year, and we will finalize that number for him. But now I think my honourable friend is saying that we should concentrate our inspections only on those businesses with 20 people or more. If we did that, I am sure next year he would be saying, well, you should have some balance to the inspections and also do inspections of companies of 20 or fewer. So I rely on the leadership within the branch to make the most appropriate use of those staff members that are there. On top of that we do have one staff member devoted to being sure that there are health and safety committees functional in those companies.
Mr. Reid: You referenced that you do, I think you said 25 audits in a year. Can you tell me which sectors you did audits on?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Of the audits that we did, the majority or many of them would be in the manufacturing sector; some were in the metal working; and some were in the sector of those that manufacture windows.
Mr. Reid: What were the results of your audits?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The 25 audits that were held last year had a variety of results depending on the nature of the company and the way that they operated, but the bottom line is that there was a significant reduction in accidents and reported accidents and actual accidents taking place within that company. That is the purpose of the audit; it is to go in and assist the management, the safety and health committee, the staff of that particular company to make their work environment safer. The results have been, to say the least, very gratifying that the changes are made and the workplace is safer from then on.
Mr. Reid: You referenced audits performed in manufacturing, metal industries and window manufacturing industries. Those were the three areas--.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Amongst others.
Mr. Reid: Amongst others. So this is not an exhaustive list, then, of the areas that you audited. Did most of your activities, then--would they have taken place in the high-risk areas or high-risk sectors?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, that was where we started, that we used the WCB statistics to give us some idea where there are more days lost, where there are more accidents reported, where there is more room for improvement. I know that I had an opportunity to look at a particular western Manitoba company, and I think that the numbers jumped out at you that there was room for improvement. Through use of the audit system, the intention is to improve safety in that workplace. My staff have informed me that it does work very well and that we do see a marked improvement. Now, you know, you might even think that maybe they would work themselves out of a job after they did a whole bunch of audits and inspections, but probably there is still room for improvement and we will continue with the process.
Mr. Reid: Since this is a wood manufacturing area, can you tell me, was Winnipeg Forest Products one of the areas that you audited?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We do not have that information here, but we can have staff check.
Mr. Reid: Perhaps then if I might make a suggestion based on some information that has come to my attention, and I do not want to single out this one company as the only one of the 40,000 companies that perhaps needs an audit, but this is one that has been drawn to my attention. It is involved in wood products. Wood dust is carcinogenic in larger quantities or doses. There is enough research that has been done in those areas, so I will leave that particular company.
* (1530)
Mr. Gilleshammer: It is called Winnipeg Forest Products?
Mr. Reid: Winnipeg Forest Products. It is on Plessis Road, which is the edge of my constituency, and perhaps you can bring back some information, if you will, and let me know if you have done an audit in that area and if you have done any inspections as well with respect to this particular operation.
I want to ask a question. This deals with another area involving a court case that I was quite distressed from what I heard. I am distressed from the point of view of the employees of Workplace Safety and Health Branch and, if the information that is coming to me is accurate, the department, and I am not necessarily saying that the Workplace Safety and Health Branch itself left the individual hanging out to dry. Perhaps it was the Justice department, which is part of Manitoba government, that was at fault here. But in the court case that happened involving the fatality of a mine worker who was an employee at HBM&S, it is my understanding that the company called so-called expert witnesses to testify at that particular hearing.
A Workplace Safety and Health Branch employee was also called as the expert witness on behalf of the government in testifying to the matters of this case involving the inspections and any other actions that may or may not have occurred. It is my understanding that the employee of the branch was made to look not in the best light--let me put it in that fashion--and I am wondering why or if the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, when these matters go before the courts, if there is some avenue that you can take to ensure that where there are people brought in with respect to defence matters that also the government takes the appropriate steps to ensure that the Workplace Safety and Health people, who may not have had all of the training necessary to perform the full function or duties, do not be left hanging out to dry when it comes to testifying before the courts, because that is what I sense happened in this particular situation.
I do not know if the minister has been briefed by his staff on that, and perhaps I should ask that question. Has this matter been drawn to your attention so that staff within the department are given every opportunity to present not only the facts of the case but are not made out to be the fall parties in situations like this?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, our role is to gather the appropriate information and to turn it over to the Department of Justice. After we have done that, then, as the member full well knows, it becomes part of the justice process where nobody is allowed to meddle in it. If we have had inspectors inspect and gather information, I mean, they simply have to present what they know in an honest and truthful fashion and allow the justice system to take its course. I do not know what the member is asking that we might do in cases like that. I suppose whatever witnesses are called will be up to the Crown and the defence attorneys, and our role would be simply to be sure that our staff are able and willing to give testimony to the evidence that they are a party to.
Mr. Reid: Well, I am not going to take anything away from the qualifications or the training that the individuals within the department have--and we can get in some further line of questioning on that in a few minutes--but my concern here is that there are so-called experts in the world with respect to mining operations and procedures, and if our people in Workplace Safety and Health Branch are not in the same category as the so-called experts when they get called to testify, they end up--put it this way. The credibility of the individuals from Workplace Safety and Health can be called into question, and I think that process undermines the activities of the Workplace Safety and Health Branch in general, not to mention the problems that it can create for the individual inspector in mines safety.
