Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): The Estimates that we will be considering in this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the Department of Labour.

Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Labour. Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Labour): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to proceed.

Mr. Radcliffe: It is my privilege to present the Expenditure Estimates of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year 1999-2000. Working together with the labour-management community and other stakeholders, I believe that the department had another successful year in 1998-99, and I anticipate the same for the current year.

I want to begin by commending the staff of the Department of Labour. They are a dedicated, hardworking group of professional people that provide valuable services to the citizens of Manitoba under the very capable leadership of the deputy minister, Mr. Tom Farrell. I wish to thank them for their efforts and their commitment in all their services which they perform in this department.

I would specifically like to acknowledge the accomplishments of my two senior staff. My Deputy Minister Tom Farrell is currently president of the Manitoba Safety Council, which celebrated its 35th year with the opening of a new training centre here in the city of Winnipeg. Mr. Farrell is also a member of the National Council of Governors for the Occupational and Health Safety and also Dr. Madhav Sinha of the Workplace Safety and Health Division has been awarded the prestigious 1998 Edwards Medal from the American Society for Quality. This is the first time that the medal has been awarded to a Canadian citizen.

The 1999-2000 total budget request for the Department of Labour is $14,057,800. This represents an increase of 7 percent from the previous year. This increase largely reflects salary increases for staff of the department under the negotiated collective agreements. Our Estimates include an amount of $320,400 for the amortization of capital assets that represent the department's share of the total estimated project costs of the government-wide desktop management and Better Methods initiatives.

The Department of Labour has now been successfully transitioned to the new desktop environment, and all employees of the department are now using standardized computer workstations and related software that provide them with an effective and flexible infrastructure to support departmental and corporate-wide systems initiatives. The Department of Labour is one of the first departments in the government of Manitoba to be fully transitioned to the new system. The Department of Labour recovers a significant portion of its annual expenditures through its various sources of revenue, and in 1999-2000, a revenue recovery of about 61 percent of the departmental budget is projected.

During the past year, the department enacted a number of important legislative and regulatory changes. I am pleased to inform you that the new consolidated employment standards code and its accompanying regulations came into force on May 1, 1999. As a consequence of this consolidation, workplaces in Manitoba now have available improved legislation that more clearly and consistently defines the rights and responsibilities of both employers and employees. For these reasons I am extremely pleased that this legislative development has now been successfully achieved by this administration.

* (1450)

In addition, Mr. Chairperson, new legislation was introduced respecting professional engineers and technologists. The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Act expands the application of the legislation to include geoscientists and updates many administrative matters under the act. The Certified Applied Science Technologists Act was also enacted this year. This act is complementary to the professional engineers, geoscientists legislation and recognizes the concept of the engineering team in Manitoba.

In addition to statutes, a number of regulations have been enacted this past year by the Department of Labour, including the following. Firstly, the pension benefits regulation was amended to change the method used to review funding of defined benefit plans. The change is intended to ensure that Manitoba plans are sufficiently funded to provide required benefits to members and former members. A further signficant change to the regulation, which resulted from many requests from Manitoba citizens, provides pensioners and former members of plans with greater flexibility in dealing with pension assets by introducing the locked-in retirement fund or LRIF.

The Pension Commission of Manitoba, comprised of members representing the pension-consulting industry, organized labour, financial institutions and other stakeholders, supported these changes. Revisions to the first aid regulation under The Workplace Safety and Health Act were made to provide for the updating of first aid supplies and for the training of first aiders in Manitoba workplace.

The Workplace Safety regulation with respect to the operation of forklifts was amended to provide for increased safety through the training and certification of forklift operators. The Manitoba building and plumbing codes were re-enacted. As in the past, the revised national codes published by the National Research Council of Canada have been adopted with amendments to suit the Manitoba conditions.

The Manitoba fire code was also updated by adopting the 1995 national fire code with Manitoba amendments. The significant Manitoba amendment provides for specific fire safety requirements for residential care facilities in the province.

I am pleased to inform you, Mr. Chair, that following a review by the Minimum Wage Board, the decision to increase the minimum wage was announced in December of 1998. Effective April 1, 1999, the minimum wage was increased by 11 percent to $6 an hour. I would like to acknowledge the considerable time and effort taken by the individuals and organizations that submitted their views and concerns regarding the minimum wage. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to the chair and members of the Minimum Wage Board for their valuable contribution.

In addition to the Minimum Wage Board, very important work was undertaken over the past year by the department's other external advisory committees such as the advisory council on Workplace Safety and Health, the Manitoba Pension Commission, the Labour Management Review Committee. On behalf of the province, I would like to thank the members of all advisory boards and committees for their commitment and advice.

A seminar was held December 10, 1998, to provide Manitoba business, labour leaders, and academics with information on the operation of the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation. This seminar featured a number of high profile speakers on labour issues.

The Department of Labour continues to make progress with business planning, with performance measurement in service quality to provide improved client service and program delivery. The Department of Labour remains committed to a strategy of change, improvement, and innovation through the use of business planning and results-based management. In recognition of the priority given to staff development, the Department of Labour will implement a competency-based employee profile system that was developed in co-operation with the Civil Service Commission. This system, known as access labour, will provide a profile of employees' skills and competencies. In addition, the system will provide a profile of the various jobs performed in the department. Once established, the system will form the foundation for an integrated human resource management system including training, succession planning, and career development.

Senior departmental officials continue to actively participate in the Better Methods and Better Systems of government-wide initiatives. The Better Methods initiative is currently introducing a systems applications product, euphemistically referred to as SAP, that will allow all provincial departments to use the same financial, purchasing, and human resource systems.

I would like to now speak briefly about program achievements and plans. I would like to highlight some of the achievements and plans of the departmental operations. Last year, the Worker Advisor Office, through its early intervention initiative, provided information and assistance to over 400 workers who were successful in resolving their issues without having to pursue more formal levels of appeal. This represents an increase of 212 individuals from the previous year. The office continues to focus on providing more timely resolution of claims by concentrating efforts at the primary adjudication level of the Workers Compensation Board appeal process rather than the more lengthy appeal levels. This effort has resulted in 70 percent of the appealable issues being resolved at this level.

In the past year the Labour adjustment unit has facilitated and provided labour adjustment services to numerous organizations including Unisys, Dominion Bridge, Cal-West Textiles at Portage la Prairie, Pelican Lake Centre, Shamray Group, Black Hawk Mines in Lynn Lake. As well, Mr. Chair, the unit played a major role in assisting workers and the local community affected by the decommissioning of the Whiteshell Laboratories in Pinawa.

The Office of the Fire Commissioner has completed its third year as a special operating agency. The firefighter training programs that are provided to the Manitoba municipal fire service have been revamped and made more user friendly and accessible to all Manitoba fire departments. This year the Office of the Fire Commissioner ran the first accreditation process for fire investigators in the province.

In accordance with the agency's marketing plan, the Emergency Services College was successful in securing over $125,000 in training contracts from external clients. In co-operation with the Association of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Building Officials Association, a building inspection training program was developed for delivery to municipal building officials.

The Conciliation and Mediation Branch continues to maintain a strong record for facilitating the resolution of labour relation disputes. During the year ending March 31, 1999, the branch was active in 178 grievance mediation and 106 conciliation assignments. With the upgrade to a newer computer system, all conciliation officers now have laptop units with the capability of connecting to the office system from the field.

The Manitoba Labour Board is an independent and quasi-judicial body to help resolve labour relations issues in a fair and reasonable manner.

The Workplace Safety and Health Division targets its resources to industry sectors that have the highest risk of injury. The mining sector, which is a high-risk sector, has improved by a factor of five in the past 20 years. Injury rates are now at the lowest level ever, 2.9 time loss in injury per 100 workers. The injury rate for all industries in the province has remained constant for the past five years at 3.4 time-loss injuries per one hundred workers.

In co-operation with the Workers Compensation Board, the division is providing enhanced ergonomics services to Manitoba industry, directed at high-risk manufacturing sectors to reduce the cost of injuries.

Mr. Chair, regulatory changes have recently been made to The Pension Benefits Act which are intended to reduce the likelihood of a plan winding up with insufficient funds for plan members. The new regulations provide retiring members and plan members who have terminated their membership in a plan with greater flexibility in dealing with pension assets by introducing the locked-in retirement income fund or LRIF which I referred to earlier. During the development of these changes, the Pension Commission consulted its actuarial liaison committee representing local and national actuarial consulting firms and financial institutions offering pension-related products. The introduction of the LRIF was in direct response to demands from the financial services industry, as well as a growing segment of the population who wish to retain a greater control over the investment of their pension assets.

This now completes my opening statements, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to a meaningful review and discussion of the 1999-2000 program Estimates of the Department of Labour. Thank you.

* (1500)

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for the opening statement. Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for Transcona, have an opening statement?

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, I will just be very brief in my opening comments. I listened carefully to what the minister was saying. I have many questions in each of the individual subdepartments of the overall Department of Labour, which we can get into in a few moments. If it will help the minister and his staff with respect to the number of people that we have here today, I am not certain we are going to get to all of the sections of his department. So if there are others perhaps who would, for example, be in the Fire Commissioner's office who may have other duties that they may wish to tend to today, I do not anticipate that we will be arriving at that point.

There may be other sections towards the end of the Estimates process which we will not get to today, as well. It is my intention to proceed through section by section of the Estimates book, if that will help the minister in determining his staff time that is here today.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable member. Under Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of the department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with the consideration of the next line.

Before we do that, we would invite the minister to invite his staff to join us at the table, and we ask the minister to introduce his staff as they are present.

Mr. Radcliffe: I would invite staff to step forward at this time. We have joining us today the deputy minister, Mr. Tom Farrell; the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Jim Nykoluk; and Mr. Jim Wood who is our financial services person.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the minister. We will now proceed to line 11.1. Labour Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 114 in the main Estimates book, $409,700. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to welcome the minister's staff here once again. I think we have to stop making a habit of this, at least from my perspective on this side of the table. It will be nice to, for once, be up there and be able to make direct use of their services in response to questions. So I look forward to that opportunity in the future of working more closely with the staff of the Department of Labour.

In regard to the specific questions dealing with Executive Support, I believe this is the appropriate section dealing with the staff that the minister would have working directly with him. If not, he can advise and the Chairperson can advise in respect to who the minister's special assistant and executive assistant are.

Mr. Radcliffe: My special assistant is an individual by the name of Brad Kirbyson, and my executive assistant is an individual by the name of Douglas McLandress.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate, do the salaries for these two individuals come out of the Executive Support staff line?

