4th-36th Vol. 29B-Committee of Supply-Labour

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

When the committee last sat it had been considering item 11.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 102 of the Estimates book. Shall this item pass?

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I believe before the lunch break, Mr. Chairperson, I had asked a question that the minister was just in the process of answering, and it was dealing with cost recovery for the department. I had asked that question and I believe he had not completed his answer.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Before I proceed with the answer, I would like to just address a couple of things that were mentioned this morning. I had suggested that the member for Transcona was the one who raised the question of the minimum wage in the House. In fact, it was not the member for Transcona. It was his leader, the honourable Leader of the official opposition. I apologize for that confusion. I often get members opposite who are in a leadership position confused. I went to the Hansard, and it was the current Leader of the Opposition. So just to correct that.

A second issue that is of a more serious nature we began this morning. My honourable friend at some length indicated that he had asked some questions last year that we took as notice, and we were going to find the information for him. He claimed that none was forthcoming. I felt he was wrong then but I did not say anything. I was concerned because I know my staff is diligent and hard working and pay great attention to detail. So the first thing I did when I left the committee room was to inquire of my staff what possible questions we had not answered for my honourable friend last year. I am told that a package was given to the members; one of the interns came to my office to get it. It is dated July 15, and it goes into considerable detail on some of the questions that were put. I certainly feel bad if these never arrived in the member's hands. I am told that my assistant is here, and he remembers distinctly having them picked up by one of the interns.

I have the original copy here. What we will do is have it copied for the next time we meet so that all of this information can be transmitted. So I am concerned that there was a little confusion there. The only other individual who asked a question of me last year where we took it as notice was the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), a question to do with chronic fatigue syndrome, and this was mailed on July 15 to the member for Concordia. I have not heard any different that he did not receive it. This was picked up by one of the caucus staff, one of the interns. This was sent by mail, and I have not heard from Mr. Doer. I presume that he got that.

Now, the question at hand was to do with cost recovery. I think the cost recovery has always been a significant part of the operation of the Department of Labour, that there are fees that are levied for certain examinations, certain appeals and certificates and work that the department does. I believe the figure we use is 65 percent of our total budget is recovered through the diligent work that is done by staff in all parts of Manitoba in a variety of ways.

* (1440)

Mr. Reid: So then last year your cost recovery was 63 percent, and then based on this year's budget allocations, your cost recovery is going to be 65 percent. So you have seen a 2 percent increase in your total cost recovery.

Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct. I would point out that the reason that there is maybe a slight variance in that figure is some of it is volume driven, obviously, and there is also a change in the base expenditure rate, but the member will note that the percentage is, while not equal, certainly somewhat similar.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me has the department included in this year's budget allocations increases in fees in the areas for which the department is responsible? If so, do you have a list of those fee changes?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I can tell my honourable friend that there will be some revenue changes for 1998-99. There will be no new sources of revenue. Some of these, we are still working on. None of them have been implemented at this stage. In some cases, regulations have not been finalized yet, but there are no new sources of income, and the department is currently working on some of these fees. I am not at liberty to announce them until we get some of the detail finalized, but there will be some changes.

Mr. Reid: I think, if I recall correctly, in past years what has happened is the fee changes were announced after the Estimates process for the Labour department were finished, and Highways operated in much the same way. So you are anticipating whatever changes will be coming about by way of amendments through the regulations, that these changes will take place closer to the summertime then.

Mr. Gilleshammer: We would like to get that work done as soon as possible. I think it is to some degree a work-related issue. Some of the detail has to be worked out, and I would like to have them implemented and announced as soon as possible. I know that from previous years, sometimes we have gone almost a full calendar year, the full budget year before some have been implemented because of some difficulties we would have internally, but I can say that we are not introducing any new fees, any new revenue streams but that we are looking at some of our examination fees, some of our appeal fees, some of our certificate fees, et cetera, and we will be pleased to forward those to my honourable friend when we have the necessary work done.

Mr. Reid: I understand, Mr. Chairperson, that they come by way of Order-in-Council, and we will be made aware of it, at least, through that method.

The fee changes that you are contemplating, you mentioned several there, and I know you made some changes last year to licensing fees, I believe it was, for some of the trades. Are you also contemplating making some fee changes in those areas in addition to the ones you have already made last year?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that we are not. We talked about interprovincial comparisons this morning, and one of the things that I have asked staff to look at is what do similar charges look like in particularly adjacent provinces but across the country, and if we are charging $10 for something and everybody else is $50 or $100, I think we are out of line, and we are looking at some of those fees and trying to compare ourselves interprovincially, if the comparison is an accurate one.

But, yes, we are working on some changes there, and, again, I am told that there is not a change in the areas that we changed last year, but we are looking at some new ones.

Mr. Reid: I think, Mr. Chairperson, it begs the question then, if you are doing interprovincial comparisons for your fees--and I take it you would want to remain relatively competitive in that area--why is it so taboo then to do the same thing for your minimum wage? I mean, we are at the bottom end of the scale there. We are not close to being the middle of the pack, by any stretch of the imagination.

To me, it does not make sense. You are doing it for fees, certifications, permits, on licensing for tradespeople, and you want to look at other jurisdictions, but you are not doing it for the minimum wage here. I do not understand. What is the difference between the two in your mind that you would not want to do that?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we have legislation that we must abide by. The legislation indicates that a committee of Manitobans is called, that public hearings are held and that people from all parts of Manitoba, from wonderful cities like Thompson and Steinbach and Dauphin and so forth will get an opportunity to have some input into that.

If you are asking that the process be changed, I do not think I can change the process, but I did say this morning that I expect the committee would also look at interprovincial comparisons as well as listening to presentations that people are making.

So I do not think there is anything inconsistent, that the legislation maps out the process. We are going to abide by that process.

Mr. Reid: I understand the legislation maps it out and gives the minister the powers to call the advisory body on an ad-hoc basis at the minister's discretion. The minister chose not to use that discretion last year, and his predecessor chose not to use that as well. Nevertheless, you had that decision to make and you chose not to call it, and you could have, to put us into a position that would have put us into the middle of the pack at least with respect to the rest of the country.

I take it you want to do that with your fees. You want to make sure that you are competitive in those areas, but you do not want to do it on the other side where people earn the living from those monies and have to exist on minimum wage jobs.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, that is not entirely correct, Mr. Chairman. I did say this morning that it is a very important process that this committee be struck, that it have an opportunity to listen to Manitobans, and I also said that there is nothing stopping the committee from looking at what other provinces are doing, particularly the prairie provinces. We are one of the prairie provinces, and I think that if you want to make interprovincial comparisons, the most direct comparison, the most adequate comparison would be with the other prairie provinces.

I would point out to the member, who I think has some numbers in his head, that if you look at the three prairie provinces, the Manitoba minimum wage is above the average.

Mr. Reid: So, if you are going to do cross-country fee comparisons for your permits and your licensing, Saskatchewan is $5.60; Ontario is $6.85; Quebec is $6.80; Manitoba is in the range of $5.40 an hour. So, I mean, if you would look at those other provinces that are neighbouring to us, if you want to go into Alberta, of course, they are a little bit lower than us at $5 an hour, but then again if you go to B.C., they are at $7.15 an hour. So I do not know how you average that out, that we are in the middle of the pack. I guess if you want to narrow it down and take two provinces to compare with, of course we are going to be favourable, but you are comparing apples to oranges.

You are comparing all the way across the country for your licensing and permit fees, but you are not doing the same thing on your minimum wage. You are not moving it into that category and you are not keeping that in mind when you make a decision on whether or not you are going to call at your discretion the Minimum Wage committee. So I do not understand the logic here.

* (1450)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, my honourable friend did not listen very carefully. He was, I think, distracted when I was giving my previous answer. We always look at statistics from across the country. I just said that often the most apt comparison is with the prairie provinces. Our economies sometimes are fairly similar, our cost of living is similar, and we do the same with the fees. One of the first questions I ask staff is, in the neighbouring province of Saskatchewan, what would be the fee for this? In some cases, where it jumps off the page at you that we are way out of line, then those are fees that I think are ones that we should be reviewing.

