* (1540)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

LABOUR

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Labour.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 2. Labour Programs (b) Mechanical and Engineering (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,793,800 on page 112 of the Estimates book and on page 27 of the yellow supplement book. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, one of the limitations that we do have as MLAs is there is this rule about 240 hours. I am sure both the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and I would like to have a number of hours in the Department of Labour. Given that there are many things which I could be asking--and I have had opportunities in the past--and the finite amount of time that is basically left with the Estimates, I just wanted to make some remarks.

Yesterday, I asked the minister questions regarding the organizational charts. I am trying to get a better understanding of the many different boards that are out there within the department. Whatever information the minister can provide over the next couple of months would be very much appreciated.

There are also many other areas which I have interest in. What I will do is I will read over the Estimates in areas which maybe have not been touched, or if there are other areas in which I do have that I would like to proceed and ask questions on, I will reserve those until either the next year's Estimates or again through some form of written correspondence from the minister in order to be able to accommodate the member for Transcona in terms of being able to ask questions.

The one thing that I did not really get to comment on that I should comment on is the--and it was a question that I posed earlier in the session regarding the negotiations that were taking place with the provincial employees and the government. I was wanting to try to get a better understanding of exactly what had happened. Being brutally blunt, I was somewhat surprised in terms of the way in which things were negotiated, things were presented, both from the government's perspective and also the union's perspective.

I am somewhat hopeful that Mr. Olfert and members of the government union would be interested in meeting with the Liberal Party to discuss some of the issues concerning the union and to try to get a better understanding of what actually did occur. I was around through the last negotiations, and it seemed to be a bit more of, here is what we want for the workers and we were prepared to go to the wall for the workers. I am not necessarily a hundred percent convinced of what actually occurred during these negotiations. I am sure Mr. Olfert will be advised or at least indicated of the concerns, whether the union reads Hansard or through a letter from myself.

At one point, for example, in trying to do some research, I was hoping to get information about negotiations and how it was going and was somewhat concerned that we could be kept into the process or in the loop.

Having said that, Mr. Chairperson, I am quite prepared to allow the lines to pass. I do appreciate the member for Transcona allowing me to make these comments and the minister for being patient. I look forward to getting that breakdown on the organizational aspects of the different committees that he has established.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Thank you for those comments.

The request for perhaps a greater understanding by the Liberal member, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), and by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) for more information from the department as to how the department works, I have no problem scheduling meetings with the member either from Transcona or from Inkster and supplying them with more information. I understand the limitations of the Estimates period and that we are fairly at the end of that.

In keeping with my comments of yesterday that labour relations in the Department of Labour have somewhat of a delicate position in terms of trying to satisfy various parties that are often at odds with each other, I think that the suggestion by the member for Inkster to share some of this information is, in fact, a good one. I think that, if the member has specific concerns that he wishes to raise with the department, he can bring those to my attention, and I will seek to accommodate him.

In respect to the negotiations with the MGEU, I am not prepared to speculate as to why the union took the position it did. I think the government's position in view of the fiscal realities was a fair one. I think that the union, again without speculating too much, saw the economic realities in the province at this time. I think the union took a very responsible position and, I think, made the right recommendations to its membership. The membership obviously seemed pleased with the union's position in that they accepted the union's recommendations.

In terms of some of the back and forth of the negotiations, that perhaps might be something better addressed in the context of the Civil Service Commission Estimates. If we do not get to that point, I would make the same offer to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that we perhaps accommodate him. If he cares to bring specific issues to my attention, I will endeavour to get that information insofar as that is possible and ensure that he has a proper understanding of how these processes and these decisions were arrived at.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, I believe we are on section 2.(a) and I am looking at page 24 of the Supplementary Estimates.

An Honourable Member: Pass.

Mr. Reid: No, we are not prepared to pass this section quite yet.

We have some questions relating to policy. I believe that this is the section where the minister's department does research and does some policy analysis and provides support for the minister.

I had a matter that was drawn to my attention dealing with the Louisiana-Pacific operations in the Swan River area. The matter was drawn to my attention relating to employment opportunities for the people of Manitoba in that the people that were working onsite for the construction of this project were from outside of the province of Manitoba. We have heard some concerns from the people living in the Swan River area that they are not being given the opportunities to work at such a site in the technical construction aspects of the job.

I know my colleague for Swan River has raised some issues relating to the plant from an environmental perspective and from the timber cutting rights. This one I am dealing with is from the employment opportunities.

I would like to know, what type of policy or analysis has the department provided to the minister with respect to employment opportunities for the people in the Swan River area in particular, but also for other Manitobans to fulfill the jobs during the construction of this plant?

* (1550)

Mr. Toews: In response to the question, I can advise that generally speaking the member for Transcona knows that our government, along with other governments across Canada, has been moving to eliminate trade barriers between provinces. Of course, our Confederation began in 1867 with a view to reducing trade barriers between provinces. Here it is 125 years-plus later and we are still trying to reduce those trade barriers. The government of Manitoba clearly does not want to raise further trade barriers between the provinces.

What this particular department does in respect of any worksite is not regulate the workplace in terms of where the people come from. If they are Canadian citizens and if they can work, what the government of Manitoba is concerned about is that the working conditions are appropriate, that safety standards are enforced, that minimum wage laws are respected, and that these jobs are there so that we can provide these services to the province's people.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, it seems unusual to me that from my understanding we have a significant number of skilled tradespeople within the province of Manitoba and we have others that have lesser skills and training that are seeking employment, judging by the Statistics Canada data that we get regularly, and yet we have firms that are coming in--and this operation that we are talking about here in the Swan River Valley is not the only one.

It is my understanding that the federal virology lab was in this similar circumstance when they started up their operation. We had firms from Alberta coming in here doing some of the work when I believe we had qualified and skilled people within the province seeking work.

Why is it that when we have operations like this that--is there not a role that the Department of Labour can play to ensuring that we maximize the number of employment opportunities for Manitobans to meet the needs of the company, of course, but also to meet the needs of the people that are seeking out that employment? Is there not a role that the department can play in this process?

Mr. Toews: Clearly, there is a role for government to play in creating economic opportunities. This government is very proud of its record in terms of lowering the unemployment rate, creating jobs, creating opportunities. We see how well this government has done in that respect. That is the way to ensure that members of our communities are employed. We create opportunities, we create industries so that people who are qualified can work here in Manitoba fulfilling the needs that our economic opportunities have given.

In terms of job creation, I listened with some interest to the debate between the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and the Minister of Industry (Mr. Downey) speaking about the textile industry and the sewing factory industry and the apparent shortage of workers in that area. The minister remarked, it is actually quite a better position to be in, that we are actually looking for people rather than looking for jobs.

We want to keep on creating an opportunity for more jobs so that people here are employed, so more people, new immigrants come to Manitoba and can be employed.

