Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I believe, when we met last Thursday afternoon on the Estimates for the Department of Labour, I had been asking questions with the minister, and we were having some discussions with respect to the number of field inspectors and the number of firms that had been inspected. The minister, I believe, at that time had indicated that the department was targeting high-risk industries, businesses for specific attention of the Workplace Safety and Health branch. At that time I believe the minister said he had some 33 field inspectors that were undertaking field activities. Can the minister provide for me a list of the names of the individuals that are involved in those field activities?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Yes, I recall we were discussing the issue and staffing with the Workplace Safety and Health branch, and we can provide my honourable friend with those names at another time. We do not have a copy of that for tabling today.

Mr. Reid: Sure, that would be fine if the minister would provide that some time in the next week or so.

Could the minister tell me, in the Workplace Safety and Health branch, because he says that 95 percent of his time is spent on approximately 20,000 firms, I think if I recall accurately, first off the number of inspections that have been undertaken in total and what actions the department has taken, what they found with respect to noncompliance, the seriousness of the noncompliance should there be any, and what action the department has taken with respect to that?

* (1450)

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that we do about 3,000 inspections per year and some 3,000 improvement orders are written up each year. I think it is fair to say that the ultimate compliance is best achieved through discussion and education and having people within the workplace, whether they are in management or whether they are employees, understand the absolute need for safety and that issues can, in a co-operative manner, be resolved.

Mr. Reid: I do not disagree totally that education and a co-operative approach can have some effect in correcting situations within worksites where there, perhaps, would be an oversight or through a lack of education people are not aware of a certain situation, and that needs to be drawn to the attention of both the employees and the management of a particular operation. But I think we need to keep in mind, too, that there are, I am sure, some situations within the department where actions are not taken to correct, and I can point out just last fall when I was questioning the previous Minister of Labour with respect to the cave-in where the individual was trapped. I am sure the minister will recall the individual being trapped in that cave-in and nearly lost his life as a result of that particular cave-in. That is why we raised it because education did not seem to be working with that particular company, and yet the apparent policy of the Workplace Safety and Health branch was that this company could close its doors one day and start operations the next day under a new company name, the same people, just transferring them over to a new company.

Can you tell me what actions your department has taken with respect to that particular company where the individual was trapped in that cave-in? I think Unrau Construction is one of the company names. It is a public record already. That name is on public record. What actions has the department taken with respect to that particular company or companies, I should say, because there are many that were involved under the same owner's name?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I want to agree with my honourable friend. I spent most of my working life in education as a school teacher and school administrator and even with the best of teachers and instructors, we certainly always knew that the absorption of the material was not accepted universally and sometimes remedial tactics had to be used.

In the particular case that the critic here is referencing, I am informed that a substantial fine was levied against the company.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister provide for me a copy of the names of the firms? I am not saying that he has to put it on public record here today, but I have asked this in past Estimates, where the department has provided a list of the names of the firms that are involved with respect to court action under The Workplace Safety and Health Act and what occurred as a result of those actions.

Can you also tell me and provide for me a list or information relating to recommendations you may have made to the Department of Justice with respect to other cases involving violations under The Workplace Safety and Health Act that did not proceed to the courts?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I would commit to providing any information that we can legally provide and any information that has not been received in a confidential nature and that we are not able to provide to him. If there are statistics available within the department, and I believe there probably are, we can make those available to the member.

Mr. Reid: Can you define for me "legally able to provide" so I might have a clearer understanding on what you can and cannot provide to me?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I did not come here as a lawyer. I would just say, if there is anything that we legally cannot provide, obviously we are going to abide by that, if there is information that the courts have indicated is not public information or information that would violate any of our legislation that may be lodged in the department. But I am saying that I would be quite open with any of the information that has historically and traditionally been provided at these committee meetings.

Mr. Reid: What I am seeking here--maybe it will help the minister because I am seeking some kind of an understanding on--because some of your cases that would have proceeded through the Justice department and into the courts would have been undertaken as a result of a director's order not being followed. I would imagine that would be the process, although if I am wrong, you can correct me.

What I am also looking for here is information relating to cases that you may have sent to the Justice department that for some reason or other may not have been proceeded upon after the Justice department had an opportunity to look at those cases, and I am looking for some information in that regard as well.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Again, I would commit to providing any information that is deemed public documents that we are able to comply with.

Mr. Reid: And I would take it that would be all directors' orders?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that we can provide that.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me--and I look forward to that information coming forward--after a field officer undertakes an inspection and after the process of trying to educate and to encourage employees or employers to undertake certain actions to improve the safe working conditions, what is the action time, should it be a very serious offence, between a field officer reporting that information to the branch and to a director's order being issued to improve the safety of a particular workplace?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that if it is a serious offence the order is given immediately.

Mr. Reid: And in other situations, what would be the standard practice of the department with respect to issuing orders for improvement?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that when that workplace inspection is done, before the staff member leaves the worksite, the order is written up and signed and discussed with both the employee and employer reps at that time. I am told the only exceptions to that is where there is some ongoing work that is not of an urgent nature, but work that is ongoing perhaps to redesign the workplace, where there is a co-operative effort in place, a willingness to change, the work is ongoing and it is simply going to take a little longer.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me when he brought forward his legislation--I am not going to get into the specifics of the legislation itself in this question--did he consider following the B.C. practice which would allow the field officers the opportunity to undertake through an immediate action where there had been a stubbornness on the part of a particular employer or employee to improve workplace safety, to allow those field officers to undertake or to have the power to ticket on those particular situations? Was that a consideration, or did the minister just take the advisory committee's recommendations which he has indicated that he had to some degree when he brought forward his legislation, because there may have been another opportunity or option available to him that is in current practice in other jurisdictions? I would like to know which considerations, what options he looked at.

* (1500)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, certainly all aspects of issues around workplace safety and health were reviewed by the advisory council, and they in turn brought a unanimous recommendation back to the department to increase the fines by tenfold. I stress again that this was a unanimous recommendation of the individuals on that particular advisory committee. I am also told that members of the committee representing management and representing labour through the MFL were opposed to the technique that my honourable friend is putting forward today. They felt that this was not an effective--I believe they felt this was not an effective way of dealing with the issues. So I am told that they did look at other alternatives that are employed in other provinces, that these were rejected, and we have accepted the advice of that committee.

Mr. Reid: It is interesting, Mr. Chairperson, to note that--and I will not blame this current Minister of Labour, but the previous Minister of Labour indicated that he was unwilling to accept the recommendations of an advisory committee--and I am talking about the Labour Management Review Committee--with respect to legislation, and that particular minister brought forward and now this minister is accepting the full recommendations of a particular advisory body. So it is interesting to compare the two ministers and to see that there appears to be a change here, and I hope that where there are other recommendations that do come forward perhaps from the LMRC in the future that they will be taken into consideration, as well, because the past minister did not wish to pursue that course of action.

I want to ask the minister to go back on the field inspectors for a minute. With respect to the field inspectors, when he provides the list of the names of the individuals if he will also provide the classification ranking under the Civil Service Commission for those individuals.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I want to thank my friend for his kind words. I hope that we can work with both management and labour to make amendments to legislation when that is appropriate. I would point out to him that the advisory committee was given the task by the previous minister to look at the legislation and the fines, and they reported just as I became minister, and we have accepted those recommendations. So while I appreciate his compliments, I think he should know that the previous minister was the one who had sent this to the advisory body to have them review it.

Yes, we can indicate, when we give him the names of the people who work within the Workplace Safety and Health branch, what their titles are.

Mr. Reid: I think, if I recall correctly, the number used was--when I asked the number of cases, inspections that you do--I think the number was 3,000. Was that the number of field inspections that are undertaken? Was that the response that you had given me? Were there 3,000 improvement orders as well or did that include the improvement orders? If that did not include the improvement orders, can you tell me the number of those, please?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Perhaps I can give my friend an historical base for the last few years. In 1995-96, there was just under 3,000 inspections, 2,720 and 2,757 improvement orders were issued. The previous year in '94-95, there was 2,592 inspections and 2,104 improvement orders. In '93-94, there was 2,942 inspections and 3,300 improvement orders. In '92-93, there was 3,505 inspections and 3,452 improvement orders, and the last year I have before me was 1991-92 where there was 3,888 inspections and 3,171 improvement orders.

Mr. Reid: I have been mulling this over for some time, and I do not know how best to approach this problem. I do not want to put the firm's name on the public record at this point, because I believe in fairness to the firm they should be given some opportunity to correct a situation that I observed with my own eyes. Can you tell me, have you undertaken to do any audits in southern Manitoba, southwestern Manitoba?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chair, I am told that we do approximately 10 audits a year and some of them have been in rural Manitoba.

Mr. Reid: Have any of them taken place in the community of Winkler?

Mr. Gilleshammer: We do not have that information here, but we can find that out for the member.

Mr. Reid: I am going to share the name of the firm with the minister off the record later in fairness to the firm to allow them to take corrective action, but I did observe where there were individuals working in that particular company that were drilling with I believe it was air-powered hand drills and they were not wearing protective eyewear. No safety glasses or goggles were worn. I observed individuals working with fibreglass without respirators. I did observe individuals who were grinding with little hand-held air-powered grinders fibreglass components within a foot of their face with no respiratory equipment or protection worn.

Now I do not want to do anything to harm that particular industry from being successful, but I want to make sure that the employees who are working there--and there are quite a number of them who are working within that particular firm--are provided with every opportunity to provide for their safe workplace. If I were to provide this information to the minister, will he undertake to have members of the Workplace Safety and Health office contact this particular firm to make sure that the appropriate corrective action can be taken so that the employees themselves can be protected and to ensure that if the management of that particular operation is not aware of what their labour requirements are, that they may be educated as well? Will the minister be willing to undertake that on behalf of the department?