But with the Minimum Wage Board, I said it this morning and I said it again this afternoon, there is nothing stopping the board from in addition to doing the public hearings and hearing the representations to make cross-country comparisons and, again, I said probably the most apt comparison is with the other prairie provinces. If you compare the prairie provinces, we are above the average of the prairie provinces at the existing time, but we expect that maybe other provinces are going to look at their rates too. But it is one of the measures and one of the sources of input the committee is free to use.

Mr. Reid: I guess we will have to await the outcome of that particular review committee because, obviously, the minister and I will agree to disagree on his process that he has at his discretion.

I want to ask the minister with respect to the staffing that he has, last year he indicated to me the names of his special assistant and executive assistant, and I wonder if those two people have remained the same for this year.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I just want to go back to a comment, one made before. The member is suggesting that he thinks that government should call the Minimum Wage Board every year. I think that is what he is saying. I was just inquiring of my staff, you know, what was the history of the Minimum Wage Board through the 1980s. It looks like changes were made in 1980 twice and in 1981 and in 1982 and then there was no change from 1982 to 1985.

Now, I do not know what the position of the member was or the NDP government of the day, but they obviously went three or four years without calling the Minimum Wage Board and, you know, it is I guess not an uncommon thing. And then it was called again two years later in 1987, or changes were made in '87. So I guess the policy direction that is being enunciated by my critic and I presume supported by the entire caucus across the way is different than the practice that they had while they were in government. But, I mean, there is nothing wrong with changing either.

I suspect that although in many ways the people in the NDP party are very dogmatic and resistant to change, if my honourable friend is saying, yes, we made mistakes in the 1980s, but we would fix it in the 1990s, I notice that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) railed against the balanced budget legislation and is on record along with virtually every seatmate over on the other side spoke unfavourably about balanced budget legislation and poked fun at it. Virtually every member over there voted against it, and now, lo and behold, in 1998 I believe I heard, not very loudly but faintly, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) would even believe in repaying some debt and balancing the budget. So there is room for change. [interjection] Well, progressive perhaps, in some ways, but I am heartened by that, because I think it shows that people over there are willing to learn and willing to change. I would imagine that even though they voted against the budget the other day, they will get another chance, I think, at the end of the Estimates process to correct that. You know, I would be interested in what sort of a plan they would have for paying down the debt. I think the Leader said $75,000 was appropriate--

An Honourable Member: $75 million.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairperson, $75 million. It was wrong last year, but it is right this year according to him. If a little bit of debt repayment is good, doubling it must be even better. So you know it is food for thought and he will have an opportunity to think about those things.

Now I think the question was on political staff. I have a special assistant who started with me in 1997 and is still with me, and I have an executive assistant who has been with me since about six months now.

Mr. Reid: So this special assistant has changed. From what you told me you have a new one. The executive assistant has changed? Mr. Turner is no longer with you in that capacity? And would you please provide us with the name for the new executive assistant?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes. Mr. Warren Hoffman, born and raised in Minnedosa, Manitoba, graduate of a fine collegiate there, Minnedosa Collegiate, and doing an excellent job. Had I known you had not met him--he is not here today, he is actually probably rehearsing. He is in a major drama presentation out there, and I think sometimes he sneaks a little time to study his notes and learn his lines. Next week, I believe it is, he is going to perform and there is a whole bunch of us going out to watch him because while we knew he had talent in his job as an EA, we did not think he could sing and dance.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that information. Can you tell me, do you have any vacancies existing within this part of your department?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told the answer is no.

Mr. Reid: Do you have any people that are seconded from this part of the department, in or out?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, my deputy informs me his assistant has been seconded by, I believe, another department.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me who has been seconded and where they have been seconded to?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Her name is Ms. Nighean Wallace, and I believe she has been seconded to the Department of Health.

Mr. Reid: Does that secondment have anything to do with the health authorities that are being established in the province? Is that the purpose of this secondment?

Mr. Gilleshammer: No.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me why the secondment is taking place then?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, secondments are usually seen as an opportunity for someone to gain further experience and expertise in either another position within government or somewhere else. There, I guess, was perceived by the Department of Health that they had a need, and there was some interest on the part of this individual and, as a result, a kind of a marriage took place--maybe that is not the right word. A secondment took place, so she has left that office not that long ago.

* (1500)

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, because I do not want to ask this in each of the different areas that you have throughout your budget process here, if you have some information relating to compensation costs? No doubt in the Department of Labour you have people that are going into industries, different businesses throughout the province, whether it be employment standards or workplace safety and health or mine safety or other areas of your department. What is the experience rating for your department with respect to injuries of your employees, the 203 people you have working for you in the department, and what kind of costs would be associated with that?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told we have nobody away from the workplace at this time and that the admin costs related to WCB is about $10,000.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for the information. So there are no people that are off on workplace injury situations in any part of the department. Do you have a comparison for the last year? I notice your annual report for the 1997-98 year is not out yet, and I am just wondering if you have that information available.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there is an individual in Mechanical and Engineering who is on long-term disability since 1997. There is nobody else.

Mr. Reid: Okay. I thank the minister for that information. I wanted to go back. I hope your staffperson is still here with respect to the desktop computer initiative. I had neglected to ask a couple of questions in that regard. When you mentioned that you have 176 systems set up for your staff in there, I forgot to ask you how many you currently had within your departmental operations, so I can have an understanding of whether or not you are replacing the existing that are there or you have new equipment, because it is my understanding that Systemhouse is only going to replace the existing systems.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that there are six net new systems.

Mr. Reid: So of the 176 you had 170 systems before and you have six new ones to bring you up to that 176, I think it was, that you mentioned this morning. Is that accurate?

Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct. I am also advised that that is for our operation in the city of Winnipeg. The transition for Brandon and Thompson--and we have offices in The Pas--has not taken place yet, but will.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, because I was trying to get an idea here based on the number of systems you have and yet you are talking about a $250,000 ongoing annual cost, what your annual maintenance cost is going to be for the systems? Do you have a global cost, or do you have it broken down by the individual systems you have?

Mr. Gilleshammer: We do not have any final numbers for that, but I feel I must repeat again that all of this information that the members wanted detail on is not lodged in this department. It is lodged in the Department of Government Services in what is called the Desktop Unit. So we make no apologies for not having succinct information for you in that area, but it is the logical place for you to get all the detail you want about this transition from current systems that is starting to take place and going to take place.

Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Just for the record, can the minister tell us the actual number of staff years that were related to computer supports in the department, both permanent and term?

Mr. Gilleshammer: If I understand your questions in the old way of doing business, you want to know how many people were dedicated to, in a large part, the systems, and I am told the answer is five.

Ms. Mihychuk: That would be 5.0 staff years related to computer supports.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes. That is called our Information Systems services.

Ms. Mihychuk: Can the minister tell us the budget allocation for those five staff years?

Mr. Gilleshammer: So you want to know the total salary cost of those five people when those five people were there?

Ms. Mihychuk: Yes.

Mr. Gilleshammer: We will do a little arithmetic here and see what we come up with. I am told it would be in the area of $215,000.

Ms. Mihychuk: The final area of questioning relates to the initial or the additional $250,000 that is required this year to move into the new system. Can the minister articulate what that is comprised of?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told it will be a combination of things as I am sure you would have suspected, some hardware, some software, some training, some service and all the supports.

Ms. Mihychuk: Perhaps this is too difficult right now to provide, but I would be prepared to receive it in a report as to what that would involve. It is my understanding, and maybe I am misinformed, that Systemhouse will replace our hardware units. So this is a fairly significant investment in hardware and software when they are going to provide it anyway.

So it does raise the question, and just for information because we will all be going through this process of change in all the departments. So, if we have that available, I would appreciate it.