Mr. Radcliffe: I would add, as well, that there is another individual who works in an assisting position in the office. His salary line is paid for, I believe, by the Workers Comp Board, but that is an individual who acts as a liaison by the name of Daniel Robinson. Yes, Mr. Chair, my honourable colleague is correct that these salary levels do come out of the departmental line, and the executive assistant is paid at the rate of $41,400; the special assistant at $44,600. These rates are based on the levels paid to the previous incumbents.

Mr. Reid: The minister indicates that there is a Mr. Robinson who is also working with him. Is Mr. Robinson seconded from the Worker Advisor Office or from the Workers Compensation Board to work directly with the minister? Is it for the purposes of casework dealing with the Workers Compensation system or act?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Robinson's salary is paid for by the Workers Comp Board. He is answerable and responsible to the minister. His role is to act on behalf of the minister on issues arising out of Workers Comp Board claims or files. He liaises with the board itself whenever there is a necessity to speak to the board to find out information. He maintains files on individuals who phone the minister's office or visit the minister's office with particular issues and he attempts to relate with those individuals on a face-to-face basis to solve or explain their difficulties and help the individuals resolve them, arising out of their experience with the Workers Comp Board or the Workers Comp Board Appeal Commission.

Mr. Reid: So then Mr. Robinson is actually a staff person of the Workers Compensation Board paid directly by them but seconded for the minister's use for that specific purpose.

* (1510)

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes, my honourable colleague is correct, that he is seconded from the board to assist the minister.

Mr. Reid: Is this a standard practice, for ministers of Labour to second someone from the compensation employee staff to work within the office on cases involving claimants of the board, the calls the minister would be getting? Is this a standard practice of his predecessors, for example?

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, in the Executive Support, are the individuals that he has named here today on his special assistant and his executive assistant at salary range maximums for those individual positions? Whereabouts do they fall in their classifications for those individuals, because there are codings that are available.

Mr. Radcliffe: The executive assistant's nomenclature for the position is just EXA. I am told that the salary range for an individual in this category biweekly is $1,493.50 to $1,689.98. The SA is categorized as an SPA. His range is $1,624.00 to $1,840.28 biweekly.

Mr. Reid: Well, I recognize there are min and max ranges for each of the designations. I am just trying to figure out where the individuals fit within that range. The minister is telling me biweekly numbers. You are mixing apples and oranges here. So if you can give me your annual number then I would have a better understanding of where they fit within that range.

Mr. Radcliffe: I do not have the annualized ranges, but I am told that they are both midrange in their categories and have some significant room for growth.

Mr. Reid: In the Executive Support, I hope, Mr. Chairperson, that we can talk about the whole area of Executive Support. I know you have just mentioned the one number there, but if we can just talk about that complete section, it can facilitate movement through that area.

Mr. Chairperson: What is the will of the committee? Is it the will of the committee that we allow some flexibility and freedom? [agreed]

Mr. Reid: Under the Other Expenditures there has been showing a significant change with respect to transportation. Now, I take it that there are–maybe I should just ask the question first. Is this part of the department utilizing vehicles from the Fleet Vehicles agency of the province and, if so, how many?

Mr. Radcliffe: The minister and the deputy minister both use vehicles from the government fleet.

Mr. Reid: Can you indicate to me what the cost is to the department for the use of those vehicles if you have a breakdown, or are there similar costs for both of them?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that I am a bargain to the Department of Labour because, being an urban member, I do not enjoy the rural rates that the previous incumbent did, and the rates that the deputy and the minister have are apparently comparable.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate to me, since the rates are comparable, what the rates are?

Mr. Radcliffe: I will have to take that question as notice.

An Honourable Member: Oh, no, not already.

Mr. Radcliffe: That is right. I will have to get back to the member on that, because we will have to get that information from Fleet Vehicles.

Mr. Reid: All right, I understand some of the questions may be asking for more detail than what you might have available here. I look forward to receiving that information, hopefully, before the month is out; I would hope that it should be available. I know that there are ministers in the past who had a bit of a practice of providing information after the session is long over, in fact, into the early fall. I hope I can get a commitment from the minister to have the information I am requesting here today in a more timely fashion than several months later.

Mr. Radcliffe: I will be as expeditious as I know how to be, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Reid: That is what they all said.

Can the minister indicate then, since there has been I think it is an $8,000 increase in the Transportation line of your Executive Support budget, what is the increase? It went from $22,900 up to $30,900. Can you indicate what activities you are undertaking, or you have more cars within the department that would come out of this line? What are the reasons for the increase in your transportation costs?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told, Mr. Chair, that the rates from Fleet Vehicles have increased over the past year. I am also told that the allocated amounts previously did not cover the expenses in the department for the operation of the vehicles, so the allotment of funds for this category has increased as well. So it has been an increase on two heads, on the rate and on the allotment.

Mr. Reid: So the $8,000 that I am referencing here would be for the increases in the rate and the allotment of those two vehicles, one for the minister and one for the deputy minister. That makes up that $8,000 that we are talking about.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chair, I am pleased to tell my honourable colleague that the guesstimate of staff at this point is that approximately half of the $8,000 rise, or $4,000, is allocated to an increase for vehicles, and $4,000 is an increase estimated for air travel for members of the department.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate now, is this dealing with labour relations type of issues that we would have this staff travel budget, I take it, of $4,000? Is that the purpose? Perhaps you can explain what the purpose of that travel for the staff would be within the province during the coming year.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am advised, Mr. Chair, that the deputy minister is on the board of the Occupational Health and Safety for Canada, which necessitates four trips to Hamilton, Ontario, a year. The deputy is also the past chair of the deputies for the provinces of Canada, which necessitates two trips a year, if in fact he takes those. Those are not as of high a priority level now that he is no longer the chair, but the Occupational Safety ones are a matter of some profile, and he does follow up on those.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister then give me some background on what activities take place during the course of those meetings for which the staff were either chairing or participating in those committees? In what way does this facilitate the Department of Labour in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am advised that the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is a grouping of individuals representing labour, business and government. This board or group provides technical advice, technical expertise, to employers and to labour in Canada. The deputy minister provides input into this board or group. It formulates policy. It also shares, and it is an educational tool for discussing and learning about emerging issues in health and safety. Individuals like Mr. Dick Martin, I am told, of the CLC have been participants in this group in past years.

* (1520)

I am told that there is a computer disk of information that is produced on a regular basis by this group which disseminates this information back to the department in Manitoba and that the deputy minister in fact has input into the material that goes onto the disk for educational purposes, for communication purposes, to keep everybody abreast of recent developments in the country.

The deputy tells me that he also has attended the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation, which is a national body. I believe that Manitoba occupied the position as deputy chair of this group last year. This is an international body that speaks to labour issues between Canada, United States and Mexico. We are now no longer the deputy on that committee at this time, but that did necessitate some meetings down east as well and face to face encounters with the federal counterparts.

The deputy minister has also been to ministers' meetings in a support liaison position with my previous incumbent. The deputy also, when he occupied the position of chair of labour deputies, did some travelling to committee meetings to participate in research activity with counterparts from other provinces.

Mr. Reid: Does the deputy minister also involve himself or perhaps some staff in the department with the Fire Commissioner's office activities dealing with trying to gather contracts for the department or the Fire College in Brandon, if that is the appropriate term to use to describe it. Perhaps there is a more appropriate term.

Is that part of the work that the deputy minister or their staff would do in conjunction with the department? [interjection] Well, he survived three of you guys.

Mr. Radcliffe: The deputy does not do any marketing function for the deputy fire commissioner's office. In fact, the deputy fire commissioner's office has gone on two Team Canada junkets to, I think, South America or Central America. That has been at the behest of and at the expense of the federal government.

* (1530)

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, other ministers of Health, for example, Attorneys General, get together across Canada and meet to talk about issues. Do ministers of Labour get together as well across Canada and have meetings about issues that may be of common interest? If so, when was the last one, what issues were discussed, and is there another one anticipated for the near future?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that in fact indeed the ministers of Labour for Canada do get together on an intermittent basis. The last such meeting held by the ministers of Labour was in January 1998 in Hull, Quebec. We have just received notice within the last number of days that my Canadian counterparts are planning another similar meeting to be held either in December 1999 or late January 2000. The destination has not been set as of yet, but there is a possibility it could be either Toronto or New Brunswick.

Mr. Reid: Since there is usually correspondence that would be attached to an advice notice of a potential meeting in the future, can you tell me has there been items that have been placed on the agenda as possible topics of discussion for that coming meeting?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am advised that there are a number of items that are on the agenda right now and some that are being contemplated. One of the issues that is on the agenda right now is the whole subject of extreme forms of child labour. This emanates from the ILO or the International Labour Organization.

Then the next item would be the labour impacts in Canada from the North American Free Trade Agreement. The provinces are being canvassed as well to see if they have any other issues that they wish placed on the agenda, and Manitoba is contemplating at this point putting on the agenda the issue of the objective-based new building codes as a point for discussion. That is something for an issue to be debated across the country.

As well, there will be the issue of interprovincial co-operation on exchange of information between the various departments of Labour across the country.

Mr. Reid: Are those the only four items that will be on the agenda, or are there other items that the minister can perhaps indicate for us here today?

Mr. Radcliffe: The items that I have just mentioned to my honourable colleague are the only items that we know at this point in time. However, customarily in the past, there have been other issues that do come forward as one gets closer to the prospective date and when other ministers and deputies and staff start addressing the issue of what they would like to see discussed. So there will be growth on the agenda items, but these are the ones that I am discussing right at this point in time.

Mr. Reid: Are there background papers that have been circulated with each of these proposed topic areas? Do we have such information within our province that would give the minister some briefing prior to whoever, he or she at the time, may be dealing with this particular meeting, so that they might be aware of what the range of discussion will be on those chosen topic areas at this point in time?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that in fact the deputy minister for the Ministry of Labour in Saskatchewan has taken a lead position and is, in fact, currently on her way to Regina to discuss the issue on an international basis on the ILO facet of extreme child labour. There are background papers on this topic, which are being reviewed at this point in time and I am told will be available sometime in September or October for the attention of the minister.

The National Research Council has material on the building codes, which would be provided for the minister's benefit at the appropriate time when we get a little closer.

I am told that our Department of Labour in Manitoba will prepare a review of the experience under free trade over the past four years, from the Manitoba perspective, this fall as well.

Mr. Reid: So the Ministry of Labour for Saskatchewan is going to do the child labour agenda item or proposed agenda item; Manitoba Labour department and ministry is going to look at the labour impact as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The minister can correct me if I am wrong on that. Can you tell me, if you are going to talk about the building codes, are we taking a position to that particular ministerial meetings? What specific aspect of the building codes are we referencing here? What would be the position that we would take to those meetings?

Mr. Radcliffe: All right, just to add to the record for the benefit of my honourable colleague. Saskatchewan is at this point in time taking an initiative now with the child labour issue, but there will be more input, preparation and research done by Manitoba prior to the meeting of ministers on this issue. So Saskatchewan and Manitoba, I believe, would be co-operating, but Manitoba would be addressing the issue of child labour in Manitoba itself, as well, and we would want to do some research on what were the parameters of this topic in Manitoba, if any. You know, does it exist, and if so, how extensive is it, and how does it fit into the general fabric of society?

On the objective building codes, this is a new concept. Right now I have had limited exposure, I can tell my honourable colleague, to building codes, but only from the perspective of being a solicitor. Nonetheless, right now they are quite letter-specific as to what is demanded for construction, either home construction, obviously, or commercial construction of different types. For example, a building code might say that there shall be 2 x 4 used in wall supports with having 16-inch centres, and that is mandatory, regulatory and letter-specific.

* (1540)

The concept that is being considered is saying instead of specifying exactly what materials should be used or how it should be used is to consider what result one wants to obtain or end up with. So what one wants is walls that will stay erect, that will hold up, that will be strong, and so the building code would be moving to a series of statements which would specify what strength one would want in one's walls for different types of construction. Then the how-to, or the specificity of how one gets there, would be left unstated, and that would be up to the individual contractor. It would be a declaration of the results that would be desirable in construction, rather than the incremental step-by-step preparation to get to that level or to get to that final result.

Mr. Reid: Well, I guess it might provide you with some more flexibility if you were to propose a building code that would talk about strengths versus specific types of material, sizes, et cetera. I can understand that to some degree.

I guess the question I have is from the Manitoba or the Prairies' perspective, snow load in the winter time as being a major factor, and one can never really judge what is going to happen here, and I guess you can only go on three- or five-hundred-year experiences, if there is such a thing that is available, about what your loading would be. I have seen roofs that have collapsed. I mean, the frozen food facility over in the St. Boniface Industrial Park collapsed this past winter. One has to understand, I guess, that there were perhaps problems with that roof, although it is a fairly new facility, so you would wonder what happened with that structure.

I also have questions with respect to the way that The Construction Industry Wages Act was deregulated last year with respect to the trades. You have the potential here now, and I caution you on the direction you are heading here.

If you have people that are what might be termed to be less than fully qualified tradespeople constructing homes, for example–I use that as an example in the province here, because it is deregulated now and you are going to have all sorts of people moving into that area as the wages fluctuate, perhaps down, and your higher-skilled people would move off to other areas to attain or to retain their income level–it could put at risk, if you have less than knowledgeable tradespeople, or people that call themselves carpenters, for example, that are building homes. and they do not know strengths and capacities of certain sizes of beams and lumber that would be used, and other building materials that would be used in those facilities.

So I guess the question that arises out of that is: whom are we going to rely on to provide that guarantee or that assurance that our buildings, including our homes, have been constructed in a safe fashion? Is it going to be the engineers, the building permit or licencing body, for example, the City of Winnipeg License Branch here, that will provide a review of the building documents that would come in for a particular structure prior to issuing of those permits?

If that is the case, I have some experience that they cannot fulfill their mandate as it stands now, and I know that from first-hand experiences from my own trade. I have to wonder what is going to happen down the road if they cannot do the engineering evaluations of those particular documents prior to someone actually less than full skill level starting construction on those facilities.

So I have a whole range of cautions that I throw out here that the minister would want to consider and perhaps comment on.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the aspect of The Construction Industry Wages Act that was deregulated in this past year was the rates of pay relating to the particular tradesmen, but the building codes apparently still apply. In fact, the Department of Labour is running some classes right now, running courses, on training building inspectors so that rural municipalities will have the opportunity to have a source of building inspectors to draw from.

The association of municipalities and the Manitoba Building Officials Association are running a building inspection training program which was developed for delivery to municipal building officials, but I certainly do acknowledge my honourable colleague's admonition in this respect. In fact, I think that, when there are demands in the building market, specifically, say, in house building, when there is a surge for new homes, often the market does employ people who are framers who perhaps have the skill to pick up a hammer and saw. So this something that is obviously of continual concern. I think that the regulatory framework and fabric must continue to be aware of that and control the activity in order to ensure safety.

Mr. Reid: I am sure the minister and the staff know full well that if you are making $20-some an hour as a carpenter and the market gets deregulated and your boss says: I can no longer afford to pay you that level, either take $10 or $12 an hour, otherwise I will lay you off and find somebody else, I mean, that is a reality of life. That is what happens in the marketplace. Those that are in business building homes or other structures are in business to make money. If they can do it with cheaper labour costs, that is usually where the market heads.

One of their primary costs in any construction project is the labour costs. When we deregulated the house building sector, yes, it was the wage rates that you deregulated, but you have to be realistic and expect that if someone is making $20 an hour, they are not going to stick around for a job that is going to pay them $10 an hour when they perhaps can go elsewhere in the marketplace and still achieve the same level of income. So there may be an opportunity for others to get into the building trade for building homes but perhaps they do not possess the same skill level. So I am a bit apprehensive about what the future holds.

I hope this does not come to pass that we have substandard structures constructed. I just throw the caution out that there is that potential for that to happen. When you do go to talk about your new objective building codes, that some consideration be given to how you define that, I think you have to be very cautious of how you do that, to make sure that there are going to be people in the municipalities, for example, that are going to have that delegated responsibility to oversee the approval of those building plans that would actually do that engineering inspection of those drawings prior to the issuance of a work permit or a building permit for those particular projects.

I can tell the minister from my own experience in the electrical trade that those final inspections, for example, on new structures involving the electrical systems in a home, my own personal experience is quite often the inspectors do not come for final inspections. They come for the rough-in inspection. The finals are not done. I know that in my own case, having been involved in the construction of several buildings, and I know the same occurs in other areas.

I have a constituent, and I have drawn this case to the minister's predecessor with respect to a home on John Duncan Drive in Transcona, where the building inspectors did not go in and do the final inspection in that home. I can tell the minister that the fans in that home were not vented. Everyone knows that new materials going into a new home have a fair amount of moisture in them, including the lumber and the concrete basement. The bathroom and kitchen fans were all vented into the basement and were like that for a year, and the family could not figure out why they were getting sick. I have drawn this, in Question Period, to the minister's predecessor.

What occurred was there was a heaving of the floor. The floor joist warped, heaved, pushed everything up in the house. Mould and mildew developed throughout the house, including the furniture, totally destroying that particular structure from being inhabited. So I know that that particular structure did not have final inspection because I requested that information from the City of Winnipeg in writing and they could not provide it for me.

I do know that they have a shortage of inspectors to go into structures to do those inspections. They have told me quite clearly that they do ad hoc inspections. So I draw this to your attention, as the new minister for the department, to be very cautious with respect to, yes, you may put in place that this is the law or the regulation, but if there is not the enforcement mechanism in place to go into those particular structures to make sure that they are constructed in a safe and reliable fashion that we could be putting at risk the families and, in the sense of other structures, other occupants, whether it be a workplace or a family home. So I draw that to your attention.

* (1550)

That particular home at 64 John Duncan Drive, which is on public record already, from my understanding the family is out of that. They are in the process of going through the courts. That was the final course of action, but the home builder, Kensington Homes, has decided not to pursue this. In fact, their insurance company is going to pay out the resident homeowners of that. It is my understanding that that home is going to be bulldozed, which is a new home just slightly over a year old, because it cannot be reclaimed as a result of problems through lack of inspection. So I draw this to your attention of what the consequences are.

There are legal consequences as a result of this when the family is in the process of moving into the courts for a resolution of this matter. It is going to be settled, from my understanding, out of court, but that home will not longer be habitable as a result. The City of Winnipeg has zeroed the property tax on that home. So the home no longer has any value and it is only the actual property itself that has taxable value. So you can see, once that decision is made, the city is very serious about protecting the family, and they know that it is uninhabitable.

In that sense, I draw that to your attention, and ask the questions with respect to the term objective new building codes. Perhaps you can describe for me what you mean in that sense of that description there. I will ask you a further question in a moment with respect to an issue I raised in the Estimates last year with respect to building codes.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, my honourable colleague has given me a lot of material to respond to and, just very cursorily, I guess I would indicate that at the present time an observation of mine from the vantage point that I have right now in my task in government as an MLA for River Heights and for an individual who sits on Treasury Board that I have had occasion to observe that the construction market and the trades right now are very well employed in Manitoba. In fact, I think that the unemployment level is minimal at this point in time. The building market is so hot that in fact a number of public buildings that have gone to tender, the tenders that have been supplied have been significantly over the initial estimation. I can cite for my honourable colleague's edification, Montrose School.

An Honourable Member: In your own community.

Mr. Radcliffe: In my community which I had personal–

An Honourable Member: Which has a daycare in it.

Mr. Radcliffe: Absolutely, which has a daycare in it, and that leads me to another topic. But I will not get into that one today. I can only say that I was horrified when I saw the estimates come back from all the tendered contracts way and above over what we had been led to believe was a reasonable level to expect from Government Services estimators. It caused us to rethink the whole financing of that project, and which we did through the Public Schools Finance Board. Nonetheless that is a product of a hot economy which we have here in Manitoba right now, which I can only attribute at least in part to the good government that the Filmon government has been provided.

An Honourable Member: How did I know that one was coming?

Mr. Radcliffe: You could see that one coming. With regard to the horror story of this John Duncan Drive incident, I can only emphasize with the individuals involved because that really does sound like an awful, awful story. I think it points to the fact of inspections which I think my honourable colleague has correctly pointed out rather than the issue of building codes, per se.

If you have any sort of building code, be it objective or specific, that is not complied with, then you are going to have travesties of justice of this nature, so it is something I can emphasize with the individuals involved.

I am told that the National Research Council has some extensive written material on objective building codes which I would be pleased to supply to my honourable colleague. I think that is perhaps a day or two away. [interjection] It is a briefing note that we have.

Mr. Reid: I would appreciate if the minister or his staff could forward it so we could have a look at that as well. When you are in your discussions with respect to your objective building codes too, and I draw this again to your attention, it affects my community. I am sure it affects many communities around the province that have dwellings that are constructed with single door access or exit. I know there has been a shift in this province a number of years back to allow for that construction to take place, and I drew it to the attention of the minister's predecessor.

I have calls to my office during the course of the big snowstorms that we have, and we all know that we have six months of winter and six months of bad sledding. We also know that there are problems that are associated when we get those snowfalls. In some of the homes, and it may happen in the rural areas as well, if you have homes or buildings that are constructed with a single door, if you get snow packed up against those doors and they open outwards, as they are supposed to do, in the event, for example, a woodstove in your home or a fireplace, and if you have a fire in there and you only have one door to get out of there, and you are trapped in that part of the building, you burn to death because you cannot get out.

In the course of a snowstorm, and if you are in your home during a snowstorm and you are trying to stay warm, so there is potential there to have some problems as a result of snow pack, and I have calls on this from my constituents who cannot get out their front doors. They have single homes or side by sides or semidetached structures. Perhaps the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) is familiar with some of those units because his department is in possession and control of some of those facilities in my own community, so I draw that to your attention again. I think there needs to be some consideration given to the safety factor with respect to dwelling units and perhaps workplaces, places of business that would have single door access to them.

Now one might say that, well, in the event of a fire you pick up some piece of furniture and throw it through a window or push the window out, but if you have sealed pane units, they are tripanes or whatever, then that may not always be a reasonable way to escape that particular structure, so I am not sure how you solve it. There are other experts in this province and in this country that perhaps know better than I on how you solve that, but I draw it to your attention again as a safety factor for some of our communities. We want to make sure that our families are safe and that our workplaces are safe as well, so I leave that with you on that aspect of it.

With respect to the issue of child labour, and this goes back to the ministerial meetings that you are going to be having, I drew to the attention of your predecessor as well that because we have what seems to be an increase in the film industry in the province. We read it again in the paper this week. I think that is a positive step for our province to have that industry grow here, and I am happy to see that take place, but I draw to the attention of you as the new minister that there are issues that need to be dealt with with respect to child labour. I draw to your attention the province of British Columbia that has had, for some time, a very strong film industry and has had to deal with this issue some time ago. Perhaps you can draw from their experience and use their regulations that they have in place to safeguard against what would be considered child labour, not only just in the film industry, but the regulation they have applies particularly to that particular sector of their economy. You can draw perhaps on their experience as some guidance for the department in dealing with child labour in that sector, the film industry sector. Perhaps there are other jurisdictions that have experience as well dealing with child labour in other areas.

Now, it takes me to the next question because I know in the Estimates last year there was some discussion here that the Department of Labour had contracted or had been involved with a youth work survey, an underage youth work survey. I would like to know what the results are that came about as a result of that particular survey, and if you have that detail here today so that I might be able to see global responses to the questions that you would have available to the department.

* (1600)

Mr. Radcliffe: I am pleased to be able to inform my honourable colleague that, with the youth work survey, the data have been collected, the report is in a draft form at this point in time, and the data are about to be released next Tuesday, in Ottawa, at the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation, called CAALL, I am told.

Just to comment on the data that have been collected. I am told that there is a lack of appreciation, or a lack of knowledge, of employers in Manitoba of labour legislation per se, but the department is attending to that and disseminating the information.

More importantly, the department has not found any breaches where youth have been abused or misemployed, and so there is no reason for remedial action or punitive action or charges to be laid with the research.

Mr. Reid: Well, I mean, I could share some horror stories with the minister, if he wants, about youth being taken advantage of, but I do not think that was the intent of the survey to start with. I think it was to determine–because I have seen draft copies of the survey that you have out now. You may have refined it since that for distribution to the students last summer and fall. Perhaps maybe I should ask that. Do you have a copy of that survey here, so that we would make sure that we see the working copy that went out to the students?

Mr. Radcliffe: We can provide that tomorrow. Tricky. We can provide that on Monday, given, of course, that we are still here on Monday.

Mr. Reid: Yes, well, I think that we will be here on Monday. Now, in my understanding, that particular survey was to inquire amongst the youth in our schools, and I think, you can correct me if I am wrong, that that did not go to all the high schools and junior highs in the province.

Do you have a list for me of where that particular survey was distributed? Do you have any kind of number of surveys that went out and a percentage response of the returns that came back from each of those particular facilities? If you have them by facility list or name, that would help.

* (1610)

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the survey canvassed 700 young people throughout Manitoba in the spring of '98. These were individuals located in 10 schools throughout the province. There were six in Winnipeg, two in northern Manitoba and two in southern Manitoba. The grade levels that were canvassed were Grades 10 to 12. There was a focus testing done on younger children in the junior high and the results were not considered to be sufficiently accurate for the younger children. Therefore, their information was not collated or proceeded with.

The results were a hundred percent response because, in fact, there was co-operation with the schools, and the surveys were done face to face. It was not just mailing out forms and expecting people to blindly fill out the blanks and then send them back in. It was a face-to-face communication, so there was a hundred percent uptake on the individuals that were surveyed.

Mr. Reid: I think, if I recall correctly, it was Mr. Cy Gonick who was involved with that particular survey.

Can you tell me, because it almost sounds like from what the minister describes as a face-to-face meetings with individuals, which seems like quite an onerous process to go through, how did this take place? Were these surveys distributed to the students in the classroom, for example? What process was used to conduct that particular survey where you would be assured of 100 percent return?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told, Mr. Chairman, that there were six University of Manitoba students that were employed in this project. They went from classroom to classroom. They had a face-to-face encounter in the class with the young people involved. They handed out the forms, remained in the class to be responsive to questions from the students, advised them, directed them, helped them on how to fill out the forms where help was required.

My honourable colleague is correct that Mr. Cy Gonick has been directing and leading this project. He has been absent from the province for, I think, about six weeks at this point in time, so that has been one of the delays in collating all the information at this point, but that was the process that was employed for picking up the information itself.

Mr. Reid: Well, I understand that there may be some difficulties in the final information or the executive summary or whatever you want to call it that may be coming forward as a result of that. Seven hundred students were surveyed.

I had asked for a list of the schools that were used in the survey, and I am wondering if you have that. Can you tell me also the list of criteria that were used to select the schools? I would like to know the process that was used to arrive at the questioning and also the process of selection and other criteria maybe used to determine how you interpret the data that came back.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that Mr. Cy Gonick in fact was instrumental in developing the original framework for the survey. The survey then was circulated to the jurisdictions in western Canada for comment and input. That was then collated and assessed. The different departments of the Manitoba government were also consulted. The Department of Education was consulted and our Workplace Safety and Health. From the perspective of our Workplace Safety and Health, the concerns or issues that were involved were: were children working, where were they working and were they at risk. That was some of the criteria that formed some of the questions that was the underlying base for the survey.

We do not have the names of the schools right now. We can supply that and will undertake so to do on Monday. The criteria used for picking the schools was to be of a representative capacity, so that is why there is some urban, some rural, some northern and some southern. It was representative as to income as well.

That formed some of the thinking into the selection, and I am told also one of their major criteria was which schools were responsive, because there was in fact co-operation and uptake from the schools that were attended. I presume that there were schools that did not respond, but in fact we can tell you the schools that did.

The criteria for interpreting the data, I am told at this point in time, it is a straight factual recitation coming in dealing with percentages of people working, where they worked. It is a recounting of data. There has not been any interpretation done on the material to date.

Mr. Reid: The minister references students or youth at risk. Selection was done by income and school response. I am not sure–

Mr. Radcliffe: Schools were selected having in mind income as one determines to make it representative, i.e., and I am putting my own words on it from what I interpret from the answer from my associate here, that not all the schools in Tuxedo or not all the schools in Transcona or not all the schools in Churchill were used. In other words, to make it broad-based and representative of a cross-section of our Manitoba community, not necessarily income of the parents of the children being surveyed. I would not want my honourable colleague to think that that was the answer to the problem but looking at the demographics of the area in which the school was found having no knowledge of the income base of the particular families to which those children belonged.

Mr. Reid: Then perhaps, I take it the department was briefed or involved in the survey, because you provided funding and support for that particular survey. Can you tell me, refresh my memory with respect to the cost of that survey, are the final costs in? Can you tell me, do you have a briefing paper or something on it that would lay out what the process was going to be with respect to that particular survey that we might be able to get a copy of?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that the funding for this survey was in the neighbourhood of $40,000 and this has been supplied at this point in time. We can produce the briefing notes on Monday.

Mr. Reid: Perhaps you can give me a breakdown of that $40,000 with respect to the costs that were associated as well, so I might understand how those monies were spent. Can you tell me, because you have only surveyed, I think, you said high schools that were under your survey, selected high schools–if I recall the questions of the survey correctly, it was to understand from youth their experiences entering the workforce as new employees, either on full or part-time basis.

I am wondering why we have not made an effort to go after information that would perhaps be held by underage youth in the workforce, because I know the province issues what, 500 underage work permits a year, which is a fair number. You issue that many permits, and you have only surveyed 700 high school students, so there is not much difference between the two numbers there. Why would we not survey the underage youth who probably have less knowledge of their rights and less ability to speak up in the workforce than high school students who are a bit more sure of themselves? I ask the question why we did not focus on junior high school students as well.

* (1620)

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that Mr. Gonick did do a focus group with children in the younger category. It was his decision after doing the focus group that he did not feel that they had the maturity to understand conceptually what the nature of the exercise was, and so he did not feel comfortable with the information that he elicited that it was appropriate for the study. So it was his decision to restrict the survey to the children in Grades 10 to 12 because of their intellectual, and I guess emotional, maturity.

Mr. Reid: Well, I do not know if this is something that has been considered or not, but I will float it. I would think that the youth underage, under legal working age in the province, would potentially be at risk. Would there not be some way to have a survey of those ones perhaps that the department issues the underage work permits to, to survey those students to find out what their experiences are and what their knowledge level is with respect to the labour laws, the Workplace Safety and Health laws, Workers Compensation, et cetera, to make sure that they are knowledgeable about what their rights are too, to make sure that they are not put at risk? I am just wondering if it is possible to survey those 500 that we issued the permits to, or however many specific number, but I think it is generally around 500 a year.

Mr. Radcliffe: I thank my honourable colleague for that suggestion. I think that is something that has some real merit to it. I am told that when individuals apply for permits to employ underage children, educational information is distributed at that time to the permittee. The reaction of the department is such that very likely the individuals involved who come forward and request and obtain a permit and obtain the information are very likely not the individuals with whom we should be concerned, but perhaps there might be another group in the community who are not coming forward. Nonetheless, what my honourable colleague suggests is something that has some merit and something we would be prepared to look at.

Mr. Reid: I am worried that those youth, and I have looked back at the curriculum for the Department of Education dealing with issues relating to Workplace Safety and Health. I am not going to go broadly into that area so that you have to bring other staff here, but just talk generally.

The curriculum that is in place through the Department of Education is somewhat lacking with respect to knowledge, passing on knowledge to our youth prior to them entering the workforce, and if there is some way to determine or to–I mean, let us be realistic here. Each of us should look in the mirror when we talk about this issue, because I guess the question I would ask is what do you do when you get a flier in the mailbox when you come home from work at the end of the day, or when you come home from school? The reality is you take that flier and you file it, and we all know where it gets filed. So when you get that pamphlet in your hand here, what is to stop someone who gets that from just disposing of it and not having a real knowledge?

I think unless we ask those questions of our youth in particular, to make sure that they are aware how to protect themselves in the workplace, to make sure that they are knowledgeable prior to entering the workforce, we put them at risk.

I would want to have the department have a clear understanding of those because there are under-age youth who are going to work because permits are issued, and we all know of others who work in casual jobs and perhaps other jobs who do not know and who trust others to protect them in the workplace. There are people who are not always vigilant in protecting those under-age individuals, and I would want to make sure that they know prior to entering the workforce.

I know we have a lot of work to do on the curriculum side of education in the schools. That has always been a pet peeve of mine, is that we do not teach our children, my own included, because I talk to them about what they are being instructed on in the junior high and high schools now in my community, and there is very little instruction that goes on with respect to how to look after yourself when you are into the workforce.

I would hope we would take some steps to find out what their knowledge is, to find out where we need to upgrade that knowledge and then to take the steps through the curriculum to make sure that they are trained in the junior high and high schools prior to them entering the workforce.

So I throw that out for your consideration. I know I have talked about this before, and I am sounding like I am up on the stump here talking about it, but it is an issue that is important, and we have to protect our youth from having any contact with workplace injuries. If we can give them the tools necessary to prevent those injuries from happening in the workplace in the first place, I think we do them a great service prior to them entering the workforce. So I throw that out for your consideration.

I will leave that part and I know you are going to provide me with the information relating to that particular survey, the final version that went out to the schools, the list of the schools and the other criteria that were used for the selection. I will look forward to receiving that information as quickly as you can provide it.

I want to ask, because you have on the agenda for the coming meeting, the ministerial meeting at the end of this year, issues dealing not only with child labour but the labour impacts from the North American Free Trade Agreement, and I want to know what your briefing note is going to say when you go to that particular meeting with respect to what the impact has been on Manitoba labour as a result of that agreement, either pro or con, whether or not you are going to take a balanced approach to show both sides of the issue here or whether you are going to take a certain perspective to that particular meeting. I am talking about the department here now because, no doubt, they are drafting the document.

Then, perhaps, Mr. Chairperson, there may not be an election until the spring which is even likely in this case, and perhaps the current minister might even still be there.

* (1630)

Mr. Radcliffe: That is a future which we can only look forward to with much jubilation, and I commend my honourable colleague for even suggesting such a prospect.

In response to my honourable colleague's inquiry, the perspective that the briefing paper will consider on the Free Trade Agreement would be the side agreements on labour. The main thrust of the agreement deals with trade, and that would be more the parameter of Industry, Trade and Tourism, and general economic trends.

The Department of Labour will be addressing itself to the side agreements on labour itself. Specifically, for example, one of the questions will be have the various nations with whom we partner, the two nations with whom we partner, have the employers in their countries been living up to the labour laws that they have on the legislative books of their countries? This, I gather, is one of the concerns and one of the issues that the international conference concerns itself with and deals with complaints from various other labour or employment groups, presumably labour groups, I guess, from abroad.

An Honourable Member: You will not get the employers saying too much about it, will you?

Mr. Radcliffe: Well, I do not know. My honourable colleague raises the question about the employers, and I suspect sometimes that perhaps there may be other agendas from other employers that are looking for economic advantage by playing politics with the issue. That is something, I think, that you have to be aware of.

But the other aspect of the briefing note will be, well, first of all, is to ensure that each nation is maintaining a level playing field with regard to its labour force. The other aspect will be an economic analysis of employment levels in Manitoba as a result of the free trade experience, so specifically looking at areas of the economy which have been related to manufacturing and export and what levels they have maintained. So that would be a result or an effect of the Free Trade Agreement which would go into the briefing note as well.

So there is no particular interpretation, I guess, that goes into that, or analysis. That would be more of a factual nature, just recounting and reciting events rather than any analysis and conclusions being drawn.

Mr. Reid: I take it then that the briefing may not be fully drafted to this point in time. It is perhaps a bit premature to think that it would be, but is it possible when the department has the information available to have a copy of the department's position with respect to the position we are going to be taking to that particular meeting, which I take it would be into the fall? If there is no election held in that period of time, then of course there would be no change in the current circumstances that we face here today. But of course, should an election be called, then who knows what the future holds. Perhaps I may have direct access to that information in a way that I would not have to request it through this particular committee.

So if an election is not called, then perhaps could we have access to the position paper that the province would be taking to that particular meeting perhaps around the time when the department has the draft completed?

Mr. Radcliffe: I would have no problem in sharing with my honourable colleague the position of the department and therefore the position of the province with regard to the free trade issue when the time is appropriate. I am sure that his question is not moot and that it will be within my jurisdiction to share that material with him.

Mr. Reid: Well, I look forward to receiving that information and hopefully it is not after the person who is going to that meeting returns because it would be somewhat difficult to turn one's attention to that after a decision has already been made and shared with others in the North American labour meetings that will be held.

With respect to the policy, because I believe this is where the general large-scale policy decision making for the department occurs is probably under this section. If I am wrong, perhaps the minister can correct me on that because in your document it says overall policy direction is what is provided. Can you tell me is the department working on any legislative changes with respect to any of the acts that would fall under the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, and if so, what changes are being contemplated?

Mr. Radcliffe: At this point in time, and this is an issue that can change with reasonably short notice, but I am not anticipating any legislative changes to any of the labour fabric at this point, and I caution my remarks by saying that. There have been many free wide discussions on a number of different issues, but they have all been of a highly speculative and contemplative nature, and so I do not think it would be appropriate to put those on the public record at this point because there is no intention of proceeding.

I can undertake to my honourable colleague, and in fact I have done this in Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I found it to be a very helpful process for members on both sides to share with the critic if I do change that position, to share in advance of introducing the legislation in the House the form of the legislation and give the member the opportunity to examine the document and the staff involved so that the particular critic has the opportunity to see what the genesis of the bill is and how it has come into being.

Mr. Reid: So then perhaps I should ask the question then. Is the Labour Management Review Committee a body of people, from both labour and employers' side, representatives, that get together and meet and are in essence an advisory body to the Ministry of Labour? Have they made any suggestions to the department with respect to any changes that perhaps would be required with any of the legislation for which the department is directly responsible?

Mr. Radcliffe: The Labour Management Review Committee have not come forward with any specific suggestions for consideration either of a legislative nature or regulatory nature. I am told that there has been some material on employment standards which have been circulated but that has not reached my desk at this point in time.

Mr. Reid: Have any of the other advisory bodies for which the department has responsibility, has the minister requested any of those bodies to meet to consider certain issues or have any of them requested the department consider legislative changes or regulatory changes?

* (1640)

Mr. Radcliffe: In response to my honourable friend's question, there has been nothing come forward from any of the advisory bodies either at my behest or at their initiative on advice or direction. We do know that the mines regulatory committee which is a subcommittee of the minister's advisory council is doing work. That is an ongoing constant process, but I have not seen anything on that since I have had the opportunity to enjoy sitting in the chair.

Mr. Reid: I am going to try and microfocus this a little bit here. I have done this in other departments for which I have been the critic in past. I am trying to get an idea of some of the costs of operation of the department as well–the department obviously has certain costs, because you have employees who are working for you throughout the department–and get an understanding of your Workers Compensation premiums, for example, that you would have to pay as a department. So getting an idea of your operational costs, in other words, and what your accident ratio is if we do have any accidents within the department, number of employees that are off, et cetera.

Mr. Radcliffe: A point of clarification. The honourable colleague is asking for the accident ratio, and the premiums were paid by the department for Workers Comp. Is that correct?

Mr. Reid: That is correct.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to advise my honourable colleague that in fact there is nobody at the current time from the department that is on Workers Comp receiving any compensation from the Workers Compensation Board. The department is a self-insurer, so the department pays directly the total cost. There is no pooling from the Workers Comp for the class of employees at all. The average expense from the department in any given year, I am told, and this year is no exception, runs between $5,000 and $10,000 for expenses for medical claims from employees, and that is in the nature of doctor appointments and consultation of that nature. We have one employee who is receiving permanent partial disability on a monthly basis, but I am told that person does report to work on a daily basis as well and, I guess, performs at a lower level than what they were previously employed at in order to justify the pension. That is out of the Fire Commissioner's office.

Mr. Reid: So the individual was an employee of the Fire Commissioner's office and worked within the department somewhere, continues to work there, was injured on the job, has a permanent injury and is working in a job that will not place that individual at risk. Was there any loss of earnings as a result of the change that occurred in reassignment of job duties?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am told this particular individual still performs an inspection function or capacity and, in fact, he was the individual who is involved in inspection at the St. Edward's fire that occurred last week in the city of Winnipeg when they had a fire in the basement in the music room.

I am not aware of what the specific disability is that he is functioning under, but I am told that as a result of the injuries that he sustained or the disability that he sustained, he is unable to perform to full capacity anymore and so therefore the opportunity for overtime is now denied to him. But he is fully functional at a performance level to make him a value for the department.

Mr. Reid: So I take it then there has been no penalty on the pay side for the individual as a result of that workplace injury. I am just trying to get an understanding here.

I understand, and I think it is appropriate that an individual would continue to be given the opportunity to work within their permanent restrictions for that same employer where possible, and would hope that there would be no penalty on the income side, so there is no loss of earnings for that individual as a result of having to take an alternate job.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that the particular individual, in fact, does earn the same level of pay that he did prior to his disability, and the only loss he suffered is that which I already articulated which was that he has lost the ability to perform over time.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, when we did the essential services legislation–and the minister's predecessor is here. He was, I believe, the sponsor of that particular bill. It is my understanding that the Ministry of Labour was the sponsor of that particular bill. If I am wrong in that, then correct me, because my recollection, I remember the department because I was the critic who had to speak to that particular bill, and we usually do not do that if it is not sponsored by labour.

Mr. Radcliffe: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that bill came out of the Department of Health.

Mr. Reid: I am talking about the original essential services legislation that was here a year or two ago.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am told that the initial bill for essential services was introduced by the Department of Finance, and the ambit of that legislation concerned itself only with government employees at that point in time. There was an amendment done in '96 which did involve the Department of Labour. So my honourable colleague would be correct that he quite appropriately did speak to that in '96 when the amendments went through which included the individuals in the health care field at that point.

* (1650)

Mr. Reid: I am just trying to get an understanding here, because The Essential Services Act affects the rights of individuals and employers with respect to strike and lock-out provisions. I thought it would have been more appropriate to be sponsored by the Ministry of Labour versus the other ministries and wondered why this Bill 27 that was dealing with the paramedics was not sponsored by the Ministry of Labour and was left to Health. Now I understand it is dealing with paramedics, but it is dealing with labour relations issues. I am wondering why the decision was made to go with Health versus Labour.

Mr. Radcliffe: I think my honourable colleague is quite correct that this is a shared responsibility, and the topic, the overall topic, is the subject of collective bargaining. The facts are that in this particular case the Ministry of Health had been contacted by the City of Winnipeg. They chose to respond to it, and it was the Department of Health that did present the amendment on the paramedics. That is just the way the events rolled out for that particular issue.

The responsibility overall for The Essentials Services Act does fall quite correctly, as my honourable colleague points out, under the Ministry of Labour, under the Department of Labour, and in fact the '96 amendment was done by the Ministry of Labour by the minister of that day.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, I am just trying to get an understanding here then. So it was a cabinet decision then that it would remain, because it is my understanding the cabinet would have to pass approval on any legislation that would come to the Chamber. A minister would not just do that on his own, I would not expect, without having some approval of cabinet, perhaps the Premier prior to tabling of a bill or even drafting, and that it was a cabinet decision to let the Ministry of Health deal with the paramedics, Bill 27, The Essential Services Amendment, that was before the House here last week.

Mr. Radcliffe: I do not believe that the specific issue of which ministry was appropriate to deal with the bill was an issue that was ever debated at cabinet. The sum and substance of the bill certainly was reviewed at a cabinet level and obviously approved, but I am not aware that there was any discussion at all on the cabinet basis as to which ministry did it. I think it is a simple fact of the Minister of Health was contacted by the mayor of the City of Winnipeg, the Minister of Health being responsive did respond to the issue, and the issue rolled out from there.

Mr. Reid: So, then, might we expect in the future that if other requests come in from other jurisdictions with respect to amendments to The Essential Services Act, it will be the receiving department that will be the sponsor of any of those amendments?

Mr. Radcliffe: I think that is speculative at this point, and I do not know that I could answer that. I can say certainly that if there were requests coming from different areas of the workplace with regard to application of The Essential Services Act and they came to the Ministry of Labour, I would respond as Minister of Labour. Should I be the incumbent at that point in time, I certainly would be responsive to those requests. How I would respond, of course, I cannot say. I think that is more of an ad hoc response. You know, if it came in through Labour, came in through Agriculture, came in through wherever, there is certainly communication and co-operation within the various departments as well.

Mr. Reid: Has the Department of Labour and perhaps the minister through his other discussions with his colleagues–maybe I should be general in asking this question–had any discussions with the City of Winnipeg with respect to what was their announced intention to consider the lockout provisions for the paramedics? I know mediation is ongoing and I hope it is successful and the department is involved in that. Perhaps the minister can indicate whether or not the department has had any discussions, or the government has had any discussions, with the City of Winnipeg with respect to lockout after they have requested essential services inclusion.

Mr. Radcliffe: I can only respond on my own behalf at this point in time that I have had no conversations at all with any magistrate or any official at the City of Winnipeg with regard to lockout. In fact, quite interestingly, the initial contact I had with the paramedics was that I was returning to my office after Question Period one day and I saw two individuals in the back hall of the building, on the main floor, and questioned what they were looking for as they appeared to be lost.

They introduced themselves as Mr. Fotti and Mr. MacLean, and they said they were looking for Room 156. I said, well, follow me and I will direct you. I said what do you want; they said they wanted to speak to Radcliffe. I said, well, you found him; what do you want? They said they had come to the Legislature to talk about their labour difficulties and to try and find a solution. So I said step right in, sit down. I poured them each a Coke, and I said I will be glad to talk to you, what is your issue.

They then explained to me the progress that they had effected at that point in time on their labour negotiations with the city. They outlined very briefly the different aspects as they saw it, the different issues as they saw it, in their negotiations and the experience they had had. At that point then I called in the deputy and we shared this information.

Very shortly thereafter, I was able to appoint a mediator to assist with the ongoing issues. I make it a practice not to become involved or make any comment on the particular substance of any particular struggle but rather to be the resource to try and effect a solution.

Mr. Reid: I understand that the department would want to find a solution to the impasse. Has any member of the City of Winnipeg council or the administration from the City of Winnipeg or representatives from the employer side contacted the Department of Labour or the minister directly to consult with respect to the options available to find a solution to the impasse that is currently being mediated?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am pleased to tell my honourable colleague that in fact no conversation of any particular substance has occurred between the department, the minister nor the deputy minister, with regard to this collective agreement other than a conversation with the human resources person at the city to ensure that the city would be a willing participant in the mediation process.

Having said that, we certainly heard from the two union leaders as to how they perceived the whole issue, but there has been no consultation of any substance at all between the department nor between the minister and the city with regard to their goals or ambitions or directions on this at all. The only thing was, Mr. Chairman, was of a procedural conversation. Now, during the procedural conversation–I was not party to that conversation–I am sure there were lots of things talked about, but we have no advice from the city as to what their position is.

Mr. Reid: So then would the minister or the department be aware of the City of Winnipeg's reasons for not wanting to go the route of binding arbitration?

Mr. Radcliffe: No.

* (1700)

Mr. Reid: I guess, then, we will have to wait for the outcome of the mediation process. Can the minister tell me what the deadline is that he or the department has indicated to the mediator with respect to a report back with regard to the paramedics and the City of Winnipeg negotiations?

Mr. Radcliffe: June 16 for the return date on the mediation report from Mr. Paul Teskey.

Mr. Reid: I take it that the mediation has just commenced this week. Is that correct, or is it due to start next week?

Mr. Radcliffe: I believe my honourable colleague is correct that in fact it is starting this week, and I believe tomorrow is the first day of meetings with the parties. The mediator had been busy with other issues and has now got some time to address this issue.

Mr. Reid: Then we will wait to see what the outcome of that mediation process is, and I hope that it is successful. I am sure the department and the general public do as well. We will keep our fingers crossed.

I am switching focus here. I want to ask if you have, because this, I believe, is the overall general policy direction of the department, information relating to–maybe I should ask the question first with respect to your statistical information that you have within the department with respect to employment and wage rates, et cetera. Do you get that information from–is it Stats Manitoba, or do you get that from Statistics Canada? Can you perhaps give an indication where you would get your information from?

Mr. Radcliffe: Our source of information is Statistics Manitoba. They have an on-line service. We believe that a lot of their information is derived from Stats Canada, and then a number of collective agreements are filed with the department. So we on request will supply that information to employers or to labour individuals, labour unions.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me what the average wage rate is for the province of Manitoba? Do you keep that information or have it here available with you?

Mr. Radcliffe: When you say the average wage rate, is it for any particular industry or something as a norm across the province?

Mr. Reid: Perhaps if you have the general across-the-province average wage rate. I do not if you keep this information with respect to breakdown by sectors of the economy, whether it is manufacturing or service sector, et cetera. Do you have that breakdown? I am not sure if you have it in a list form, but if you do, I would appreciate receiving a copy of that.

Mr. Radcliffe: We do not have that here today, but we would be pleased to give it to my honourable colleague on Monday, and that would be the wage rates generally across the province and then divided down by sectors.

Mr. Reid: Then can you give me an indication, as well as that information, of the jobs in the province, and I do not know if you have it broken down by sector or not, but full-time and part-time employment in those categories?

Mr. Radcliffe: I certainly can do that as well.

Mr. Reid: I look forward to receiving that information from the minister, and I will ask more questions when that information becomes available, and, if possible, Mr. Chair, reserve the right to go back once that information is received.

Oh, with one last question with respect to vacation relief that is shown in the Estimates book under Executive Support, can you tell me: is that for the purpose of bringing in staff to replace others that have gone on vacation? Is that the purpose of the funds that are in place there?

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes, I am told it is for the normal vacation relief when regular staff are taking their summer holidays and there is a need for someone to fill that position.

Mr. Reid: It was not a very well-worded question on my part there: is it for vacation relief? It just dawned on me after I asked it. But it does not seem like a very large amount of money, so, I mean, who are we replacing here? What is the scale? I guess we do not replace the deputy minister or the senior staff because that amount of money would not cover very much time, so who gets replaced with this vacation relief money?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure my honourable colleague that the deputy minister is irreplaceable and that no amount of money could replace the skill and wisdom and charm that the deputy minister brings to this task.

This sum is a nominal sum to represent, I believe, two weeks pay for somebody on a term at the admin secretary level, so it is a very nominal level, and it is just a nominal allocation.

* (1710)

Mr. Chairperson: 11.1. Labour Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salary and Employee Benefits $409,700–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $69,700–pass.

11.2. Labour Programs (a) Management Services $1,074,300.

Mr. Reid: I just want to ask a few general questions in this area as well, and perhaps the former Deputy Premier can assist the minister on this, too, because I know he is perhaps assisting with some of the development of this. In the throne speech that I have a copy of here, it referenced that the government was making plans to reduce the size of government without laying off any government workers, it says.

I would like to know what the plan is because you are talking about a 10 percent reduction and what the impact is going to be on the Department of Labour of any, so I am not talking about other departments. I am only going to be talking about the Department of Labour.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I believe that these remarks contained in the throne speech were a forecast or a general administrative or management tool, recognizing the fact that our civil service is an aging group of individuals as are we all around this table, with the exception, of course, of my honourable colleagues, but that as individuals do choose retirement, the estimate of the reduction of the civil service would be that of 10 percent. There is nothing more specific than that targeted to the Department of Labour.

The level of service would be maintained by virtue of the improvement and advance of the ever-increasing search for technology that is being introduced with the various problems that we have indicated and also that individuals would be gaining more training and achieving higher skills, and so therefore they would no longer be doing perhaps the nominal skills that they were but have more responsibility and mature to a higher level of pay. But this is just the general, I guess I would say, maturation of our workforce.

Mr. Reid: I do not have an overview of staffing in the department, and I am wondering, because the indication was that individuals who would be eligible for retirement, of course, would be the first preference. Where people would retire, you would not replace positions, I would imagine.

Is there an overview of the department with respect to the age levels and how many of those individuals would be approaching perhaps the earliest possible retirement age, which I think may be 55 in the civil service?

Mr. Radcliffe: I believe the throne speech spoke to government as an overall and broad stroke issue, but I am told that in the Department of Labour by 2001 there will be 18.7 percent of the individuals employed in the department who will be eligible for retirement, and this is information obtained from the Human Resource council in 1998. I would further qualify my remarks by saying that these are individuals who qualify for retirement but may not necessarily choose it. I think my honourable colleague is correct, that 55 is the–[interjection] There you go. They may choose to keep on working and be gainfully employed, or they may choose to start a second career. That is the overall information that we have.

Mr. Reid: When the minister indicates 18.7 percent, that is just strictly the Department of Labour staff that will be in a position to potentially retire by the year 2001. Is there a plan that you have in place should people opt to retire at that point? Are you looking at any particular functions within the Department of Labour of perhaps phasing them out from your normal process now? Because if you are not going to replace those jobs, then you are going to have to have some consolidation of your services. I am trying to get an understanding here of what it is that the department is looking at now and what services will be consolidated or eliminated.

Ms. Radcliffe: The administration and the department has no specific targeted plan at this point in time. Obviously, one has to be guided by the exigencies of the particular individual situations or personal situations in which people find themselves. So one has to be flexible and reactive at a time when an employee would be proposing to come to administration and say, I am giving you my notice, I want to retire, I will give you six months to find my replacement or whatever permutation accommodation that might be.

The administration is looking at it from a general perspective–this is a matter of concern–starting down the road of thinking about it, of improving people's skill sets in areas where there might be a potential for people to retire. I cannot say at this point in time that there are any departments or any subsections of the department that are targeted, that will be collapsed or changed. We cannot anticipate any individuals retiring right now.

Mr. Reid: So then if I understand the minister's answer correctly then, it will be done on an ad hoc basis as individuals elect to retire. You will move or shift the department functions based on where vacancies will exist or on your ability to shift people around within the department, so that you will be able to shrink the department. You will make those decisions somewhere down the road on what areas of service you are no longer going to provide or you are going to downgrade. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. Radcliffe: I do not believe we are anticipating any downgrading of service level. Service level will be at a consistent high quality and high level, and we will spend whatever monies are required in order to maintain a quality of service to the public of Manitoba. I do not believe that the sole criteria of retirement will drive administrative changes within the department. Certainly it is not anticipated that there is going to be any wholesale dismissal of employees and that the issue is as people retire that will trigger administrative changes. Once you embark on administrative change, there are obviously efficiencies that will suggest themselves to the administration which could be initiated.

I cannot promise my honourable colleague specifically that changes will be restricted only to retirements, because retirements then give rise to further sensible and administrative efficiencies. As technology increases and as people's skill set increase, as people are retrained for different areas or if in fact some area should become obsolete in the future, then staffing changes would be implemented as well. That I cannot forecast at this point in time.

Mr. Reid: Are there any functions or any staff positions within the Department of Labour that are underutilized at this point in time?

Mr. Radcliffe: Save except for the minister, are you saying? I do not believe at this point in time I have any personal knowledge of any underemployed individuals within the department, but I just wanted to give my honourable colleague an illustration of what–[laughter] Oops. I believe we have several candidates in the room that are volunteering for this. I just wanted to give my honourable colleague an indication or an illustration of what some of the technology and skill set improvements are that we are anticipating. For example, we have a number of inspectors or officer inspectors in the Workplace Safety and Health and in Employment Standards area. Right now, and this is really getting down to the minutiae of departmental management, their custom is that they report for work at their appointed hours, they travel physically from their homes to their workplace, they receive their briefing and their assignments for the day, and then they disperse out to do their assignments.

What we are anticipating being able to do is to equip all those individuals with laptop computers. They then will be able to be electronically assigned work at the discretion and choice of management so that they then can leave their home at their appointed time and travel directly to their assignments. That cuts out the necessity of having to come in to the office and then travel out of the office to the workplace. They then can communicate from their laptop back to the office when their information has been collated and collected. So these are some of the skill sets that would be improved. This would be something that we would look to from the Better Systems initiative that Labour has taken a lead in. This would lead to greater efficiencies and actually, in a way, superior service because you would be able to cover more ground in a particular day.

* (1720)

Mr. Reid: So then, if I understand the minister's comments that by far the vast majority of the province are not underutilized and, in fact, are utilized up to their potential. Is that what the minister is saying?

Mr. Radcliffe: I mean, we could get into a philosophical conversation there that I think everybody always has untapped potential and that any individual, given a challenge, can rise to a greater height of production or performance. I think that the way things are configured in the department right now, there is nobody who is redundant. However, with administrative changes and advances in technology and advances in learning, there may be functions that may be changed in the future, and I cannot say anything more general than that, and that is more on a conceptual basis. So I cannot say categorically to my honourable colleague at this point in time that everybody in the department is working to full capacity, because I happen to be one of those individuals that thinks you always can perform more if more is demanded of you, but is everybody well–I am sorry? [interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

Mr. Radcliffe: But I believe that the department is functioning on a very productive and harmonious basis at this point in time.

Mr. Reid: So then I take it from what the minister is saying that people can rise to the challenge. Yes, that is true, but if we look at our Japanese colleagues, their workforce, one only has to read the horror stories coming out of that country about people that are overutilized and kept more tasks pushed at them. Now I do not know the inner workings of the department. I mean, the senior staff and the people that do those jobs would know best, at least from my point of view from this time. I guess, if they are not by large part underutilized and there is going to be no downgrading of service, there is going to be increased workload for everybody that is going to be remaining in the department for those that do not retire, so I guess the handwriting is on the wall in that regard.

Now, can you tell me, the people that are going to be, or potentially retiring, that 18.7 percent that you talked about, is that going to be coming from one specific area? Is there like a block of people in certain parts of the department that are going to be affected, or potentially affected as a result, or is this generally spread over the wider function of the whole and entire department?

Mr. Radcliffe: Well, first of all, I would respond to the analysis or conclusion that my honourable colleague put on the record that by virtue of efficiencies or improvements in service or improvements in training and education and skill, this would necessarily result in an added burden or a more onerous responsibility being laid on the shoulders of the employees.

This is not, in fact, the philosophy or function or purpose of the department or any of the administration in the department. In fact, the department will be a fair and honourable place to work, as it is now, and that people would not be abused. So I do not want to leave on the record any misapprehension on the part of my honourable colleague that that would happen.

The statistic that I gave my honourable friend at 18.7 percent is a general figure, and any reductions would be spread across the department. There is no one specific area or place at this point that is under consideration or being targeted. The phrases or the comments in the throne speech are of a general nature because of the nature of our civil service which has been a reasonably static employment group. It is an aging group at this point in time, so this is something that applies generally to all of us.

Mr. Reid: I do not know if I asked this question or not with respect to the department age, to get an average age for your department. Do you have that indication here today?

Mr. Radcliffe: We do not have it here. No, my honourable colleague has not asked that question. We do not have that information here. We can certainly undertake to look and see if we have access to that information, and if we have it, we can undertake to produce it.

Mr. Reid: Okay, then I will look forward to that information coming forward when the department is able to gather it. The minister has indicated perhaps on Monday, I think he said, it would be available with respect to the departmental statistics. If not, the minister can advise me otherwise of that.

When we went to the desktop initiative, and I know we asked a number of questions on that last year and in the minister's opening comments, he talked about I think it was $320,400 with respect to capital. I think that involved perhaps the desktop computer initiative. Is that your overall cost of implementation of that program for the entire department? Is that the full capital cost?

Mr. Radcliffe: The $320,400 represents the amortization of capital costs across the department for desktop. Yes, for desktop.

Mr. Reid: So that is the amortized costs. What is the real cost then of that particular project for the department?

Mr. Radcliffe: The operating cost on an annual basis is approximately $450,000 a year.

Mr. Reid: That is your operating costs, $450,000 per year, the individual department's. When you say amortized, over what period of time is this amortized?

Mr. Radcliffe: Four years.

Mr. Reid: How many systems were involved?

Mr. Radcliffe: 202 systems.

Mr. Reid: The department, from time to time, because these are, I think what we would reference as dedicated systems made by IBM, proprietary boxes or containers that they are in. Can you tell me, do you do any requirements to do upgrades to any of those pieces of equipment that you would have in your department? Do you get requests from staff, for example, to install a CD-ROM? Because I know the department through Workplace Safety and Health, for example, have produced a ROM disk that is available, and you talked about the deputy minister being involved. There is a ROM with respect to his function, and other staff must have similar needs for that. If those pieces of equipment came minus that CD-ROM, for example, that drive, is it possible for the staff to upgrade that? If so, what would be the cost associated with that particular upgrade?

* (1730)

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that the greater part of the equipment that is in the department, in fact, anticipates issues like the CD-ROM. However, if there were situations that arise from time to time where staff felt that they had a legitimate request or legitimate grounds for a request and advanced that request, it would be evaluated. If there were merit to the request that it, in fact, performed a useful, departmental function that was to the benefit of the department, that would be addressed and granted. So upgrades are possible.

Mr. Reid: Then can you tell me, are there provisions in the contract with the service provider? I think it is Systemhouse who is providing the service for the government on the desktop initiative. What provisions are in place? Does Systemhouse come in and do those upgrades for that equipment? Is there a charge associated with that particular service in addition to the component that they may bring in to upgrade that system?

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes, I am told Systemhouse charges a flat rate of $128 a call, and that covers either a move, an addition to a particular piece of equipment, or an upgrade. So that would be the service cost which would then be added to whatever it was that was being purchased.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me what that service cost would be? Do you have that information available?

Mr. Radcliffe: I think I just said it was $128, which is a flat rate.

Mr. Reid: Okay. Sorry, I missed that.

Mr. Radcliffe: So it is $128, which is a flat rate for a move of equipment, add-on of equipment, or an upgrade.

Mr. Reid: I have heard this, and I am going to ask this right out, and I have heard this from other government areas. I use the example of the CD-ROM that I started with here. To upgrade a CD-ROM into a computer, you can go to a store and buy one for $80. I have been told that, for a government to do this through the Systemhouse contract, it is going to cost upwards of $800 to replace that, including the service charge.

So I am trying to get an understanding here of what changes are involved, what the costs are going to be to the department. Should you have a piece of equipment come in minus or you want to upgrade the hard drive, for example, because you are holding a larger database as you do in many of your functions of your department, I am trying to get an idea here of not only the service charge that is involved but what the charge is going be. Are you just going to pay a retail price for the component, or is there going to be a special price as a result of the contract that has been signed?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am astounded at that information, and I certainly, for my own benefit, will try and find that out as well. But, for the purposes of this examination today, I am advised that this more properly is a question that falls in the realm of Department of Government Services.

Mr. Reid: Well, then, perhaps I will attempt to go into Government Services Estimates and ask that from the minister there. I just do not want to see the department get caught in situations like this, because it can quickly deplete your resources if you have to make any additions or amendments to your hardware equipment that you are using within the department.

If that is the case of the contract that the government has signed, I think it is not in the best interests of the department and, of course, the taxpayer who has to foot the bill, ultimately, for those charges.

I want to ask a question going back–I forgot to ask this question when we were dealing with the surveys–to find out if there are any other surveys with respect to the functions of the Department of Labour. Do you have any projects ongoing or any other surveys that are being undertaken or contemplated at this time?

Mr. Radcliffe: There are no organized surveys or preconceived or predesigned surveys that are being conducted at this point in time in the Department of Labour. However, Workplace Safety and Health, I am told, will, from time to time, on an ad-hoc basis, as the circumstances dictate, do a casual survey of workers in the marketplace where they think it is appropriate for their own individual purposes. But there is nothing organized or concerted at this point in time.

Mr. Reid: I am going back to the cost of the computers here for a minute, because it comes out of your budget costs, no doubt, for which you have to be accountable. We all have to be accountable. If you look at the amortized cost of $320,400 over four years, it works out to just about $1.3 million. I am trying to get a picture here. I mean, I have a rough idea of what computer systems are worth. If you take those 202 systems that you have within your department, even at $2,000, which would be around an average, a little over $2,000 for an average computer system.

Now, I am not sure if you are running Cadillac models in the department or not. I would not expect that would be the case in all functions, but even at $2,000 a piece, we are at $400,000, so I am trying to get an idea here. You have a healthy difference between that. If that is the case, we are at about three times that, so you are about $6,000 per computer system that you are paying through your amortized costs. So I am trying to get an idea here of what is realistic. I have never bought a computer system that was $6,000 yet.

* (1740)

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told there are a number of laptop computers that individuals in the department have, and I referenced those a few minutes ago. Our best knowledge at this point in time is that those run between $3,500 and $4,000 a piece. These are high quality upend upscale machines. The desktop machines probably run $3,000 to $3,500 a piece, and the reason why high quality high-end machines were purchased was that under the Better Systems initiative we are networking right across government, and so you need a quality machine that will be able to accept the capacity or be able to accommodate a demand for the networking capacity.

Then servers are an additional charge as well in the local area networks within the department. The machines that we have got right now, I gather, on the desktops and laptops are what they call Class 1 machines, which is a grade of machine. The requirement, as I say, for Class 1 is because of the network capacity. We have just gone to a SAP method of payroll and accounting, which is mooted to be an improvement on our–

An Honourable Member: We will see.

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes, exactly–on our ability to communicate and perform and function and so the SAP demanded high-end machines as well, so this gives you an idea that in fact we are not looking at $2,000 machines. That would be fine and perfectly adequate for somebody to have a personal database, and say, have a spreadsheet with your personal investments on them or letter writing function or the storing of limited personal data, but in a department such as government departments you require machines of a higher quality, a higher nature.

So that is why the numbers are running the level they are, and I am sure you are talking to somebody who is barely literate in computerese. I can do my own word processing and that is it. So I am not somebody who professes a great deal of technology or skill with regard to doing networking or any of that nature.

I can tell my honourable colleague that I suffered through a network in my law firm once, and I rued the day that I ever let the guy in the door, because it was an aberration.

It is something that I am struggling with, somebody at my age. Now, my children take this in stride and–

An Honourable Member: Hire a teenager. He will pick it up.

Mr. Radcliffe: Exactly. That is what we have got to do, is hire a teenager to turn on the television.

Mr. Reid: I mean the costs seem to be way out of whack for me and even high-end Class 1 machines, as you referenced them, I am not sure if the entire department has Class 1 systems. I am sure your administrative function that does mostly word processing would not have Class 1 machines. It would be a machine that would be structured or set up for that particular purpose, so I still think the cost is exorbitant at $1.3 million over that four-year span. What happens with the equipment at the end of that four years? Does it remain a property of the government or is it ownership by SHL?

Mr. Radcliffe: I believe one of the salient issues in this contract is that the machinery remains the property of SHL, is turned back to SHL, and they replace it with upgraded machinery at that point in time.

Mr. Reid: Will there be a new amortized cost when that equipment is replaced?

Mr. Radcliffe: I think I would have to defer to Mr. Ruberg and the desktop people at this point in time, because I do not have that information.

Mr. Reid: Okay. I recognize that Government Services would probably be able to provide the details on that. The cost recovery of the department the minister referenced was–I think he said it was going to be anticipated to be 61 percent for this current budget year that we are entering. What was the cost recovery for the past year? I know the annual report that we have is for '97-98, but I am wondering if you have the information here with respect to '98-99.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that that percentage is pretty consistent year over year of 61, 62 percent and that it would be in that nature for '98-99 as well.

Mr. Reid: Do you have a list that is available, showing the areas where you get your cost recovery revenues from?

Mr. Radcliffe: Apparently this information comes out of the Department of Finance. We supply them our inputs, and we then get a copy of the report on it. We certainly would be happy to supply that to my honourable colleague when we receive it.

Mr. Reid: Have you reduced the workload in the Labour/Management Services Division?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that a voucher processing clerk position was eliminated. The reason that position was eliminated was because of the advent of SAP, and the individual was retrained and retooled and went on as an Employment Standards officer.

* (1750)

Mr. Reid: So the individual then was not laid off or without a job, and we did not eliminate a position as a result of someone taking retirement, for example; so is still deployed elsewhere within the department then.

Mr. Radcliffe: Correct.

Mr. Reid: I think this is still part of the research and policy section as well. The minister's department had a report that came back from the minimum wage advisory board late last year. Of course, the government made an announcement, the ministry made an announcement, with respect to the changes to the minimum wage in the province.

There were other recommendations that were a part of the minimum wage report that came forward dealing with several other issues. Unfortunately, I did not bring the copy of that report here with me because I know I had asked the department for a copy of it and they would not release it. I am not sure why you would not release it, but it nevertheless somehow turned up and we were able to see some of the recommendations that were in there.

One of the recommendations referenced the fact that we needed to look at a long-term process that would allow for an orderly change in the way the minimum wage is adjusted in the province. That was part of the recommendations that were in there. I believe that came from the chairperson, the government's appointed chairperson to that board as well. I am wondering what consideration has been given to having the minimum wage adjusted in an orderly fashion.

Even the business community has called for that because they do not like to see larger adjustments in the minimum wage which creates compounded hardship for them, and, no doubt, it affects the bottom line. Wage costs, labour costs, always do, and there is some concern about larger amounts going up, so if there is a process that was in place to adjust that on a more uniform basis, an annual or a biannual process, that that would take place.

Is any consideration being given in the department to amending the minimum wage act to allow for that process to occur?

Mr. Radcliffe: I think that really what we are embarking on here right now is a whole discussion and a philosophical treatment of how to maintain inflation in the economy, and how to keep various aspects of the employment sectors balanced so that no one group really gets significantly out of balance with another, given that there is always stimulation from the organized labour side for ever-increasing collective agreement settlements. We can only look right now at the fact that the yardstick or the threshold's improvement in wages right now seems to have been 2, 2 and 2 over a three-year period, with a little bit of extra thrown in, extras for benefits in the workplace environment. Then you have other groups that take a surge up if they are coming off the wage freezes.

So government at this point is being very cautious at building in any automatic multipliers or increase in the minimum wage or any other aspect of wage treatment because the government feels that, if you marry yourself or bind yourself to an automatic process, then you can create a system that gets out of control and you lose the ability to address the matter and apply your discretion on the issue of the moment.

I can give my honourable colleague an example of my last stop when I was in Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and part of my task used to be, on an annual basis, to assist in setting the minimum rise or the unproven rise in rents, the allowable rise in rents, that landlords were able to set in a given year. You can have inflationary costs that lead landlords to demand that they should get something far in excess of the 1 percent, but you can look to this government's progress that it has been 1 percent, 1 percent, 1 percent, 1 percent over a number of years. That has been significantly on the basis that you want to curb inflation.

If you are not paying your civil service, or if you are asking your civil service to take a reduction in pay or a freeze in pay, and if you are asking large elements of the community to take a freeze in pay because costs have got out of hand or debt has got out of hand and you have to take economic readjustments, then if you marry yourself or commit yourself to an automatic multiplier or incremental process for your minimum wage, then you take that out of the discretion of the individuals at that point in time who have their hands on the wheel. So a long-winded way of saying there is no intention at this point in time of committing ourselves to an automatic process of improving the wage.

It is certainly something that I personally intend to keep an eye on and would make recommendations to my colleagues from time to time over the next number of years. So, as we move through the next mandate, it would be something I would bring back to the cabinet table for a suggestion, but I would not want to be handcuffed to an automatic process.

Mr. Reid: So, from what you said then, you see an adjustment to the minimum wage of this province, I think, three times in was it 11 or 12 years as a fair and reasonable expectation or process that the people of Manitoba that are living and working at minimum wage should expect from your government?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am very cautious to respond either affirmatively or negatively to a categorical remark such as my honourable colleague has presented without qualifying it by saying that what is fair and reasonable has to be taken in context to the economics of the time and of what will be the impact of a rise of the minimum wage. When there is a rise in the minimum wage, there is a shadow effect as well that echoes right through industry.

I am sure my honourable colleague is aware that there are a number of employment areas which lever themselves that they may pay 50 cents over minimum or they may pay a set amount over the minimum wage. So, when one raises the minimum wage, not only do you impact the workers that are earning at that level, but you are impacting on a whole myriad of other folk. It has a domino effect right through the workplace, so you have to take into account the strength of the economy at the time you are addressing it. I think the percentage rise that we did effect acknowledges and recognizes the fact that it was very timely and, perhaps, even out of time to address this issue. That is why we did it with such a significant rise.

You have to also take into account, I think, the relative economies of Saskatchewan and Ontario, our neighbours, and the market pools of labour that we are competing with and where they are at. So to say three rises in 11 years, is that fair? On the face of the question, it looks like it could be unreasonable, but I think you have to build in all the aspects of the labour market. Who is impacted by it? What is the ability of employers to pay? What will be the effect on the minimum-wage employers? Will they say if the economy is not robust, then the impact will be, if the minimum wage goes up, that they will reduce the number of minimum-wage employees they have because they cannot afford to pay an expanded rise if they are not receiving the revenues that would be commensurate to meet that sort of a burden?

So it is an interconnected issue, and you have to strike a very fine balance, not only with the people in your own province, but the other groups around you with whom you are competing for that market pool. So I would say probably in reflection, given the exigencies of what we had to suffer in Manitoba in getting a handle on the offloading and the balancing on health care costs, the education costs, the diminution of the CHST transfers, the rises in cost of technology and drugs, all the other things that government was having to address that it probably was, in the overall grand scheme; yes, it was fair.

Mr. Reid: I look at it from a different point of view. I know our time is growing short here. Six dollars an hour, if you work a 40-hour week, I think will pay $12,480 a year. Now, I am not sure which one of us in this room, any one of us, that can live on $12,480 a year. I know I could not do it. I have sat down at the table and I have figured out what it cost to rent a single bedroom or bachelor apartment, the cost of food and clothing and transportation, et cetera. I do not think that even comes close to covering the costs for people that have to live on that, and that is why they have to work at two jobs or have every member of the family that is eligible work at different jobs.

The argument that you used about the impact about they are going to have to cut people, well, I do not know of a business yet that keeps excess people around and is going to have to eliminate them if the minimum wage goes up. So that argument is, I think, not without any significant substance.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The hour now being 6 p.m., committee rise.