The employment opportunities that we create here will naturally attract other people from other provinces. Under our Constitution those people have a right to come and work in our province. I would be very, very concerned, from a constitutional point of view, if we put up trade barriers in that respect. There are serious constitutional problems with trying to do that.

Rather than inviting constitutional controversy, I would rather create employment.

One of the things we are seeing, though, is our workers also going into other provinces bidding on jobs and bringing some of that wealth back to Manitoba. There are opportunities in other provinces where our workers will fulfill those on a temporary basis and then again come back to Manitoba. Those are my comments in that respect.

Mr. Reid: There is no doubt there are people coming in from outside of the province of Manitoba to do some of the jobs. The unfortunate part is that the pay cheques get sent outside of the province. They are not reinvested, or purchases are not made in the province for goods and services because a lot of those monies are in the form of pay cheques that go back to the families that are outside of Manitoba. It just seemed to me to try and be as reasonable as possible, to try and help the people of the province living here, permanently living here, not just coming here seeking employment. I thought there might have been some role, but it does not appear that there is any role for the department to play.

In the area with respect to research and policy, who are the policy advisors, researchers for the minister?

Mr. Toews: In response to the question by the member for Transcona, I can advise that reporting to Mr. Nykoluk, who was introduced yesterday, there are four additional research people.

One is Glenda Segal, who has been with the department for approximately 10 years, and she has a labour studies background. Nancy Anderson has been with the department for approximately four years, and she has a lawyer's background.

The other individual is Phil Bonin. I am sure the member must be familiar with this individual. He has served with the department 20-plus years. I know that, when I was a lawyer starting in 1979 with the Department of Labour, advising the Department of Labour, Mr. Bonin was there already, and Mr. Bonin always provided me with very practical guidance in terms of drafting regulations and assisting in the drafting of legislation. I believe Mr. Bonin is a layperson in the sense that he does not have a law degree, but he certainly has very, very excellent technical skills. He has been used by all stripes of government for the past number of years to assist them in the drafting of legislation and regulations and the development of policy, and I think he is a very well-respected person. I, certainly in my time representing the Department of Labour and the Labour Board learned to appreciate his good common-sense qualities, and I know I relied on his advice in trying to understand problems in the Department of Labour and then providing legal advice to that department.

* (1600)

The last individual is a Victor Minenko and, again, he has a legal background.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that information. I am sure the staff that are working with him are competent and qualified to be there, otherwise I am sure they would not be with the department.

Can the minister advise who his executive assistant and special assistants are?

Mr. Toews: Presently, I have an executive assistant who was just hired. His name is Paul Janzen. He has, I believe, an Arts degree and an education background. I believe if he is not qualified as a teacher in the technical sense of that word he is almost so. He has worked in government previously and is from northeast Winnipeg.

An Honourable Member: Is that a requirement?

Mr. Toews: No, it is not a requirement, but I thought you might want to know that this government is a government that employs people from all sectors of the city, including northeast Winnipeg.

In respect of a special assistant, I have been assigned a special assistant at this time by the name of Catherine Evanyshyn. It is a temporary assignment and so in terms of a special assistant that has not yet been finalized, but I certainly am receiving assistance from the department in ensuring that both my departmental and other responsibilities are met.

Mr. Reid: I believe the department has moved from, and I think this is the correct area, Mr. Chairperson, to discuss this matter, changing of the cycle of which trade licences are issued. Can the minister advise which trades have had the changes in the cycle of the issuing of licences and is that process completed, and is there any list or other materials that the minister can provide for us today on that?

Mr. Toews: If it would be more convenient to the member, I can provide a complete list of the licences and the cycles for those licences. I do not have them here, but my staff will send those over to the member. The member is correct when he says, Mr. Chairman, that we have moved to a new cycle of licences.

Mr. Reid: I would appreciate it if the minister and his department could forward the information as soon as it is possible to be done. I look forward to receiving that, relating to the changing in the cycle of licences and what is currently in place.

Can the minister indicate to me why we have changed the licence cycle? Why has the department taken that step away from either the one- or two-year cycle into, in some cases I think it is up to four years now?

Mr. Toews: Yes, in response to the question, Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the reason the department went to the longer cycle for the licences is essentially a client services matter. These licences are the individual's licence which entitle him or her to practice in a particular trade. This way that person only needs to renew that licence, for example, in the case of the electrician, every four years. It also has created certain efficiencies within the department in terms of lessening the department's paperwork and that then creates certain savings and perhaps a shifting of work to other areas, or workers to other areas, to ensure that other areas are satisfactorily carried out.

Mr. Reid: Well, with the changes in the cycle for issuance of licences, has the department taken into consideration the fact that there may be tradespeople approaching the end of their work careers? For example, if an individual was 62 years of age and his licence renewal came due at that point in time, does that mean the department would charge a four-year licence fee for an individual renewing a licence for a four-year period at the age of 62, knowing that the individual could most likely retire at age 65?

* (1610)

Mr. Toews: If we look, for example, at the electricians' licensing regulation amendment under The Electricians' Licence Act, and this is one such example, the licence fee in that particular case is for a period of four years and the cost of that licence is $80. I just make a note that in respect of the licensing fee, the Manitoba licensing fee is one of the lowest if not the lowest in Canada. I am advised it is the lowest in Canada.

Now in respect of the specific question posed by the member, I understand that the regulation has taken that into account, and if you look at Section 16 sub (4) of that particular regulation, it says: the fee for issuing an electricians' licence referred to in subsection 1 is based on the period of time for which the licence is to be valid as follows: sub (a) one year or less, $20; (b) more than one year but not more than two years, $40; (c) more than two years but not more than three years, $60; (d) more than three years but not more than four years, $80.

It goes on, where a licence has been lost or destroyed a duplicate copy may be issued for $8.

So essentially what I understand occurs is that we charge the full fee and then refund that portion when the person turns that licence in.

An Honourable Member: On request?

Mr. Toews: Yes, that is my understanding, on request.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for the information.

We had an individual who had come to us and made representation with concerns about being near the end of their working career and that they would have to pay the money out and then ask for the money back at the end of that work career. The individual was concerned that he would have to pay the money out now, whether or not they could afford it is not for me to say. They were just worried about the changes in the process at this point in time. That is why I raised this matter.

Has there been any fee increase as a result of these changes in the cycle, and is the department contemplating any fee increases?

Mr. Toews: I am advised that the last increase for the annual fee was in 1982, and that essentially, the four-year fee is just four times the annual fee number. In short, there was no increase in the annual fee going to the four-year licence, for example.

Mr. Reid: Is the Department of Labour currently considering changes to the licensing fee value? Are we looking at increasing the charge?