* (1510)

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am interpreting that to say that you would like us to give you more detail on the hardware, software, training and service, and we will take time and we will do that, sure.

Ms. Mihychuk: This does conclude my series of questions on this. There seems to be a slight difference between the minister's comments earlier, which indicated a saving by going through Systemhouse of $225,000, and the net saving for the salaries is 215. I mean, that is within a certain percentage, but is there additional savings in some other component that we are anticipating?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I can give you the same information that was given to me this morning and if it does not suit you, I guess we can, when we answer your other question, find more detail, but I am told by the department that staff year changes resulted in a salary cost reduction of around $73,000. A total of $250,000 additional funding has been included within the Other Expenditures allocations of the various branches within the department to cover the net additional costs of implementing the desktop management initiative across the department in '98-99. Total costs for desktop management are estimated at $475,000 for the year we are talking about, while offsetting cost reductions are estimated at $225,000, leaving the net increase in expenditures of $250,000.

If what you are asking is for more detail on that, we will endeavour to embellish that a bit or enhance that a bit for the member.

Mr. Reid: I may have missed it earlier in the minister's comments, but perhaps he can refresh my memory. What benefit is this going to be to the department that you do not already have? I mean, you have computer systems in your current operation. How is this going to make your operations better? How are you going to better serve the public with this new system that is going to cost a substantial amount of ongoing tax dollars?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I think one of the things we mentioned this morning, that in place of working in isolation, some would say splendid isolation, we are part of the corporate government with systems which will be interrelated. I am told that one of our objectives is to develop a computer network that is easier to use and upgrade that, again, supports government-wide programs and enables our staff to provide faster and more effective service to Manitobans at a more reasonable cost, so that we will have a single standard of hardware and software in a network.

I guess I do not pretend to be an expert in this, but the people who are working in the system are saying this to me. The people who are taking the training are telling me that they are impressed and amazed with some of the accuracy and some of the quickness with which they are going to be able to do the work. [interjection]

Well, my honourable friend is always confusing me and getting me off track here. Maybe that is one of the reasons he is having trouble understanding my answers--I get distracted. But the people that I have talked to within the department are saying that they are just really impressed. In fact, my other deputy from the Civil Service Commission was just in two days ago, and he and some of the very senior staff in the Civil Service Commission were taking a day or two of training. He came back saying the people in the Civil Service Commission were just really excited and impressed with the training and with some of the new technology that they are going to be able to access. So I not only hear it from my senior staff, I hear it from other staff that we are going to be able to provide better service and service a lot quicker to our clients.

Mr. Reid: I guess then it is going to speed up the e-mail process between the different government departments. It seems like quite an expense to undertake to be able to speed that up. We have phones no doubt sitting on all our desks, so I am not saying it is not warranted where the public is being served, but if its to assist your interdepartmental communication, and that is the primary focus because that seems to be the first point you dwelt on, that seems to be quite a significant cost to send e-mails back and forth between government departments and between staff and your own operations itself.

Mr. Gilleshammer: My honourable friend spent considerable time this morning posing as an expert on technology and new systems, and now when we say we are going to be able to do our work so much better he is trying to make light of it. I am not sure why he is doing that. Again, I would be the first to say that there are people much more computer literate, much more in tune with how technology is making their jobs better and easier than I am, but when we have a staff throughout our department saying that these systems are going to improve our ability to serve the public, surely that is a good objective that both of us could support.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 11.1.(b)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $380,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $69,700--pass.

11.2. Labour Programs (a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,033,300.

Mr. Reid: Under the Labour/Management Services Division, I believe the LMRC is a component of that particular area. Can you tell me--I think the minister's staff may participate in the LMRC meetings or at least be aware of them--the last time the LMRC met, and has the minister then had any recommendations come from that committee to him on particular pieces of legislation or other issues?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I want to apologize for not introducing my staff who was here on two occasions. He is Mr. Ken Kowalski, the Director of Human Resources. I would like the record to show that he was participating at the table with us.

My honourable friend is asking about the Labour Management Review Committee and, yes, it is operating. I have had the opportunity to meet with members of the Labour Management Review Committee, and I think I had indicated to the member previously that they did a considerable amount of work on the bill which was tabled in the House this week. I would publicly thank them and thank them on the record, Mr. Wally Fox-Decent, who chairs that, and the two members who accompanied him, Mr. Rob Hilliard and Ms. Candace Bishoff.

* (1520)

We had an opportunity not that long ago to spend some time in my office looking at the legislation, and I have to say that their support, their wisdom, their knowledge, their work on that has been invaluable. The bill, as I have told my honourable friend before, is really a departmental-generated bill which collapses three acts into a bill to become a new act. This has been in the mill for some time, because I am told by many people who have been around the Labour Management Committee and around government that a lot of these acts needed to be updated and modernized.

There was some conflicting information in them. I know the previous minister had hoped that he would have been able to bring it forward. In 1986, we had staff working on it, and there was a time we thought we would bring it forward in 1987, but the volume of the work was such that it simply was not ready. Even now we are tabling it. I think it is Bill 28 on the Order Paper, so even now it did not get finished as early as we had hoped, but the Labour Management Review Committee has worked very diligently and brought perspectives from different communities and wisdom from different groups to bear on that bill, and their differences of opinions were boiled down to very, very few items.

I do have a letter from the chair of the Labour Management Review Committee talking about the process and the work that was done. So, in answer to the member's questions, yes, it is working, and this is an area that has been very productive and helpful for the department and for me as minister.

Mr. Reid: Outside of the new piece of legislation, The Employment Standards Amendment Act, that is before us, are there issues the minister has referred to the LMRC?

Mr. Gilleshammer: There is not at this time and, again, one of the reasons for that is the tremendous time commitment and workload that has emanated from the review of the bill that I was just referencing.

Mr. Reid: So then I take it the LMRC will not be meeting again to deal with any issues involving the government?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Oh, I did not say that, and I do not know how my honourable friend reached that conclusion. I am saying that this was such a massive piece of work that consumed so much time, and I would have thought the member might have inferred from my praise of the process and the committee and the individuals who have been there that we would not hesitate to use them again.

I would point out that the LMRC is also able to set its own agenda, but I would not hesitate to call upon them to do other work, and in fact I have been favourably impressed by the good relationships that we have had meeting with a number of the clients. I know that we recently met with what is called joint council, and we had four members from the MGEU in to meet with myself and two other ministers, had a very positive agenda. We have had the opportunity to meet with members of the Chamber of Commerce; members of the Manitoba Federation of Labour; members of the MGEU; and members of CUPE were in by themselves the other day.

I think that the climate that exists in Manitoba at the present time is a very favourable one, and I would acknowledge the hard work that has been done by people from all those bodies to resolve differences. We have had very few work stoppages, and I am sure the member might even ask about that later on.

We have recently concluded a three-year agreement, negotiated agreement with the MGEU which I think makes everybody happy. Other pending work stoppages that have been in the news have tended to be resolved. I do not say that we are going to sort of resolve all of them. It is a legitimate part of bargaining, but the climate has been very favourable. The meetings that I have had with members of both the management community and the labour community have been very positive, and I appreciate their input.

Mr. Reid: It is unfortunate that your predecessor did not have perhaps the same approach to the LMRC that this current minister has, because they had made a recommendation some time ago dealing with items that were going to be presented towards Bill 26, The Labour Relations Amendment Act, that the previous minister chose to ignore. I am not saying that as a shot to the minister, just an observation that the LMRC had made recommendations that did not get incorporated into the legislation itself.

I wanted to ask the minister, I had raised this issue with him last year, and I do not know if it has been resolved yet, but I will raise it again. Dealing with the landscape architects, there was some discussion last year about who can approve building designs. Can you tell me, has that issue been resolved? Who can approve these matters, or is this something that is going to be left to the parties to continue to work out for another period of time? Can you tell me the status of that issue?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I think it is fair to say there still are differences of opinion between the architects and the engineers, and we have consistently said that the best resolution would be a resolution emanating from those two groups. I know they have met separately, they have met together with my deputy. We have also tried to assist them by providing a retired former employee of tremendous stature in this province, Mr. Tom Bleasdale, to work with them and to try and find some common ground.