So I leave that with the minister. I mean, we can go into a long conversation about the type of training that these people have, but my concern here was that the individual was called to testify and was not in the same so-called category as the expert, and therefore the credibility of the individual carried less weight before the courts. The word of the individual seemed to carry less weight before the courts than the expert who was called by the company to testify in these matters, which puts the Workplace Safety and Health inspector, the mines inspector, at a significant disadvantage.
There should be some dialogue that takes place between the Justice department and the Labour department in how you deal with these matters to make sure that we have the appropriate people going before the courts to testify, because from what I know of the circumstances, from what I have been told of the circumstances of the case and the matters involving the accident, there should have been some communication that took place between the company and its workers, because there was more than one location that was involved, and I think there were improvement orders that were issued, and yet that information was not carried forward from one location to another by the company, and I believe the inspector was trying his best to make sure that that situation was corrected. Then when it went before the courts, of course, the expert managed to have their word taken at greater value than what the Workplace Safety and Health inspector had.
So I leave that with the minister as something that needs to be dealt with internal to the departmental operations in how you communicate with Justice when you come to matters like this. Now, we have had discussions in past years about the Justice department people, the Crown attorneys handling these cases. There does not seem to be a free flow of communication back and forth once the matter is turned over to Justice, but perhaps Justice, when they come across situations like this, need to do some further consultation with the department to make sure that you have the best advice available to you, which may not be internal to your operations.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, in the justice system--and I happen to think we have one of the finest justice systems in the world--cases get taken to court for adjudication. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, based on the evidence. Our staff are mines inspectors and mines engineers, and I think it is incumbent upon us to be sure that they are appropriately qualified and appropriately trained, and I do believe that this training can be an ongoing thing. If the member is saying that our staff are not appropriately trained, I would like him to be specific on that, but they are hired and qualified as mines engineers and mines inspectors.
Our role is to do the investigation and present the information to the Crown. The Crown then goes ahead and makes a decision, and we do not influence it one way or the other. We have presented the evidence and the information that we have, and then it is their responsibility to carry the case from there and make the appropriate decisions.
* (1740)
The member talks about expert witnesses. We cannot manufacture expert witnesses. Our role is to give the evidence that has been gathered by the people who are charged with making that inspection, and I happen to think--I have met a number of them, had an opportunity to travel in the North last year to The Pas and Flin Flon and Thompson and had a feeling that we have an excellent staff who perform this function. I sense the member is being somewhat critical of them, and I am not sure why. I believe that they do a good job for us, and they have to present the evidence as they have it. They do not have the opportunity to change that to make a point one way or the other.
Again, it is the responsibility of the Justice department to make the decision on whether charges are applied and whether it goes to court or not, but I do believe that we attempt to keep our employees current. I have seen comments from across the nation. In fact, some of our regulations, some of our information is being accepted in other provinces in Canada as a model to follow.
So I just say we do the best job we can, and if the member is feeling that we need better and more training, I will pass that on to the appropriate staff, and if that is the case, we will ensure that happens.
Mr. Reid: Never once in my comments did I ever say I was critical of the staff, so I do not know where the minister got that. He is in some other space, and I am not sure where it is because I have never said that in my comments.
What I did reference was that our staff, from information that has been drawn to my attention, were left hung out to dry on that one, were made to look quite bad as a result of the court activities, wherein the company was allowed to bring in--not allowed, because they are allowed to do this, but the company was able to bring in so-called people of higher credibility or knowledge dealing with these matters. Yet your department, maybe not directly but in a way that is attached to the Justice activities, left your inspector hanging out to dry in this matter because their word was not taken with the same stature or level as the so-called expert that was brought in by the defendant in the case.
So I leave that with you, that if you have situations like that, perhaps there needs to be some dialogue that takes place between Workplace Safety in Labour and the Justice department to make sure that where you have situations like that that you seek out, if you do not have that expertise--that we not be afraid to seek out the appropriate people wherever they may be to make sure that the case is presented based on the facts and also that the case itself has some credibility attached to it on the part of the Crown. I do not want to see situations like this happen where we can significantly undermine the activities and the work of our field inspectors trying to do the best job that they know possible. That is why I raise this for the minister's attention.
I want to switch here now and go to another matter that has been bothering me with respect--and I do not know what state of progress you are at with respect to your inspections, but there was a worker that was killed last year when there was a military shell that exploded at the Logan ironworks. This is not the first time that this has happened in this province. I know this happened in the Transcona CN reclamation yard a number of years ago and that this has now happened again, and perhaps there was another example, as well, that may have happened. I am not sure if there were three, but there are two that I know of for sure.
What steps have now been taken as a result? Are we going to rely on the Department of National Defence to do checks on these so-called shell casings that come in for reclamation, or is there some type of a process that has been established to ensure that the people that are working on these particular reclaim products are not subject to explosion and fatality?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told that there was an incident in 1980, and then this most recent one. What we have done is certainly made our point with the military, that they need to have an internal system within the military to be sure that this does not ever happen again, that they have to do their inspection before they move excess materials such as this off the military base.