(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Toews: Sorry, maybe I should just make one correction on the record. I might have not been very clear in what I said earlier. The last increase in terms of the electricians' licences was in 1982 and that essentially was at $50 for the four years. It is now $80 for the four years and there are various other inspection fees or licence fees that the department may consider increasing again as part of a cost-recovery program. Those will be done on an ongoing basis.

Mr. Reid: So the fees have gone up then for the electricians' licences in this case? Have they also gone up for the other trade licences as well? Mr. Chairperson, maybe not to extend this, but if the minister has a chart or some information on a hard copy then maybe he could provide that with the other information he was going to provide.

Mr. Toews: That is an excellent idea. I think that will dispel any uncertainty in respect to the answers given here. I will have my deputy minister provide you with that information. That information is quite easily obtainable and the member for Transcona can then make the comparisons.

I would just indicate that the department is, as part of budgetary directions, seeking to recover costs in certain areas and one of them is in the area of inspections and licences to a greater extent. Some of the increases will take that into account, that we are trying to recover some costs in that respect.

Mr. Reid: Will the change in the fees the minister talks about here obtain full cost recovery for the department for the issuing of those licences?

Mr. Toews: That is a difficult thing to say. The department presently, in terms of recovery, it recovers about 69 percent of its cost. I certainly do not believe that governments should be making money in some of these areas, but we do want to see a fair recovery where we are providing a service. I understand that the 69 percent figure is accurate.

If one looks at the figures for other provinces in terms of their inspectors, inspections and their fees for trade licences, you will find that Manitoba is consistently at the low end of the cost scale. It is a real good deal in Manitoba in terms of obtaining your licence.

Mr. Reid: I look forward to receiving that information from the minister.

In the Supplementary Estimates document it references information requests the department receives from government agencies, unions, management and other members of the public. Can the minister give me some idea, because this document indicates that there are some 400 information requests that come to the department, the type of request we might see coming forward? What type of information are individuals seeking?

Mr. Toews: I guess this would be in addition to requests that these various groups would make for the minister to speak at certain public functions.

I am advised that these relate to general labour statistics, including collective agreement analysis and wage settlements, work stoppages and union membership numbers in the province.

Mr. Reid: There does not appear to be, at least I have not seen it in the Supplementary Estimates document, the Freedom of Information requests. Does the department get Freedom of Information requests coming to them as well?

* (1620)

Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairman, in respect of the year '94-95, the department received 37 requests under The Freedom of Information Act, and I could give you, just generally, a breakdown as to the outcome of those.

There were 16 requests. Nine were partially denied, so in a positive sense, a portion of that request, the information was given. Five were denied. Three were withdrawn. One was abandoned, and we have here no record on three. So I am not exactly sure what that means, but it may well be that they too were abandoned.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for the information.

Under the research and administrative support that the department, this Management Services Division provides to the Labour Management Review Committees, and the Construction Industry Wages board and the Minimum Wage Board, it is my understanding that the Construction Industry Wages Board has reported recently. Can the minister tell me when that report came out? Is it possible to get a copy of that report, and what were the recommendations of the report?

Mr. Toews: I can advise that in 1991, the Minister of Labour requested the Labour Management Review Committee to make recommendations to improve The Construction Industry Wages Act. That work was undertaken by a joint labour and business review committee, and that report was submitted in February of 1993.

There were approximately 54 proposals made in this report to the Minister of Labour in June of 1993. Now the Labour Management Review Committee concurred in 39 of the proposals of the review committee, 12 were amended and then jointly recommended by the LMRC and the review committee. Separate proposals were made by each of the two committees on three of the issues.

Now, this was one of the matters that was drawn to my attention when I took over this portfolio. It is an area where I have been receiving many representations from various sectors of our economy. As I indicated in my opening statements, that is something that I do wish to look at. It is a particularly difficult area and I certainly would appreciate, if not the co-operation, but at least the assistance of the opposition parties, both the NDP and the Liberals in terms of trying to resolve this problem.

I think it is a problem that crosses the traditional employer-union division. Some unions are in favour of it; some of them are against it. Again, with the employers, similarly. What concerns me the most about the act is that while there are some good public policy reasons why that particular act should be there, I think the real concerns that I have are that it is just so difficult to administer, not only for the government inspectors who are trying to figure out exactly who is owed what under what wage schedule on what day, but also by the employer who is trying to figure out what he is to pay, or she is to pay.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

I think in this area of the law, more than anything, where there is a breach of the law, I think it is more in ignorance of the law because the law is so badly put together, than in fact any deliberate flaunting of the law.

There are other concerns that have been raised with me, that this particular act is dissuading employers from hiring people to get into the construction industry so that they can be trained and become the trained workers of tomorrow.

So there are various good public policy reasons why we want to maintain the act, and I think especially in terms of when we see some of the cutbacks coming from the federal government in the UI Program, The Construction Industry Wages Act with its higher minimum offers some protection to construction workers by giving a higher minimum wage given the seasonal nature of much of that work.

So there are good public policy reasons. Whether that public policy has to be expressed in so cumbersome a manner with so many wage schedules is a matter that I question. I think that even those who support the act realize that there has to be a measure of reform.

I would be pleased to share that report with the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and I, again, will have my deputy minister forward that report to him. If the member has some views in terms of how we can reform this area of the law to ensure that workers and employers find that the law assists them rather than hinders them, I would certainly welcome his comments and his addressing of the issue.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for indicating that he is going to send along a copy of the report from the construction industry wages board.

Because the minister has indicated here that there is some reform required of the act, when does the minister anticipate that that reform will take place? In what manner will it take place? Will it involve all of the stakeholders in the process? When might we expect that to occur?

Mr. Toews: Clearly, Mr. Chairman, when one speaks of reform in this area, to do so without consulting the major stakeholders is foolhardy. The labour organizations, employers and individual employees all have an interest in terms of the legislation, and they will be consulted in the course of any changes made.

The Construction Industry Wages Act, of course, I cannot give a time line as to when that should be reformed or when the actual proposals will come forward. I look forward to receiving the member for Transcona's comments in that respect, and, certainly, his comments and recommendations will be taken into account.

Again, I do not see the reform as involving substantial changes to the law but rather a clarification of the law, so that it can be easily administered. Now this may, in fact, result in, for example, the elimination of three wage schedules and having one wage schedule and having a different grouping of minimum wages, but, clearly, I would want to see fewer classifications and a streamlining of the process, an easier enforcement of the act, an easier understanding of the act by employers and employees. So I see a streamlining of the act rather than a substantial interference with the public policy behind the act.

Just in that vein, one of the concerns that I had as a lawyer for the Department of Labour was the whole area of employment law and the regulation of the employment area. This is outside of The Labour Relations Act, which I indicated yesterday I know needs some fine tuning and a few other changes, just from a personal point of view, but I do not see any major reform required in the same way that I do in the employment law area.

* (1630)

The major problem that I see in the area of employment law in our province today is that we have so many acts that might deal with the same issues and which have definitions of exact words defined differently in different acts. So what I would like to see, again, in this context is a rationalization, a streamlining, a dovetailing.