So the process is continuing, and I cannot tell you that there is resolution in sight. I think at least one party, if not both of them, have a lawyer involved. Let us just say that the differences, I think, have been fine tuned but have not been resolved. We will await any further comments and meetings with them.

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I wanted to ask some questions on the engineering act as well. I wonder if the minister could give us any time line of his expectations of when discussions might be concluded and when he might be bringing in an act.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I really have no good time line that I could share with you. Prior to your arrival, I indicated that we have met. I have met with them, my deputy and staff have met with them. They have some differences and I had indicated that we were providing a retired staff member to--is the right word mediate? Tom Bleasdale was the person that I referenced and he is on the job. We are running, I think, out of time in terms of getting something ready. So I would only be speculating if I was to say their process will result in us having something for this sitting.

* (1530)

Ms. Friesen: Is there any intention of the minister to hold any public hearings or any wider discussion, or is it at this point simply a matter of the existing parties coming to an agreement and then coming to the minister?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, our attitude has been for them to meet and resolve their differences. I believe they both take that very seriously. They are organizations that represent their particular membership. We certainly are not going to impose some sort of settlement. There have been times when, I think, there has been some movement in agreement and then other times when it has not quite come together. We have gone so far as to, as I say, put somebody in there with tremendous knowledge and skills and talent to try and assist them. They, I am sure, do report to their membership by way of newsletters and meetings, and I do believe they represent their membership. They are free to consult with anybody they want. As I have indicated, I know they have legal advice. We have taken the step of providing, at our cost, an individual to assist them.

Ms. Friesen: Is there any consideration on the department's part of looking at this in a national perspective? I think both organizations have national organizations as well, or is the department looking at it primarily as a provincial issue?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there are other jurisdictions that have resolved their differences, and I think both parties that are in this disagreement are aware of that. I do not think they see the solutions that other people have arrived at as the appropriate solution for them.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me--last year I had asked--there was one vacancy for an eight-month period last year. Do you have any vacancies in this department, and are there any people that are seconded either in or out?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we have eight positions. One is filled on an acting basis, and two others, action is underway to fill them. There are five others that are currently under review.

Mr. Reid: So out of a staff this year, full-time equivalents, 25, you have eight--

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am sorry, this is across the entire department. Was your question specific to one branch?

Mr. Reid: I was asking just specifically to this part, and maybe to save time here, if you have information here today that you can provide that would save the step of me asking it all the way through the process with respect to vacancies and secondments, then perhaps you could provide that to me. If not, then I will just ask it in each area. I can ask you, are these jobs being filled by the Civil Service Commission? Have these jobs been put out for competition?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that none are out for competition now, but some of them will be in the not too distant future.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me then where these vacancies exist and in which part of his department they are, so I can have an understanding, and when they may go to competition?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, there is a systems analyst in the Labour Management Services that is vacant. There are three positions in Mechanical and Engineering. There is one position in Conciliation and Mediation. There is one position in Workplace Safety and Health, and there are two in the Worker Advisor Office. So that gives you eight.

Mr. Reid: I missed the last number. Can the minister tell me, was it two in the Worker Advisor Office that are vacant?

Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.

Mr. Reid: I have no more questions on this part.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 11.2.(a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,033,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $324,600--pass.

11.2.(b) Mechanical and Engineering (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,475,900.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me--I looked at your explanation in your document, in the Supplementary Estimates document, regarding the elimination of the boiler inspector position. You had two vacancies last year. You have three vacancies now this year. You have cut one of the inspector's positions here. Yet you say that the purpose in your annual report is to avert hazards dealing with boilers, and yet you have cut a boiler inspector here.

Why have you cut this person who would perform tasks that would prevent accident or injury to members of the public or perhaps staff of facilities that would come in contact with such a structure?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Mr. Geoff Bawden, who is the Executive Director of Workplace Safety and Health, who has just joined us at the table.

The question on staff deployment in this area is done by the executive of the department, and there is a feeling there that we have appropriate staffing in that area. From time to time, within any department, staff are, I suppose, reviewed and moved to other positions, and I do not think there is an inconsistency in what we say is the important work that is being done and the number of staff years that have been dedicated to it.

Mr. Reid: Well, I look to the minister's annual report from '96-97, because that is the most current report that is available until the new one comes out, and you refer to delivery of services involving steam and pressure plant-related inspection, which, I would think, would be boiler inspectors who would be involved in those types of activities and perhaps others, and it says here, Potential Hazards Averted Numbers, and these are the numbers of risky situations detected by your inspectors. It goes on to talk about 1,553 risky situations that were detected by your inspectors, and yet you are cutting your boiler inspection program.

I do not understand the logic here. If you have 1,500 risky situations, are you going to be able to do the same number of inspections that you have had ongoing in past by your staff? Are you increasing the workload? Were these people not fully and actively employed in the past that would allow you to decrease by one, the safety inspector?

* (1540)

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that we did redeploy one individual from other duties and that we have the same number of people doing that function, and my executive feels comfortable that the inspections are being carried out without public safety being jeopardized.

Mr. Reid: Your Professional/Technical is down by one. I take it that is your boiler inspectors. Then, that being the case, are you going to be able to do the same number of inspections? Has there been a decrease? Maybe I should ask the question: Has there been a decrease in the number of facilities that you have to inspect as a part of your mandate? Has that function decreased?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that we will have no reduction in the number of inspections this year.

Mr. Reid: The number of inspections, can you tell me what that number is, please, because your annual report only, I think, refers to percentages and hazards averted? I am not sure if that is a direct reference to the number of inspections, and there is one inspection for every hazard that is reported. Would you please provide me with the number of inspections?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The number of inspections is of approximately 23,000 boilers.

Mr. Reid: At this point, I will take the minister at his word that there will be no public safety jeopardized as a result of his actions to eliminate one boiler inspector position, although I must say that with some caution and indicate that I hope nothing untoward happens as a result of inspections not being carried out or by workload being too onerous for the people that do that particular task to keep the public safe.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, my honourable friend says he will take me at my word. He sits there recognizing that my word is coming from my senior people here who tell me approximately how many inspections there will be and that there will be no fewer inspections, so I guess what he is saying is that he agrees with some reservations with what my senior staff are saying.

I mean I am not in the field managing them, but when they tell me that they will do that number of inspections here at the table and I pass that on to you, I do so with the confidence that they do a good job and that I believe that they do what they say they do.

Mr. Reid: I guess the buck does not stop at the minister's desk. I guess that is the lesson that I have to take out of those comments: that whatever happens is the result of a decision that is made internal to the departmental operations. Yet, it is the minister, himself, who has his name attached to this particular budget document, so I have to say that the buck should stop at the minister's desk because he is the one that has authorized it under his signature.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, my honourable friend is changing the issue. He said that he would like to believe me, and I am saying that this is the information that comes in our reports and from my staff. I have no reason not to believe them, so I would like you to share the confidence that I have in my staff, and it is not a question of where the buck stops.

The member said that he had some reservations about accepting the information. It is the best information we have at the moment, and it is the information coming from the people directly in charge of staff.

Mr. Reid: Will you or the department be subcontracting out any of the inspection work, or will it all be done internally in-house?

Mr. Gilleshammer: We did not last year, but certainly if we are faced with some emergency situations or unexpected situations, we would reserve the right to do the most appropriate thing, to do the type of inspections that need to be done.

Mr. Reid: So then I take it you must have a list developed for emergency situations of whom you would contact in various areas of the province to make sure that those inspections could be undertaken in a timely manner.

Mr. Gilleshammer: What we are saying is we have some comfort around the fact that we could access some individuals, if they were needed, on a very short notice.