The scrapyards have been made aware of the risks of receiving material and that they have to scrutinize what material is brought on to their site. There will be, I am told, an inquest into this fatality, and that will be an avenue that people will be making testimony and representation to. Certainly we will look forward to seeing in more detail the results of that inquest. In this specific case, the information on this incident--this file was sent to the Department of Justice, and I believe that they have concluded that they will not be going forward with it in terms of pressing charges.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate, has Justice said anything of any reasons why they are not going to proceed in the laying of charges?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Other than the obvious that they feel that there are not grounds to proceed with a charge, we have no other detail on their thinking on the case.
Mr. Reid: Does it not strike you as odd that an individual lost his life performing their normal duties because someone somewhere within this province did not check hazardous material or hazardous products and yet the Justice department does not feel that there are sufficient grounds to proceed with a prosecution under The Workplace Safety and Health Act at a minimum?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told that we do not have the file from the military. That is lodged with them and presented to Justice, so I think it would be--well, the case is certainly tragic; there is no question. An individual should not in any way anticipate or expect that going to work one day is going to end with a tragic accident like that, but the information that the military would have on the circumstances of the shell and the procedures is lodged with the military. It has been forwarded to Justice.
Why Justice made that decision, I do not know, and probably would be more appropriately asked in Justice Estimates, if you like. The inquest will be an opportunity for all of this information to come together, and we will have to await that and await the outcome of the inquest.
* (1550)
Mr. Reid: Well, Terry Genai [phonetic] was, what, 27 years of age. He had just come off welfare to a $6-an-hour job, and he goes to work performing his normal duties, attempting to cut open the shell casing, or work with the shell casing, and is killed in the process. He was a person that was trying to better himself, to be involved in the active workforce, and he goes to work and he gets killed. Nobody wants to get killed on the job.
Does Workplace Safety and Health--do you leave the investigation of these matters strictly up to the DND to determine the facts of the case from their end, or do you get involved and do you go out to the military operations, perhaps at Shilo or other areas of the province, to determine the process that they use? Are you going to rely just strictly on what DND tells you on these matters, or are you going to do an investigation internal to their operations?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I agree with much of what the member has said. It is truly a tragedy, as is any accident, particularly with loss of life. It is very, very unfortunate. It is an accident. Our role was to investigate the circumstances of the accident at the scrapyard. We did and we passed that on to Justice. We have no authority or ability to go on to the military base and do an investigation there. That is done by the military, the military police, the federal government, and they pass that information on to Justice and we pass our information on to Justice. The decision is made in the Justice Department.
Mr. Reid: Did you make a request to go on to the military bases to find out the procedures that they use?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that our staff met with the staff from the military and the military police operations to share information. Just as they are not allowed to go to the scrapyard and do an investigation there, we are not allowed to enter the military base and investigate their processes, procedures, and the matter that they operate. While there was communication, a sharing of information, we did not have staff from Workplace Safety and Health who were permitted to go onto the grounds and do any sort of investigation.
Now, the inquest will be an opportunity for everyone to present their information. The Justice department received our information. They received the information from the military police and the military base. If they had additional questions, they were resolved, and for whatever reasons, they did not proceed to file charges.
Mr. Reid: So then I take it you did not ask for permission to go onto the base, you just accepted at face value that you were going to be denied?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We did not ask. It is just an accepted way of doing business. There are clear lines of jurisdiction involved, and my honourable friend will know that there are certain industries that are the priority of the federal government. Military bases operate in a very closed fashion in many ways. On the base that I am familiar with at Shilo, they have their own military police who do everything from enforcing traffic to investigating assaults. They have their own system, and we did not ask to take their place in doing the investigation. It is a matter of protocol that they handle through the military system, the military police, their own investigations. We have no, absolutely no jurisdiction to go there.
Mr. Reid: I am well aware of the federal jurisdiction with respect to DND. I have dealt with DND and the federal minister responsible on a sexual assault case involving two employees of the military about two years ago, and I know how the military can stonewall in situations like this and just push this off. It has nothing to do with you, would be the attitude, so I am well aware of how this process can function. I am not happy with it and I guess I need to ask the question here: after the inquiry is finished, whose role is it, whose function will it be should the evidence point to further actions being warranted by the courts? Whose function will it be to proceed with these matters? Will it be Workplace Safety and Health, or will it be the Justice department? Will it be the military or will it be a combination, or none of them?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told by my senior staff that it will not be our responsibility. If there is information at the end of the inquest that further investigation and charges should be laid, it will either be done by Justice or it will be done in the federal system through the military system.
Mr. Reid: So like the law let the buyer beware, let the worker beware if they go and work in a facility that has any interaction with a federal agency or operations that, should they be injured or killed on the job, the province can be absolved of any responsibility or any dealings with matters like this. This seems to be the information I am getting here, that it is up to the individual to be aware of who they are working for and what materials they are working with, and if it involves the federal government then their argument is with the federal government and the province's Workplace Safety and Health does not play a role in the process here, other than investigating the accident and forwarding the information.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would like to correct the member. It was the Manitoba justice system that received the information from both our department and from the military, and Manitoba Justice made that decision. We are going to have an inquest and I do not think any of us can prejudge what is going to happen at that inquest, but your question was: what happens next if the inquest makes a decision that further action is required? I said that further action may be on the part of Manitoba Justice or it may be on behalf of the federal government in the federal justice system.