Optimistically, I would like to see a code. I know that there have been certain steps taken by the government in recent years for eliminating some of the acts. For example, I know that there used to be an odd little creature on the statute books called The Recovery of Wages Act, where one could file essentially criminal information before a magistrate for the recovery of wages. Now, we had that act on the books the same time that The Payment of Wages Act was there which provided a very, very efficient administrative civil process for the recovery of wages, and for years this act hung around and really had no purpose. The Recovery of Wages Act was never used by lawyers and just created, I think, unnecessary confusion and that particular act was repealed. There was no need for it.

Clearly, I do not see a need for bringing matters of wage recovery and that into the criminal courts. I think the administrative tribunals have proven themselves over and over as the more suitable mechanism for dealing with these kinds of complaints.

There has been some rationalization, some clarification, some unification in the area, but I think that The Construction Industry Wages Act, in itself, needs to be clarified, and, generally speaking, employment standards legislation in this province needs to be clarified.

Again, I would not proceed in that respect without consulting with the stakeholders. I would like, if possible, to move while we still have the opportunity to move in that respect, and I would certainly, again, welcome any comments by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) in that respect.

I know that under previous governments prior to 1988 under a labour law review, there was a code that was done of employment law and, in my opinion, it was a very well-done code. There were certain substantive matters that I do not agree with, but I think, generally speaking, that code moved in the right direction in terms of trying to clarify what the law in the area of employment law should be. I think that whatever government first proposed that kind of reform, it is not necessary for this government to reinvent the wheel, in my opinion. If there were good things done in the past, let us not throw those out and start again.

There are many, many good starts, and again my view in this respect is not to create substantive changes but rather clarify the process so that everybody knows where we are when it comes to the area of employment law, to clarify the legal process, to clarify administrative processes, to make it clear exactly how minimum wages are governed and the like.

So it is rationalization and clarification that I seek when I talk about amendments to this type of legislation rather than substantive political changes. I do not think they are necessary at this time. I think most of the stakeholders want a stable economic climate in which to do business, whether you are on the labour side or you are on the management side or whether you are just an employee concerned about protecting his or her job and their place in our province.

Mr. Reid: There was some concern and I had concerns both on my part and concerns that others have brought to my attention. I know when the minister was first appointed as the Minister of Labour, when he made reference to the harmonization of portions of the acts impacting upon labour and management, it caused some uneasiness amongst people in labour in that there was some thought that maybe some of the current legislation that was in place was going to be eliminated by the minister.

The minister referenced one area that he thought could be eliminated with respect to the payment of wages through the criminal court system, and quite possibly, that is an area that in those type of circumstances where you have a duplication of legislation, one would become redundant as long as there was another one there that was adequate to fill the needs of the public in those areas.

If I understand the minister correctly here, he is not saying that we are going to have a wholesale change in harmonization and watering down or amendments or deletions of current employment standards, labour standards, Workplace Health and Safety standards, pension standards. Am I correct in those assumptions or those comments?

Mr. Toews: Mr. Chairman, let me take that question apart a little bit. First of all, clearly in the area of employment standards, it is not my intent--and again it is not my call by myself; obviously it is caucus and it is cabinet that makes these decisions--but it would not be my intent to bring forward legislation that then creates holes in our regulatory net. I think that the regulatory net just needs to be clarified. It does not necessarily need to be extended, nor does it need to be made smaller.

All I am seeking in terms of my policy thrust and the recommendations that I would be making would be, let us clarify the law, let us not continue with this confusion. So that is in the area of employment standards, and the one example that I gave was The Wages Recovery Act which has already been appealed, which was a criminal matter because, exactly as the member for Transcona points out, there was The Payment of Wages Act which more than adequately covered the situation which allowed workers to recover their wages through the assistance of a government-appointed director and his or her assistants. So there was a mechanism where, on a civil standard of proof, these wages were recovered and also, to a certain extent, guaranteed by the government of Manitoba through the Wages Fund regulation.

So in that particular area, again, I do not see any need to eliminate. I want to clarify what the law is. I am not interested in creating holes. I am interested in making a uniform act, dovetailing. That would be the ideal.

Just, without commenting on the substance, I would point the member to the British Columbia act, the code that was made there by the former NDP government, not this NDP government but the NDP government under Mr. Barrett. There was a very interesting code. The member for Transcona and I may disagree about some of the substance of that particular code, but in terms of clarity, the stakeholders in that province had a very clear reference. They knew where to go to find out what the law was. So that is essentially what I am proposing. No substantive changes, but a measure of clarity.

* (1640)

In the area of Workplace Safety and Health, which the member for Transcona also raised, this is an area that I am very much interested in, and not so much in terms of making amendments to the act. The act, I think, was a very, very progressive act. It was drafted, as I have stated from time to time, by a layperson and perhaps layperson in the sense of not being a lawyer. Perhaps that is what gives it some of its beauty and some of its strength and understandability. I know that some of the act has had to have been amended from time to time, but I would venture to say no more than any other piece of legislation put together by lawyers.

So the act itself has a very, very good framework. There are questions, I think, about what is the appropriate way of filling in the detail of that act. As we know, traditionally regulations have formed that function and so that when we want to clarify a main principle in the act, the act provides the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or some other specific administrative tribunal or administrative creature to create these regulations.

These regulations are not necessarily the best way to go. And again, this act has created two other statutory vehicles for giving government and others a way to ensure that worker safety is not compromised. Those two vehicles are called codes of practice and guidelines. The codes of practice, I have never seen that in another act, and it is a very, very interesting little animal. What in fact this does is allow the director of Workplace Safety and Health, in order to clarify a regulation, draw up very practical summaries to say to a workplace, the employer or an employee, this is what you have to do when it comes to digging holes in the earth, you know, to put in sewer pipes, or whatever. So the director can put out these codes of practice and educate the employer and say, this is the appropriate thing to do.

Now, an employer--often the complaint about a regulation is that it is always black and white, you have got to do it this way. What a code of practice does is say, this is an acceptable way of doing things. This is the way you are going to protect worker safety. If an employer, a sophisticated employer or otherwise, says, no, that is not the way to do it, there are better ways of doing it, that employer can chose that other way. But if a worker's safety is compromised and a prosecution is commenced, the code of practice is then tendered in evidence as the safety standard, and then the onus is on the employer or the person charged to demonstrate that the way that he or she did it was as good, if not better.

So what we are doing is offering practical guidance in these codes of practice with some measure of flexibility that regulations do not necessarily grant all the time. We do this, I suggest, without compromising worker safety. In fact, most of the employers, when they are met with these kinds of practical codes of practice, in fact, of course, adopt them.