Mr. Reid: You mentioned three vacancies for this particular sector. Can you tell me what functions those people did perform?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Two of the vacancies are called Clerk 2, and one is a Gas Inspector 2.

Mr. Reid: I would take it then that the gas inspector--all the jobs are obviously important, but that the gas inspector, by way of public safety, is probably the most crucial of those three positions that are currently vacant. When do you anticipate that this particular job will be filled, or do you anticipate filling it in the near future?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I would concur with my honourable friend that probably the Gas Inspector 2 has a more direct role in the area of public safety than the Clerk 2, so we are in agreement on that. The intention would be to fill this in the near future.

Mr. Reid: I take it then when you say the near future, we are talking through a competition through the Civil Service Commission, and that would take place through their normal process which would probably be before the summertime then.

Mr. Gilleshammer: We would use the processes that are available to us in government to fill the position.

Mr. Reid: Have you triggered those processes yet?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Not at this time.

Mr. Reid: When do you anticipate you will go to the commission?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Shortly.

Mr. Reid: All these statements, that does not give an indication or picture of when you anticipate it. Shortly could be 10 years; shortly could be never. I guess it is all relative. I am just trying to get an idea here without jumping through all these hoops what your anticipation is. If you can say at the end of the budget year, all right, I am not going to argue the point.

I mean, you have some decision to make there, but I am trying to get an idea of when you say shortly, is there something in your way, something impeding you from sending this to the Civil Service Commission to have this job filled?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Shortly, in my vocabulary, has never meant 10 years, and I did not want to leave that impression with the member. One of the activities we have to look to is the redeployment list and see if there is anyone on the redeployment list who currently has the skills and has worked for government and would fit here. Failing that, I would think in the next few months we will go to the next step.

* (1550)

Mr. Reid: Because it ties in with the minister's answer, if someone comes from the redeployment list and does not have the full skill set to perform the necessary function, may have part of that, do you have a training process internal to this operation here, or do you send people out for training in this particular sector to make sure that their skills are current, to make sure they are familiar with the new equipment, new technologies coming on stream in the marketplace?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the individual would need a trade, but given that, I think there is the ability to cross-train people, and that could be looked at, but if the individual on the redeployment list has no trade and no background and no skills in this area, I would think they are not going to be selected.

Mr. Reid: The second part of the question was with respect to training in your Mechanical & Engineering services. There may be--because it is not totally my trade area myself--some new changes that come along with the equipment and as new technologies come on stream in the marketplace.

Because you have people who go out and do inspections, how do you keep these people current with their skill level? Is there some type of training that you provide for them? Do you encourage them, do you assist them with this training and upgrading of their skills to allow them to keep current?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told in recent times that we have established an internal training program to be sure that they remain current.

Mr. Reid: Okay. Can you give me some kind of an understanding here, when you say redeployment list? Then with this budget year, no doubt any changes that are anticipated to be taking place--I do not know for certain but I suspect may be happening early in the budget year--is that the time when you make the selection if possible from the redeployment list? What is the clearinghouse process here for people that you may want to look at for the filling of these vacancies?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The Civil Service Commission would be the clearinghouse.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me--there has been some discussion for some time about the expansion of the number of certified trades. Is the department involved in that aspect of certifiable trades? Have you been involved in any discussions with respect to the expansion of these numbers and in the training that would be associated with those certified trades?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I think the member knows that the Training and Apprenticeship is lodged in the Department of Education. We have two staff from our department on what is called the Apprenticeship Board, and they have an opportunity through that vehicle to have input.

Mr. Reid: So then you are not aware of any expansion in the number of certifiable trades in the province at this time?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am aware that there is some serious work being done on that right now, and I do not think it has been finalized yet, but I think our hope is that some of that will be completed soon.

Mr. Reid: What is the department's position with respect to certification of additional trades? Have you taken a position to that particular committee meetings on what trade areas should be, or is this something else that is being totally directed by another government department? Do you have any input into the process itself on what trades will become certified?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Again, this is being conducted within Education and Training. We are part of the process. We have not taken a final position on anything of that nature at this time, but we do have input through two staff members, and we sort of await the outcome of the process.

Mr. Reid: I guess then I am better off to go to Apprenticeship and Training in Education Estimates and ask that question more directly to the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh).

Can you tell me then--last year I had asked this question, and I am just trying to keep current here because it had been drawn to my attention that from time to time people call in and say, I am living in this building and there is an elevator and the certificate is not current. I know we have had some discussion about this in the past about public safety, and the minister referenced a particular facility of seniors in his community last year. Are you able to manage and make sure that the elevator certification process, the safety process, is current in the province here?

Mr. Gilleshammer: We do have that responsibility within the department, and there is a cycle upon which elevators are inspected. Given the age and, I suspect, the history of some elevators, the inspection may be more frequent, but it is certainly ongoing work that our department is involved in. You are right, we did have an elevator in a seniors' block in Minnedosa, and there has been considerable work done on it in recent months.

Mr. Reid: So then the elevator inspection program is current in that the certifications of these elevators is up to date. I am just trying to get some assurance here that that is occurring.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, again, we have ongoing work, and I guess it would be fair to say that if some of it is complaint driven, if there are elevators that are, through their use, through the people that use them we find out that they are having difficulty, there certainly can be more frequent inspection. But there is a cycle, and the work is being done. I do not know whether the member is suggesting it needs to be done more often or less often. Yes, it is current, and I am reminded that sometimes the owner of the elevator does not always get the certificate put up at the appropriate time so that is again one of the logistics problems that occur.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 11.2.(b) Mechanical and Engineering (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,475,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $428,000--pass.

11.2.(c) Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services

Mr. Reid: Last year I had asked the minister for information relating to work stoppages which he gave me a history lesson on.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Did I?

Mr. Reid: Yes, you did. I appreciated the information that the minister supplied. Can you provide me with up-to-date information for this past year that I imagine would be coming out into your new annual report because I have the Annual Report 1996/97? I am just looking for 1997/98 information, if you have it available.

* (1600)

Mr. Gilleshammer: The information I have, I guess which is more current than last year. Do you have 1996's?

Mr. Reid: I think it is, yes.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Maybe I will read it into the record anyway. In 1996, there were 22 disputes. There were 7,275 workers involved, and there was 235,560 person days lost. Going to 1997, there were eight disputes involving 773 workers and 13,800 person days lost.

Mr. Reid: No doubt, I mean, we had some, what I think are experienced, people in the conciliation-mediation areas which is no doubt a very difficult task, trying to bring parties to an agreement when they are sometimes very set in their ways. Do you have any kind of ongoing development for people in these two areas, or do you pull people in from other facilities, perhaps like universities or other provinces or jurisdictions that may have skilled people? How do we ensure that we have people that would have these particular types of skills? Last year we talked about Mr. Davidge leading the service, retiring. He had a great number of years involved in this area. Do we have other people whom we have brought on stream who would have these skills? Do you have people under contract that do this type of work, or what is the process that we have?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The member from Transcona is absolutely correct. This is an area that does take expertise, talent, training, and experience, and we, I am told, rely on some national training that is available and also interchanges with other jurisdictions. I am told that last year there was an interchange with the government of Saskatchewan. I suppose it is important to take that training and keep current. We currently have a vacancy, I believe, in that area that we will be filling soon.

Mr. Reid: I should ask this question, because I am not sure whether or not Mr. Davidge's position was filled or who is in the capacity that he was. Can you tell me, this position that is vacant, how long has it been vacant and what was the function?

Mr. Gilleshammer: One other thing I should have added with my last answer is, we do have the ability to access other people on short term if we need them for specific circumstances. The vacant position is Mr. Davidge's. Mr. Al Fleury has been the acting director in recent months, and I am told the vacancy has been there for approximately a year.

Mr. Reid: So, if Mr. Fleury is the acting director, is this job going to be put out for competition, or is Mr. Fleury going to remain as the director? Are you going to make a decision soon on someone to head up this particular department?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The recommendation from staff is that the direction we will be going to is competition.