* (1600)
But we, I think, did everything that we could do within the Department of Labour and exercised the authority that we have to investigate and present that information. Then it is out of our hands. Why the Justice department made that decision, I do not know. They are independent and every day part of their job is to look at cases, to look at evidence and make judgments about whether they proceed or whether they do not proceed, and certainly there is, I suppose, rarely unanimity in these cases. There are always people--if you listen to the Peter Warren show or if you listen to the news, you listen to some of the CBC programs--asking questions. Until you have all the information in front of you and have a learned person to interpret it, sure there can be questions around that, but I respect the fact that they have the right to gather all of the information that they feel is pertinent from whatever sources and then make a decision.
It does not make the tragedy any easier to accept. Certainly I told you, I agreed completely with what you said, that a person should feel relatively comfortable going to the workplace in the morning that it is going to be another day at work. There are high-risk jobs, and we look at our own statistics or Workers Comp statistics and can indicate where the risks are. This job obviously has risks but this was totally unexpected, an accident, and I look forward to seeing what the inquest brings forward in terms of recommendations.
Mr. Reid: Based on what the minister is indicating here, then after the inquiry is finished should the evidence warrant further actions, under what act should the military be found to be negligent as a result of the findings of the inquiry? I know this is a hypothetical situation, but we need to know here under what act would the military then be prosecuted. If it is not The Workplace Safety and Health Act, would it be the Criminal Code of Canada that would be involved in a situation like this, or would it be the Labour Code of Canada?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I do not know whether I have all the right terminology, but on a base there is a military system of justice under which charges can be laid for a variety of reasons. It would be under federal military law. I mean, we could attempt to find out more about military law. We do not have that information here, but there are codes of conduct, and there is law governing behaviour. It is housed in the Government of Canada.
Mr. Reid: I take it then the minister had no further information to share with respect to jurisdiction here.
Mr. Gilleshammer: It would be redundant.
Mr. Reid: So then we do not know whether or not justice will prevail to prevent future accidents of this type from happening again. There is a history here now. We have two; one in 1980 you say and one again last year. So does that mean in 17 years from 1997 we can expect that there will be another shell casing exploding and another worker is killed? What steps are going to be taken to make sure that this does not happen? I know there are no ironclad guarantees, but there has to be some type of a process in here, first, of accountability for what has taken place, and a process put in place, some plan put in place, to make sure that all of the safety precautions are taken.
I mean, this is a person 27 years old, came off of welfare, father of three children, no longer there for his children now, not providing for them and is no longer with us as a result of an accident that was unexpected and was killed in the workplace. That should not have happened. There are ways to make these types of accidents preventable. Somebody did not do their job to make sure that this accident did not happen. There has to be some process put in place, some accountability. I am not saying extract a pound of flesh here, but you have to have a plan in place here to prevent these from happening. If you are saying that you do not have jurisdiction over it and the provincial justice system does not have jurisdiction over it and it is military justice that is going to prevail, how do I, you, or any other working person in the province of Manitoba know that they can be safe going to work tomorrow, working on something that may have come from the military? How do we know that, if there is no interaction taking place between Workplace Safety and the military to make sure that this process or some plan is developed here to make sure that these shells are not coming into scrapyards in the future with dangerous product inside?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I will go back to I believe your first question and my first answer. We did four things. We have talked to scrapyards and indicated the circumstances of this case and made them more aware I suppose of the risks that may present themselves. There are dangers in working in a scrapyard, and we provided as much information as we could to owner-operators to be aware of some of the things that might happen and to make their staff aware of that.
We did pass all the information we had and recommendations on to the military. I can tell you that I would believe that the military would never, ever, ever want this to happen again either. The recommendation that we would have for them is to take whatever steps they need within their internal safety system to ensure that this does not happen again.
We also presented all of that information to Justice, and fourthly, there will be an inquest and, undoubtedly, there will be recommendations coming out of that inquest to us as a department, probably or possibly to scrapyards, to industry, and certainly to the military. We will review very carefully what those recommendations are, and if they are within our jurisdictions, we will act on them.
I would like to think that there would never, ever be an accident like this happen again. It has happened twice. The military is very much aware of it. We are aware of it, and we have passed that on to proprietors, owner-managers of scrapyards, if that is the right word. The military will be instructing their people, but, you know, what we have is a human error, and errors happen. I guess we have to be sure that there are enough checks and balances to do everything we can to see that it does not happen again. We will do whatever we have to do within the department, and I am sure other organizations will as well.
Mr. Reid: I just hope with this process that is followed that something positive will result after the hearings, after the inquiry takes place, the inquest takes place. I do not want to see this situation happen again at any time, particularly where this is a preventable accident. Someone failed in the security steps along the way, and if there is something that can be done to correct that, it would be appropriate.
* (1610)
Mr. Gilleshammer: I agree.
Mr. Reid: I want to raise another matter here that had gone before the courts not that long ago dealing with Poulin's, and they were fined $5,500 total, I believe it was, on three counts. I will be attempting to go to the Justice department Estimates to find out more information on this. I appreciate the department sending me over the package of information with respect to the accident investigation dealing with these matters. I have read through it a couple of times trying to digest the extent of your investigations and the difficulties your department encountered in the performance of your work.