Now, an employer cannot just say, I disagree with it, I am going to do it in a very shoddy way and hope to get away with it and hope that the digging does not collapse. There still is the right of the Workplace Safety and Health officer to come in, either on a general inspection or as a result of a worker saying, I am not climbing down that hole and refusing to work. Then the Workplace Safety and Health officer in examining it also has the code of practice and can write up an order ordering that it be done in a specific way. If the employer does not like that, or whoever is being ordered to do something does not like that, then again, we have an appeal mechanism, not through the criminal courts that usually do not understand these types of things and have no expertise in dealing with practical matters of worker safety, but that appeal goes to the director of Workplace Safety and Health, and then ultimately, if those matters are not concluded at that level, can go to the Labour Board where the Labour Board sits as the appeal board under The Workplace Safety and Health Act.

So again, very, very practical ways of resolving problems and again, we do not necessarily have to use regulations, cumbersome black and white regulations, because what I would hate to see is a black and white regulation telling an employer, do this, and the result of that is compromising worker safety.

There is another instrument which the people in Workplace Safety and Health use, just simple guidelines. So a roofing contractor is instructed to, just by very practical guidelines, to conduct his operations in such-and-such a way. Again, the guidelines cannot form the basis of a prosecution. If you do not follow the guidelines, you could not be prosecuted just because you did not follow the guideline, but again, it gives proper guidance, it gives education to an employer, and therefore, in most cases we find the employer agreeing with it.

Just going back to the appeal to the Labour Board, in the years that I acted for the Workplace Safety and Health division, I can only recall two or three appeals to the Labour Board on somewhat difficult matters, and I think only one or two of those ever went to a formal board hearing where a final order was made. So most of these matters are resolved at the director of Workplace Safety and Health legislation.

I know the member's question related more to, do I see wholesale changes in legislation or regulations. I do not see this minister becoming involved in a dismantling of safety standards, but rather trying to determine and utilize different ways to ensure that safety is enforced. There are many mechanisms that we have, and we should not always go to traditional mechanisms such as prosecutions. Prosecutions, in my opinion, are one of the worst ways to see safety standards enforced because all they basically do is say that someone is guilty or not guilty of a criminal offence, and a fine is imposed.

For some employers and others generally, that is the only way they can be brought to heel, so we will never rule out prosecutions in appropriate cases. But I think in terms of worker safety, the best thing is through the civil process and through the enforcement of the civil orders and appeals to the director or bringing in Workplace Safety and Health officers.

Mr. Reid: I have to remember not to make my questions so extensive and involved. It gives me more opportunity to ask more questions if I keep it brief and to the point, I see. It was an extensive answer and, obviously, the minister has some experience and some personal viewpoints in his dealings and his experience working with and for the department.

The Construction Industry Wages board, I believe, as one of their recommendations indicated that there should be some adjustment to the wage level for the tradespeople. I believe it was a unanimous recommendation. Is there some reason why that unanimous recommendation has not been acted upon to this point?

Mr. Toews: In respect to that particular recommendation, given the economic climate at that time there did not seem to be any particular need to move in that respect, but I think secondly and more importantly, is that that recommendation needs to be looked at in the context of the entire reform of the act.

Again, that is one of the reasons why I see that we should be moving in respect of looking at all of the recommendations and determining exactly where we are going in respect to that particular act.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister--oh, the honourable for Transcona. I am getting sleepy.

* (1650)

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, that will be the next election.

The recommendations came out in February of '93, or at least the report was received that contained the recommendations. So we have had over two years that have passed since that point in time for a recommendation that was unanimous by both the employers and the various labour organizations that were involved.

The question here, I guess, is, since it has been over two years, nearly two and a half years, when might this recommendation be acted upon?

Mr. Toews: All I can say in that respect is that the act and its various component parts have been brought to my attention perhaps more than any one particular piece of legislation that I am responsible for, more times. I hope that makes sense.

Lots of people have been coming to see me about that particular act, certainly more than any other act. So it is a matter that I am concerned about, that I feel that it is appropriate to act on as an area that needs to be reformed.

It is very difficult to bring about reforms in that area when you work in an area of the law where consensus is required. In the area of labour, as I am sure the member for Transcona knows, it is not just my way or the highway. It has to be an element of consensus, and the real problem is that there does not seem to be a consensus out in the community in respect of what--

An Honourable Member: Labour? Business?

Mr. Toews: Labour or business--should be done with that act. So I want to look at the recommendations. I want to see where there is enough consensus to move and to see whether we can in fact make reforms and perhaps there have been certain changes in the community to allow us to move at this time.

But I want to assure the member for Transcona that I, like the members of the community out there, am concerned about this particular act. I realize that something should be done in respect of those recommendations.

Mr. Reid: Then there has been no time frame indicated. The minister has expressed his interest in reforming or making changes or implementing some of the recommendations, so I take it then that we will just have to wait until the minister comes forward with whatever proposals that he will have in mind.

In this section here, it also made reference to the Minimum Wage Board. We know that the Minimum Wage Board has come out with some advice on adjustments in the government, as the minister has already indicated, I believe, in his opening comments. He is going to make some adjustments to the minimum wage July 1, which is the end of this week and again on January 1 of '96, up to, I believe, $5.40 an hour.

Is a copy of that Minimum Wage Board report available? Can we obtain a copy of that? Were there criteria that were given to the board, or do they act independently in reviewing the matters and then in reporting back with their recommendations to the minister with respect to any amendments or changes to the minimum wage for the province?

Would it not seem more reasonable, instead of making it $5.40 an hour because, as we all know, $5.40 an hour for a person working full time trying to support a family does not stretch very far, and, quite frankly, I do not know how any family could live on that, would it not have been in the best interests of those who are working and trying to live on such a salary to have that at least meet the six dollar an hour mark? I would like the minister's opinion on that, as well.

Mr. Toews: In respect to the member for Transcona's question, as he indicated, the minimum wage will increase to $5.25 on July 1 at the end of this week and to $5.40 on January 1, 1996.

To assist in the formulation of its recommendations, the Minimum Wage Board carried out extensive public consultations, and approximately 115 written submissions were received during this public consultation phase. The board heard from approximately 40 individuals or organizations during two special meetings which were arranged.

During the course of these presentations, the board heard strong arguments both for and against an increased minimum wage. Employee groups, in fact, mentioned the arguments raised by the member for Transcona, indicating essentially that the minimum wage be raised to offset increases in the cost of living. However, employer groups on the other hand cautioned that too high an increase would have a negative impact on job creation.

The recommendation, I think, from the board, bearing in mind all the representations, was a reasonable one. It, in fact, will place Manitoba ahead of six provinces and only behind three other provinces in Canada. So, again, this rate of $5.40 represents an 8 percent increase over the current level of $5.00 an hour, which is comparable to changes in the cost of living of 7.3 percent from March of '91 to December of '94.