Mr. Reid: Are people seconded in or out from the department at this part?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told the answer is no.

Mr. Reid: One of the effects of Bill 26 is, and I am going from memory here, it changes the way costs of expedited arbitration are involved. Is that part of this particular conciliation-mediation services that are involved here and, if so, can you tell me what the effect has been with respect to the costs to the parties?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that we are not privy to that information. It is a shared cost borne by the two parties involved.

Mr. Reid: So am I to understand then that the department supplies the mediation services or conciliation services for this particular type of process and then those parties would pick up the cost for that individual. Is that how this works?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, when our staff are involved there is not a cost, but when they go to the expedited process they are using people external to government.

Mr. Reid: So then, is it left to the parties then to determine who the arbitrator will be in those cases, for the expedited arbitration?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the parties can select from a list of available people and that they are responsible for the costs.

Mr. Reid: How then are we able to determine what the cost impact has been to the parties as a result of the Bill 26 change?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I think this is the same question that the member asked a couple of minutes ago. We are not privy to that information and are unable to give you the figure.

Mr. Reid: So then government effected a change by way of legislation and we have no way of knowing what the financial impact is going to be on the parties? It is just something that was thrown out there, you take care of it now and there was no cost consideration given to the impact on those parties?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the member is suggesting that government has been rather cavalier about this, and I do not agree with him. I think that the process is working. If the member wants us to try and quantify that, what we are saying is, we have not at this stage because that information has not been given to us. Maybe we could give him an undertaking to see if we could get some information and share it with the member.

Mr. Reid: I would appreciate it if there is some way for you to quantify that just to give us an idea of what the impact has been. If the minister could forward that along, I would appreciate that. I have no further questions in this area.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 11.2.(c) Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $427,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $98,300--pass.

11.2.(d) Pension Commission.

* (1610)

Mr. Reid: Last year I had the opportunity to ask a number of questions with respect to Merchants Consolidated, and I thank the minister and his departmental staff for supplying the information which I was able to forward to my constituents.

This year I have looked at the information that you have supplied in your document, and I have some number of questions with respect to the Pension Commission's work and how it functions. I would like to know--I take it you do pension plan audits for where there are pension plans. Can you tell me the number of audits that you would undertake or have undertaken in the last fiscal year, which would be I guess '97-98, and what the findings were of those audits?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I would like to introduce Debbie Lyon, who is the Acting Superintendent of Pensions. I am told that last year we did four audits, and the work plan for the current or coming year is that we would do six.

Mr. Reid: Of those four audits that were done, what were the findings? Was there full compliance with the legislation or where there other areas that needed to have some further inspection?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there were no major problems. I guess, it might be fair to say that part of the process is an education one as these audits take place, and that part of that education is through share information and have people perhaps do things better, but there were no major problems.

Mr. Reid: Of the information that you supplied in your Supplementary Estimates, it talks about 300 plan amendments, 10 plan wind-ups, 6 plan conversions, and 4 surplus refund requests. I will do them individually here.

On the plan amendments, 300, it looks like a fairly large number. Is this something that was requested by the parties? Or what type of amendments are we talking to these plans? Structural changes, the type of plan that was involved, perhaps other information? I wonder what happens to them.

Mr. Gilleshammer: This would appear to have been a normal work year. Many of the changes would be initiated by the employer, I suppose, in conjunction with the employee group from time to time. One of the things that would trigger more activity here is if there has been a change in the federal government's legislation, but the number indicated is par for the course. As the member knows, when collective agreements are negotiated, sometimes there may be changes that have to be noted.

Mr. Reid: It escaped me--yes, that could be part of the cause there, but I was not aware of any changes to the Pension Benefit Standard Act, federally speaking. So I am not sure how those changes come about unless there is something through regulatory matters through the federal government that would affect the pension plans. That may be the case.

Mr. Gilleshammer: One of the other acts that may impact here is the Income Tax Act and changes to it. So, I guess, what we are saying is that if there are changes at the federal level, it may be the cause factor for changes that have to take place and are noted here and part of their business.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me: there were 10 plan wind-ups? In those pension plans that were wound down, what happened with the funds that were involved there? Were these companies that went out of business? Were these employer-only sponsored funds? What happened with those pension plans?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The typical example, I am told, is of small plans that are changed into an RRSP type of plan.

Mr. Reid: Did that happen in all 10 cases?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Not in all the cases, and we do not have the specifics, but if there is specific information that we can share with the member, more detail on those 10, we could provide that at a later date.

Mr. Reid: That would be fine. I am just trying to get an idea here what happened with those funds, and if they were rolled over into an RRSP system, I can understand the funds would be still available for the people. I just want to make sure that the people did not lose access to those particular funds if they had worked for that period of time to earn them.

I want to ask questions with respect to surplus fund requests. There were four surplus fund requests that came forward, indicated in your document here. What is the disposition of those requests?

Mr. Gilleshammer: We do not have the exact detail, but it may be a sharing of surplus funds between the employer and the employee, but, again, if we can get more information on that we could share it.

It has been pointed out to me, if you are working off the information on page 30, that this is the forecasted activity that would be taking place as part of the work plan for this budget year. But is it fair to say that this is not an untypical year? This is similar to previous years and, in fact, there were two surplus refund requests last year.

Mr. Reid: I understand what the minister is saying with respect to the Estimates document, but there are some numbers in here dealing with surplus refund requests. It is in your annual report.

Mr. Gilleshammer: You are working off the annual report?

Mr. Reid: Well, I know the numbers are different between the two, but there were still the requests, and what I am trying to get at here is to find out what happened with those funds.

Who made the requests for those funds? Was there joint trusteeship in those particular pension plans? If not, who made the request for the return of the surplus, and were those requests granted?

* (1620)

Mr. Gilleshammer: We do not have that information here, but, typically, if there is a surplus, it would be shared between the employer and the employees. I am told that it would always relate to the facts around that specific case.

I guess if you are looking for different scenarios, if there has been inappropriate amounts put in by the employer, that they should rightfully go back to him, that could be one of the outcomes, but every case would have to be looked at on its specific merits and the appropriate adjudication made. I am told it is also typically done by consent.

Mr. Reid: I am just trying to get an idea here, an understanding that it was done by and with consent in all cases where those funds were returned, and I understand that there are actuarial evaluations that were done on the pension plans to determine what funds would be required for future liabilities.

So I am just trying to understand here if that was the case, if the employers had over-contributed to the plan, then there may be some grounds or justification for a return of those funds with respect to their liabilities. We are seeing or at least I am seeing requests coming forward in other jurisdictions where employers are starting to ask for and expect that they have ownership of particular experience gains of pension plans, and I just want to find out what our experience is here, with respect to the Pension Commission involvement, dealing with surplus of funds.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, typically, the resolution is by consent, and I understand that if there is not consent--and it is done when the plan is wound up, but there is an adjudication process, if necessary, if there is no consent. If there is not consent, then the Pension Commission adjudicates and makes the decision.

Mr. Reid: Does the Pension Commission then consult with the employees that would be affected by the decision? Are all the employees taken into consideration before the decision is made, employees current and past who have vested interest?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told if there is no consent, it certainly could end up in the courts for adjudication, and parties would be represented presumably by legal counsel.

Mr. Reid: Are you aware of the plans that you regulate or have some control or audit over, are there any plans currently that have deficiencies in them in the province or are they all, in a sense, fully funded?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there are some plans with deficiencies.

Mr. Reid: Do you have a ballpark figure or a rough number of plans that would be deficient, or perhaps even an accurate number, and what steps is the Pension Commission taking to make sure that these plans are funded?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that there are around 65 out of 195 plans that have some deficiencies, and the Pension Commission is working with interested parties to bring remedy to that.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me the number of plans? Of the plans that terminated, were any of them terminated that had liabilities still attached to them or deficiencies? With that information, I know it is in the book here for the previous year, but do you have the information available for the '97-98 year?