I am distressed to see that your officers were denied access to the operations of Poulin's Exterminators, especially when we have hazardous materials that are stored on-site in the heart of our city, hazardous products that could have and nearly did take the lives of the two workers who were involved with the methyl bromide that was being utilized as, I believe, a fumigant.
Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
I look at the counts that were brought before the courts on guilty pleas, and I guess I am going to be asking--and this is not going to be a secret; I have done this before--there were three counts that were listed. Count 3, count 7 and count 13 were the charges that were brought before the courts for which the company entered a guilty plea. I guess the question is: does it go beyond 13 in counts, and what happened to the other ones that do not appear on the final court documents? I am going to be asking the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) to explain that, because I want to know what type of plea bargaining is taking place with respect to serious matters like this, considering the extensive investigation or what appears to be extensive investigation undertaken by Workplace Safety and Health.
I do not raise this matter just because Mr. Janzen [phonetic] is a resident of the community of Transcona. I raise this because of the seriousness of the case and what appears to be the inexcusable actions on the part of the company. What I find even more reprehensible--and I use that term in the strongest possible sense--is that particular company had the nerve to call me shortly after that accident occurred and wanted me to intercede on their behalf to defend their interests. I did not know the circumstances of the case at the time, but after reading the report that came out of your department, I am appalled at the actions of the company, appalled.
The minister talked when we had some dealings with the amendments to The Workplace Safety and Health Act sanction, the sections dealing with penalties last year--
An Honourable Member: Increased them 10 times.
Mr. Reid: I understand that, and that may or may not be a good thing and time will tell, but at that time the minister talked about looking at the B.C. experience dealing with ticketing. I am wondering whether or not ticketing would have given the officers of Workplace Safety and Health Branch the opportunity to go in to that site, and if they are denied access or there is not some means of co-operation between the company owners or the company representatives and Workplace Safety, whether or not ticketing could not have been used on the spot immediately as a means of gaining access to the property to do and undertake proper and thorough investigations.
Perhaps the minister would want to comment on his investigation of ticketing as a means to provide greater powers or authority to the Workplace Safety and Health officers who obviously were at a disadvantage when attempting to investigate Poulin's Exterminators here in the city.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult case, and the member did reference last year we brought in legislation to increase the fine levels. This was a recommendation brought to us by the advisory council on Workplace Safety and Health and were pleased to take it forward, whereby the fine levels were increased by tenfold.
This case, of course, was dealt with on the old legislation because it took place while the old legislation was in place. From time to time there are difficult cases that our staff work on where access to sites can be difficult, but I can assure the member that the investigation did take place. As a result of that charges were laid, and again those decisions on the charges are made completely within the Department of Justice. We provide the information, and Justice department staff and the Crown attorneys' offices weigh that information and make those decisions based on the evidence as it is presented to them. I cannot give the member any more information on that. He, I believe, acknowledges the fact that he will have to go to the Justice department Estimates to get further information and make his points there.
I do recall that the member brought up the issue of ticketing last year. I say that there has been some discussion internally on this issue of ticketing, but there does not seem to be any unanimity in the thinking not only within the department but within the broader community. I am told that discussions have been held with the Manitoba Federation of Labour and that they are opposed to the procedure of ticketing. So I do not think that we have exhausted our deliberations on that point, and personally I would want to get a better understanding of the benefits and the downside to it. At the present time, there has been no desire or no decision made to proceed with it, but it is not an issue that has disappeared.
* (1620)
Mr. Reid: It took me a little while and I am not maybe the swiftest person at times with respect to the process that has to be followed, and I understand the Justice department has to be involved in situations like this in making some decisions here.
I go back to my statements of last year and reiterate those again. There is a problem in the Justice department when they can go before the courts in a situation as serious as this where an individual nearly lost his life, father I think of two children, a resident of my own community, and another individual was poisoned. The Workplace Safety and Health people do their jobs under great stress, and the Justice department goes before the courts and does not ask for the maximum fines and perhaps plea bargains away other counts. That bothers me. I will not change on that.
In this situation here--and I have read through this document that you have provided to me--did you investigate whether or not the canisters, the 408 one-pound methyl gas canisters, that were used, were they legal products in Canada or were they imported with a licence that would permit them to be used here, making them a legal product within Canada and this province?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I cannot provide my honourable friend with a definitive answer. We do not have that documentation with us, but senior staff will go back and revisit that, and we can answer your question then. It was not an issue that came up at the time.
Mr. Reid: In reading through their report, it talks about several failures in the system to protect the workers--did not have the proper respiratory protection equipment. The equipment that they were using was wrong; in fact, it was damaged. There was a procedural failure here with respect to information to the employees who had not done this type of operation with these types of canisters before. Now there is a charge here with respect to training.
I have looked at several and been involved in several Workplace Safety and Health cases that your department has been involved with, but of any of the cases I have dealt with, only two stand out in my mind as having some grounds for criminal negligence charges applying to them. I am not saying there are not others, but this is one of them that I think should have had criminal negligence charges considered, because the information that is coming to my attention is that these canisters were not legal in this country, that they were imported and that these canisters had been sitting around for some time and were in a rusted condition, some of them, which caused them to be suspect even before they were utilized. These products, I am told, are stored here in the city. What does that say for the surrounding neighbourhood community, a stone's throw from this building, across the river over here, where those products are stored? How would those people feel if they knew that there was rusted methyl bromide containers being stored on site there, and if your officers are not allowed to go in and do inspections in there, as a result of a workplace accident, that they are being denied access, and had to fight to get into those sites? You can go in but you were denied at the time access to those sites, according to the report that you filed, your department people have filed. I would be very nervous living over there knowing that these products are stored in that area.