I would indicate that it is a difficult issue and perhaps one where the minimum wage is not the only answer. Clearly, issues of education, of retraining, all impact on this to ensure that workers in Manitoba can obtain jobs that are satisfactory and that they can become self-sufficient, contributing members of our society, and, clearly, our government is concerned about that, and that, again, is why we have emphasized job creation and investment in this province, because government can create certain minimums, but often those minimums are artificial and do little. Governments can create jobs, but often we find that when the job funding disappears, so do those jobs.

This government's policy in respect to job creation is that we create permanent jobs that are self-sustaining, in which members of our community can be profitably employed and then become contributing members of our society.

So I think that the minimum wage law and the minimum wage recommendations are important, and I think that a balance has been achieved between the various interest groups, including employee interest groups, and we want to continue encouraging the development of business in this province, so that there are jobs for people to work at. That is our No. 1 priority.

* (1700)

Mr. Reid: I know this is probably one of those philosophical discussions that the minister and I could go at for an extended period of time, but, unfortunately, we are at the end of the Estimates process or nearing it, and we do not have that time because I have questions in other areas I need to ask.

I did ask, though, that if possible, a copy of that report could be provided, and I want to reference a resumé that I just received in my office this morning from a young woman who has two degrees, obviously a well-educated individual, and the individual has been working at what one might consider menial jobs, trying to make a living, and has had to go onto welfare because of the condition of the job market. So here is an individual who stayed in school, completed the education, still having difficulty finding a job and trying to make a living on minimum wage, so staying in school, while a lot of us talk about it, is not always the answer.

I know the minister referenced that as one of the solutions that individuals who are having to live on minimum wage could do. If circumstances of life permit, perhaps they can go back to school, receive some re-education or some retraining to try and upgrade their skills to make them more marketable, if that is what we want to reference or call it, to allow them to achieve a higher level of income, but that is not always available or possible, and that for those who cannot for whatever reason achieve that, then, of course, they are forced to live on minimum wage.

I think, judging or looking at the level of income that a minimum wage provides to a person working full time, I do not know how any family can survive on that or any individual, for that matter, because to me it is not a livable wage, even at $5.40 an hour, and I would like to know if I can get a copy of the report from the Minimum Wage Board.

Mr. Toews: I will take that under advisement.

Mr. Reid: Does that mean that the minister has to consult with stakeholders, or how does one know whether or not that copy will be available and when?

Mr. Toews: I will make the necessary inquiries, and if it is appropriate to release that document to the member, I will release that document to you.

Mr. Reid: I would appreciate, too, if the minister sees that it is not possible to release the document or he is advised that it is not to be released, that he provide some reasoning to me, so that I can understand what those reasons might be.

I am prepared to pass this section, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Toews: I have no concerns about that.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2. Labour Programs (a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,234,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $275,000--pass.

2.(b) Mechanical and Engineering (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,793,800.

Mr. Reid: In the previous section, 2.(a), I had asked questions pertaining to licensing of various trades. There has been some discussion that I have been made aware of pertaining to compulsory certification. It is my understanding that there are trades within the province here that do not require certification, and I believe one of those, and not to single this one out in particular, but I believe it is the plumbing industry, for example.

While those who are working in the industry, if they do gas fitting, they have to have a gas fitter's licence and training, but if they are doing strictly the plumbing aspects of the job, there is no certification required to make sure that we have people with certain skill levels, so that when someone comes in to do plumbing work in the construction of my new home or anyone else's new home, for example, that we know that we have got qualified tradespeople doing that work, not to say that the people who are doing the work now are not qualified, but is there some consideration being given to compulsory certification of all of the trades in the province now that are not currently required to have certification?

Mr. Toews: In respect of the question raised, Mr. Chairman, I can advise that the primary concern of the Department of Labour in respect of the certification is public safety, and so there are gas fitters that we certify. Again, the interest is public safety, and electricians we certify because of public safety concerns. For professional reasons or trade reasons, plumbers have not been seen in that same sense, requiring certification for public safety reasons. Now, that is not to say that plumbers do not need education and do not need training. Plumbers do participate in the apprenticeship programs, and those, of course, are administered by the Department of Education.

I think the real question that I think the member should be considering, as this government should be considering, is, is it certification that we need or is it continuing education that we need? If the issue is one of not so much public safety but an issue of consumer protection, an issue of skills, then continuing education is the appropriate way to be doing this rather than a simple certification.

How one assures that is through continuing education programs, and that, of course, is a question that the department is considering and probably more appropriately in the context of the Department of Education.

Mr. Reid: I guess the question here, because the minister says it falls more directly under the responsibility of the Department of Education--he is saying that the people who are doing the work have to be responsible for upgrading their skills continually, and, therefore, it then becomes the responsibility of the inspection departments to go out and inspect the various types of work to ensure that the people are performing the work to a certain skill level.

So it all falls back on somebody else instead of ensuring right up front that the person who is coming in your door of your home, Mr. Minister, to do work, or my home or anybody else's home, has a skill level to leave me and other members of the public with some level of assurances that I have a person coming in that door who has the skills necessary to do that work and that there is a certification to back that up, as we have in other trades of the province. That is why I have raised the issue. Perhaps the minister can comment.

* (1710)

Mr. Toews: Well, in respect of that, I would say that the apprenticeship program does offer those kinds of guarantees to the public, that the person who comes to your door to perform those services has a certain level of expertise and therefore can satisfy the demands of the consumer.

I know once we get to the certification issue, we can say, well, is the certification, in fact, doing that? What does the certification do? Does it guarantee certain minimum standards? That is correct, but, again, that does not necessarily guarantee that you are getting the best electrician or the best pipefitter.

Again, in that context, I think we have to start--[interjection] Well, what we have to do, I think, is, in fact, look at the whole area of continuing education, because certification guarantees certain minimum standards, but continuing education guarantees that the person working in that area keeps abreast of changes in technology in the industry, and that is what we, I think, need to look at.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me how many trades in the province of Manitoba are certified, how many trades are not, and can you identify them?

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Toews: Yes, in respect of licences, the department licenses essentially three areas--

Mr. Reid: Certification.

Mr. Toews: Certification. Well, that is essentially in the Department of Education, and I think that is the appropriate place to raise that. I understand that these people go through the various apprenticeships, and I think there are about 40 or so in that area, but those programs are handled by the Department of Education.

Mr. Reid: Well then, do the trades that receive licensing through the department, of those that get their licensing through the department, how many of them are certified trades, have certified skills?

Mr. Toews: I understand of the three, just the electricians.

Mr. Reid: So then perhaps the minister can provide a reason why we require electricians to have that certification and training. I am an electrician by trade and I can understand and appreciate what takes place in the trade, but why is it this is the only trade? There are other areas that can involve public safety, if this is the issue, and perhaps the minister can clarify for me why it is only electricians.

Mr. Toews: In response to the question, a person is not just handed a licence. They are in fact trained, and, well, they write the licences and they then have to meet the standards that are set by the Department of Labour. In that sense we certify them, so maybe the electricians are certified in a different way, but there are certain standards that through our licensing process are met, and that those minimum public safety standards are met.

Mr. Reid: It seems to be going around in circles here. I an not getting the numbers I am looking for in the areas--[interjection] The trades that do not require certification to get their licensing. That was the question essentially that I asked, and I am not sure if that is the answer that I received from the minister. Perhaps the minister can comment.

Mr. Toews: Perhaps I can deal with it in this way. The Department of Labour does not certify anyone. They licence. I understand from my officials and perhaps the member from Transcona knows this because he is an electrician, but the electricians are in fact certified. They are not certified by the Department of Labour, but they are licenced by the Department of Labour. The Department of Labour also licence the gas and oil fitters and the power engineers, and for all of those trades and the various levels in those trades they write two exams to qualify.

So, in fact, a certification is a certificate as is a licence in that sense. I do not know whether we are just mixing around here with the same word, but we licence these three areas after they meet certain examination standards. As far as the Department of Labour is concerned these people, once they are licenced, have the minimum standards necessary to assure the public that a certain level of safety occurs in the job transaction.

Mr. Reid: I guess the question remains then, the trades that require certification to get the licensing. The minister has referenced three areas, electricians, gas and oil fitters and then power engineers. I guess the question remains, why are the other areas excluded from requirements of certification in order to achieve licensing by the department? Why is that not one of the criteria of the department, that there is certification prior to the issuing of licences?

Mr. Toews: Maybe this will help clarify. I am told or advised by members of my department that gas and oil fitters and the power engineers sit at exams or tests in order to become licenced, so that is how they become licenced. That is the process through which they become licenced by being examined on what they do know or do not know, plus time served. The electricians, on the other hand, produce the certification and on the basis of that certification are licenced, so they do not sit the tests with the Department of Labour. They may sit it with someone else but not with the Department of Labour.

Mr. Reid: Okay, that provides some explanation for me although I do not totally agree with what has taken place there. [interjection] It appears that it is not totally rational in that we require it for some trades and we do not require it for others, so perhaps I can leave it with the minister for the sake of time here.

Perhaps that is one of the areas he can look at since he is relatively new to the department and maybe over a period of time have his policy advisers come back and indicate to him whether or not there should be some changes in compulsory certification. Perhaps at the next Estimates process we can raise the issue again and find out what progress, if any, has been made on that particular subject.

* (1720)

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

I had the opportunity in the past, and I know one of the minister's advisers here, Mr. Mault, was involved with this a number of years ago in the community of Transcona when we had difficulties with Flame-Master Furnaces in the heat exchangers. Since it has been some time, can the minister indicate what has taken place with that issue? Have the residents, wherever they may be in the province, because it was not only in the community of Transcona, received any adjustments by way of cost or changes to the equipment to make sure that the equipment first is safe because there were families that were affected and had to be rushed to hospital?

Mr. Toews: Essentially, as I understand that issue, there was a study from the University of Manitoba which indicated manufacturing deficiencies which led to failures. These failures were fatigue cracks caused by the forming process and a sample--Engineered Air has a replacement heat exchanger available that is approved. Now, the Mechanical and Engineering branch had received reports of premature failure of those heat exchangers in those furnaces in March of '92 and again, as the member points out, the failure of the heat exchanger can allow carbon monoxide to be released and in fact pose a potential health hazard.

The Department of Labour and Centra Gas advised the customers with these furnaces to have their units checked immediately and the problem, of course, received widespread media attention. Now, the manufacturer of those furnaces, Climatemaster, was based in Edmonton, Alberta, and it has gone into bankruptcy. The defective model has no longer been available for sale since 1988, and unfortunately the warranties on the furnace were no longer valid and the repairs, then, were made at the owners' expenses.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for refreshing my memory on all the details of what took place. I did have the opportunity to sit in on meetings with residents from my community and the former Minister of Labour on this issue. We were aware of what the minister said that it was going to be residents' cost, and it was unfortunate, because many of them had just moved into relatively new homes and the furnace heat exchangers failed. Some of them, I know, had problems with carbon monoxide inhalation and were taken to hospital.

So it was a hazard, and I do not know, is there a CSA standard for these pieces of equipment? I mean, CSA must have, at least I hope they would have looked at this equipment. Is there some means of redress here so that the cost does not have to be borne by the homeowners, not only in the community of Transcona but I believe it was in Gimli as well in one of the housing units there that was affected? Is there no redress that the residents have to this issue?

Mr. Toews: Unfortunately, as a result of the company going into bankruptcy, there was no redress for those residents, and, again, it is an unfortunate situation. Even if a heat exchanger has been CSA approved, CSA, generally speaking, is not an insurer in that sense. I do not know whether there is any legal redress that homeowners could seek in that respect, but given the primary person responsible, that is, Climatemaster based in Edmonton, going under, with it going bankrupt, unfortunately the primary person has been removed and obviously eliminates an area where or place where owners could receive some redress.

Mr. Reid: I have several other questions in this area. They will have to wait until perhaps another opportunity.

I am prepared to pass this section.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(b) Mechanical and Engineering (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits--$1,793,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $426,000--pass.

2.(c) Fire Prevention (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,965,200.

Mr. Reid: For the sake of time here, Mr. Chairperson, I will just leave this question with the minister, and I will come back and ask the question again, I believe in concurrence, or where we have another opportunity.

It is relating to the training of First Nations people for firefighting and the role that perhaps the department might play in the assuming of some of the duties in the various municipalities, now that the airports are being turned over from the federal government to the provincial government. I think along with that, the emergency response, including firefighting duties, would be involved in some of those responsibilities.

So I will want to know the training that will take place for First Nations people in the communities of central and northern Manitoba.

I am prepared to pass that section.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(c) Fire Prevention (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,965,200--pass.

2.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $1,353,000.

Mr. Reid: One other question perhaps I can leave with the minister that I can raise with him again in concurrence is in regard to the inspections that the department does for fire prevention in some of the housing facilities of the province.

We have seen some pretty serious fires that have taken place where there has been loss of life. I would like to know, the inspections that are done to learn more about how the Fire Commissioner's office functions through their inspections, do they go out and do regular inspections of buildings prior to a fire taking place, for example, to determine whether or not there is adequate fire detector equipment in place to ensure that there is a maximum amount of safety for the public in these matters?

I will raise that question with the minister when we get into concurrence, but I will leave it with him, and perhaps he can confer with his officials when he has an opportunity. I will pass that section.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 2.(c) Fire Prevention (2) Other Expenditures $1,353,300--pass.

2.(d) Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $411,400.

Mr. Reid: The questions that I have here relate to some of the strike situations that are occurring in the province.

We have currently Centra Gas and its employees that are in dispute. We have Famous Players and its employees which are in dispute. We have the projectionists, of course, who are part of that Famous Players dispute. We have Building Products, and I believe there may be others.

What role does Conciliation play in this process? Is it actively involved in all of these disputes, and have we made any progress to date?

* (1730)

Mr. Toews: If I have the question right, the member for Transcona has asked about the involvement of the Conciliation branch in the Building Products matter, Centra Gas and in the Famous Players.

As the member for Transcona knows, this branch only gets involved in issues where there is a request to become involved by either party. Either party can request the involvement of Conciliation, and the department then provides them with the conciliation officer.

I can indicate that in the Famous Players matter, conciliation meetings have been held on a fairly regular basis. A meeting was held February 10 of 1995, April 20, 1995, and the officer, himself, has been in touch with both parties on a weekly basis. There is a meeting scheduled in the very near future--July 2, 1995, that is correct.

In respect of the Building Products matter, there is still a conciliation officer involved in that matter. [interjection] The progress at this time is not optimistic in terms of our involvement at this point.

Just in respect of the Centra Gas matter, there has been no request for a conciliation officer.

Mr. Reid: I could be wrong in this, but it was my understanding that a conciliation officer had played a role just in the last week or so with respect to trying to bring the two sides together to try and resolve the outstanding issues and that when the employee representative in the negotiations had requested a face-to-face meeting with Centra Gas officials, the Centra Gas officials refused and walked out of the meeting with the conciliator. Is that accurate?

Mr. Toews: I think the best way to answer that question, because of the nature of this dispute, is that the department has not appointed any formal conciliation officer at this time.

The department does continue to be in touch with both parties on an ongoing basis to see whether there is a need for a conciliation officer, and, generally speaking, the conciliation officer is appointed at the request. No conciliation officer has yet been appointed. I would not say that a conciliation officer has not talked to either or both parties, but certainly not in any formal way.

Mr. Reid: Is the minister aware that there was a ruling in Alberta recently dealing with the Famous Players issue and that there was some bad-faith bargaining that had taken place there, and the matter had been ruled on by the courts, and it had been ruled in favour of the union, and the employer was instructed or ordered by the courts to allow the employees to return to work and to continue with the negotiations.

Does the minister see that taking place within the province of Manitoba here, as well, and have the parties negotiated in good faith?

Mr. Toews: I am obviously not going to offer an opinion as to whether I think parties have negotiated in good faith. It is certainly none of my business to offer an opinion like that.

I am aware of the decision by the Alberta board. In fact, I had an opportunity to read it. I still do read law from time to time out of interest, and especially where the interests coincide with my department, I try to keep up in legal matters. I might just state that in reading the decision of the Alberta board, it is not a usual decision or run-of-the-mill decision. It is a rather unique approach to that, and I was quite interested in the reasoning, if I could say that.

That clearly is not a matter for the minister to get involved with in determining whether or not somebody has been bargaining in bad faith. That is clearly a matter for the Labour Board to consider, and that is always open, of course, to one or the other parties.

In my opinion, it is always preferable to try to work out issues between themselves without some third party imposing a resolution, but that option is always open, of course, to one or the other parties. At this point, conciliation meetings are ongoing, and we hope that the matter can be resolved in that fashion.

Mr. Reid: I do not want to be involved in a long philosophical discussion here, but perhaps if final offer selection could have played a role in the process between the parties in the disputes that they have at this point in time, then perhaps the employees would be working, and the companies would be having the services of these skilled people to do the work for them.

There was one other area, as well, that I neglected to include with the group of companies and their employees that are in dispute, and that is Northern Blower, which has been going on for some time. I know the employees are still on strike at that location. Is a conciliation officer involved or anyone from this department involved in trying to resolve this long-standing and unfortunate dispute?

Mr. Toews: Firstly, in respect to the comments in respect of final offer selection, I do not think that that particular device does anything to promote collective bargaining in the province, while there are some good things, I think, that can be said about first contract legislation, especially the type of first contract legislation that we have here in Manitoba.

First contract legislation coupled with final offer selection, I think, is very, very destructive of a collective bargaining relationship, and I do not think, in the long term, would advance the interests of either employees or employers. In fact, that is why the government removed final offer selection but, in fact, retained first contract, which I think has an important role to play in our labour relations scheme. So I disagree with the member as to the value of final offer selection, and I think for a good reason it was taken out because of how destructive it is to collective bargaining relationships.

In respect of the Northern Blower situation, the strike is continuing. The conciliation officer, members of my department are in contact with the company from time to time, but there does not seem to be any progress in that respect. There are some concerns about the financial viability of that company. This strike has been ongoing since June 17, 1992.

Mr. Reid: I have several other areas, and what I am going to do, for the sake of time here, I am going to reference them for the minister's information, so that when we go back into concurrence, the minister will have some idea of the questions I will be attempting to ask at that time.

I had questions relating to the Manitoba Labour Board and also relating to some idea of what the minister's experience has been when he was acting as a lawyer for the department. I also had questions relating to, perhaps, some advice the minister could provide relating to when companies go bankrupt, why employees are not the first ones to be paid out wages and benefits when those companies go bankrupt. Is there something that we can do about that, or does it fall under federal jurisdiction that might take precedence on that?

I have questions with respect to workplace safety and health, the amount of lost time due to workplace injuries, questions relating to the mine accidents, to the investigations that had taken place in northern Manitoba, the orders that were attached to some of the mining operations that, my understanding is, were not followed through or carried through, the number of investigations that are ongoing, how they are initiated, how many cases are prosecuted.

* (1740)

I have a question relating to one of the safety and health officers relating to how they conduct their interviews for employees. I have questions relating to under Occupational Health for the industrial disease panel, and other areas that I will raise in the House at that time with respect to worker advisors and the caseload they have and the number of people. So I will leave it at that and allow the department to pass.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2. Labour Programs (d) Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $411,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $85,600--pass.

(e) Pension Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $270,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $78,500--pass.

(f) Manitoba Labour Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $572,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $285,200--pass.

(g) Workplace Safety and Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,420,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $700,900--pass.

(h) Occupational Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $212,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $34,500--pass.

(j) Mines Inspection (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $633,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $176,500--pass.

(k) Employment Standards (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,598,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $259,800--pass.

(m) Worker Advisor Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $547,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $122,800--pass.

(n) Labour Adjustment Salaries and Employee Benefits (1) $326,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $317,600--pass.

RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $16,101,900 for Labour, Labour Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Item 3. Payment of Wages Fund $225,000--pass.

RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $225,000 for Labour, Payment of Wages Fund, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Labour is item l.(a) Minister's Salary $11,400.

At this point, we request the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.

Item 1.(a) $11,400--pass.

RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $347,400 for Labour, Labour Executive, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the Civil Service Commission.