Mr. Gilleshammer: We are not able to access that at the moment, but we can provide the member with that information.

Mr. Reid: I take it, then, the information will be coming when the annual report--or are we talking before the annual report would be available?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told we can provide that before the annual report.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Guy Gordon, I think, was, or perhaps still is, involved with the Pension Commission and may be seconded out of the department at the current time. Last year when we talked about the Pension Commission, John Cumberford was also seconded to the Service First Initiatives. Can you tell me what is happening with those two individuals? Are they still working outside of the department?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Gordon has been seconded to the Better Methods. He is working on that project, and he will be returning to the department on the completion of that work.

Mr. Reid: How long has he been gone from the department, and how long do you expect him to be gone?

Mr. Gilleshammer: He has been absent from our shop since December and will be gone for the rest of this year.

Mr. Reid: Does the same apply then to Mr. Cumberford?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that we are not expecting Mr. Cumberford back.

Mr. Reid: So then I take it his position is vacant. Will it be filled?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, Mr. Gordon will be filling that position on his return.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me what the last time the pension advisory board--I think you have an advisory board that involves the stakeholders. Can you tell me the last time that particular board met?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that they meet quarterly. There is a meeting scheduled in the near future, and the last meeting was late last year.

Mr. Reid: So it has been several months then since the board met. It is my understanding it has not met for quite an extended period of time, maybe perhaps beyond that, that involved the stakeholders. That is the information that has been shared with me. There was some concern raised with me that that is not taking place to allow the stakeholders to raise any concerns and perhaps resolve some issues.

* (1630)

Mr. Gilleshammer: I will repeat my answer that they met late last year, in November, I believe, and that they will be meeting in the next few weeks and that they meet quarterly.

Mr. Reid: Were there any issues that were referred from the Pension Commission to the minister that need to be dealt with perhaps by way of legislative or regulative changes?

Mr. Gilleshammer: There are some issues pending that I believe that the Pension Commission is working on. We have not had anything referred in recent times that has not been dealt with.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister shed any light on what those issues may be?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am waiting for the recommendations from the Pension Commission, and when I have them, I would be pleased to share them with the member.

Mr. Reid: I take it then the minister may know but there may be some reason then he is not able to share that information. Is there something secret about the operations of the Pension Commission and their activities by way of problems that you could not share with this committee?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The issue pending is the locked-in Retirement Income Fund, and there have been requests regarding this. This locked-in Retirement Income Fund is being recommended to government. So we are awaiting some information that maybe can give you a little more detail. The proposed change is intended to provide retiring members and plan members who terminate their membership in a plan with locked-in pension assets, an additional pension income option called the locked-in Retirement Income Fund. Currently these people must convert their money into a life annuity or a life income fund. So this would be a third option.

The amendment is intended to respond to a growing segment of the population who wish to retain a greater control over the investment of their pension assets and who do not want to be forced to convert pension benefits to a life annuity as is required under the act. It is intended to pattern the Manitoba provisions after those found in our neighbouring provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan to ensure consistency.

Mr. Reid: I recall having this discussion with the minister last year, and it had been an issue that had been drawn to my attention, so I look forward to any improvements in the flexibility that the Pension Commission could give to members of the public that wanted to have some control over their funds. Now, I know there are drawbacks and I put them on the record last year with respect to people that may not manage their funds in the most appropriate fashion to plan for their full retirement years, but I am not really sure that it was, and the minister may agree, that I am not really sure that it is the government's role to make sure how people spend their monies.

I know at the end of the day there may be some social costs that are involved, and I guess in that sense we should have some concern, but members of the public that had contacted me that I had drawn to the minister's attention referenced that they wanted to have that flexibility to be able to manage their own funds. They do it in many cases in RRSPs and do so quite competently with fund managers and they wanted to have some flexibility with respect to other pension funds as well. I look forward to the changes that might be coming forward from the Pension Commission through your department in that regard. I have no other questions on this particular sector.

Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): 11.2. Labour Programs (d) Pension Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $251,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $90,300--pass.

11.2.(e) Manitoba Labour Board.

Mr. Gilleshammer: The honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and I would like to welcome Mr. Helwer to the Chair today, the member for Gimli. We are pleased that you have joined us. I would also like to acknowledge John Korpesho, chair of the Manitoba Labour Board, who just joined us at the table.

Mr. Reid: I welcome Mr. Korpesho to the table, of course, and look forward to asking some questions through the minister to Mr. Korpesho. Last year of course when this committee met, we had the opportunity to ask questions with respect to the impact of Bill 26, The Labour Relations Amendment Act. I was quite concerned at that time about the impact of the funding appropriation that was being given to the Manitoba Labour Board, so I have several questions I would like to ask with respect to the activities of the board itself.

I would like to know, on the funds that were available last year, because there seems to be a change this year as well, was the Labour Board able to meet its obligations with respect to the timeliness of certification votes and the other activities that had to be undertaken by the Labour Board?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that exceptional circumstances existed in nine cases, warranting an extension of time for taking a vote. The board's experience during the first full year is that there was no appreciable difference in the number of applications as a result of the automatic vote process.

Mr. Reid: You say no appreciable difference in the number of applications for certification. Can you tell me what those numbers were, please?

Mr. Gilleshammer: They were 72 last year, and 63 the year before.

Mr. Reid: Is that calendar year that you are giving me here, or is this fiscal year?

Mr. Gilleshammer: That would be the fiscal year.

Mr. Reid: You indicated that there were nine cases of extensions. Can you tell me where these occurred, the period of time that would be involved in the extensions, and who requested the extensions?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that these were cases where there was an agreement between the union and the employer, that more time was required and, as a result, the time was extended.

Mr. Reid: So that was an agreement between both parties in all nine cases, then?

Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me--I believe when the legislation came out there was some commitment that certification votes would take place within seven, I think it was, calendar days, outside of these extensions that are here. What would be the average number of days that you would have for these votes to take place?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that that was seven working days, and that the average would be five days.

* (1640)

Mr. Reid: I think the Labour Board appoints arbiters in expedited arbitration cases. I am not sure if I asked this in the previous section dealing with conciliation-mediation, but can you tell me the number of expedited arbitration proceedings that took place?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The number is 28.

An Honourable Member: Bingo.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Under the "B".

Mr. Reid: Can you give me an understanding here, and I know the Labour Board handles a wide variety of cases looking at the number of acts that they have responsibility for, but can you give me an idea of the caseload for the particular operations of the Labour Board? Do you have a breakdown of the number of cases that would be handled with respect to the particular acts for which they have responsibility?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, under The Labour Relations Act in 1997 there were 729; under The Employment Standards Act there were 373; under The Payment of Wages Act there was 81; under The Pay Equity Act there was zero; and, under The Workplace, Safety and Health Act there were six.

Mr. Reid: There are a couple of other acts. Vacations With Pay and Remembrance Day Act, I take it, that there was no problem in those areas?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, The Vacations With Pay Act is included under The Employment Standards Act where there were 373 cases, and we do not deal with The Remembrance Day Act.

Mr. Reid: Significant number under The Labour Relations Act, Employment Standards as well, obviously. Is there a breakdown that you have of the type of cases under The Labour Relations Act, which areas were raised?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I can give you considerable information on that. Under certification, there were 72 cases; under revocation, there were 14; under amended certificates, there were 26; under unfair labour practices, there were 58; under duty of fair representation, there were 16; board ruling 33; first collective agreements 10; Section 10(1) changes and conditions, there was one; Section 10(3) 90 days after certification, there were 16; review and reconsideration, there were 25; successor rights, there was one; religious objector, there was zero; termination of bargaining rights, there were two; grievance arbitration, there were 12; expedited arbitration, as indicated before, there were 28; access agreements, there were two; final offer selection, there was zero; extension of time limit for employee lists, there was zero; complaints re ratification vote, zero. A bunch of other zeros, if you want me to go through. Disclosure of information by unions, there were two; and union financial information filed, there were 438.