* (1510)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, for sure the department receives information from a variety of sources, and inspections and investigations take place. Not unlike any government department or organization that has to do inspections and investigations, the information will come from a variety of sources. If the member has information that he feels the department should have so that we can work with a firm and with employees to make the workplace safer, I would be pleased to receive that and pass it on to my staff and they can, in turn, deal with it in an appropriate manner.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that undertaking. I must advise, too, while it was not just one firm that I had the opportunity to visit first-hand, this was the one that from first-hand observations was severely lacking in its workplace safety and health practices. I am not sure what other actions need to be taken, but I will provide the name for the minister to make sure that the appropriate measures can be taken. The other firms that I have had the opportunity to visit from my own life's experiences did have or appeared to have the appropriate measures and guards and practices in place to protect for the employees.

Can the minister tell me, I had written to him some time ago when he first took over office as Minister of Labour, asking about the incident that had just occurred at the Pine Falls paper plant operation. It is my understanding that the individual that worked at that particular operation that was injured as a result of the chemical spill--and the minister can correct me if I am wrong, because the branch, I take it, would have done some investigation on this matter by now. What practices were occurring? The individual, from my understanding, was a new employee to the particular operation, may not have had sufficient training in workplace safety and health practices and also may not have been provided with the appropriate safety gear to protect that person going in to clean up a hazardous chemical spill. Can the minister tell me what actions Workplace Safety and Health have taken in that particular case?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that that incident is still before the department, and the review is continuing.

Mr. Reid: This has been a number of months now. How long does it take for the branch to investigate these matters? Has the field officer concluded the investigations on this? Is it now in the hands of the director or the minister? Can the minister tell me: What is the holdup on making a decision with respect to this case?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the file with all the information has been forwarded to the Department of Justice.

Mr. Reid: I take it then that there is a recommendation from the director or from the minister that specific court action take place with respect to this case. Is that the recommendation that you have passed on to the Justice department?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told the practice is simply to send all of the information to the appropriate people in Justice, that we do not send recommendations with it, that the file speaks for itself, those determinations are made by staff in the Department of Justice.

Mr. Reid: I understand that the Justice department has to make the determination whether or not this proceeds to the court, but I would expect that the Workplace Safety and Health branch which handles the act itself must be in a position to make some determination on whether or not there was a breach of the Act and that there must be some advice provided to the department. Can you share with me the advice that you have provided to the Justice department?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I think that I was pretty clear on that, that the file with the findings is sent to the Department of Justice, and they make the determination there whether they are going to proceed or not proceed.

Mr. Reid: Who makes the determination with respect--because, and you can correct me if I am wrong, if this case is to proceed to the courts? Would this fall under the--I would take it, under the old legislation, the legislation that is currently in place and who makes the determination on whether or not on what level of fine should it proceed to the courts? What level of fine is going to be asked for, when this case, if it does proceed to the courts?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that the judge will make that determination.

Mr. Reid: Does not the Justice department when they proceed on the advice of the Workplace Safety and Health branch--and I take it there must be some information that is provided in there on the severity of the case--does the Justice department not proceed on some advice provided by the Workplace Safety and Health branch with respect to the severity of it and whether or not the maximum sanctions should be applied?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, the Crown attorneys office, I believe, takes the information forward and the judge will make the determination as to the outcome of the case looking back, as judges do, on previous history of incidents of that type and previous benchmarks which will exist within the court system.

Mr. Reid: I am not totally familiar with the process you have and the recommendations you may make. I hope you do make recommendations from time to time because some of the cases are obviously more severe, and I look to an example involving the Power Vac company. The part that bothers me about that particular case, when it did proceed to the courts the Justice department lawyer--when that case proceeded to the courts--from my understanding, did not ask for the maximum fine which was a measley $15,000 for the young man who nearly lost his life and who will never be the same.

* (1520)

I know I have raised this case with the minister when we were in the Workers Compensation committee hearings here. That is why I am trying to get some understanding here of the process that you have in place, because if the Crown attorney proceeding on behalf of the Justice department goes to the courts and he does not have a clear understanding in his or her mind about the severity of the case or some recommendation provided, then they may be somewhat wanting in some direction here on the severity of it and then not ask for the maximum sanction. That is what has happened in the Power Vac case here and that is why I would like to know more about your process when you are proceeding to make recommendations to the Justice department.

In that Power Vac case, the Justice department I think failed miserably in their mandate to protect the public and to enforce the act for a lousy $15,000. I know it is never going to make that individual's life whole again, but there had to have been a strong message that was sent out to the particular company that was involved that this is an act that is extremely serious and by asking for not even the maximum, then that sends the message to the presiding judge that even the Crown attorneys office does not consider this to be a serious matter. So then the judge is left to make their own decisions based on what the Crown attorney and the defence attorneys are saying to them. So if the Crown attorney is not even asking for the maximum in serious cases such as that where there is serious disfigurement or death that are involved, then the judge is left with no other option but to consider this not to be of a serious nature.

That is why I am asking you: Why does the department then not make recommendations to the Justice department on what actions to proceed with?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, again, our role here is to investigate and find all the information that we can and present that information to the Crown to make a determination whether they are going to take it forward or not. Then it is the Crown's responsibility to put the case and the judges' responsibility to make a determination. I think what I hear my honourable friend saying is that he is not happy with the Crown's handling of cases in the past. I do not mean to make light of this, but I know that the Justice Estimates are coming up and perhaps that would be the place to raise that issue.

Our role is pretty straightforward, is to investigate, gather the information, and without any role in determining whether charges are going to be laid or how the court system is going to handle it, present that information to the Crown and they carry it forward from there. Certainly if the Crown attorneys have questions that they want to clarify, if they need more information, our staff will be at their disposal to provide that to them, but the place where those decisions are made is in the Department of Justice.

Mr. Reid: Perhaps the minister is right. Maybe I should be pursuing the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) on this. I just thought--I could be way out to lunch on this--that it would be reasonable to expect that because there is a certain amount of expertise that is within the Workplace Safety and Health branch--or at least you have that at your disposal--that you can, because of that experience within the department, provide some guidance to the Justice department when these serious cases are being pursued through the courts.

I mean the Crown attorney is so remote from this process. He grabs a piece of paper the same way that we do in this building here, but he has no real connection into the process. Yes, he may have some discussions with the individual that was involved, but if there is a death in there, of course I am not sure what interaction they would have with the family, if any. But the department, the Workplace Safety and Health branch that is investigating these matters has that contact as does the Workers Compensation Board have the contact with the family, and they know the impact and the severity of it here. That is why I am looking for a way to improve the communication that happens between the Workplace Safety and Health branch and the Justice department when these cases do proceed to the courts so that you, utilizing the expertise that you have, can make a recommendation on the severity of the matter to the Crown attorney that would be proceeding with the case, so that when it does go to the courts, those thoughts or those impressions or opinions can hopefully then be passed on to the presiding judge. Then the judge can take all of the facts into consideration including the opinions of the Workplace Safety and Health branch and not just a remote third party as a Crown attorney may be in this process. That is why I am looking to have some way to improve the process of communication with and recommendations coming from Workplace Safety and Health to the Crown attorneys. Is it possible to undertake some action like that?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I have no reason to believe that the investigations that are undertaken by Workplace Safety and Health are not very thorough and that the facts of the case are identified and recorded, and for staff in the Workplace Safety and Health division, at the end of the process their role is to provide that thorough and well documented information to the Crown. It is the Crown's responsibility to evaluate that information, and I suppose test it against the legislation and make their determination of whether they are going to proceed with it; then it will be up to the judge to make a determination of guilt or innocence, and if there is some guilt, the level of the fine and the punishment that is imposed.

Mr. Reid: I may be a bit naive here in my expectations of the department, but I thought, for the benefit of society as a whole and to improve a process, there should be some communication that takes place other than just a piece of paper that goes over to the department with the file and it is so remote in its connection between the Crown attorney, and that is why I raise it again. There is a remoteness there. There is no connection. There are no humans attached to this piece of paper other than the names you may read on the piece of paper and if there were some recommendations that would come from the department--I will just leave that with the minister.

We could go on at this forever, and I do not think that the Crown attorneys that would be involved--no doubt they have a workload that is quite onerous as well--can take the time to sit down and do the in-depth research that the branch has already undertaken. They have some experience in dealing with these matters over quite a number of years and they have made the contact with the industry and perhaps with the family as well. They can make the recommendations if this particular, I am not saying this company but if a company or an individual that is not adhering to The Workplace and Safety Act and it is serious where an individual is severely disfigured or maimed or a loss of life that the department has that expertise to pass on to the Justice department. That is why I would want, failing some other argument to the contrary that would convince me otherwise, that a recommendation should go from the branch to the Justice department to make sure that the Crown attorney understands clearly before they proceed to the courts, the severity of the case.

That is why I just raised that with the minister, because I looked at the Power Vac case and talked to some of the individuals that have been involved with this matter and looked at the results of it going to the court, and I can see quite clearly that the Crown attorney did not have a clear understanding of the severity of the case. Otherwise I would have expected the individual attorney to ask for the maximum which as I said was only $15,000 on each of the counts, and there were two counts that came in for a total of, I think, around $13,000 or $15,000 on both counts. So there does not seem to be a communication between the severity of the case that The Workplace Safety and Health is investigating versus what the Crown attorney is putting forward in the courts.

* (1530)

I will leave that with the minister. I do not know if he has any comments that he wants to make but I will leave that with him because there seems to be a process here that can be established to have a clearer understanding between the two departments.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, what I hear the critic for the NDP saying is that no matter how complete, exact, thorough and detailed that report is, he wants some passion displayed by departmental staff to go along with the paperwork, but the process that we follow is to do the investigation and to get all of the information and detail and the work is done professionally, thoroughly. But under our system, the Crown attorney, the Crown makes the determination of whether to proceed or not. Now my honourable friend is going one step further and saying that somebody has to get the Crown attorney fired up about it. I suppose what he is saying is this is just another case in the workload of a Crown attorney, but, in fact, that is what their job is, is to review the evidence, to look at the information and to do their job in taking it forward if they are prosecuting and to put the best case forward that they can. Again, I indicated a few minutes ago, the departmental staff would be available to review any of that documentation, to answer any questions, to provide any clarifications that would be needed, any information that the Crown would see to be lacking. It is in the Department of Justice where those determinations are made and what level of punishment is requested as they appear before a judge and that judge, looking at previous history and previous cases and previous benchmarks, will make that determination.

For sure we feel that the current legislation needs to be updated. The task force that reviewed this, the review committee, brought forward a unanimous recommendation, and we are accepting that. I guess we are mixing two issues here in a way, but I think the member has indicated that part of the issue, as he sees it, is that the level of fines has to be increased. This legislation that we are bringing forward this session will allow for that.

The direction and the attitude that is taken by the Department of Justice-and in our country we believe that people within the justice system go forward and make those decisions independent of interference-has by and large worked in our society. But these are human beings too, and they will put their own priority on cases, it would be my view, depending on their experience and their background in these cases, but our role and the role of the Justice department is very separate. I hear what the member is saying and, if nothing else, it would give my staff and myself an opportunity to think about these things. This is a long-standing practice that has been part of this department and the Department of Justice for, I would guess, decades.

Mr. Reid: Perhaps it has been a long-standing practice of the department for decades. I have not been in this occupation for decades. I only know the cases that come before me in my time here, in my experiences with the families and the individuals that I have to deal with.

I have raised some of the cases with the minister in the Workers Compensation committee hearings, with previous ministers and former ministers, about the cases that I am hearing. All I am trying to do is inject some humanity into the process here so that there are real human beings that are affected by the decisions that are made, not so much in this particular case involving Power Vac because as the minister has explained to me, it was the Crown attorneys that made the decisions, it is the Justice department that makes those decisions. I am just trying to say that there are real people that are attached and real families that are attached to the decisions that are made, and if the Crown attorney in a very busy day does not understand because they do not have the time to take to understand, not asking for or not being aware of the seriousness of the case--and I am being repetitive here--that there needs to be some understanding given to that Crown attorney or to the Justice department. That is all I am asking, and I will not go any further on that.

I want to ask about--because the minister said in his opening comments on these Estimates that the Petroleum Branch of the Energy and Mines has taken over responsibility for conducting safety and health inspections, have those particular individuals in the Petroleum Branch--I take it that they must have some experience in that particular industry--also been provided with any kind of training dealing with The Workplace Safety and Health Act?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I am told that there are six individuals within the Department of Energy and Mines that are performing this task, that there have been workshops held to provide them with that training and that guidance, and there is also a protocol in place that if there is a situation that is serious that they need assistance with, they can call in staff from Workplace Safety and Health to assist them.

Mr. Reid: Why was the decision made to transfer this work over to Energy and Mines?

* (1540)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I am told that this was seen as an efficiency, that it correlates very much with the type of work that is being performed by those individuals. I am told that there are some 300 people working in that area that individuals from Energy and Mines interrelate with as part of their job, and it was seen, again, as an efficiency that part of their responsibility and role could be the workplace safety and health concerns that we would have as a department there. So we have supplied the training, we have supplied the background information and, again, if need be, our staff can be called in to assist with those inspections. It also has led, I think, to probably more comprehensive overview of the activities taking place within that sector.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister, when he provides me with the list that he is going to provide, also give me a breakdown, because he has done, I think, some 20,000 firms that are involved or should be involved from what I understand through this process? It would be the higher-risk firms that would require certain inspections. Can you give me a breakdown on the types of activities those firms that fall under that category--so I might have an idea--or a breakdown on the type of industry that is involved? Perhaps the minister can provide that when he sends that information over to me.

Mr. Gilleshammer: My staff have taken note of that, and we will send that information along.

Mr. Reid: One last question here. Under your explanation notes in the supplementary document, you have a reduction in the provision for Workers Compensation costs. Can you explain that to me, please?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I am told that historically these were surplus funds that were lapsing, and it was felt that we could take them out of the budget and that they were no longer required there.

Mr. Reid: When you say surplus funds, do you mean there had been anticipation that there may have been some injuries within that particular branch and that these funds were in there to cover any costs that you might have expected with respect to premiums that would have had to be paid to the Workers Compensation Board and perhaps may have been associated with your field officers who may have been hurt, or others?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chair, I am told that the money previously was for some assistance to an employee who had been injured. That employee has now left the department.

Mr. Reid: I have no further questions on this section.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 11.2. Labour Programs (f) Workplace Safety and Health, (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,367,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $684,200--pass.

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

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me--and I have had this case drawn to my attention and I am going through the process of investigation of it. I note in this section under Occupational Health, under the Activity Identification, it looks at disease outbreak investigations. Cancer clusters is one of the examples, and it kind of triggers this case in my mind. It involves a particular industry here, Federal Industries, that had people employed in manufacturing of electrical transformers. Then there are certain oils that were related to that particular industry.

Has any investigation been undertaken by the department with respect to that particular business, because it is my understanding that some 11 individuals were involved and did contract specific cancers, all very similar in nature? In fact, some of the people have now died from it, and the families, at my understanding, maybe already have made contact with the department.

Can you tell me what investigation has been undertaken by the department to investigate matters such as this one?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am informed that staff have examined this issue. They have been unable to prove that there is a direct link. This, I guess, emerged in a report that was done for the MFL by a doctor who alluded to this, but none of the professionals who have examined it have found a direct link or relationship that they felt was clearly evidence that the substance, PCBs, was the cause of this cancer.

Mr. Reid: Am I to understand the minister clearly, that the Occupational Health Branch of his department has determined that there is a link between the particular type of industry that was utilizing PCB-laden oils, cooling oils, in those particular transformers for which the employees may have come in contact and have subsequently developed a cancer versus medical people in the field who have not made that link? Am I understanding that clearly?

Mr. Gilleshammer: No. What I said was that they examined it, and they were unable to find a link that would lead them to believe that that was the cause of the cancer.

Mr. Reid: In your department?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.

Mr. Reid: I take it then, this has been left in the hands of the medical experts to undertake further investigation on this, and that the department is not actively pursuing this.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes. These are medical experts within our department that did this examination and review. They were unable to find a direct linkage between the work and the substances that these individuals came in contact with and the state of their health.

I am also told that the case has not been totally closed, that if there was further information that could be pursued staff would do that.

* (1550)

Mr. Reid: So is staff in the minister's Occupational Health Branch undertaking further investigation on this or has this been left up to others to pursue this type of research?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that our staff member Dr. Ted Redekop and his staff did the examination and review of this and did not come to a conclusion that there was a linkage between the work that was being undertaken by these individuals and the health issues that they have. I am also aware that this whole area of PCB exposure is being examined in many other jurisdictions without, I guess, a definitive outcome being arrived at at this time. So, from time to time, the issue surfaces again as perhaps other individuals who fall ill want to have their particular circumstances examined. So, in some ways, it does reopen from time to time, but no evidence has been found at this time to make that direct linkage.

Mr. Reid: I guess medicine, wanting to be more precise on their opinions, need to have that research that is undertaken. I would have thought that by now, considering the amount of discussion and hopefully research that had been done on industries involving and utilizing PCBs, there would have been some case history that would have been developed throughout the world because Canada and Manitoba are not the only jurisdictions that have utilized PCB-laden oils over the years and that there would have been at least some case history to draw some conclusions that anybody utilizing that particular product would be susceptible to developing certain diseases and that there might have been some clarifity on this issue with respect to that particular industry, considering that they had utilized--from what I am told, the 11 people who have now contracted cancer had been working in the transformer area for which those particular oils were being utilized. So I thought there would have been some background work that would have already been done, that somewhere various jurisdictions throughout the world--

Has that type of research been undertaken to contact other jurisdictions worldwide? Because electrical transformers are not only in operations and manufacture here in Manitoba but in other jurisdictions. Have you made that contact with other jurisdictions?

(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to have you join us this afternoon.

I am told that part of the responsibility of Dr. Redekop and other staff, Ms. Alberge [phonetic], is to be aware of what is happening in other jurisdictions, to contact other jurisdictions, to be current on findings in other parts of the world. Discussion about exposure to PCBs and cancer in workers and human beings has been there for a long time, but I guess we are at the point where nobody has definitively determined that linkage. So our staff continue to monitor and to research and to communicate with the scientific community and other jurisdictions to be aware of any information that comes forward that would be pertinent to this case and other cases in Manitoba.

Mr. Reid: Having worked in that particular field for a number of years and having known of individuals who used to immerse their arms and sometimes their upper bodies in PCB-laden oils, knowing that those people are no longer with us as a result of various diseases that they contracted leads me to ask questions in this regard, so I know what the impacts on individuals are.

I want to ask, because also under this Activity Identification you talk about fibrogenic dusts and you talk about silicosis and asbestosis, do you also under either the Workplace Safety and Health branch or the Occupational Health unit investigate industries that are involved in the manufacture or utilization of wood products whether it be window manufacturers, furniture manufacturers, and the dusts that are involved and the employees coming into contact there? What experience does the department have in that regard? Do you do audits of these particular companies in this regard or these particular industries?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, for sure, probably all of us know individuals who either work for companies like Manitoba Hydro or other companies where PCB oil was used and not seen as a danger to one's life or health. I think one of the items that I recounted to the member last week was one of the first fatalities in the farm community was someone who was mixing chemicals in their grain bin or in a container to use in seeding and mixed it by hand with their arms, and within hours of that, that individual was dead, a very well-known, even famous individual in western Manitoba who worked with young people, well known in hockey circles. I mean the warning bells went off everywhere. This goes back probably to the late 1970s or early 1980s that there was some real danger there in working with chemicals and compounds that we do not know much about and that can be absorbed into the body through our pores and create some awful damage.

* (1600)

The member asks about the wood manufacturers, those people who make windows and doors and furniture. We do monitor the levels of dust that are in those plants and work again with the employee and employer committees on workplace safety and health, and, of course, we are able to measure that.

I know in a couple of the tours that I have been on in the last couple of years to a number of those companies, I was impressed with the overall operation of the plants and the concern that employers took for their staff, the protective measures that were obvious and in place, and, also, in a couple of cases, the morale and spirit of the employees who were part of a growth industry that was exporting product to all parts of the world, and to be able to see the whole process from the raw lumber being brought into the plant to the finished product being shipped out.

The one thing I noted there were the masks that were worn by most staff to assist with their breathing. I guess all of us have seen in the last decade the changes that take place in the workplace to try and make the health and safety of workers uppermost in these particular plants.

I am also told that while we do those dust surveys, that there has been scientific evidence linking the dust from cedar to a certain type of cancer. We do not apparently produce a lot of product in Manitoba made out of cedar, so I suppose that is probably a good thing but our normal practices are in place in those particular plants.

Mr. Reid: I take it then, you do audits of those particular operations to determine that the employees or the people that are working in there, all people that are working in there are protected.

Mr. Gilleshammer: We do investigations and we do preventative work with those particular companies. I think I indicated to an earlier question, we do about 10 audits a year where we have a more in-depth examination of the workplace. Again, in answer to an earlier question, the member was going to ask us to take a look at a particular company, and I said that we would take a look at that information. Again, the department receives information from a variety of sources and if there is some substance to it, we will certainly act.

I know various departments, whether it be social services or Education or Natural Resources, when you have an inspection function or a regulatory function, if information is provided that would lead us to believe that an inspection or an audit is warranted we would pursue that.

Mr. Reid: There must be some--from my recollection, where you have either wood products or you have PCB-laden oils used in transformer manufacture, there are certain amounts of WHMIS-related information that is attached and accompanies those particular products. If I recall correctly, and I am going from memory here from a number of years ago, those particular WHMIS documents indicate that there is a carcinogenic component to these particular products whether it be wood or the oils.

How is it that WHMIS people, which is part of the federal government, I understand, can make a determination that there is carcinogenic properties associated with these oils or these wood products and yet the departments Occupational Health or Workplace Safety and Health branch cannot make a similar determination? How is it that they can do it and you cannot?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, in relationship to the PCBs, out of an abundance of caution, PCB oil use was discontinued many years ago, even though the proof or the linkage with that and cancer has not been definitively proven. With reference to the cedar, the use of particular types of cedar whose dust perhaps has been proven to cause cancer, this is a product that is not found in Manitoba in its raw state, and it is related to, I think, B.C. and some in California, the red cedar. So if those are the two things, the PCBs and the cedar that the member is talking about, one is not used anymore and the other is not found in Manitoba. I have a feeling that it is other wood products that he is talking about. Perhaps in a subsequent question he could clarify that.

Mr. Reid: I have done some research on this because it did affect my community. There was a particular furniture manufacturer in my community--I dealt with this a number of years ago and hopefully it has been resolved to a large extent, although not 100 percent perfect--where there were hardwoods that were involved. I am talking hardwoods that are grown commonly here in Manitoba in the sense of poplar or oak or other such types of wood components of the particular furniture. Those trees grow naturally here in Manitoba, and yet from the research that I had undertaken at that time--the people who are working in those particular types of industries, whether it be that one or others, working with these hardwood products, and in some cases they are chipped or made into particles and then formed into a hardboard.

So these people are working in particular operations like that, and the research has shown that there is nasal, throat, lip, mouth cancers that come out of involvement or continual interaction with those particular hardwood products. That is why I raised this type. I want to know what kind of audits you are doing in that particular type of industry because there is a growing number of people that are employed in that particular company within my own community and I am sure in other companies in the province as well dealing with furniture manufacture. It is not a shrinking industry. It seems to be growing at least by evidence of the one company in my community. That is why I wanted to know what type of audits you undertake to do to protect the people that are utilizing or working with those particular components, those wood products.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, you know, the information in the department is that it is possibly substances that are used in the treatment of these woods in some of the chemicals, some of the glue, that sometimes perhaps has some effect on individuals. I guess what I would say is that we have professional, industrial hygienists within the department that we would be pleased to make available to the honourable member to perhaps delve into this in more detail. I think what I am being told is that we do not have concrete evidence of cancers in those workplaces, but, again, we could make some of our professional staff available to the honourable member to go into this in more detail.

* (1610)

Mr. Reid: Well, the research was done by a former member of your particular department who is no longer with you and has the expertise in that particular field and did provide me with the literature related to that and did provide explanation of that particular literature. That is why I raised it. I had hoped that there would have been some ongoing research in that regard, but, perhaps, if I can pull that information together, I can forward it on or at least provide you with some avenue for investigation on where that information comes from. In that regard, I have no further questions in this.

Mr. Gilleshammer: That would be acceptable.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 11.2. Labour Programs (g) Occupational Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $215,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $34,500--pass.

Item11.2.(h) Mines Inspection (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $503,900.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, can the minister tell me how many vacancies, if any, are existing in the Mines Inspection?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there are none.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me how many inspections have taken place in regard to mines in the province?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that there are about 400 inspections on an annual basis.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me the number of accidents that took place in the mining-related industry and the number of deaths? Do you have that statistical information here?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that there are about on an average 4.5 accidents per 100 workers, and as far as fatalities go, in 1996 there were three.

Mr. Reid: If I recall the number correctly, the minister said there were some 400 inspections. Of those inspections that were undertaken, can you tell me how many directors' orders were issued?

Mr. Gilleshammer: There would be approximately 900 orders issued in the course of 1996.

Mr. Reid: How many of those cases or orders have been referred to Justice?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told the cases where there were fatalities have been referred to Justice.

Mr. Reid: I take it then that all of the other approximately 900 orders have been complied with and that corrective action has been taken?

Mr. Gilleshammer: That is correct.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me why he has eliminated the mines rescue co-ordinator position?

* (1620)

Mr. Gilleshammer: I do believe we have had the opportunity to speak on this matter before, and I will simply be repeating myself, but this mines rescue co-ordinator was deleted from the 1997-98 budget. The position was designed to train mines rescue instructors to maintain a list of all trained mine rescue personnel and mine rescue stations and inspect mine rescue stations. The position was based here in Winnipeg and was classified as a Mines Inspector 4. It was a service as opposed to a regulatory position. It was deemed to be redundant with existing industry safety activities. The position was fully funded from the Workers Compensation Board, and its elimination will directly eliminate charges to the companies. The companies or its agent could therefore buy service from the savings resulting from the elimination of the position.

So this position then, as I have indicated on one other previous occasion, was deemed to be redundant in that the various mines were providing this particular service and the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Manitoba, known as MAPAM, is composed of representatives of the mines in the province, and they have endorsed this. They have indicated that this was a duplication, that this service was redundant and that the co-ordination was being provided at the local sites by those particular companies.

I think on a previous occasion when we had the opportunity to discuss this, I also read into the record the opinion of a third party, the editor of a fine journal in northern Manitoba in the community of Flin Flon. And the member recalls that so I probably will refrain from reading it into the record again, but if you like, I can retrieve that from my notes here. I am being encouraged to put this on the record.

This is from the Flin Flon Reminder, March 18, 1997, so just a little over a month ago. In the view of the editor he refers to this as a safe move: By cutting a redundant $64,000 mines rescue co-ordinator's job, the Filmon government has wisely freed up money for other workplace safety initiatives. The move announced in the provincial budget of March 14 will see the job eliminated through attrition when the current worker retires April 1. The Winnipeg-based co-ordinator trained mines rescue instructors and personnel, a service already provided by the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Manitoba.

The association is made up of representatives from each of Manitoba's mining companies. Each company has mines rescue personnel to address mine emergency situations. On each of these mines rescue teams is a full-time safety professional which provided the same role as the provincial co-ordinator. This becomes available at a time when mine safety in Manitoba is drawing national attention, so I guess the editor has come to the same conclusion as the professionals within my Department of Labour. This is also endorsed by the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Manitoba, those people who represent those particular mine sites, that this was a redundant position, and that this money could be better used in other ways. So this is what the department has decided.

It has been concurred in by the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Manitoba, and, as I indicated, another third-party writing in a northern newspaper.

Mr. Reid: I guess the minister says that the Flin Flon Reminder editor has a great deal of expertise in the mining industry. I will have to say, I would leave that up to the minister's discretion in whether or not he wants to believe that that particular editor has the mining expertise. He perhaps may know that individual better than I do.

I will ask the minister, though, since he has cut his department by 2.7 percent this year, where has he taken that $64,000 that the Flin Flon Reminder says he should put into other initiatives in the Department of Labour? Since he has cut it by 2.7 percent this year, where has he put that $64,000 to better use within the Department of Labour?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I want to hasten to clarify for my honourable friend that I have never met the editor of the Flin Flon Reminder, so he is not a dear friend of mine, nor do I know what his background is.

My experience is that life in northern Manitoba is such that community newspapers understand the industry. They understand the workforce. They understand mining in general. I have had an opportunity to talk to the member's colleague Mr. Jennissen, the fine MLA for Flin Flon, about issues to do with mining. I frequently find we are on the same wavelength. I do not think that he brought this up with me as an issue, but I will check with him to see what his views on this subject are.

The member asked the question about the funding, that this position was fully funded by the Workers Compensation Board. Those companies that have taken the responsibility to train their mines rescue people will have those additional funds to enhance that service. They can use it for further training. They can use it to provide services. Some of the money remains in the department, and that money is being used for inspections so that the staff that we have can adequately do the job of inspection that is required by our Mines staff.

Mr. Reid: Well, I do not see how in the Mines Inspection area. You have the same amount of funding for the managerial. You have cut the Mines rescue co-ordinators, so you have a reduction in funding there of $64,000. You have cut funding for Administrative Support and you have cut under the Employee Benefits line. So I do not see how you have kept that money within that particular area for inspections. Where is that $64,000 showing up? You said you have invested it back into the department for inspections. Where is it showing here?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Just to clarify for my honourable friend, that money, the $64,000, was fully funded by the Workers Compensation Board and that money is no longer required. So those companies will not be paying an extra tariff, and they can use that to buy services from those savings, but the position also had an operating charge of about $35,000. The $64,000 was for salary, $35,000 was for operating. That money now is turned back into Mines Inspection.

Mr. Reid: Well, when it was undertaken in the department here, you used the money and you showed it on a budget line and you recovered it from Workers Compensation like you did under other subdepartments. You still showed it under your budget line here. So the money has been eliminated from your inspections operations here under the Mines Inspections Branch. So you cannot say you have the same amount of money in there. You are not doing more inspections with less people, you do not have the same amount of money in there to do that to hire even contract people, so how can you say that you have kept $64,000 in that particular budget line?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I did not say we kept $64,000. I said that $64,000 that went to salary has been eliminated, and that was fully funded from the Workers Compensation Board, which used to be shown here, right, and the funds attached to that position for operating expenses was $35,000. That $35,000 now goes into Mines Inspection.

* (1630)

Mr. Reid: Well, I do not see how we are going to improve on the operations of the mines. If you cut people who have a certain amount of expertise that were there to assist in the training of people, who is going to take over the operations now for training? Are you going to leave it up to the individual companies to buy their own services you have indicated here, and have they given you an indication to this point that they have contracted people to come in and provide that type of service to them on a full-time basis like we had here before?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chair, I think the member understands what I am saying but maybe chooses not to, but I will say it again. This was training that the Mines have a responsibility for and that they were doing anyway and this was seen as duplication. It was seen as redundant. I know that my honourable friend would not support concepts and practices that were simply duplicating what somebody else was doing and practices that were redundant. So that money can be better used by the companies to purchase additional services to provide additional training if they wish, and the operating funds that were attached to that position are now being better used by the department in terms of Mines Inspection.

Mr. Reid: Another part to that question was how many of those firms have purchased that particular type of service.

Mr. Gilleshammer: They all have a responsibility to have that training. They all have their own staff who do that training, and what we are saying is that they would be able to enhance that training because they will have that funding available to them. They also have the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Manitoba, which is composed of representatives of all the mines and employs a full-time safety professional. They have written to me on two occasions to say that they feel there are adequate resources devoted to this whole concept of the training of mines rescue instructors and staff. They are very clear that this was not seen as a detrimental move towards the safety of people working in our mines.

Mr. Reid: Why did you eliminate the administrative secretary's position then? Was that a person that had been working closely with the mines rescue co-ordinator, or was that individual attached to the professional/technical operations in total? Whom was that person working for?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Certainly there was a support staff associated with this position, a position that no longer exists. That fact and improved technology allowed us to find some savings in that particular area.

Mr. Reid: Does the minister feel that there are an adequate number of inspections and inspectors working within the Mines Inspection Branch?

Mr. Gilleshammer: In the judgment of my senior staff and the professionals in my department, the answer they give me is yes.

Mr. Reid: I am asking for the minister's opinion. Are there an adequate number of inspectors? Could you not have converted that mines rescue co-ordinator position into one of the inspectors to ensure a safer workplace for the people employed by that industry?

Mr. Gilleshammer: My conclusions at this point in time, after being within this department for just over four months, are that I have an exceedingly professional staff who are knowledgeable in this area, and I rely on them to give me this information. They have indicated to me that they have sufficient staff to do the mines inspections. Over and above that, I have the comfort of the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Manitoba also giving me the same information. If my honourable friend from Transcona feels that we need more inspections and more inspectors, he can put that on the record, and, as with all of his comments, we will give them due consideration.

Mr. Reid: Well, perhaps if the number of deaths was zero, and the number of accidents taking place in the mining industry was zero, we could say there were an adequate number of inspectors in there. One would think that you would be able to reduce the number of accidents that are involved, to oversee the workplace conditions that are there, and that, by eliminating this one person, another pair of eyes that would be involved, you have reduced the ability to see those workplace conditions first-hand. That is why I asked the minister why he did not convert that particular position into another inspector in the mining industry.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly any accident, any injury, and fatality is one too many within mining or any other sector of endeavour within our economy, within our province. I am not sure that putting more inspectors on the job is going to lead us to workplaces that are absolutely, totally and completely safe. I do say there is a relationship between the numbers of accidents and the numbers of fatalities and the injuries that occur in the workplace, but I say that the trend has been to have a sharp decline in the number of fatalities that were recorded from previous years, and the trend line is going in the right direction.

I would like to think that we could take steps in government, working with safety and health committees, to bring this down even further. I am not sure we are ever going to completely eliminate it, but that can certainly be a goal we can work towards.

The statistics that I have for mining and logging indicates that historically it has been a rather dangerous occupation. Back in the seventies, in 1976-77, there were 12 fatalities in mining. In 1980 there were six; in 1985 there were six. But it has trended downwards. In 1993 there were two; 1994 three; 1995 one. I think that there are better practices in place. There is more awareness of safety issues. Our staff in Workplace Safety and Health and our mines inspectors continue to do a job. Again I think there is a shared responsibility here on the part of employees, employers and government to try and do the best job we possibly can in eliminating injuries, accidents and fatalities.

* (1640)

I think the staff have been doing a good job. I think the committees have been doing a good job in reducing the trend and the frequency of accidents and fatalities, but we will continue to work and continue to try and decrease that even further.

Mr. Reid: It is my understanding that inspectors also do education in the workplace. They educate the employers, the management team, they educate the people who are doing the actual hands-on work, and if you want to, because the minister says throughout this document that I have got here from his department that education is the key--he is not the first minister to say that. But if you do not have the people that are in--and I am sure the mines rescue co-ordinator must have played some educational role in the process, and if you have another pair of eyes there and an inspector, a person that you had there already who knows the industry can act as one of the educators in the process to educate those who are employed in that particular industry. Now, what you have done is you have taken another one of those educators that would help to reduce the workplace accidents. That is why I raised it with you. That is why I would ask that you would have given consideration to having that person as an inspector to carry on with the education work in a preventative fashion, not only just as a rescue co-ordinator because they had that expertise, but they could have been an educator in preventing accidents. But now that opportunity is gone because you have cut or eliminated that position all together.

Mr. Gilleshammer: What I hear my honourable friend saying is that he agrees that this was a redundant position. He agrees that there was some duplication here, but he feels that we should have converted that position and added it to our staff of mines inspectors.

Mr. Reid: No, I did not say that.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, then, if he did not say that, and that is what he is indicating from his seat, what he is saying is we should have continued to pay $64,000 to a mines rescue co-ordinator whose job was redundant and whose function was already being performed by the companies and just continued with this redundancy and this duplication. I do not think even a New Democrat in these times would say that we could not spend that money better in another way. So I am not sure just where my honourable friend is at at the moment. If his view is that we should continue to have a mines rescue co-ordinator against the advice of my department, against the advice of the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Manitoba and against the view of a journalist in northern Manitoba who said this was a safe move, if that is his opinion, as with all of his opinions, I respect it, but it was one of those decisions that we had to make within our budgeting process. All of the senior staff and experts within the department and within the mining community have indicated that this is a move that is not going to impact on mine safety because we still have the same number of inspections and the same number of inspectors as we have had in previous years.

Mr. Reid: The minister was trying to put words in my mouth. I did not make those comments with respect to the redundancy of the position. What I said--was trying to say was that he had the best of both worlds available to him. He could have had a person with the mines rescue co-ordinator experience on staff and had that person shifted into an inspection capacity, and you would have retained that experience within the department. If that person is gone from your department now, you have lost the potential to have an inspector and you have lost the person with the expertise as a mines rescue co-ordinator. So you have nothing out of this process when you could have converted that position into an inspector's position and retained that experience within the department should it ever be needed some time in the future, and hopefully it will not, but it would have been there had you needed it. Now you have lost the best of both worlds because that person is now gone from that capacity.

I know you put great reliance in the journalist's opinions, in the Flin Flon Reminder's editorial writer, and it says that you were justified in eliminating that particular position in the funding because it is a duplication of work. But I say to you, you have lost a great opportunity here. You could have utilized that experience, and that is why I draw it to your attention.

You have to look at the opportunities that are presented to you to keep the expertise within the department, perhaps converting it to another activity but retaining the experience which is so critical to the operation as even you yourself have said over time here.

Mr. Gilleshammer: When we talked about pensions the other day and we talked about retirements, you know, every time you have senior staff retire--and your Leader and I were at a retirement party just a few weeks ago where an assistant deputy minister retired, and we lost a lot of experience and value there. Fortunately, he said he would come back and give us that advice any time we asked for it. We also had a retirement of someone else at the senior level, Mr. Davidge, and we talked about him the other day as well, but these things happen through time. People do retire, and while you lose something on the one hand, you also gain the opportunity to bring new people in from time to time and use that as an opportunity.

I would remind the critic from the NDP that we did convert $35,000 of operating expenses that were required for that office, converted that into resources to be used in the mines inspections, so we did gain something out of it that will assist with the mines inspection this year and on into the future.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I do not know what math book the minister learned from, but when I take $542,900 and I subtract $480,800, that still gives me the amount of that mines rescue co-ordinator position, so I do not see how you have retained $35,000 within the department. Where is that number showing up?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, again, I would explain that the position consisted of salary, which was in the neighbourhood of $64,000. That salary was no longer needed because of the changes and because of the retirement, but there was also operating dollars that were left in the budget and instead of those funds being used for the position of mine rescue co-ordinator, it is now used by the department for Mines Inspection. So that money was not withdrawn, it is still there.

* (1650)

Mr. Reid: Well, the minister and I will have to agree to disagree on this one because if you do a year-over-year comparison, it is not showing up in here. There is still a deletion of the amount of money, $64,000, that is showing as a reduction in the department and however you calculate it, I do not see where you have that money staying in there because you have reduced $64,000 of which you said $35,000 was a component of operating in there. Am I understanding you correctly here? If you have $35,000 that is operating, that means you did not pay the person that much to start with I suppose but, at the same time, it is not showing up in here because you have totally eliminated the $64,000.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, there was a $99,000 figure associated with that particular position and the operations of that position. The salary dollars were taken out, and the operating money was left there, so that money is still there. So instead of it being used to be spent by a mines rescue co-ordinator who is no longer with us, that money was transferred internally to be used for Mines Inspection and Mines Inspection activities. So that money is still there. It was there last year and it is there this year. What has come out is the salary dollars.

Mr. Reid: Okay. So you have taken $64,000 out of the salary line, and if you take a look at the other expenditures which I say I would expect that the minister would have kept that operation of funds in--$35,000 I think you referred to--that fund is there, where is that $35,000 going to be utilized? To what benefit is it going to be to the inspectors? What purpose is that going to be used for?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The operating dollars are used for transportation, communication, supplies and services, capital and other operating. So that money can be used to do additional inspections, and in the North sometimes it costs some money when transportation is taken into consideration. It can be used in terms of communications, other supplies and services. So the money is there for the people in Mines Inspections to use as part of their operating.

Mr. Reid: Okay, if you are going to use it for additional inspections, you do not have any additional inspectors working in there. I take it that those people were working full time before. You did 400 inspections last year, and you said you had some 900 orders that resulted from that. How are you going to spend this additional money to do additional inspections if you do not have additional inspectors and they were working full time?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, if I follow my honourable friend's logic, what he is saying is we should take that $35,000 out of there because the mines inspectors cannot possibly use it. They cannot possibly put out more literature. They cannot--[interjection] Well, he says we should be more efficient. So I am pleased that he gives us this advice to withdraw more money from that particular part of our department, but I guess our ultimate decision was to leave it in there, was to leave it in there and allow the inspectors and the processes involved and the work involved with inspections to have additional funds for things like transportation and supplies and services and communication. Last day, we got talking about, I think, publications and communications that we use to encourage people to have a more safe workplace. This gives us additional resources to be used there.

Mr. Reid: I never said that the minister should withdraw the funds, although I want the department to operate efficiently. He has made the comment that he is going to do additional inspections. My question to the minister was: How do you do additional inspections if you had six inspectors that are currently still under the Professional and Technical, and I take it they are all field officers doing inspections? How is it that if these people are working full-time capacity now, how are you going to do additional inspections if you do not have more people? What is it that you are going to give up?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I have no doubt that the professionals that work within this branch will find important ways to use an additional $35,000 in Operating. I have more faith in them than my honourable friend has. What he is saying is that they have--working full time, they cannot possibly use any more money, and I think he is wrong. I think they can use those resources to do an even better job.

Mr. Reid: All I wanted from the minister by this line of questioning was to get an understanding if you have reduced a person who was in the mines rescue co-ordinator position. You have reduced the administrative staff to go with that person who also provided support service for some of your other field officers as well, no doubt. And I say you missed an opportunity here to convert that position to an inspector with equal experience or knowledge in other areas, that if you are going to do the additional work in there--and perhaps they do need the additional money in there--but you have lost the opportunity by eliminating that position, and perhaps you are going to do more educational work. But you have not told me you are going to do that. I need to have some understanding here what you are going to do with this additional funding in here when you have already given up the opportunity to have that extra pair of eyes in the workplace doing that inspection. That is why my line of questioning is here.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I think my honourable friend is telling me that the minister's office should be micromanaging the department and making departmental staff justify whether they need the $35,000. The determination by my senior staff was that they could use this money to do additional work in terms of mines inspection. Again, I think I have more faith in my staff than my honourable friend does, saying what are they going to do with every cent you give them? How are they going to change? What are they going to do different? I think there is always more that can be done.

In fact, even though the department has done an excellent job in reducing the numbers and the frequency of accidents, injuries and fatalities, here is an opportunity with an additional $35,000 of Operating to do an even better job. We seem to have reversed our roles here. I sort of always expect my honourable friend to come in here and urge us to spend more money. Now, he is telling us that we could have saved another $35,000 and berating us because we did not do that. I think that when the year is over and we evaluate how our money has been expended and how the staff have performed, we will be very proud of them and happy that we have given them these additional resources.

Mr. Reid: I do not doubt for a minute that the department will be happy with the additional funds. Can the minister tell me then, because he has done 400 inspections and he says you are going to do additional inspections this year, what is your target for inspections for '97-98?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Those determinations will be done by senior staff involved with mines inspection.

Mr. Reid: I understand that. What is the target that the department has with respect to inspections, since the minister says there are now going to be additional inspections? You must have a target.

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the member is sort of implying that we have some quota that we have to have so many inspections done and so many reports written up. It is anticipated, with additional resources, that they perhaps will be able to increase the frequency of mines inspection in the neighbourhood of 10 percent.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 11.2. Labour Programs (h) Mines Inspection (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $503,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $175,900--pass.

Item 11.2.(j) Employment Standards (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,867,400.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I apologize if this is on the wrong line, et cetera, but this is the Employment Standards. It is a question I want to ask about a person. I could have asked it under Workplace Safety and Health as well. Is there a policy or is there any material or research on persons disabled through the chronic fatigue syndrome in recent years in the Department of Labour?

* (1700)

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that no research has been done nor have we been approached by anyone asking us to do so.

Mr. Doer: Let me be the first to do so. I have an individual who is not a constituent but a person who has contacted the Ombudsman's office, the Superintendent of Insurance office, and I said, looking at the file and listening to the person and listening to the Ombudsman, that I was quite concerned about how this individual's case has been dealt with and how we could best investigate whether justice was performed with this individual. His name is Mark Popowich, and I will briefly go over the case as I understand it. His address is 130 Gardenview Drive.

This is how I understand the case, and it seems to be a person getting caught between a private insurer, Great-West Life, a private company, Bristol, looking for support from the Ombudsman in terms of the role of the Superintendent of Insurance, but the Superintendent of Insurance, as we understand it, can look at whether a company breaks the law and has the authority to look at only withdrawing licences for insurance brokers but has no authority to order companies to settle claims, which for an individual victim, or a person who feels he is not being treated properly, is a real problem.

This is the case as we know it, and I thank the committee for indulgence for a moment to go over it. He was unable to get long-term disability benefits from Bristol Aerospace, and the plan was with Great-West Life. He was denied benefits in '92, and he initiated correspondence about his claim with the company directly. It seems that Bristol was dealing with it to start with, and then he was told after that he should have been appealing the decision to Great-West Life, not Bristol, but he was dealing with Bristol. So then the appeal period had expired at Great-West Life. I will just keep going with the case, because I know it will require an investigation. So Great-West Life denied it because they said that the 15-month period for launching an appeal was over. They are firm, and they will not consider an appeal on this matter.

Mr. Popowich feels that he has chronic fatigue syndrome and said documented evidence from his medical people that he has had it. Great-West Life has no knowledge of correspondence between Bristol and Mr. Popowich on his medical condition. So it really looks like Mr. Popowich is trying to figure out who is responsible for submitting the information dealing with his application and who is responsible for keeping him informed of where he should go to appeal the decision. He thought he was dealing with the company, but then he was apparently dealing with Great-West Life and did not know about it.

So it appears to me, at minimum, there was very poor communication about the procedures he had to follow. He feels he has fulfilled his obligation with Bristol and seeing the Bristol doctor and Bristol should have sent this information to Great-West Life. I have discussed this with the Ombudsman, and he indicated to me that he felt everything was being caught, you know, the person was betwixt and between the company and the insurer, but the Superintendent of Insurance did not have the authority, except for taking away the licence of Great-West Life to issue insurance policies, which is, obviously, a pretty big sanction in terms of dealing with these kinds of cases for company employees working there.

I would like the Department of Labour to review this case, whether it can help us inform employers and insurers about how people should be treated. I would like to see whether the Department of Labour can investigate whether in fact Mr. Popowich was entitled to a disability and was denied it and was not informed of it. Thirdly, I would like to know generally how chronic fatigue syndrome which I know in the early '90s may have been something--I did not hear about it a lot in the early '90s myself. I know that we put in private members' resolutions in the Legislature to deal with education and treatment programs dealing with chronic fatigue syndromes, and that is a more general problem than Mr. Popowich has; but I suspect that, in listening to Mr. Popowich, who is very, very frustrated and listening to other people like the Ombudsman, it seems to me that an investigation should take place to see how companies deal with insurers, how insurers deal with companies, how they deal with the persons who were making claims.

It is almost like Catch-22: You should have gone to the company and then the company is saying you should have gone to the insurer. The problem is this individual has now been left. He had a disability plan, and I guess the question is: Do these plans cover chronic fatigue syndrome, what does an individual do, and how should they act accordingly? He is very frustrated with all of us and I have met with the Ombudsman. I could not get anywhere. I think the Ombudsman was conducting the investigation but did not have the authority under the act to go beyond where he went but has still left another closed door to Mr. Popowich.

So I would leave this with the minister. I know that he will not have the answers now unless his department has investigated this in the past. I have not seen any correspondence with the department. I just felt it was something that the general issue of chronic fatigue syndrome--was it treated differently in the early '90s than now? Do we have further research on it and what it means for workers and the whole generic issue of private plans and private companies dealing with people who rely on companies and insurers telling them what their rights are and what their appeal rights are but seem to be left in the dark and caught later on outside of the appeal period without any knowledge?

It really bothered me that everywhere I looked it is somebody else's responsibility, and I want to know whether there was, in fact, a a fairness in the way this LTD was applied and whether there was fairness between the company and the private plan in terms of what the benefits should have been and how chronic fatigue syndrome is dealt with.

Mr. Gilleshammer: We will undertake to review this and certainly talk with the Ombudsman and see if we can shed some light on it.

Mr. Doer: Yes, I think the Ombudsman felt that his jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of his office was limited with the superintendent of insurance and his office was limited in terms of dealing with the private company. I would really like the Department of Labour to investigate this. If it is happening in other places with other people, I would certainly like to know about it. Secondly, has there been a change in the way chronic fatigue syndrome has been dealt with from the early '90s or late '80s to now with the occupational knowledge and research and experience?

I did not know a lot about it, but then I heard Stephen Lewis had it for a period of time. I never met somebody so energetic in my life. When I heard he had it for a short period of time, that kind of made me wonder how prevalent is this, what is it, what is its impact on people. It has other terms, I know, but I do not know a lot about it. I do not pretend to, and I do not know how it affects people at the workplace, but it does seem to me that this person has been--there is the whole issue of how he was dealt with and what he was informed of and when he should have done certain things.

He seems to be very well organized in terms of following up with me so I can only imagine he was very well organized in following up with the company. He was not told properly where to follow up. That would be my suspicion of this, but I would leave it with the minister to either investigate with the Ombudsman or with the Ombudsman and other parts of the Department of Labour. It started in '91, but if we can learn something from this, that is good, and if Mr. Popowich can get some sense that his case has been dealt with fairly, I think that would be very helpful to his situation.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I have committed to have the staff review the situation.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me how many vacancies are in the Employment Standards branch, if any?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce Mr. Jim McFarlane, who has joined us at the table. He is the executive director of Employment Standards division, and the answer to the question is that there are no vacancies.

Mr. Reid: I will not hide my disappointment that the Payment of Wages Fund was eliminated. I mean, that is a matter of public record to this point in time. It was prior to this minister coming here to his current capacity.

* (1710)

We thought that the Payment of Wages Fund gave an opportunity for the department to take certain actions and to minimize the impact upon the individuals or their families that had lost their wages and that were perhaps, were no doubt pursuing it through the Employment Standards branch.

Can the minister tell me, because it is my understanding that the department still undertakes the activities to try and recover wages for the employees, what has been the success of the department, and can you tell me the number of cases that they have pursued and perhaps give me a dollar value of what they have achieved?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, the department or branch has investigated complaints filed by 3,400 individuals, has approximately 120,000 telephone and in-person inquiries, and they recovered wage adjustments totalling an estimated $1.5 million. I believe those were the figures for the last budget year. One additional bit of information: This does not include the voluntary settlements that occur in discussions between employees and employers.

Mr. Reid: Your document here indicates that you have a resolution of 85 percent of all the claims through mediation, which seems to be a fairly high success rate. Can you tell me the type of claims that are filed here? How is it that you are able to achieve such a success rate as 85 percent as you are showing in the document here? What type of a process are you using to encourage the resolution of this?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I guess it is probably a combination of things that leads to an 85 percent success rate. I think an experienced staff component. I think getting involved early on in the process and, through that, probably identifying that often this is the best route for all involved to have this thing resolved as quickly as possible. There is also an emphasis on public education and an emphasis on mediating these disputes.

They have been very quick to get involved and the quick resolution process tends to be a nonlegalistic route of getting these resolved. I think that the staff had been successful and will continue to be successful in doing this. With all due respect to lawyers, sometimes this adds to the cost and can be used as an example of a better way to do business.

Mr. Reid: I am sure that the minister meant present company excluded for those that may be of the legal profession. Can the minister tell me, because the numbers he gave me moments ago were already in the document here--can he tell me how many of those, when we talk about the 85 percent, the resolution of 85 percent of the claims, were voluntarily done? Is that the 85 percent that he is talking about that were the voluntary ones? Is that one and the same?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The ones that are resolved by the voluntary resolution process are part of this 85 percent.

Mr. Reid: Is there a number attached to that?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The number of the 85 percent?

Mr. Reid: The ones that comprise the 85 percent.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told around 400 or 500 of these are voluntarily resolved.

Mr. Reid: That is 400 or 500 of the 3,400 cases that the minister is referring to are voluntary. Okay. Can the minister tell me, because he is also showing that there is a 50 percent decrease in cases referred to the Labour Relations Board, what is the actual number of cases that have been decreased in referral to the LRB?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that there were under 100 that went to the Labour Board, and the quick resolution process that has been developed probably accounts for the fact that that has declined to that number.

Mr. Reid: The No. 1 is under 100. Can the minister give me an idea here of roughly how many cases that we are talking about that no longer have to be referred to the board? I am not saying down to the exact number but within five or 10.

* (1720)

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that it is estimated that about 100 cases will go to the Labour Board this year, which represents about 2 percent of the claims. So the number has been declining because of the quick resolution technique that has been developed within the department.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, I note there is a discrepancy, and this could be the minister referring to different years here. But in his opening statements, he talked about 38 various adjustment committees, under the Labour adjustment unit, and that in the document here it is talking about 30 workforce adjustment committees.

Can the minister tell me which number is accurate? If he does not have the information here, I understand, but if he can give me some idea of the type of work that was done, the type of business where those particular labour force adjustment services were provided so I might have an understanding of who made use of that type of service?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there were 38 Labour Force Adjustment Committees last year. There are a fairly similar number of committees this year. There are 33 active committees, there is one large health care adjustment committee, and I am told there are three community committees, so we are in that area of 37, 38.

Mr. Reid: I am just trying to get an understanding here, because the document was showing 30, and I did not know if we are talking about different years here or it is just a misprint in the document here.

The minister, I had also asked, does he have a list of the operations of the firms that are involved in the labour force adjustment process?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Chairman, the information my honourable friend is referencing is Expected Results, so when that book is put together--we do not have a hard number--and we do have some information that we can forward to my honourable friend on these committees at a later time.

Mr. Reid: The minister says at a later time. Can he give me some idea? I do not expect that all of these would have been resolved by now. I understand that some are in the process of having to be worked on and I understand that. That is part of the normal process of doing business within the department, but if he can provide that for me within a few days, I would appreciate that.

Can he also advise, at this point in time, when he talked about one of the health care, I think he said, facilities that were involved in the process, can he tell me the facility that is involved with that labour force adjustment?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, it is one major committee that gets involved with a number of the facilities from time to time to resolve some of the health care issues in terms of the new direction the Department of Health is taking in terms of governance.

Mr. Reid: I take it then that the minister is talking--and perhaps he can correct me on this. Is he talking about the new regional health board's activities dealing with perhaps downsizing of the various facilities throughout the province, or is he talking about some other matter involving other health-related facilities?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I am told this predates the regional boards coming into effect, but there is a list here of nine facilities that are going through some issues around workforce or Labour Force Adjustment, and there is a single committee dealing with them.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister share the names of them here with me now, or can he provide the names for me in the next couple of days?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, I can provide the names. They are the Dauphin Regional Health Centre, the Brandon General Hospital, the Flin Flon General Hospital, the Morden-Winkler General Hospital, Deer Lodge Centre, Health Sciences Centre, Misericordia General Hospital, St. Boniface General Hospital and Seven Oaks General Hospital.

Mr. Reid: Okay, I thank the minister for that information, and if he can provide the more complete list in a few days, I would appreciate that as well.

You have eliminated one of the Employment Standards officer positions. Why have you eliminated that position?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The staff reduction occurred in Brandon. The individual left the employ of the department, and it was felt with the level of work that was being handled in Brandon that we could do with one less employee there.

* (1730)

Mr. Reid: Can you give me an understanding on a comparison here? What was your caseload for that department in Brandon? What was your caseload in Winnipeg last year and your over-year comparisons? How many officers did you have in Brandon?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the expectation is, the caseload is and should be between 150 and 200.

One of the additional aspects to handling the workload here is that a 1-800 number has been used for rural Manitoba, and a number of individuals can access services over the telephone and are served in that manner. The quick-resolution initiative has led to, I suppose, being involved with clients and resolving issues in a quicker way, but the average is between 150 and 200 per worker.

Mr. Reid: I take it then that the caseload for the Brandon offices has dropped off as a result of the 1-800 number, the cases are now being phoned into the Capital Region in the Winnipeg office and that you no longer require the staffing in the Brandon office. Am I correct in my assumption there?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, my honourable friend is correct that some of the cases are handled over the phone from offices here in Winnipeg. As well, we have made an attempt to cross-train some of the staff in the Brandon office, which enables them to perform more than one function.

Mr. Reid: So if you are seeing a corresponding decrease in Brandon and an increase in Winnipeg, what does that mean for your staff here in Winnipeg now that they are handling the caseload for a wider area? Does that mean that you are seeing an increased workload for those people, and if that is the case, are they able to handle that without having undue delays for the clients that are calling in?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the ongoing work of the department is to monitor the workloads of individual staff and, where we have to make changes, we will.

Mr. Reid: Is the minister talking about within this budget year, making changes, or perhaps he can shed some light on what he referenced.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am just saying that the ongoing role of any manager is to evaluate the workload, the volume of work, and to see that we are providing the best possible service for our clients. If we are creating an undue burden on any individual then it is incumbent upon us to remedy that so that not only is adequate and good service provided but that our workforce can handle the volume of work that is coming their way.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, does the managerial--you have two positions in there--is there administrative support assigned to these two positions and, if so, is it on an individual basis?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told we have one support staff for those two positions.

Mr. Reid: I want to raise this case with the minister. I am not going to use the name of the firm, and I am not going to use the name of the individual. There has been some discussion on this in the past with respect to third-party complaints being filed, and I understand that there may be some sensitivity by the minister of the department to accepting cases like this.

The individual that is involved is a widow with three children working for one of the call centres here in the city. The problem is the individual has to work on, as do the other employees in the operation, contracts that come into the firm. They understand that they may be required to work more than the regular number of hours per day. From my understanding, they do not have a serious problem with that, although in the case of a widow there is a need to get home and tend to your children after the working hours.

An Honourable Member: What age are they?

Mr. Reid: I do not have the ages here. It would be in my other file downstairs. I only have the information, but I can get that information for you.

The individual is sometimes asked to work 10, 15 hours more in a week. Now, you can correct me if I am wrong here, I understand that there are standard hours of work that have to be met before an individual would be eligible for the overtime, but it is my understanding too that there is an averaging that takes place out over a month. If you work more than 160 hours a month in a particular firm, because some firms' hours fluctuate for their employees, if more than those hours are worked, then an individual would be entitled to receive overtime pay consideration.

Am I accurate in my understanding of how that process works, and if that is the case, how does an individual go about raising this matter with the Employment Standards Branch without putting their job on the line? The last thing they want to do is risk their employment, but at the same time they want to be treated fairly. How does an individual go about this process without being identified?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told there are a number of variables that come into play here, and maybe the solution we would offer is for the individual to contact our department and indicate the circumstances and have our people investigate it. In many cases, I am told, it is a matter of providing advice about what the law is and relating that to the normal hours of work and the right to refuse to work overtime.

Also, it sometimes is dependent on a collective agreement as well. So there are a number of variables there, but the individual could make contact with a staff member, and it can be done sort of anonymously to get that information. We would treat it as confidential, and that advice could be provided.

* (1740)

Mr. Reid: I would appreciate that opportunity for this individual. It is a precarious situation. You are working for a salary in the very low $20,000 range per year, and you have got three extra mouths to feed besides your own. You do not want to risk losing employment; you want to keep your job. I mean, you are fairly comfortable in the knowledge that you at least have a job and you are working, but you want to be treated fairly. The fear here is that the individual would risk losing that job. So I raise this with the minister that you have to--when I refer the individual to the department, there has to be quite a bit of sensitivity to the fact that the individual has to remain anonymous in this process because the individual knows of other people that have raised this matter before during the course of employment with that particular employer and have lost their job. We want to keep the people working. We want them to be treated fairly, I hope, and, at the same time, make sure that responsibilities on both sides are met. So, when I raise that perhaps with Mr. McFarlane later, we can do it with some sensitivity to the employment prospects.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I thank my honourable friend for that understanding. This is not a third-party complaint or issue; it is a direct issue affecting that individual. So we can handle that with sensitivity and determine just what the appropriate rules are and establish what fair treatment is. So I think that, if you do pass that on to Mr. McFarlane, he would treat it as such.

Mr. Reid: Okay, I would appreciate that. There is a great fear here by the individual, knowing what has happened to other colleagues in the past, and I want to make sure that there is every sensitivity. I do not know if you go in and do an audit of the firm or how you undertake the investigations in these matters, but there has to be some way to not be able to identify this individual to the employer because the individual is absolutely certain that the job will disappear immediately. So I will raise it with Mr. McFarlane later, and I have no other questions under that area.

Mr. Chairperson: 11.2. Labour Programs (j) Employment Standards (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,867,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $573,600--pass.

11.2.(k) Worker Advisor Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $512,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $145,000.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me the caseload for the Worker Advisor Office, the number of cases for each of the workers? Are there any vacancies within that particular department? Were any of your people removed for other duties from the department during the course of this last year?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The average caseload per worker advisor is approximately 60, which I am told is about half of what it was several years ago. I believe the budget document shows a reduction from 12 to 11 in terms of staffing, but we have a secondment there that is covering off a position. The secondment is an individual from Justice.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, the individual has gone from the Worker Advisor's department into the Justice department, or is the individual still seconded?

Mr. Gilleshammer: We have somebody from the Department of Justice who has been seconded to work within the Worker Advisor Office.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me why that is the case?

Mr. Gilleshammer: We have somebody who has been seconded from the Department of Justice who is, I guess, gaining some experience within our department in the Worker Advisor Office with the view to moving over here on a full-time basis.

Mr. Reid: So, do I take it then you anticipate that this individual is being trained, that they will be taken into your staffing year's complement once that training is complete? Am I correct in that understanding?

Mr. Gilleshammer: I guess at this point we are not sure yet whether this person feels comfortable within this new position and is spending some time within our department to see if it is a position that can be, would be suitable for her.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister provide the name of the individual for me?

Mr. Gilleshammer: The individual who has been seconded from Justice is a person by the name of Irene Kavanagh, and I am told her background is both as a lawyer and a nurse, and this appears to be appropriate training to work within this part of our department. Again, I guess it is early on and Ms. Kavanagh is getting an understanding of what we do in that particular branch of our department, and we will see where we will go from here.

Mr. Reid: You have cut an administrative officer's position. It is the Administrative Support position. All the way through this document I have asked if you have secretarial support, administrative support, for each of your manager's position, your Professional/Technical people, and you have indicated in every case that I have recorded here that, yes, you have. How is it that you are able to cut an Administrative Support person out of the Worker Advisor Office? Yes, the caseload is down a bit; I understand that. You have still got some over 500 cases that are on the go there. What was the function of that administrative support person within the operations of the Worker Advisor Office? Did that person work solely for the manager or did that person work with the professional and technical people, the worker advisors themselves, and what type of activities did that person do in the department that you feel that function is now expendable?

* (1750)

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, certainly my honourable friend has asked about support staff positions throughout the three days we have had the opportunity to look at this department. I do take issue with some of the language he uses when he says, why is that person expendable? These are human beings that hold these positions and sometimes they--

Mr. Reid: Why did you cut it?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, my honourable friend wants to get into a debate here. I thought he asked a serious question, and I was going to try and give him a serious answer. I would hope he would have the patience and good manners to listen, if he is genuinely interested in the department and the things.

I have assumed right from Day One that he brought forward issues that he wanted to talk about. He has described himself as a critic and an advocate on a number of occasions, and I respect that. I think we have had a very good exchange over the last three days in trying to examine our expenditures, our staff component, and our salaries and the work that we do.

I have indicated that there has been a certain amount of restructuring that has gone on within the department, that just a few short months ago we were organized into four different separate departments within our department. We have done some streamlining and changes and brought in some new people. We talked the other day about the retirement of two of our most senior people, and both he and I and his Leader have spoken very highly of these people. Certainly we are sorry to have lost them, but, when you have retirements, it is sometimes a chance and an opportunity to change. Part of the restructuring came as a result of the retirement of an assistant deputy minister, and we see it not only as a time for change but also an opportunity.

So there are changing functions within the workplace, and sometimes some of the support staff can be shared. At other times, with the advent of new technology, some of the work is done in a different way. It is done more efficiently. It is done sometimes with fewer people, and that is one of the challenges, of course, of technology across the whole world, that when you have new technology coming on stream sometimes you need fewer people for what was a position that was there for many, many years.

In this case, we are talking about an average caseload per worker advisor of around 60, and, as I had indicated earlier, this is about half of what it was just several years ago. A lot of these can be resolved very quickly.

So we have to adjust to a changing workplace out there, and the worker advisors have had to adjust. We have got some staff changes, basically the same number of people, but within that, I guess a little bit of downsizing, and part of it is due to restructuring, part of it is due to changes in the workplace, doing fewer and fewer cases, and some of it is due to new technology.

Now, I guess one of the things that I always ask myself is, are we providing service, adequate service? Are we providing good service? I think that any department that provides service has to be prepared, from time to time, to examine itself. Part of that is determining whether you have client satisfaction, whether there are a lot of complaints out there. What is the time span and the time limits for handling a case and finding resolution to cases?

So those are the various, I think, measurements that can be used to determine whether that service level indeed is there. In the few short months that I have been in the department, I have had very, very few cases brought to my attention where people were of the mind that the services were not being provided by the staff who make up the Department of Labour.

These are changes that are taking place in many shops across the province, both government and the private sector. Whether it is in the public service in the school divisions, the universities, or whether it is in businesses, there are always changes. We have to accept, as we spend more money on technology, that sometimes we can do things better, and it may require fewer people in that particular component of the department, but it may take more people somewhere else.

Again, I have a lot of faith in senior managers here to manage and to evaluate whether we have got the appropriate staffing levels. I have not had any concerns expressed to me to the contrary.

Mr. Reid: Well, I am serious when I ask my questions here, and that is why I have asked this question all the way through, because I have noted that the Worker Advisor Office does play a very important role in the process of resolving cases involving the Workers Compensation Board, and if you take away the administrative support staff--and my understanding is the individual perhaps was involved with the processing of the correspondence involving the claimants, involving the board, involving doctors. There is all kinds of correspondence involved in the worker advisor's capacity. I know because I have acted as an advocate on many of the cases as the critic for a number of years. So I understand, at least in part, the magnitude of the role or the task that is involved from a worker advisor's perspective.

That is why I asked the question. You cut the administrative support, and yet in many of the other functions you have kept the administrative support. So I do not understand why you would want to cut that particular person's job out of there. If you felt that it was necessary, are you intending to perhaps share the administrative support from one of your other functions with the advisor's office to assist the worker advisors so they are not spending their time doing administrative work when they should be doing that research work that is required for their particular job? That is why I say, are we getting the best value for our dollar here under the Worker Advisor Office by having worker advisors undertake administrative work when they should be doing more of the technical research work dealing with The Workers Compensation Act and the claimants that are involved in interaction with the doctors and the board and others? So that is why I ask, is this the best utilization of the role to get the worker advisors to do the administrative function, because I take it that they would have to assume that responsibility? Yet now that the administrative support is cut down, then it obviously has to reduce some of their time in dealing with the more technical functions of their job.

Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told the question was put to the staff whether they wanted administrative assistance or whether they wanted another worker advisor or another intake officer, and this individual has been transferred from admin support to an intake officer.

Mr. Chairperson: The time being six o'clock, committee rise.