I am going to be raising this with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) with respect to criminal negligence charges, because if we find out that these products were illegal, what I want to know from your department--that is the question I am asking now is: did you pass on to the Department of Environment, because there were not permits that were issued, nor requested by the company to deal with this product, did your department pass on to the Department of Environment this report so that they could look at it and see whether or not these products were legal in Manitoba, for which I believe they have regulatory responsibility?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We do not have the information that the member is asking about, whether these canisters were legal or not, but I have already committed to have staff go back to that report and go back to the individuals involved to get you that information. I can tell you that the staff from Workplace Safety and Health did communicate with staff from the Department of Environment and shared information with them, but the member is saying, not that he has evidence that they were not legal in this country but that people have suggested to him that they were not of a legal nature. At least that is what I am hearing, that he does not have any hard evidence but people are suggesting that. We will go back and look at our reports, talk to our people and see if that is an issue.
Mr. Reid: Will you then also undertake to provide me with the information with respect to your findings on the legality of these canisters, the methyl bromide canisters that were used, the 408 one-litre canisters, I believe, and the procedures with respect to permits and licensing, if you have that information available as well?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Whatever information is lodged in our department that I am able to share with you, I will.
Mr. Reid: I get frustrated, as the critic, dealing with situations like this where you have--and I am going to be harsh here--unscrupulous companies taking advantage of their workers for which the Justice department does not take a serious look at the sanctions that they ask to be applied before the courts, when people are killed, or nearly killed on the job, in their workplace, when they expect to go work in the normal performance of their duties, and then come home to their families and pass out in their homes and have to be rushed to hospital, and then find out that they suffered serious neurological damage when the system, protection for these employees failed them.
I am not talking here government, although the inspections can and should take place. We have respiratory protection equipment that was inadequate, where you have canisters that were being utilized for which the employees had no training, and the procedures that were used for that particular operation were not familiar to the employees, and then for the Workplace Safety and Health inspectors to be denied in some cases during the course of this investigation, access to the properties to investigate, as is identified in your own report, it can lead me to no other conclusion than we have an unscrupulous company here. I say that in the harshest possible sense based on what I have read here. I do not like to be taken advantage of by somebody that calls me in situations like this and asks me to defend them, as has happened in this case.
So I look forward to the information that will come from your department that might shed some further light with respect to the canisters and the procedures that you have. I need to ask you, are you doing follow-up inspections of this particular site, when was the last time you did an inspection, and how many inspections have you done on this site since the accident has occurred?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that follow-up inspections have indeed taken place. We do not have the dates and the times and the number with us, but we can provide that information for you. I am told that they were also subject to one of the audits that we spoke of about an hour ago.
Mr. Reid: I want to change my questions here in the line of going back to the actual document itself, Supplementary Estimates document. In the document here, you are showing an allotment for overtime hours, page 35. You are referencing a certain amount of dollar resources to that. Can you give me an indication of the type of overtime that you would have? Would this be your inspectors going out on the on-call function, and would they be paid for this in overtime?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, there is a very modest allotment there for overtime. There is considerable on-call time expended, and most of it is in comp time for the employees. I am told this is a budget line that pays people for being available and on call for circumstances that arise where they would be needed. So it is comp time that they get.
Mr. Reid: So this is a fund that is set up so that if you have got your field officers or your hygienists that need to go out to an accident site for example and it is other than their normal operational hours that this fund would be set up and available to compensate for these people that would go to situations like that? Am I understanding this correctly?
* (1630)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, every weekend somebody is designated to be on call and have the vehicle be available. This is additional remuneration for people to simply be on call in case they are needed.
Mr. Reid: So these funds are paid to the individuals for the on-call basis whether or not they are called to a particular accident investigation?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.
Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, your staff that you have that would investigate accidents, can you give me an indication of how often they would be called out in the off hours, if we can term it that?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told in the neighbourhood of 70 times a year.
Mr. Reid: Dealing with director's orders, there are obviously a number of director's orders that would be issued in a year. Do you have the information here available for the current year?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Numbers, you mean?
Mr. Reid: Yes.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, for the previous full year, we had 1,700 improvement orders and 51 stop-work orders. It is anticipated it will be in the same ballpark for the 1997-98 year. The director's orders, which was the question you asked, are in Employment Standards, so we are talking about improvement orders and stop-work orders.
Mr. Reid: I am sorry, I mixed apples and oranges here. I used the wrong term for different departments.
Has the minister ever been asked to overrule a stop-work order?
Mr. Gilleshammer: No.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mr. Reid: So the current minister has not been asked that. Is there any information pertaining to previous ministers that would have been in the department?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have no knowledge of any.
Mr. Reid: Can you tell me the number of workplace accident fatalities in the province? For which you would have jurisdiction, I would imagine, would be the numbers you would have.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I thank the member for asking the question. In 1997, the total number of fatalities is 18. Ten of them were in agriculture, five in industrial, zero in construction, and three occurred in mines. Those are the ones that have come to the attention of the department.
I would maybe like to also give you the 1996 statistics, where there were 11 investigated fatalities: four in agriculture; two, industrial; two, construction; and, three in mines. In 1998, to the present time, there have been three.
It is important that these statistics are put in the appropriate context, because sometimes people use some figures that come from the Workers Compensation Board, and I think the member is aware of that.
The Workers Compensation Board number of fatalities is an all-inclusive number that includes people who were once clients of the compensation board who may be contacted or may have had a claim going back to the 1960s or '70s and they pass away in 1997, so they are listed there as a fatality. I know that people throw these numbers around sometimes without a complete and total explanation of that and, as a result, maybe use higher numbers than--they are not completely and totally accurate or forthright about those numbers, depending on their purposes, I suppose, but those are the numbers for 1996, a total of 11; for 1997, 18; and in the current year, three. I will leave it at that.
Mr. Reid: Again a high number in agriculture, or agriculture-related industries, which goes back to our earlier discussion with respect to the number of accidents that are occurring, number of fatalities. Can you tell me, the five that occurred in industry, what industries would those have been?
* (1640)
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can give the member some background on it. There was one where a vehicle collapsed onto a person when the jack shifted, and this would be industrial. There was another one where someone was working with 45-gallon drums that were being converted to parts bins, and there was still a flammable material and, as a result, there was an explosion. A third one is the one we talked about earlier where there was a munitions shell that exploded. A fourth was a burn injury that was in the logging industry. Was there a fifth? There is one additional one that I do not have the information on here. It probably came from the Chief Medical Examiner's office, but we can find that fifth case for you.
Mr. Reid: I would appreciate that information when it comes forward to you.
The formula that is used to fund Workplace Safety and Health, I think we have said in the past that Workplace Safety and Health operations are funded, what, 95 percent by transfer of funds from Workers Compensation Board. I take it that this is under The Workers Compensation Act that sets the formula. If I am wrong there, perhaps you can correct me. But I need to understand how that formula functions and how the funds are derived at. Are those funds currently frozen for Workplace Safety and Health support? How do you propose in the future, should your operation's costs continue to rise, as would be expected through normal inflationary pressures, are you going to continue this through the government's general revenues, or do you anticipate amending the formula under The Workers Compensation Act?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told that the cap is contained within the workers compensation board act, and we do receive about 95 percent of our funds from the Workers Compensation Board. We are working within that cap at the present time, and there seems to be adequate funding to provide for the staff and operating costs that we have in this area.
Mr. Reid: There is a normal inflationary process that takes place, and most departments or subdepartments will be affected by that. As a minister, are you going to continue to go back to cabinet to ask for revenues, further allocations, to support the operations of Workplace Safety and Health, or do you anticipate, as minister also responsible for The Workers Compensation Act, that you would be amending that particular formula under The Workers Comp Act?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have indicated that we are working within the existing cap and anticipate that we can continue to do so in our discussions with the Workers Comp Board. I guess the member's question is a little bit hypothetical. I think that what he is saying is: what do you do when you hit the cap? Well, we will have to try and live within that cap; but, if we need more money, then the other 5 percent comes from general revenue at the present time. We will have to either find a way to get that funding from Workers Comp--again, the cap is related to their activities as well--or go back to general revenue. We have not reached that point, but we may three or four years from now, and that will have to be dealt with.
Mr. Reid: That is what I am worried about is, yes, you appear to be working or functioning within that cap now, but somewhere down the road those inflationary pressures could catch up to you. It could be very quickly, just in the matter of one year, for example, if the federal government does not alter the interest rates to keep inflationary pressures down. Can you provide for me, or do you have information related, on how that formula functions? I do not have a clear understanding on how it is structured, and I would like to educate myself on how it functions. If you do not have the information here available today, perhaps you can forward it to me with the other information that you have indicated you would send along.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Sure. The information is in the legislation, and we can provide you with a copy of the legislation. The cap is not a static number. It is part of the activity that Workers Compensation is involved in. You know, I guess it is always wise to anticipate there may be a problem down the road. I have not been alerted by the department that there is an impending problem there, but we will provide you with a copy of the act, and you can see exactly what the legislation says.
Mr. Reid: I understand the act is available. Yes, we have access to it, and, yes, I have a copy of it, so it is not a question of sending an act along. I am trying to figure out in the dollars-and-cents terms how you do your calculations, how that formula functions, and the criteria that it is based on and the impact.
How do you know when you sit down to do the Estimates process and put this document together what numbers you are going to have to work with? Is it based on the prior years' experiences? How do you arrive at the dollar numbers to arrive at the 95 percent funding that is transferred to Workplace Safety and Health? That is what I am trying to get a handle on here and on how that is arrived at. I have got access to the legislation itself, and I can read that. That is not a problem in itself. The other information is what I am looking for.
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is a formula that exists, and we will pass that on to you.
Mr. Reid: Can you tell me--I think you have provided this in past years with respect to the number of recommendations that go to the Justice department from Workplace Safety. Do you have that statistical information available here, and can you tell me, because I believe you also keep this information with respect to prosecutions?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have the information that there were 18 prosecutions that proceeded last year. We do not have the number where we did send information on to the Department of Justice, but we could have staff go back and count that and provide it to you, but there were--of that information that we passed on to Justice--18 cases that they proceeded with.
Mr. Reid: I would appreciate that information because I think last year you listed off the charges and the company names and disposition of the cases as well. I think that was information that you had sent along--it was the year before last, I believe--it came from the department. I take it that the information from last year may be contained in this package that you have provided to me here. I guess I should ask the question, because I had asked this last year with respect to providing a list with the names of the Workplace Safety and Health field inspectors. I think I had asked that question last year. I do not know, and perhaps you can indicate: Is that contained in this package here because I have not had a chance to go through it since I just received it?
* (1650)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Frankly, I have not read it since July when I sent it to you, but I am told that is it perhaps there.
Mr. Reid: Okay, I will look through that then. If it is in there, I will catch that; and, if you have the other information, I would appreciate receiving that.
Can you tell me the number of vacancies that are within your department, this Workplace Safety and Health Branch?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there is one vacancy that has been bulletined and applications close today. The interviewing will subsequently take place and decisions will be made.
Mr. Reid: How many people have been seconded out of this department, if any?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is one secondment that is external to the department and this person, I understand, left today that we will be backfilling. This person has gone over to the Labour Board, I believe--[interjection] Pardon me, to the Workers Compensation Board.
Mr. Reid: So out of the department, that is the only person that has been seconded for functions other than the normal duties within the department, and you have no staff from this department working on either the Better Methods or on the new desktop computer system?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there are three that are working on Better Systems and that we will be backfilling for them.
Mr. Reid: How long have these people been seconded and which function did they come from?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Their secondment commenced in December or January. One was the head of Hygiene, the other two were inspectors, and they have gone over to Better Systems.
Mr. Reid: How long do you expect that these people will remain with these other functions? Will you be backfilling their positions and, if so, when?
Mr. Gilleshammer: It is anticipated that they will be there about a year; and, yes, we will be backfilling, and time period will be soon.
Mr. Reid: Well, they have been gone three months, three and a half months nearly; for some of them four months. You say these people have come from Inspection, some of them, one from Hygiene, and they will be gone for a year. Yet, you say soon you will be backfilling. Have you asked the Civil Service Commission for replacements for these positions to canvass for replacements?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The Hygiene position has been partially offset by another employee who is doing that work. We have purchased some service for the other two, but we will be backfilling soon. We will be using the abilities we have to find people to backfill those.
Mr. Reid: So, I take it, then, that you are waiting for things to kind of--someone shakes the tree and see how many employees are cast loose from other departments and for the redeployment list, before you make your decisions on when you are going to backfill for these positions? I am trying to get an idea here, because these are obviously very important functions. Not that the others are not, but these are your field officers, from my understanding of what you have said, and if they are not available to go out and do the inspections in the workplace, then you are shortchanging the inspection side, potentially--and I say this guardedly but--putting at risk the safety of working people in the various workplaces.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we backfilled by purchasing some service to assist with that. Plans are underway to have a more permanent resolution to the issue, and that will be happening very soon.
Mr. Reid: Whom have you purchased service from?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have some staff within the department that do some training. They have been used to do some of the inspections work, and we have hired some other people on a contract basis to do some of the training. If the question is whom did we hire to do the training, the answer is there are people in the private sector that we have accessed. We do not have the information here, but I will have staff find that for you and indicate who has been doing that training.
Mr. Reid: You backfill from people you have had in your training component, you say. Now are those equal numbers? I think you said you have got four people that are removed from your process of inspections here, so have you backfilled four inspectors into those positions and then hired in contract to do the training part of it? Are we talking about an equal number of people here doing the inspections?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The answer, I am told, is that we have not completely balanced that off. We are probably short one full-time equivalent, but we will be bringing somebody in to bring the staffing component up to what it should be.
Mr. Reid: Well, I have made no secret in the past about the number of inspectors that you have doing field inspections. I know we have disagreements on our numbers, considering that the minister has written me a letter and scolded me this year about my use of numbers, and that is his prerogative to do that if he chooses. But you have people that are here that are being seconded out to other services. If there is no plan that is in place to keep these positions filled in a timely fashion and they are allowed to drag on--you have some, you said, since December, some since January. We are into the middle of April now, and we still do not have people into all of these positions, so what we are doing is we are shortchanging the inspection side in at least some parts of the province.
There has to be a better way of doing this. I mean, you have to have some process in place that will make sure that there is an orderly plan. If you have people that are seconded to Better Methods, you are taking a certain amount of expertise out of your department, obviously, people that are trained in those areas. I am not sure, and maybe you would want to indicate the people that you are bringing in under contract, do they have the expertise necessary? Can you indicate what type of expertise they have to provide the training you say you are now doing with contract services? Who is doing that service? Is there a company name that is attached to that?
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, with a very quick response.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the civil service obviously offers lots of opportunities, and when there are opportunities for secondments and further training and further experience, this is an advantage to government; it is an advantage to the employee. I am assured that we have not been short staffed. We have not been short staffed.
These things take some time to manage our way through, and I have lots of confidence in the managers that they make the appropriate decisions to see that we have inspectors out there, that we do training; and, sometimes if we have to outsource that, we do.
* (1700)
Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.
Committee rise.