Mr. Reid: When you indicate union financial information that was filed--it is on your list there-- this is in respect to the Bill 26 provisions. Is that the requirement, the number that you are referencing?

Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me: have you received, has the board received applications or interest for information regarding the financial information that is provided to the board by the various unions of the province?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, under a line here called number of requests for disclosure received by the board since February 1, 1997, there were two.

Mr. Reid: Were these two in the last fiscal year, because last year when we talked there were two requests for information at that time. Have there been any others received since that time?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told those were the two that we talked about before.

Mr. Reid: Are there any vacancies within this particular area on the board itself and the staff?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told the answer is no.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, on The Employment Standards Act numbers that you have, 373 cases that were dealt with by the board, can you give me an understanding or a breakdown of the type of cases that were dealt with or the issues that were dealt with by the board?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Most of them are wages in lieu of notice issues, and hours of work exception orders.

Mr. Chairperson in the Chair

Mr. Reid: Last year there was a change that came forward. I do not know if this is the appropriate area to ask, but it was a change by way of legislation that the minister had to give some approval for certain business operations to open on days--K Mart, Zeller type of operations. I believe that no longer has to go through the minister or the Premier's office for Order-in-Council.

Is this the appropriate area to ask that question about the number of applications that would be made?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, it is not, but we did change that legislation last year, and I referenced it in my opening statements. I recall, I think, there was one or two that I approved last year, and they tended to be prior to Christmas. Again, this was in reference to retail outlets of some size wanting to have some sort of shopping event for their staff. Was it two? There were two of those requests that have been approved.

Mr. Reid: That is right. I was not clear on whether or not this was the appropriate area to ask or not, so thank you for the information.

The board, I think--I mean, they have been fairly helpful in helping me personally with constituency matters--resolve cases, and I appreciate those efforts. The board also, I believe, gets involved to assist parties in resolving disputes without the need for the formal process. Can you give me some background on how that process works? Would that not have been a function that would normally take place through mediation and arbitration process, or is this the function of the labour board in some other capacity beyond mediation?

Mr. Gilleshammer: So this is work that is internal to the board, and there are specific staff who work in that area.

* (1650)

Mr. Reid: Can you give me an idea of the number of cases that you would handle in that regard? If you did give it to me, I apologize for not catching it, but I would like some clarification on the number of cases you would handle that you would be able to resolve without having to go to a full board hearing process.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that there were nine cases that were handled in that manner.

Mr. Chairperson: 11.2 (e) Manitoba Labour Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $612,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $405,700--pass.

11.2.(f) Workplace Safety and Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,531,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $786,900--pass.

11.2.(g) Occupational Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, when you are going through this list here, are you on 2.(g) now? I had a number of questions on Workplace Safety and Health as you move through this process, so I would like to revert to Workplace Safety and Health.

Mr. Chairperson: May I ask the committee if there is unanimous consent to revert back to the previous section, Workplace Safety and Health. Agreed? [agreed]

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, in the time that we have remaining, I have a few questions. I wanted to first off--last year, the minister had referenced in his comments that there was a farm conference on safety that was going to be held, I believe in Manitoba this calendar year. Can you tell me, has that conference taken place? If not, when and where will it be held?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we look forward with great anticipation to that conference. It has not been held yet. It is going to be held in June, and I am told that there is tremendous interest from all over North America as well as South America and Europe, and it is going to be held in Winnipeg.

Mr. Reid: I take it, then, that the Department of Labour and the Manitoba government will be actively involved in that particular farm conference with respect to safety issues. Are we the sponsor of that particular conference, or are we just a participant in it?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we are actively involved as a department along with the Department of Agriculture and some of the major farm groups from within the province of Manitoba, and I do believe we have a pamphlet that we can bring to the next gathering which gives you the particulars that you would be interested in.

Mr. Reid: I would appreciate receiving that information. I have had a concern for some time about what has been happening in some of the farming operations when you take a look at the number of fatalities and injuries that are involved. We see them, of course, from time to time make the media, the various community newspapers throughout the province, and it is obvious it is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

I often wonder, and I say this out loud and I guess am putting on the record here, I wonder whether or not--and I am not looking in any way to hamper or to take away from any of the family farm operations in the province--we should be bringing, where you have larger agri-food industries businesses where it is more into a corporate type of farm operation, whether or not those types of farm operations should be brought in under The Workplace Safety and Health Act for the people who are working in there--not to isolate the family farm operation, because I think there needs to be some proactive accident prevention taking place or education taking place in those areas as well--but in the larger operations whether or not the government is involved in the larger corporate-type farms to make sure that we can go in and do audits of those particular operations to make sure that things are done in a safe manner where you have chemicals that are involved.

I remember back last year when the Minister of Labour was talking about someone who was familiar to him who was mixing chemicals with bare arms and that individual then being, of course, affected by that particular activity. That may have been a family farm operation that we are talking about here, but where we have ways, where we have expertise within our department, within our government operations, to effect some preventative programs in the farming community, both in the family farm operations and in the corporate farm operations, whether or not we should be bringing in those operations under the umbrella of Workplace Safety and Health.

I know your workload is probably fairly large to this point, but if there is some way that we can take steps to stem the growing number of accidents that are happening on farms, I think it would be a step in the right direction, both proactive by way of education, but also going out and doing audits of those particular operations, bringing them in under the umbrella to give the powers to the department.

Perhaps, just kind of thinking out loud here about whether or not those larger operations should be brought in under the umbrella of the Workers Compensation Board who do some proactive educational-type work now, whether or not those large operations should be in under the Workers Compensation Board to allow that preventative educational work to take place as well. Perhaps the minister can comment. I know he has some experience with the rural farming community. Has the department looked at that type of an involvement, both by Workers Comp and by Workplace Safety and Health into those areas of farming activity?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, there is a tremendous number of partnerships out there now where the Department of Agriculture takes the lead with organizations such as the National Farmers Union, the Keystone Agricultural Producers and then the various supply management groups and particularly various products, whether it is the pulse growers or the beet growers. There is no shortage of organizations out there, and I think that debate really needs to take place in the farm community.

It is very difficult to draw a distinction between a family farm and a corporate farm. Many of them are of similar size. They just have a different structure where perhaps father and son have incorporated and, you know, many family farms might be much larger but they do not appear as a corporation. So I think that debate needs to take place in that area. I know the Department of Agriculture, through their extension services--ag reps, home economists, field people--meet frequently. As well, the machinery companies, the chemical companies, many of these groups take a leadership role in providing that education and training with new chemicals, how they should be handled, how they should be used, how they should be stored. Similarly with the farm equipment, major farm equipment suppliers who tend to be centralized now spend a lot of time not only in selling and servicing that machinery but also doing the training and giving their expertise to individual farmers.

So I think that, for sure, one accident is too many, one fatality is too many. We do see individuals working under extreme pressure at seeding time and harvest time with weather perhaps being unco-operative, deadlines being exceeded and people pushing themselves working individually alone many hours of the day. You know, what is the role of government in working with these people? I believe it is primarily an education one, but if we are going to go any further than that, I think the debate has to take place within the farm community, which tends to be very independent individuals who have strong feelings on many things and who belong to many of the organizations that I have referenced.

This conference that is upcoming that we are going to provide you a brochure for next time we meet is a major step and a major recognition that there is a problem out there. I think it is not the starting point because I think safety programs have always been part of what the Department of Agriculture does and what those companies and organizations do, but I think it is a recognition of the seriousness of problems and an attempt to educate people and put in place further programs, if necessary, to alleviate this problem.

So we are pleased and proud to be associated with the Department of Agriculture to work with them on this initiative, and I expect that many positive and good things will come out of it. I am not going to speculate on what legislative powers people in that industry might want to give to government, but probably a good open debate on this issue within those organizations and within the Department of Agriculture, and if we can assist in any way, is a healthy thing.

Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise.