Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Labour. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 11.2. (f) (2) on page 115 of the main Estimates book.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairman, yesterday when we were talking about Workplace Safety and Health I had raised issues respecting the Buhler manufacturing, which happens to be, at least in part of their operations, within the community of Transcona. I had raised the issue with respect to Workplace Safety and Health and employee safety involved in that particular plant's operations and had raised the issue of an improvement order that had been issued. I am wondering if the minister and his staff have had a chance to now, a day later, go back and get a copy of that improvement order and if you can provide that for me here today?

Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister of Labour): No, I regret that my honourable colleague did not ask for that order last night. The order is not here. We can undertake to provide him with a copy of the order. With regard to the order, I will put a few remarks on the record with regard to that issue. As I stated yesterday, the order was issued 11 months after an inspection was made. The employer at the particular establishment complained about the passage of time and quite properly so. The order was then withdrawn. The owner said that the conditions which gave rise to the correction order, which was basically dealing with ventilation and employee safety, no longer existed and that certain corrections and improvements in the workplace had been effected since the appropriate inspection had been conducted and so therefore the order was inappropriate.

The department has been in and is, in fact, currently in the workplace dealing with the local safety council and waiting for the safety council to indicate that the current improvements in the establishment have been completed, at which time they will go and effect a follow-up to make sure due diligence is done and that in fact nobody is at risk.

* (1450)

Mr. Reid: You say that there have been improvements in that particular worksite. Could you provide me with the information that you have to support that claim?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the welders in this particular establishment have been changed. They are a different kind of welder from the original kind that was found in place there. I am told that the new welder apparently does not use a hard flux, and so, therefore, the amount of smoke that is produced by the welding function has been reduced. This was one significant change that the owners introduced.

The other issue which the owner has moved to rectify the situation is by reducing the number of welding machines in the plant in the particular area. There are, as I say, prospective ongoing changes that are being discussed, researched and in the process of being implemented, but these are two issues that have already been effected. There will be other ventilation issues that the owners and the safety committee is considering and will be moving on.

Mr. Reid: One of the advantages of working on the railway for 22 years was that you gained some knowledge and some experience working around a lot of welding operations. I can tell you that the railway had many different types of welders. In my 22 years, I never saw one welder that did not produce some smoke in that regard. So I would have to expect that while you say there may be some reduction of smoke based on the new type that would be in place, there was still smoke created as a result of that welding process.

What air sampling have you done? Do you have that information here available that I might see it?

Mr. Radcliffe: My honourable colleague is correct that there is always smoke produced from any welding operation, and we are talking about a matter of degree. We have possession of air sampling reports. They are not here today, but we would be more than pleased to furnish them to my honourable colleague. The other thing is that there have been no current air sampling reports done at this point in time. We are waiting until the current changes that the safety committee is overlooking and overseeing until those are implemented, and then we will go out and do more air sampling tests.

I must advise for the purpose of the record, Mr. Chairman, that the department is working in partnership with the local safety committee to make sure that this issue is a win-win for all parties involved in this particular situation.

Mr. Reid: When was the last air sampling undertaken?

Mr. Radcliffe: That was done over 11 months ago, as I explained to my honourable colleague yesterday, when the initial inspection was done on the premises.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me the date that air sampling was done originally, when you say 11 months ago? Can you also tell me the date that is on that improvement order?

Mr. Radcliffe: The date, we believe, and this is subject to inspection and perusal of the air sampling test that we do not have here today, was done in March '98, and the order was issued in January '99. This is of course subject to the production of the documents for perusal by my honourable colleague.

Mr. Reid: Correct me, if I am wrong. You told me yesterday that 11 months ago that order was issued and we were dealing strictly with the matter of the order yesterday. You indicated that it was outdated by 11 months. The context of my questioning yesterday was surrounding the order between 5:30 and 6 p.m., and now you are telling me that the order was issued in '99 for that particular worksite. Why is there a discrepancy? You are telling me 11 months yesterday, and now you are telling me it is less than 4 months.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am sorry if my honourable colleague misunderstood me, Mr. Chairman. The difficulty that has arisen with this issue is that there was an interval of 11 months. I look on my math, this is a little more than 11 months; oh, no, it is not 11. It is approximately 11 months from the time of the inspection to the time of the issuing of the order. That was the oversight. That is the error that has been caused by the department by virtue of the fact that in all the other cases, in the normal run of the operation of the department, after an inspection is made an order customarily issues forthwith in an expeditious fashion; in this case, it did not. It was personal human error that it did not, and there was a lapse or interval of 11 months from the time of the inspection to the time of the order.

If my honourable colleague has any questions or misunderstanding on that, I would be glad to entertain any further questions, but it is the 11-month interval from the time of the inspection to the time of the order.

Mr. Reid: Well, if you have indicated to me a few moments ago that the last year's sampling that was done for Buhler Industries has been March '98, 11 months ago, and there was an issue that was discovered, I take it, in January of this year, because the order was issued. That is when everything would have fallen apart, from the way you have indicated, or at least would have become familiar and knowledgeable to the senior staff in the department. What steps were taken to go out and to secure a new sampling to make sure that indeed that workplace is a safe place for the people that are working there, particularly in hazardous operations. We know the by-products that come out of welding smoke. In some cases they can be carcinogenic. I would like to know why we have not undertaken air sampling between January and now once we discovered that there was a problem with the process.

Mr. Radcliffe: I want to state most emphatically on the record, I do not want the record to show or even have a scintilla of a hint that there is any carcinogenic material being produced that was shown in these reports. The reports indicated that there was an elevated level of iron and manganese from one welder. That was the profile that raised the concern of the government, that raised the concern of the inspector, and which gave rise to the improvement report.

Immediately upon this whole issue coming to light, a Safety and Health inspector went out to the plant, talked to the local safety committee, received instructions from the local safety committee at that time that the Safety and Health officer was not to proceed with another test until such time as the safety committee called the inspector in after the current improvements were completed.

* (1500)

Mr. Reid: I guess the people that I know that worked as welders for a number of years that have died of cancer, perhaps they did not get it from welding, then. I mean, they only worked in those fields for their whole working careers. Their claims in some cases were approved by the Compensation Board. We know that there are problems with welding smoke and the fumes that are associated with that line of work. So I guess if you say it is not carcinogenic, the next question would be, then, produce the MSDS sheets for those products so that I can see quite clearly what is in those products that are there and what their effect is on human health. That is what I am asking you for here now.

Mr. Radcliffe: And we so undertake to do and, as I say, I wish my honourable colleague had asked for that last night, because we would have then been able to have those today, but we would be more than pleased to produce them. They will be coming forthwith. Thank you.

Mr. Reid: Well, I did ask for information related to departmental travel. Do you have that information here today?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am producing for inspection perusal of my honourable colleague a 1998-99 out-of-province travel budget involving members from the department, Guerra, Griffin, Nikkel, Hildebrand, Nikkel, and Hildebrand covering a number of different destinations in Canada, setting out the particulars of the conferences they attended, the dates they travelled, the projected cost, the actual cost, and the variance and the summary of the same trips. I then am producing as well for my honourable colleagues's inspection and consideration a list of 15 individuals who travelled to a number of different destinations in North America, setting out the names of the conferences that they attended, the dates that they travelled, the cost of the trips, and there is no summary on that one. There is a total set-out of the monies expended.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me, were the findings of that field officer that inspected Buhler Industries in March of '98–there must be some indication on the report back to the management of Workplace Safety and Health. Was there any indication on whether or not the people who were involved in the welding activities or duties in that plant were not utilizing respirators or ventilation equipment as a part of that job function?

Mr. Radcliffe: We do not have that information at hand today, but we anticipate that will be on the report, and it will be forthcoming.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me when you go through your budget development process, were there requests that came from the department of Workplace Safety and Health indicating a need? Was it part of the request process in developing the budget that there was a requirement to have additional equipment for field operations for monitoring, for example, air sampling, dosimeters that you would utilize in the field with respect to noise and other perhaps air sampling equipment? Were the requests received by the department to assist the field officers in that regard?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that in any given year, there are requests that come forward from staff for additional equipment. Staff are always eager to work with new equipment, with further developed equipment. I am told that we have, in the last year, the department of Workplace Safety and Health spent approximately $10,000 on six new dosimeters. We have the capacity, we have the machinery and the technical expertise for measuring radiation, for measuring and testing the components that are found in air–to address the issue that my honourable colleague was just discussing the Buhler incident–and there were some requests for machinery that were turned down. That is governed by the exigencies of what is available in the budget and having in mind, of course, of maintaining a high level of safety, a high level of competence in the department and making sure that all the functions that the department are requested to perform can be completed with the machinery that they have at hand.

Mr. Reid: The minister indicates that there were requests for equipment that were turned down. What type of equipment requests were rejected?

* (1510)

Mr. Radcliffe: We do not have those requests at hand. We would have to go through the list of the inventory of the machinery, which we do not have here at this particular moment, and go back through the records to see what was requested and what was declined. But if my honourable colleague wishes, we certainly are prepared to do that.

Mr. Reid: I would like to have that indication and perhaps–I do not know if you know this off the top of your head or your staff–with respect to air monitoring, air sampling equipment that would monitor CO and CO₂ products and perhaps other sampling equipment that would be involved or used in air sampling, was there a request for that equipment, and if so, was it rejected?

Mr. Radcliffe: We so undertake.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me with respect to the field officer that had done the original air sampling in March of '98 at Buhler, is that officer still assigned to Buhler Industries as part of the general duties or work duties?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that the individual who did the air content inspection was a hygiene inspection officer, not the regular assigned officer. The regular assigned officer for Buhler Industries is in fact still the assigned person who has that plant on that particular person's area of responsibility.

The hygiene officer who did the hygiene survey is still working for the department but is not the assigned officer in question.

Mr. Reid: Then I take it that the hygiene officer was reassigned. Can you tell me the reason for the reassignment?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am sorry. I will try this again. The hygiene officer who did the survey was not the assigned officer for that plant at that time. So this was a sporadic or an intermittent testing. There was an assigned officer at the time that the hygiene officer did the testing. The assigned officer is still the officer, was the officer at the time of the test by the hygiene officer, and is still today the assigned officer. The hygiene officer was not ever on the job or taken off the job, as I understand it. It was just a rotational inspection that do special projects or do projects as they come up.

Mr. Reid: I understand what you are saying, and I understood it the first time. I am trying to understand here because, if you say it is a hygiene officer, and that individual is familiar with that plant's operations, having already been in there and done air sampling, would it not make sense to have that individual continue to do that sampling, which I hope is ongoing, to determine whether or not the operations have improved, as you indicate or suggest, and that we would have more up-to-date information with respect to the conditions of the air quality of that particular plant's operations. I want to know if that hygiene officer is the person who is conducting those samplings.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am told that the occupational hygienist is a support person to the assigned Safety and Health officer. There is a cadre of four of these hygienists. When the time comes when the safety council, safety committee, calls for a retesting in the workplace, if the individual who did the initial survey is available, not dispatched to another task at that point in time, that person would be called upon. But it depends upon the availability of staff at the appropriate time when the test will be conducted.

Mr. Reid: Has the department, the minister, the deputy minister, any of the senior managers in Workplace Safety been in communication with the managers or perhaps the principal of that company with respect to this issue, when the improvement order perhaps was sent to the company? Have there been communications between the branch and any of those people at Buhler Industries?

Mr. Radcliffe: The manager of inspection and the manager of hygiene are the two individuals from the department who have had the opportunity to communicate with individuals at Buhler Industries. I can assure my honourable colleague that I have not talked to anybody at Buhler Industries on this issue or any other issue concerning their workplace and neither has the deputy.

Mr. Reid: I look forward to receiving that information with respect to the Freedom of Information request, and also a copy of the improvement order there, to see more clearly the information that would be available. I would have thought that since we were in discussion of this for some 40 minutes last night, it would have been a normal practice to bring this information back to this committee, knowing that we were going to be resuming our discussions here today. Unfortunately, that did not occur.

I have asked questions here dealing with air sampling. Can you tell me, we have, I believe, standards or regulations in this province dealing with workplace hazardous materials, and you have an information system regulation, when was the last time that those standards were updated in the regulation?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, for my honourable colleague–and I am sure he is very much aware that the standards and regs have not been updated since 1989. However, the hygienists use a document, the acronym for which is ACGIH, which is a best practices document, which is reviewed and updated on an annual basis. This document covers best practices and covers the issue particularly of measurement of contaminants in the air and the particular issue which we were discussing.

Mr. Reid: I understand that that clause is there and it does provide some backup for matters where there are ongoing changes in the standards with the threshold limit values or the short-term exposures, but if we have not updated that regulation since, I think, he said 1989, why would we not have updated it for that point in time?

I look to carbon monoxide. I mean I was just asking about air sampling for carbon monoxide. I mean we have a number or workplaces in this province, whether it be the City of Winnipeg Transit garage just down the street here where buses are parked, and we have high CO levels in that and I have received calls on that. We are going by a standard that says that 50 parts per million is the time-weighted average for that hazardous product, yet under the new information that is available, the time-weighted average is 25 parts per million. In addition to that, the short-term exposure levels under the existing regulations that you have in the act, you are showing 400 parts per million. Under the new information that is available, there is no short-term exposure. It is unsafe.

* (1520)

So I draw it to your attention, and am inquiring why have we not updated the regulations dealing with hazardous products since 1989, as you have indicated?

Mr. Radcliffe: Could I inquire from my honourable colleague what document he is referring to when he makes reference to new and updated standards that he is quoting?

Mr. Reid: The same information that the minister referenced to me, the ACGH-TLVs (threshold limit values).

Mr. Radcliffe: I do not want to quibble with my honourable colleague over words or terminology or practice, but what I would like to put on the record is that the ACGIH threshold level value document, is the working document that the Safety and Health officers use when they are in the field to determine their best practices and the air contamination level. That is a collateral document or a subsidiary document to the standards and regs which has not been updated, but the newer document is the practical, working document that the inspectors use from day to day.

Mr. Reid: With respect to your sampling for carbon monoxide, you can see that there has been a significant change with respect to the standards, and there has been a significant period of time that has elapsed since these regulations were last reviewed and updated or perhaps came into being at that time. I am sure there are other products. If I recall correctly, styrene perhaps is another one that the department may be aware requires some updating with respect to your regulations. People that are working in worksites may not always have the information available at their fingertips when it comes to meeting the requirements of the province that are set down in regulation. If you have old standards that allow employees to be exposed to 50 parts per million and the new research has shown that 25 parts per million, time weighted, would be the maximum allowable level for exposure, no short-term limit on that, you would think you would want to have your officers and the people that are working in workplaces that would look to these regulations as the guide, as the level at which they are supposed to achieve at a minimum.

* (1530)

They do not have always the ability to go out and do that research, and I would think that they may rely to some degree on Workplace Safety and Health to assist in that regard. If the regulations that the officers have indicate that the level is much higher, how do we go along and enforce something if it is not shown in the regulation. If someone were to challenge, if you were to put an improvement order in place and our regulations state–because we are all affected by this–50 parts per million and 400 parts per million on short-term exposure, I am not sure how you are going to back that up in a court should it get to that point. If your regulation is showing one thing, and you are trying to enforce a safer level.

Mr. Radcliffe: In response to my honourable colleague's last question, if a prosecution were going to be based strictly on the material that he had presented, then in fact it would not lie. I am sure my honourable colleague is very much aware that Manitoba Regulation 53 states and sets out that, if there is a hazard in the workplace and an order is issued as a result of a hazard in the workplace, and if that order has not been followed and the particular owner is in contempt of that order, then a prosecution will lie and would be well founded.

So the department, as I have said, has been using an up-to-date handbook, has been using up-to-date and annually adjusted levels for air contaminants, for example, and has the capacity and the ability to lay prosecutions. They would be obliged to prove the contamination–there is no doubt about that–but it is a small job to produce the current handbook which would in itself, I would suggest, be evidence enough in connection with the actual reading that was done and the subsequent facts, if they rolled out as we are anticipating and discussing them, to sustain a conviction.

Mr. Reid: So, if I understand you correctly, we would be then–I know it is hypothetical, or perhaps there are realistic cases that I am unaware of–but we would be prosecuting using the old information that is contained in the regulation, or the courts would accept the new information, even though it is not contained within the regulation.

Mr. Radcliffe: Manitoba Reg 53 says that if there is a hazard in the workplace, the department has the capacity, has the jurisdiction to issue an order ameliorating the hazard. All right. So that is step one. The department uses the ACGIH-TLV from year to year to govern that. So, if they find something which transgresses the particular TLV that is set out in the annual handbook, then they have the option to issue an order. If the order is issued and the workplace is in contempt of that order, then a prosecution can lie. The only thing that is done is that, rather than pointing to the 89 standards and regs, one has to go through the extra step of referring to the ACGIH handbook level.

Mr. Reid: So then I take it there would be no intent or no interest on the part of the branch to update the regulations in this regard to make them current. You just will continue to rely on the best practices that would be identified in that particular manual or book.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, these are issues that are regularly reviewed by the department and would, I would suggest, in our next mandate in the fullness of time be reviewed and considered. I think that discussion could be entertained at that point and updating them.

Mr. Reid: Do you have Schedule E of the regulations here?

Mr. Radcliffe: Which reg?

Mr. Reid: 5288 and 5388.

Mr. Radcliffe: No.

Mr. Reid: Going back to the travel now that you have provided me with this information, which I thank you for, you have indicated on here the cost, and you have dollar amounts that are attached to that. Some of the destinations are blank, some of the dollar amounts are blank–I am not certain why that is–with respect to the travel that was taken.

I am wondering if perhaps you can explain why that information is not on this sheet. Also, the next question is, some of these trips are to, for example, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and the dollar amounts are $126, $128, $134. Does this not include airfare, or are there some costs that are not attached with this? I have not made that many trips, but I know what the cost of an airfare to Toronto and Vancouver is.

Mr. Radcliffe: It is not $134.

Mr. Reid: No, it is not $134. So I am trying to get an understanding of what the costs are.

Mr. Radcliffe: For my honourable colleague and the record, the item set out, the dollar amount set out on these lists actually indicates the amount of money or cost to our department. In many cases, the department did not pay for the actual cost of transportation then. A sponsoring organization of whom our employee was a member or an officer would actually underwrite the cost of the transportation. The actual costs here could be for a hotel room. They could be for meals, or they could be for registrations. But my honourable colleague is quite correct when he says that you cannot fly to Toronto, at least on anything that we would want to sit down in, for $134.53. The CSA underwrote the cost for Mr. Hildebrand to fly round-trip to Toronto, and then he expended on the department's shoulders the sum of $134.53. That is the case in every particular situation.

The second item on unbudgeted out of province, on the second stapled page, the second item, Hildebrand–blank–CSA for $150.77, the destination there was Toronto, and that is just an entry oversight.

Mr. Reid: Sorry for the distraction there. I had some business I had to take care of. I may have missed a part, but you are saying that these are costs in part that are picked up by the bodies or the conferences to which they are attending, and that these are the only true costs that have actually come back to the department's budget line, and that the rest are picked up by the actual conference itself or the committees at which they are meeting.

* (1540)

Mr. Radcliffe: Exactly.

Mr. Reid: Okay. I understand that. With respect to the ergonomists that we had talked about yesterday–and I think you mentioned that $300,000 was supported by the Workers Compensation Board–you have people that are filling that role right now from my understanding of what you mentioned yesterday. Are those ergonomists taken into consideration when you are doing your staff count for the branch, for the Workplace Safety and Health Branch? Is that shown on the budget line, or are these additional people for your operations?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I believe the item we mentioned yesterday was $130,000. The ergonomists are not department employees. They are people who belong to the Workers Compensation Board, and they are seconded to the department or work with the department in co-operation with our departmental people, but they are paid for by the Workers Comp Board.

Just so I do not mislead my honourable colleague, there are two departmental ergonomists who are in the book, who are line employees, but then the additional individuals come from the outside.

Mr. Reid: At the beginning of this Labour Estimates process, I asked about vacancies and secondments in the department. It is not unusual to see vacancies that exist as people move in and out of government service or shift in between departments, but when there are positions that are vacant for a period of time, obviously there are staff dollars that are attached to those positions. If you say, for example, if a position is vacant for two or three months, what happens with those staff dollars? Is the department able to reallocate those dollars to perhaps operational use, or is that money only reserved strictly for staffing costs, and is that part of the $60,000 that the minister mentioned yesterday that was lapsed money for the department?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labour has what is known as delegated authority, and I am led to believe that this enables the deputy minister to move money from staff positions to operations or back again as the exigencies of the operating of the department require or demand. It is not a case where money would lapse because money was frozen in a staff position.

Mr. Reid: So, then, if you have operational difficulties within a department and a job is vacant or it becomes vacant for a period of time, it may be advantageous for a department to hold those jobs vacant to be able to utilize those funds for other purposes on the operating side, for example. Perhaps the minister can comment on that.

Mr. Radcliffe: I would suggest that question is highly speculative and, in fact, does not have a logical base to it because if you have operational difficulties, you need the staff component in order to solve the difficulties. So trying to cut staff to get more operational money does not seem to flow. If my honourable colleague has a particular case in point, I would ask him to present it.

Mr. Reid: Using, for example, the point we were commenting on a few moments ago with respect to the request for monitoring equipment, whether it be air sampling equipment, noise testing or other equipment that the department would use for its field officers or hygienists working in the department, those monies in fact then could be utilized for such a situation. Since you mentioned that you had $60,000 that lapsed within your department, I guess, I would inquire from which part of the department did that $60,000 come from? Was there any indication given from the minister or the deputy to the various branches within Labour to make them aware that if there were difficulties that they were experiencing, or they needed certain pieces of equipment to allow them to continue to perform their role or function, that those monies could be utilized for such a purpose?

Mr. Radcliffe: I guess, I would like to at this point, in response to my honourable colleague's question, reflect a little bit on perhaps a fundamental difference between my honourable colleague and his associates and my colleagues and my perspective in administration of a department. My honourable colleague has raised the question and says, well, if you have $60,000 on one hand and if you have requests for additional technology and additional machinery and additional improvements, despite the fact that you may be performing the function perfectly adequately, if you have the money, you should spend it.

I respond to it by saying that in fact the deputy minister is very frugal, is very efficient and says that just because you have the money, you do not have to spend it. You in fact have an obligation to be frugal to make sure that you perform at a high level of service, but do not spend money for the sake of spending it. That, I think, is perhaps a very significant wedge issue and a philosophical difference between my honourable colleague and his associates and perhaps this administration. The question as to where this money comes from I think is quite appropriate. Employment Standards lapsed $40,000 and, these figures are approximate, Labour adjustment lapsed $20,000. The reason for the lapsing in the Employment Standards was that monies were designated for the rewrite of the labour code and due to timing and good accounting practices. By the time the code was issued, we were unable in that particular year to spend the money even though the money was available. So that is why the money lapsed, but it had been earmarked for purposes of the code.

* (1550)

Mr. Reid: So the $40,000 you indicated from Employment Standards, is that the dollars that had been allocated to the rewriting of the code?

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes.

Mr. Reid: With respect to the equipment and the philosophical differences between our two parties, you must be aware that there should be some serious consideration with respect to the impact of the decision you are having on the workplaces go far beyond the politics of the situation. If we have people that are being injured on the job–and I can only reference back to the minister's own five-year annual report, five-year plan from the Workers Compensation Board that says for the last two years running we have had the highest lost time accident rate in the country. That tells me we have a problem. I think we need to deal with that on more than just a political level. We need to deal with that on the humanitarian level and how we are affecting the workplaces.

When we have requests coming in from our officers in the field looking for some assistance and equipment to allow them to perform their duties to the best of their ability and to ensure those safe workplaces, I think we have a responsibility to consider those fairly. If you have monies that are available, it is not a question of spending every single dollar you have there. If they need equipment, because I am also being advised–and I do not know what you are being told by your senior staff. I am also told there were problems with respect to trying to get equipment repaired last year because there was no money available. So if you have antiquated equipment or equipment that is outdated or equipment that you cannot get repairs done to, our officers, our hygienists cannot get the job done. When they ask, if they put in a request for new equipment, then perhaps you would want to give consideration to allow for a regeneration of the equipment within the department so we do not have to go along and all of a sudden have to find a big block of capital dollars to go out and make the purchases, that we do it over a period of time and continue to regenerate or renew the equipment that we have within the operations.

Your government is not going to be there forever. Our government, if we assume office in the near future, we are not going to be there forever, but we would hope that there would be a reasonable plan that would be in place to allow for some capital purchases for renewal of the equipment and have the latest technology available to be able to detect more quickly perhaps and more accurately the events of a workplace.

That is why I raise it, not from the point of view of trying to spend every last nickel for the department, but where they have requests that come in. Because you have not given me that list yet, I do not know exactly. I am only hearing things that are with respect to two or three different types of pieces of equipment that would be common pieces of equipment to be utilized in a number of workplaces throughout the province. One would think that there would want to be some renewal in that process. So I guess you can choose to play your politics. I look at it more from the safety side of it and the impact that it is having on the workplace.

When I have asked for the information related to those pieces of equipment, I was serious about wanting to make sure that they have within financial limitations. I understand there has to be some responsibility in that regard. I have never ducked or denied that, but I also recognize that we have to make sure that we have an obligation, duty and responsibility to the people that do that work on our behalf, that we provide them with the best possible tools within the dollars that are available. If you have money that has lapsed in there and there have been requests, then I have to question why those dollars, if you have that latitude to reallocate, why that was not undertaken, or to at least survey the department to find out if there are other needs that are in place that perhaps could be addressed?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I guess I would want to be responsive to a number of issues that my honourable colleague put on the record a few minutes ago with regard to highest-lost injury rate time. In fact, I challenge him on that; that is not the case. The Workers Compensation Board could change their statistics significantly if they were to impose a waiting period of time. We choose not to do that because the Workers Compensation Board has the best interests of the injured worker at heart and so for my honourable colleague to use those statistics which we have already discussed previously, with the greatest of respect, I would suggest is a remark that is politically laden, and that he, himself, is playing politics with this issue.

With regard to the substance of his question, I concur with him, as do management here, that regular renewal of inventory is a prudent managerial function, and that, in fact, does go on year in, year out, in the management of the Workplace Safety and Health and in the area of hygiene, which is the particular area of interest to my honourable colleague. In fact, last year, the department spent in the neighbourhood of $30,000 for renewal of the type of equipment that we are talking about.

My honourable colleague raises the issue specifically of repairs–I am sorry?

An Honourable Member: He said it was $10,000.

Mr. Radcliffe: That was for dosimeters. My honourable colleague has questioned my quoting of the figure $30,000 when I had previously mentioned $10,000. I mentioned $10,000 earlier for dosimeters, but overall, I am told, the Workplace Safety and Health in hygiene products spends approximately $30,000 a year on regular upgrades, regular purchases, regular acquisitions of equipment. I do not think that my honourable colleague is advocating for a moment that the department go out and buy dream machines or machines of the latest technical buzz just because they are there and happen to exist. That has to be the fine line of management that they have to distinguish between what adequately and properly does the job for employees in the workplace in Manitoba.

We are of the opinion that in fact the worker in Manitoba is properly and adequately protected in the environment in which he functions today. When my honourable colleague cites a figure of 6,000 injuries from the Workers Comp records and tries to relate that to a suspected or alleged dearth of equipment, I would suggest that is a quantum leap and does not bear the scrutiny of logical argument or logical advocacy. If my honourable colleague can present a case in point where there is an equipment request that has been turned down and there is not an adequate substitute for it or an adequate piece of machinery, I would invite him to bring that situation forward to the table because of course that is of concern.

* (1600)

With regard to repairs, the management of the department tell me that they do manage their repairs. So, if at the end of March of any given year equipment comes in for repair, the repair budget may well be exhausted or getting very low at that particular point in time. So they will do their best efforts to move that repair bill over into the next year, which I would suggest is only prudent management. I am sure that if my honourable colleague were a manager of a particular department, he would do the same thing. He indicates he was one for 12 years. I am sure that if one were to look back on his purchasing record and repair records that he would have employed much of the same sort of management skills.

So I do not want to have the records show for a moment that there is any scintilla of doubt that the level of inventory in the department of Workplace Safety and Health in any way is related to the level of accident loss, time loss or that members of the public are in jeopardy in their workplace, because in fact the department is well equipped and the officers are hard working and do their job very well.

Mr. Reid: Well, I never doubt that the people that you have working in the department do the job to the best of their ability. That would be my expectation, and I am sure the public's as well.

When we have an emergency response, we have field officers that would go out and perhaps are on call and that they would respond to a call. If that call happens to be in Steinbach or Morden, for example, where do we dispatch our field officers from, our health and safety officers? Are they dispatched from Winnipeg or would they be assigned from some other location to attend a scene, for example, if you have a chemical spill?

Mr. Radcliffe: I am pleased to advise that Manitoba Safety and Health is unique in Canada in having an on-call desk which is available seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Basically what this is is a dispatch service with two officers in the city of Winnipeg who are available and accessible at all times that they are on shift or on duty, at the end of a pager. There are also officers available in Teulon, Beausejour, Brandon, Thompson, and Flin Flon.

In addition, this on-call service also co-ordinates and links into Natural Resources, Health, Environment, and the Office of the Fire Commissioner, so that if there is, say, a chemical spill on a highway or a train or something of that nature, there are a multitude of different support services and response teams that can be initiated to attend for remedial action.

Mr. Reid: Are there situations that would require, if you are an officer, for example, who attends a scene and you have an emergency response situation that would require a hygienist, would you have circumstances that would occur like that and that we would have to call out a second officer to deal with matters perhaps more in keeping with the duties and responsibilities assigned to them?

Mr. Radcliffe: Sorry, I will ask my honourable colleague to repeat the question. I do not understand the nature of the question.

Mr. Reid: Are there circumstances, particularly involving hazardous materials, that would require a hygienist? If your Safety and Health officer is on call and is required to attend a scene, pick a place, Morden, pick Steinbach, as communities. If you dispatch, for example, from Winnipeg, you said Teulon, Beausejour, Brandon, Thompson. I guess you could dispatch from Beausejour down to Steinbach.

Mr. Radcliffe: But say Winnipeg.

Mr. Reid: Say Winnipeg. If there is a requirement, would you also dispatch a hygienist to come from that location as well? Are the hygienists assigned only to the city of Winnipeg, or are they also in other areas of the province?

* (1610)

Mr. Radcliffe: There are six hygienists located in the city of Winnipeg and one hygienist located in the city of Brandon. I am told by the department that their experience has been that if a hygienist is required at the scene of an accident or at the scene of a hazardous spill or an incident, the hygienist is then dispatched from the city of Winnipeg or the city of Brandon, depending on the location.

However, the nature of such an event is such that often other services are called upon first, be they Natural Resources or Fire Commissioner, and the hygienist would be called upon through the course of the handling of the incident.

Mr. Reid: So then I take it the hygienists are not on call, that they would be available if necessary, but are they on call at the same time as we would have for the Safety and Health officers?

Mr. Radcliffe: They are on call as well.

Mr. Reid: It has been brought to my attention that there was a young woman that passed out at work as a result of glue spray adhesives–spray-on glue, it is an adhesive–and that, of course, when the first responders from the City of Winnipeg Fire Department are called in situations like that, most likely 911, they also have an obligation I believe to contact the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, and whoever the on-call person is should attend.

It is my understanding that there have been difficulties, at least one, in this case, where there was difficulty getting in touch with the officer involved in a situation like that. I am wondering here, would we have a hygienist who would be able to respond in a situation like that? If so, each of these officers, when they are on call, are they assigned vehicles, or do they use their own vehicles and are provided mileage? How do we get them to the scene?

Mr. Radcliffe: In response to my honourable colleague's inquiry, the inspection officer, the Safety and Health officer, has a government vehicle. The hygienists drive their own vehicle as the secondary officer. Without knowing more of the specifics of the particular difficulties, you know, time, date, place, et cetera, I could not comment further on the anecdotal evidence that my honourable colleague has introduced, but if he wishes to supply it, we are certainly more than happy to follow up on it if, in fact, there is something we can do to improve the system.

Mr. Reid: This has been brought to my attention. I can give you the time, it was about 9 p.m., so there was some difficulty. The date I do not have with me here. I have that information downstairs. I do not have it here with me right now. I can get that information. The young woman was overcome by the fumes and, of course, there was a situation there where the first responders came and the course they would call out because there were materials that perhaps could be considered hazardous that were involved. [interjection] Yes, it was. Winnipeg Fire Department was involved. There was some problem getting hold of the officer on call.

I am looking for an understanding here. When we have our hygienists and our Safety and Health officers on call, how many vehicles does the branch have to provide to their officers? I guess we pay some of them mileage for the use of their own vehicles during regular working hours. Do we have vehicles for use in the department, the branch, for on-call duties like that that perhaps are available through Fleet Vehicles that we would show in the budget here, or is it always cases where they would use their own vehicles?

Mr. Radcliffe: There is one vehicle available to the Workplace Safety and Health officer, which is rotated to the individual who will be the on-call person in the city of Winnipeg. That person uses the emergency vehicle, which is the departmental vehicle, in the city of Winnipeg or to the environs. Individuals outside the city of Winnipeg use their own vehicle. The hygienists in all cases use their own vehicle.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that understanding. I am not sure how it functioned within the department. I guess we would compensate our officers, our hygienists, whoever is required to use their own vehicle. We would compensate them no doubt with mileage according to The Civil Service Act, I think. There is an allowance that is set out.

To go back, if I might, for a moment, you have given me the travel costs for last year. Perhaps you have had some travel from the department for this current year and you have some that is planned or anticipated. Do you have a list of information that may be available in that regard that I might have a copy of?

Mr. Radcliffe: I have for my honourable colleague's approval and review and inspection, I should say, the 1999-2000 approved out-of-province travel plan indicating the names of the individuals who will be travelling, the event or justification, in other words, the destination they are going to. These are the names of organizations, the date of travel, the cost of travel, and the location or destination. The total indicated budgeted amount is $12,800.

Then there is a second sheet, which is 1999-2000 approved out-of-province travel plan, no cost to department for WSH. Again, it sets out the names of the individuals, the events they are attending, the date they attend, no cost, and it indicates either no cost or the sponsoring organization and the location or destination of the individuals.

Mr. Reid: With respect to the budget line item, there are two lines actually, the managerial and the professional/technical. The minister knows that my math is not the best for examples that I have used in the past. In my rough calculations I have looked at the numbers year over year changes. In the managerial side, there has been a 4.3 percent increase for the same number of staff years, and in the professional/technical side there is a 2.7 percent increase. If my math is accurate, could you give me an understanding of the changes that are there and why one is 4.3 and one would be 2.7?

* (1620)

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, there has been the reduction in workweek unpaid holidays and then the general 2 percent rise which are the normal variation, which I am sure my honourable colleague is aware. He is pointing to, in fact, changes and variations in the salary lines, I believe, over and above those computations. In fact, the one particular issue that my deputy has indicated is that we had a Safety and Health officer who retired at the top end of the salary scale and was replaced with somebody at the lower end, a senior person who retired from a particular category and was replaced with somebody of a lower down the pay scale in the same category.

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

I have received the latest copy–I think it is the latest copy–of WorkSafe!, and once again we see a picture of the minister on the front of it.

Mr. Radcliffe: And a charming picture it is.

Mr. Reid: I will not dispute that part. I am sure we will leave it to others to pass judgment on that.

Is it a standard practice of the workplace safe people who publish this to put a minister's life history on such a publication like this, other than just advising those who are involved who may have an interest in knowing who the new minister is versus such an intense amount of information with respect to background, with respect to your wife's name, you know, your family, your career choices, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera? Is that standard practice of the branch to do such publications?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, in response to my honourable colleague's inquiry, I am told that, yes, this is common policy, that this has been employed for at least the last 10 years. Different individuals from the department indicate that they can remember and recall Mr. Harapiak, who was a previous incumbent in this position, issuing similar sort of publications containing similar content.

Mr. Reid: Well, I am interested in that. Could you send me a copy of that then?

Mr. Radcliffe: I said there was a recollection of that, and I will conduct inquiries. If that document exists, we would be more than pleased to furnish it to my honourable colleague.

Mr. Reid: Well, I know that the branch is–or at least they tell us they are very good at their record keeping, and they would not want to throw away any publications that would have some historical value to the department for at least a reference. Even if you only have one copy or sample available, perhaps you could photocopy it and send it over to me; that would be appropriate, as well. If that is the case, I would look forward to receiving that.

Mr. Radcliffe: I would be delighted so to do.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me who does the actual work on the publication? Who is the editor? Who works to gather the information and putting that together for the department? Who gives final approval for this to be going to press and then for distribution?

Mr. Radcliffe: I believe the name of the publisher is contained within the document, if my colleague would peruse it, and I am also advised that the executive director of Workplace Safety and Health is the senior technical authority who does the final review and issues the final approval before the document is published.

Mr. Reid: Well, I just seemed to recollect, Mr. Chairperson, that I had a call from Mr. Blackburn, I think is the name, working within the branch, who called me last year, looking for some information, some quotes and did an extensive interview. Then, of course, the story was never published, so it is interesting how the events turn within the Workplace Safety and Health branch, and I guess I will leave that matter to be dealt with at a future date, a future time to find out in more detail how this is set up and how it functions. I will leave that for that part, and if the minister can send along the information dealing with his claim that there is a history of this, I would appreciate receiving that information so I might make myself aware of that as well.

Mr. Radcliffe: I do not want to deceive my honourable colleague with regard to the recollection of one of the employees with regard to Mr. Harapiak, there was a recollection that he had seen Mr. Harapiak on a previous document back at the time when that would have been published, and if we do have a copy of that publication, we would be more than pleased to share it with my honourable colleague plus any other back copies that we may have.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, that would be fine if you have that information available to forward it to me. With respect to the out-of-province travel costs that you have just provided for this year '99-2000, there are a number of people that will be travelling, and it indicates there will be no cost for some of those conferences and their locations, one is Fredericton, New Brunswick. I take it then, in those cases, the individual conferences will be picking up the costs for the individual to travel to those particular locations and participate in those activities?

Mr. Radcliffe: Yes, that assumption is correct.

Mr. Reid: Okay, that is all I have on that part.

Mr. Chairperson: 11.2.(f)(2) Other Expenditures $773,400–pass.

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

* (1630)

Mr. Reid: I have had a chance in the past to raise this matter with previous ministers of Labour, and it involves Occupational Health and safety involving firefighters. Now the minister may or may not have been made aware of ongoing problems that the firefighting forces in the province are having with respect to illness, occupational diseases that they would encounter as a result of the performance of their duties. I mean, I can produce a foot-high pile of files and studies that have been done on occupational diseases involving firefighters and the risk factor, the risks that are associated with the performance of those jobs. To this point in time, it is my understanding that firefighters are continuing to have a great deal of difficulty for those who die as a result of diseases such as cancer, and I am talking rare forms of cancer to a large degree.

Can you tell me, has the Occupational Health branch undertaken any studies? Are you working in conjunction with the Workers Compensation Board to re-evaluate or to look at ways to restore some justice or fairness for the surviving families of the firefighters? Just last Friday I had the occasion to attend a funeral for a firefighter in Stonewall, 48 years of age, died of cancer. There have been four others. There is another one, I am told, that is near death at this point. My understanding is that the surviving families have not had the opportunity to receive Workers Compensation benefits.

Now this would be more appropriate perhaps in that regard to deal with that in that committee, but I am looking at it from the research side with respect to the illnesses and diseases they contract in the performance of their duties and whether or not the branches look at the involvement, for example, that some of the by-products that arise out of a fire will actually go through the rubber suits that the firefighters wear and the product is then absorbed by the skin, and then of course there is a latency period that is involved, from what I can read in studies. Then the cancers develop some years down the road. If you thought that firefighters were encountering these diseases in keeping with the normal level of mortality rates of the general population, we would think that, okay, it is normal diseases of life and that we would not expect to be looking for any other causes, but in the studies that I have seen, there is an increased number of cases exceeding the average for the general population. I am wondering what work the Occupational Health branch is doing to look at ways that we can effect some change with respect to how firefighters deal with their involvement in these hazardous situations and whether or not there are steps that the ministry can take with respect to involving the Occupational Health Branch if they are not already talking to the Workers Compensation Board to look at the two working together to try and deal with prevention of the diseases in the first place, but, in addition to that, looking at subsequent financial protection for the families on the other side of the equation.

Mr. Radcliffe: I believe that my honourable colleague does raise some issues that are very current and are subject to discussion and may very well, quite properly, form the subject of further discussions when we reconvene the committee to talk about Workers Compensation Board. I would be quite happy, at that point with the Workers Compensation Board people here, to carry on with that discussion. With regard to Occupational Health and safety, there is no independent research conducted by the department at this point in time, principally because neither the firefighters themselves nor the Workers Compensation Board has requested any assistance from the department. The department has not initiated any spontaneous or voluntary research on this issue. I believe that the issue has been significantly researched and that there is a significant body of knowledge. It is knowledge that is pro and con the topic. I look forward to seeing how this evolves, as I am sure it will. If we scientifically can prove that there is causal connection between occupational environment, such as my honourable colleague has related, and it can be empirically proven, then quite properly the compensatory bodies or other arms of government may take appropriate action, but at this point in time the short answer is no.

Mr. Reid: I know we are debating the extent of your budget for this year; you say you have no process in place to continue with that research or to look at a way of resolving that matter. Is there a way that we can look at perhaps communicating between Occupational Health and Safety? I look to our sister province next door, Saskatchewan. It was last year that they started the process to move towards an occupational disease panel. I have raised this at this committee in past Estimates process. They were moving in that direction. I believe the province of Ontario had or still has an occupational disease panel that would look at those very types of situations and would do the necessary studies, conduct the literature reviews, and then formulate an opinion or make a decision with respect to how we handle cases like those involving firefighters.

I am wondering whether or not it is possible for the Occupational Health Branch to work in harmony or conjunction with the Workers Compensation Board to strike a process that would function much in the same manner as the occupational disease panel was intended in Saskatchewan and make that one of the issues that would be first on the list for consideration.

Mr. Radcliffe: For point of clarification, is my honourable colleague asking, Mr. Chairman, that Occupational Health and the WCB conduct scientific research on the issue or just a literary review of established authorities in the field of people who have already done research and reported on this?

Mr. Reid: The information that is available is a very small part anecdotal and very large part facts of experiences of various jurisdictions in North America, firefighting jurisdictions in North America. So there is a fair amount of literature that is available. What I am asking for here, the Workers Compensation Board–and maybe I should ask this question, when we dealt with the Federal Pioneer employees and their high cancer levels, pancreatic cancer, et cetera, and there was some resolution of that matter where the surviving widows in this case received compensation survivor benefits.

* (1640)

But it was research work that was undertaken by Dr. Annalee Yassi. I do not know if the Occupational Health Branch was involved in that, whether that was done strictly when the doctor was involved with the Occupational Health Centre and was funded solely by the Workers Compensation Board. I know there are people in this province, at least one that has some experience in dealing with matters, and I am sure there must be others in the province that have experience in dealing with research matters like that. They have that capability.

I am wondering whether or not the Occupational Health Branch, because they have a certain amount of expertise and that is their area of responsibility, could work in harmony or conjunction with the Workers Compensation Board to strike this study and this project that would look at what is happening. What is our experience with our firefighting forces in the province of Manitoba with respect to illness and injury and, in particular, where our firefighters succumb to disease like cancer? I know there are others involving heart and lung as well, and that is in part why we introduced our heart and lung private member's bill.

Mr. Radcliffe: So to retry and recap my honourable colleague's remarks, what he is asking is: is Occupational Health perhaps either alone, freestanding or in conjunction with the Workers Comp Board prepared or capable or have they in mind to strike a project that will do analytical research or anecdotal research of the working experience of firefighters with regard to rare cancers or debilitating disease in Manitoba?

I think my honourable colleague, Mr. Chairman, raises some very interesting issues and these are issues of much public concern at this point in time in our community. The department of Occupational Health is not at the current time undertaking such a discourse or inquiry or research. I believe that the appropriate body of information, the appropriate academics, the appropriate people with the resources who could come up with some empirical data on this issue are perhaps Dr. Annalee Yassi that my honourable colleague has quoted. We are familiar with some of her work or even the Workers Compensation Board.

As I say, it would be very interesting to continue this discourse from a Workers Comp basis when we next convene, because my honourable colleague does raise the issue of the compensatory level to families that have suffered this particular loss. At the present time, Occupational Health, and I repeat basically my previous answer that we have not been asked by anybody at this point in time, so anything else other than that would be speculative. It is a fascinating topic. It is something that I am sure will roll out in the fullness of time.

Mr. Reid: Then perhaps since you have no allocation in this year's budget and it says in the supplementary Estimates, page 36, that you develop and analyze multidatabases to determine patterns of occupational injury and illness at workplaces, perhaps you can provide for me background information relating to those statistics and the data that you keep in that regard so that I might have a clearer understanding of what is contained in that database.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, in response to my honourable colleague's request, to amplify the bullet or the first line under Activity Identification, "Ongoing development and analysis of multiple data bases to determine patterns of occupational injury," I am advised that the Occupational Health department does use the Workers Compensation Board database. It uses the Manitoba Cancer Treatment Foundation database, and uses a number of occupational-designated, occupational research databases that are designated by the Department of Labour, for example, phosphates in agriculture or out of lead-based industries that have been designated by the department, and tries to relate these and do the research to follow the appearance of various independent or different cancers which do appear amongst workers. These are the clusters, and that is the general object and focus of the research that is done by Occupational Health that is referred to in that paragraph.

* (1650)

Mr. Reid: Well, then if you gathered that information, is it possible for you to–maybe I should ask how extensive the information is. If it is a file a foot high, we obviously would not have the time to go through that in any detail; but, if you have something that is in condensed form or version that would provide us with some background understanding or information, how we might look at the mortality rates, for example, of the general population, or if you have broken it down by sectors of the economy, for example, or individual areas of employment like firefighting and do a comparison between that and police, for example–I am not sure if you have that detail–but if you do, I would appreciate some information in that regard.

Mr. Radcliffe: The department does not have anything on chronic disease causing death or morbidity, but I do have for the perusal and consideration of my honourable colleague some reports on the Manitoba farm-related fatalities which is a report that would not come through the Workers Compensation Board because of course this area is not covered. It is first of all the farm-related fatalities '83 through '98, traumatic injuries in the workplace, which is a pie chart which shows 46 percent of the fatalities in the province are farm related, 7.9 out of manufacturing, logging has 3.6, mining 14.4 and construction 17.6. So that is getting closer to what my honourable colleague was looking at with his interest of the occupational areas, and that is as far as this information goes that we have.

I have got a report on farm-related injuries related to out-patient, hospitalization and fatalities, so that is the resulting sequence of these incidents and then a comparison of various databases of agricultural injury profile of ages of people that suffer injury. The farm injury hospitalization is also another pie chart that is available here which I would share with my honourable colleague. I also have, for the committee's perusal and consideration, the Manitoba mining industry time loss injury frequency and annual fatalities, and so the similar pie charts, and then a consideration of traumatic fatalities in this area of occupation '74 through '98, '83 through '98 and related other sort of pictures of different years that are used in the Province of Manitoba.

So this would be not dead-on, but it is touching on the issue that my honourable colleague is asking.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for the information. I will look at it in a few moments when it returns to us. I will not dwell too long on this area. I will just leave with the minister that I think that there is a need to look at the development of an occupational disease panel within the province utilizing the experts that are available for us.

I told his predecessors of my interest in this area. I continue to have that interest because I think that if we just take steps to deal with the effect of accidents and not looking at the cause of it, then I think we are missing the prevention point which I would hope would be the interest and the objective of the Occupational Health Branch, the Workplace Safety and Health, the Workers Compensation Board, mine safety, et cetera. That is why I raise this issue from that perspective. I will leave that at that point with the minister and hope that if there is other information with respect to databases that you have that may be available at some other point–you may not have the information here–that perhaps you could send it to me so I might be able to have a comparison between the population's statistical data that you have and be able to see for myself first-hand those comparisons.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 11.2. Labour Programs (g) Occupational Health (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $223,200––pass; (2) Other Expenditures $39,800––pass.

11.2.(h) Mines Inspection.

* (1700)

Mr. Reid: Last year I had raised the matter of I think you eliminated a position with respect to mines prevention officer. I forget the actual title of the job that was eliminated last year. Perhaps you could refresh my memory on that, but can you tell me: did the mining industry take up the task and the work that had been done by that individual? The mines rescue co-ordinator was the name of the position.

Did the mining industry take up responsibility for those duties and actually implement the work within the various operations through the province?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, yes, my honourable colleague is correct that the mining industry has taken up the slack in this particular case. There is an individual by the name of Barrie Simoneau, who is the president of the Mines Accident Prevention Association of Manitoba who does perform an educational instruction process or function. This individual is paid for by the mining association, so that the safety information is disseminated in an appropriate fashion. The training is disseminated in an appropriate fashion.

Mr. Reid: It is my understanding that there is a mines rescue contest that is held. Could you tell me the results of that particular contest? How many teams were involved, how many teams passed the contest, which is dealing with mines rescue? Also give me the amount of time that is involved in the test, and the times for any teams that may have passed.

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, apparently there were six teams involved. Everybody in their particular area and category did pass. It was a two-day event. The first day was an examination of the individual teams regarding their knowledge base and knowledge of their equipment, demonstration of their equipment. The second day was an actual simulation of a mine rescue, so that apparently there was a layout in an arena and the individual teams would then simulate the actual rescue that would have occurred in a crisis situation on the site.

The winner was Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting from Flin Flon, and the runner-up was Britannia Mine from Snow Lake.

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

You reference that six teams all passed, and that was the first day, I take it, that he was talking about. Can you tell me, what were the results of the simulated mine rescue?

Mr. Radcliffe: Apparently the actual results, the gradings after the contest, are destroyed. They are not kept. But there is a subsequent review with Mr. Simoneau and the Accident Prevention Association of Manitoba group who will be reviewing the performance of all the teams in Pinawa later on this month. Reflecting on the experience, the members of the department did have an opportunity to observe the contest. The personal interpretation or personal evaluation–or observation, I guess, would be the best word–but the personal observation of members of the department were that, in fact, everybody showed a significant degree of competence and expertise.

* (1710)

Mr. Reid: Well, if the results were destroyed, how can you review performance?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Simoneau, I am told, has his impressions, has his observations, has his records and notes that are available to him, and he will be sharing these with some of his colleagues. The actual grade allocations that were allotted to the individual contestants are the records that have been destroyed.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me on the simulated rescue, was there a time factor that was involved and did all of the teams meet the time factor?

Mr. Radcliffe: Apparently, Mr. Chairman, there was a time factor involved. One team performed and completed their tasks outside the allocated time limit, and one team withdrew because they felt that their performance was going to take them to that direction, so they actually withdrew from that aspect of the performance. So, therefore, that would leave four teams who did complete the exercise within the allocated time parameters.

Mr. Reid: Those that met the parameters on the time, did they meet all of the criteria set down in the contest for the simulated mine rescue?

Mr. Radcliffe: The short answer to that is yes, but there obviously were a winner and a runner up. So they met them to varying degrees of competence and expertise.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Simoneau I think was the name you mentioned. He is part of the mines association. Has he taken on responsibility for training for mines rescue co-ordination for the different mining operations in the province? If so, can you provide me with some information on perhaps his activities, or is that contained solely within the mining association?

Mr. Radcliffe: My honourable colleague is correct that Mr. Barrie Simoneau is employed by the mining association. Apparently, he is an individual of some significant standing in this field of expertise. He has had 20 years of experience. I am told he has a status or academic background. My honourable colleague, I guess, indicates that he is familiar with this particular individual's personal criteria. He performs an ongoing function of instructing and reviewing and assisting each individual mine instructor throughout the course of the year, as well, on a rotating and intermittent basis with each mine to make sure that the equipment is up to snuff, that the instructors in each individual mine are performing their functions and are fully equipped and knowledgeable in the area of mine rescue.

Mr. Reid: As a part of that contest, was there a written text component to it and, if so, for the six teams that I think you mentioned, did they all participate and what were the results of that written test if there was one?

Mr. Radcliffe: We do not have that knowledge or that information, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Reid: So then I guess what we do as part of our ongoing operations with respect to mines rescue co-ordination, we do not involve ourselves in that; we leave it up to the mining association to have care control and responsibility for that. Yet when it comes to determining whether or not certain criteria or level of training are sufficient, we leave that to the mining association to determine and that the Department of Labour, Mines Inspection, and I would expect safety operations do not involve themselves in that aspect.

Mr. Radcliffe: I am not sure if my honourable colleague understands the function and role of the Department of Labour, but what the Mines Inspections Branch does, has done and is currently doing and in fact there has been no difference in their operation is that they audit the training that is being administered by the different mining companies and they ascertain that this training does occur and that it is at a high level and that it is adequate and competent to meet the needs. There is an expression of the body of knowledge that is available today to people in this section of the industry. This has been the function of the department and continues today to be the function of the department. The actual training is administered and conducted by the mining companies, has been, is, and the prospect is for that in the future.

Mr. Reid: Your chief mines inspector was Mr. Kesari, I think was the name. Is Mr. Kesari still the chief mines inspector as part of the Mines Inspection Branch or has he been seconded out of the department?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, the individual referenced as Mr. Kesari is in fact an individual by the name of Kesari Reddy. Kesari is his first name. He was seconded out of the department for a short length of time. He is back in the department now and he, in fact, is the point person who relates with Simoneau on the instruction issue. The individual who is the mine inspector is a fellow by the name of Ted Hewitt who is located in Flin Flon, Manitoba, who performs the function of mines inspector. Oh, sorry, he is the director of Mines Inspections, Hewitt.

Mr. Reid: Are there any other secondments or vacancies within Mines Inspections?

* (1720)

Mr. Radcliffe: There is a Mines Inspector 5 position in Thompson, Manitoba, that is vacant, has been vacant since April of 1999. The individual transferred out of that location and moved to another area. That particular job function was a person who inspected the hoists in mines, and the function has been covered off by other employees, other inspectors, in that area and locale.

Mr. Reid: Will you be filling that position, or are you going to continue to have the people fill that capacity, the remaining staff? What is the intention of the department?

Mr. Radcliffe: The intentions are that this position will be filled. It will be bulletined soon, yes, and over the course of the summer. The expectation is that it will be filled by the end of September of 1999.

Mr. Reid: Forgive me if I say this, but some government departments have a history of leaving positions vacant and then subsequent years deleting them. It has been vacant since April, and you are anticipating you will not fill it till late September. At least that is your guess right now. You do not seem to be 100 percent certain on that. Are you giving me some assurance here that position will actually be bulletined over the summer and that it will indeed be filled so that it does not remain vacant and then you just eliminate it from your Mines Inspection come the consideration for the next budget year, which begins November, December? [interjection] Yes, but in earnest I mean.

Mr. Radcliffe: I cannot speculate on the practices of other departments. Being a new minister in Labour and only a recent appointment to the cabinet and coming from Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I was not familiar with this practice in Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Although I am not a deputy having hands-on management, I certainly have had an opportunity to work closely with my deputies in every posting that I have had, and it has been a very fruitful and happy relationship. But I can only give my honourable colleague the expectations and the forward look that are the best intentions of the department at this point in time, and I cannot guarantee that this is going to happen. This is the expression of will and expression of intent that the department has with the operation of this issue.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): 11.2. Labour Programs (h) Mines Inspection (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $552,200–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $209,000–pass.

11.2.(j) Employment Standards (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Reid: I do not know if I asked this at the beginning of the Estimates process last Thursday, but if it will help, as I cannot find it in my files, or if maybe that information has not been forwarded to me yet, if you have a list of vacancies, secondments for the department broken down by your subsections and for the length of time that those vacancies have occurred or secondments have occurred, then perhaps it would save me having to ask it in every section of the Department of Labour, and I might have a better overall view of what is happening. It will save us some time in asking those questions as well.

Mr. Radcliffe: I gave this information to my honourable colleague yesterday, and it was a spreadsheet. I think there were five vacancies in the overall in the department. It was a short paper; I think we can reproduce it. I do not know whether we have it here right now, but certainly if my honourable colleague has misplaced it, I am–no, that is not it. It was a short patch, you know, little boxes and going horizontally across the paper. I can see it in front of me. Right here I can see it in my mind's eye.

Here we go. Here it is. Can we perhaps have one of the Clerks reproduce this so that we all have a copy?

While we are waiting for that, I have, for my honourable colleague, some documentation that was requested earlier, which we can perhaps produce at this point in time. The first is Objective-Based Codes: A New Approach for Canada issued from the National Research Council Canada, which was something that was the subject of discussion at a previous time. The other is the agreement in its entirety, some 47 pages plus some preliminary information, on the agreement on internal trade, which was a matter of some debate and interest, I think, yesterday or the day before which I would be delighted to share with my honourable colleague.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that information. I have looked through my files here. I have got all of the handouts that he has provided to me, and I cannot find it anywhere in the information. If you can forward us a copy, I would appreciate that information.

We are in the Employment Standards area here, and I wanted to ask questions with respect to a couple of issues that have been brought to my attention involving overtime work. There is one particular case where an individual is working at Club Regent, which is Manitoba Lotteries, and I know they have a contract between MGEU and the government, the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. The individual is required to work 4:30 in the afternoon to five o'clock in the morning, which is about a twelve-and-a-half-hour shift without any overtime. I am not an expert in these matters, so I am asking with respect to The Employment Standards Act of the province whether or not these matters, these type of situations are governed by the contract or the code takes precedence in issues like this with respect to the overtime.

Mr. Radcliffe: The code, in fact, governs the situation in this particular case to say that management can designate the configuration of the hours and then that can be found, as well, in the collective agreement. In this particular case, we do not know whether it is a designation of hours by management to comprise the full 40 hours that that individual would work for the week or whether in fact it is in the collective agreement. Management has to go to the Labour Board–they cannot just do this unilaterally–and make their case for such a designation of hours, for example, for a twelve-and-a-half-hour shift which my honourable colleague has cited.

Mr. Reid: Well, we get calls coming to our office, and our staff assists people who call in. The memo that has been provided for me indicates that the individual works twelve and a half hours without any overtime, and the note says the reason she was given is that she does not work more than 40 hours in any given week. So you can lump your hours together and you can work 24 hours, if you want, and there would still be no overtime in those as long as it is signed off in a collective agreement or there has been some approval given by the Labour Board for that. So I guess what I need to do is go back and find out whether or not that approval has been given, and I take it that the department would not have that information as a matter of course then.

Mr. Radcliffe: If it is a Labour Board ruling or order, we have a record of that; we are a repository of their order. So if my honourable colleague could give us the particulars after the close of hearing, we could certainly undertake to research whether it has been a Labour Board issue and give him that information.

* (1730)

Mr. Reid: Well, the individual works at Club Regent, which I think pretty well spells out where that is, and it is a young woman who works there. That is all of the details that I have here, and I do not know if that helps any or not. Maybe if you can gather whatever information you have and then forward it to me at some point, I would appreciate hearing about that.

What I am hearing from calls that I get–and I do not know what the Employment Standards is hearing–and we seem to get cases for people who are trying to press the envelope and kind of skirt around the edges of The Employment Standards Act with respect to how people are treated. Every year I get calls coming in throughout the year concerning certain businesses which I will not name on the record in fairness to the parties on both sides. But one of the issues that I am hearing is that individuals are being asked to sign waiver forms–in nonunion operations we are talking here–that they will not claim any overtime as a condition for their being hired on at a particular establishment. I do not think that this is legal to do that, and perhaps you can advise me in that regard so that when we get these calls coming in and for the cases that we have that we can perhaps forward on that information.

One of the difficulties that I have encountered is that because people are hired into these jobs, there is no seniority or union protection involved and someone to represent their interest so that these raise these matters or press the issue. There is a strong likelihood that they will be turfed out, and they will be unemployed or at least looking for another job. So there is some sensitivity in dealing with these matters.

Then perhaps if it is possible then for us to gather up that information and forward it on to Employment Standards, is there a possibility of sending in perhaps auditors into these particular establishments to look at the employment records, judging by the number of hours and the pay that would have been issued to the individuals, and then taking the appropriate steps if there is found to be any discrepancies in the level of pay versus the amount of hours worked dealing with overtime matters?

Mr. Radcliffe: My honourable colleague has asked a series of questions here. Firstly, in response to the issue of the waiver–although I hesitate to give binding legal advice and I am not employed for this, so I would qualify with all those qualifiers–the position of the Employment Standards advisors is that such a document in practice is not legal, would have no binding effect, so that if there were a document introduced of such a nature at the Labour Board, in fact, the person introducing it, trying to rely on that sort of a situation as a defence or bar to payment of overtime, would in fact be significantly admonished. So that is No. 1.

Number two, the department does do audits. They are focused on the areas of the workplace where it is suspected that there are areas of noncompliance. For example, the home care area, construction industry, areas of that nature, the audits are sporadic and intermittent, just as you have indicated in your question of going in and assessing the levels of pay, the payment records, the hours, et cetera.

One of the conclusions that the department has come to is that in the majority of cases, as high as 90 percent of the cases where there have been infractions have been based on ignorance of the law, so that there has been compliance resulting from education and information being disseminated. This has been a standard that has been shared with other provinces. They have had a similar experience as well. In addition to the roving spot audits that are done by the department, there are a number of industries, number of areas of activity, which have invited the Employment Standards people to work with them to raise the level of awareness and to educate their employers in the area as to what the responsibilities and rights are so that that is a mutual activity in order that there be compliance with the employment standards.

Mr. Reid: One of the unfortunate parts of going through this process is we try to represent the issues as we hear them coming to us. I do appreciate the efforts of the Department of Labour in regard to the issues that I have raised from time to time. Most of them worked out reasonably well, but there is one particular case that I raised, was it last year or the year before, with respect to Employment Standards and the individual not being paid for any overtime, being required and willing to work the overtime but not being compensated. After we raised it, Employment Standards went in, did their job, were thorough in it, kind of laid down the law. The feedback I got was, yes, the employer came out the next day and had a general discussion with employees in that particular unit, and said that from now on they are going to be following the law. A week later, all those employees were terminated.

* (1740)

So while we won the battle, we lost the war. So when I raise these issues, it is with some understanding for the predicament that individuals find themselves in, which leads me to my next question. If the individuals are in a predicament like that and the employer requires them to sign that waiver, and if they want to continue to work at that point, is there any statute of limitations preventing an individual so that if a year, two years, three years down the road, whatever period of time, from them commencing any actions at the Labour Board, drawing this matter to the attention of the Employment Standards and the Labour Board people for restitution in cases where no overtime was paid?

Mr. Radcliffe: There is a limitation on claims in this area. The legislation for Employment Standards is six months, that the department can go back and calculate overtime for a period of six months from the filing of the application or termination of employment. Then a person's remedy after that would lie with small debts, Small Claims Court or with Queen's Bench, and there would be the general statute of limitations and this would fall under the aegis of contract law, I believe, which I think, and I would have to check my legislation on that, but I think it is six years.

Mr. Reid: Thank you for that advice. Perhaps it would be better then if we could get the individuals that are involved to at least call the Employment Standards and seek some guidance and let the experts be the guides in cases like this. I just think it is inappropriate for those employers that are causing their new employees to sign waiver forms. To me that is not in ignorance of the law, that tells me that they know exactly what the law is and they are trying to duck the legal requirements.

So, in continuing with questions here, the minister mentioned that there was $40,000 lapsed in the Employment Standards. Can you tell me where those monies were lapsed within the department? Was it with respect to staffing in the last year or was it some other cause?

Mr. Radcliffe: Mr. Chairman, I believe I indicated earlier that the money, the $40,000, lapsed in Employment Standards because of the timing on the production of the labour code. In fact they are related to the production of CD-ROMs, a website, a number of fact sheets, and a comprehensive guide to the construction industry which was going to be prepared and go to printing which did not. Because of timing, these items were not possible to be prepared last year, but it will be coming into this year's budget, and so these monies will be expended this year instead.

Mr. Reid: Can you tell me the number of underage work permits that have been issued for the past year, and if you have issued any such permits for this year, and also if you have information relating to reasons for the application, in other words, what the requests were based on with respect to type of work or employment that was asked for those permits?

Mr. Radcliffe: The underage permits apply to individuals under the age of 16 years. In the last year there were 6,700–oh, I beg your pardon, 600 to 700, I heard 6,700. It is 600 to 700. [interjection] Yes, we have a large population base here. This year to date is 300. The categories are restaurant and small retail.

Mr. Reid: I was going to say that is quite a jump because I recollect from last year being around 500, so 6,700 would have been a significant increase. Even with that, 600 to 700 still represents a 20 percent, 25 percent increase over last year. It seems to be creeping up every year. Do you have or can you compile information relating to historical comparisons if you do not have it here? Also give us an indication, because you have referenced in just general terms whether it is service sector, restaurant, et cetera, the purposes for some of these. I have heard, and I need to ask this question with respect to other areas, that perhaps may be also having persons under the age of 16 working.

In fact there was one call centre, I believe, or at least I have been told–I think it is working out of Brandon–for which there was a 13-year-old. Now do not hold me to that, but that is what I have been told. I need to know whether or not industries like that have applied for the underage work permits and if so the grounds that was granted on. So I am looking for some background information on the range of ages that are involved, the types of work that are involved.

If it is a family business and the school child under the age of 16 is going to work in the family business or the family store over the summer, I can understand that. There is some flexibility and the family that wants to work together stay together. But, if there are other reasons, I need to know what those are as well, so I can have a better understanding of what is happening with the underage employment.

Mr. Radcliffe: Certainly the staff have made note of the request and the ambit and the extent of the request and the appropriate research will be done and that will be forthcoming.

Mr. Reid: No doubt you are giving me just a general ballpark number here with respect to last year between 600 and 700 underage work permits. But, if you can firm that number up and give me a more–it does not have to be 100 percent precise, but a more accurate picture of what has occurred, I would appreciate that

Next question is dealing with employment standards in the agricultural sector. I know that there are exemptions in ag for people that are employed in agriculture; they are exempt from conditions of employment standards, workers compensation, minimum wage, vacations with pay, et cetera. I draw this to your attention. I received a letter on this from an individual in the Interlake, and I do not know if this is prevalent throughout the industry, but involving hog barns. We are seeing an increase in hog barns in the province of Manitoba, and I think realistically we would expect that it would not just be a single-family operation. There would obviously be situations where they would hire people to work, and in this case people have been hired. But there are problems with respect to Occupational Health and safety from what has been indicated in the letter. Management in cases like that is able to withhold pay from individuals, calling it attitude adjustments or tune-ups, if there are problems with respect to discipline or work processes. In fact, the penalties that are indicated to me are fines of a hundred dollars when an individual may only make $250 a week. So you can see that, if you have an attitude adjustment of a hundred-dollar fine, there are problems.

Now this is information that has come to me by way of a letter. I have no way of assessing whether this information is accurate, and I do not have the capability of going into a facility to–

Mr. Radcliffe: Is this a youth or is this a full-time–

* (1750)

Mr. Reid: No, from my understanding, these are not youth; these are adults, perhaps young adults working in this environment. That is why I need to have an understanding. What can we do to help people in situations like that, who fall expressly outside of the jurisdiction of the Employment Standards Branch? How do we go about resolving issues like that to give them an avenue to deal with matters that are in dispute? I would expect that there would be a procedure or process in place that would allow for an individual to appeal any disciplinary action that is taken. Normally, in the course of business, you do not penalize someone's pay. You may penalize them in a sense of suspensions, but you do not just dock their pay and keep them working. That would not be the normal course, and you would usually have to document cases requiring discipline over a period of time before you would impose any penalties. So I need to know what we can do to help people working in the agricultural sector that come to us so that I do not have to continue to tell them that there is nothing that we are able to do.

Mr. Radcliffe: Even though the agricultural sector is beyond the normal surveillance of the Employment Standards, the actual relationship and promise to pay is a topic that can be adjudicated at Employment Standards. So I would enjoin my honourable colleague to direct that individual to the Employment Standards Branch. They can adjudicate that issue. The example that you use of attitude adjustments or any other penalties that are imposed would be considered by the board. They would be considered whether they are authorized or unauthorized deductions; and a conclusion could be reached. So, if you have another situation like that, send them in to the department.

Mr. Reid: It goes beyond just the attitude adjustment fines that are imposed. It goes into being committed to a 44-hour week. I mean, working long hours on a farm or agricultural operation is nothing new to the agricultural community or people who are employed in it. Yes, long hours, but if you are working as an employee, it is a little different from working for your own benefit, investment in your own asset. In cases like this, individuals are committed to 44 hours but end up working 60 hours. Of course, there are no overtime provisions that are in cases like that. It is not that they mind working the overtime; they just want to be recognized and compensated in cases like that. So that is another issue beyond just the attitude adjustment fines. It is also with respect to overtime issues in more agribusiness than it is agriculture in the specific sense of the word.

I hope you had the legal jurisdiction to rectify this. What I will do, I will contact the person and have them communicate, hopefully, with Employment Standards, and perhaps something can be done to help this gentleman. I would not want to see this continue and I do not know–I should ask the question: is the department or the ministry looking at any changes to the exclusions that are in place for agriculture from payment of wages, workers compensation, employment standards, vacations with pay, et cetera?

Mr. Radcliffe: There is no consideration being given at this time, but this is always something that is always under scrutiny. I can only anticipate in the future that if there is a change, then we would effect that. But there is nothing on the table at this point.

Mr. Reid: I would have hoped I would have heard something in the affirmative. It would have been good information to pass on to the person who was involved who has also written to the Interlake Spectator on this as well, trying to make other members of the public aware. I know it has been perhaps a philosophical difference between the minister's party and my party in that regard with respect to how we view agriculture and where the appropriate exclusions to that act are placed. Perhaps there are situations where it is warranted to have a continuation of that. Then perhaps there are areas where that exclusion should be reviewed with a view to looking at the best course of action to protect both parties.

Mr. Radcliffe: I think my honourable colleague raises an interesting point of discussion, that as the face of agriculture changes and the family farm becomes agribusiness, that perhaps this is an issue that deserves the scrutiny of the department, because certainly to interfere, to be invasive of the family farm or individuals who are employing their adult children or youth in the family, is not a place where government would want to be. But I think my honourable colleague is moving on beyond that sort of an aggregation of individuals, and you are discussing large agricultural corporations who are into production of food stuff at this point.

So the department always must be flexible and consider the changing realities I guess on our Manitoba employment scene.

Mr. Reid: I am looking for some guidance again. An individual has asked about this case, and I am not sure how it applies to carriers of newspapers.

An Honourable Member: Paperboys.

Mr. Reid: Well, we cannot define them as that anymore because we have to be nongender specific in our language.

An Honourable Member: Paper persons?

Mr. Reid: We have to be careful of how we refer to individuals who do that work, because there are both genders now.

The largest newspaper in the city of Winnipeg here has been advertising for carriers. The advertisements reference specific areas of the city where they are looking for adult carriers. They are talking about working seven days a week, 3 a.m. to 6 a.m., and then 4 a.m. to 7 a.m. on weekends. So there is 21 hours, if my math is right, 21 hours a week. Can you tell me how The Employment Standards Act would apply to situations like this with respect to seven days a week without time off?

Mr. Radcliffe: My honourable colleague raises an interesting issue. If the advertisement to which he is making reference is emanating from the Winnipeg Free Press, the Winnipeg Free Press, I have gathered, is an organized shop and subject to a collective agreement, so that this activity would be governed by the terms of the collective agreement in question.

If it is another publisher, then I am told that the custom is that sometimes there are independent contractors. I do not want to get into a lengthy treatise on independent contractors, but I am sure my honourable colleague is familiar with it. There has to be the independence. There has to be the discretion to do the task, all those sorts of things. This has been an issue that has been litigated extensively in the courts. Depending on the fact situation, there could be a situation where it is an independent contractor and therefore not an employee, and therefore beyond the control of employment standards or the department.

You cannot make an independent contractor an independent contractor just by naming him as such. You have to look at the function they fulfill, the degree of control. So I guess my answer would have to be determined by the set of facts. If in fact it is a person who is truly an employee, then employment standards would apply. If it is somebody who is bound by a collective agreement, then the terms of the collective agreement would apply, and if there is a breach in that, there is grievance and all the labour remedies that would flow from that. I am not sure I have answered the question, but that is sort of the general framework.

Mr. Reid: I think you have answered it, and I think if the collective agreement allows for the individuals under contract to work seven days a week and the hours are fixed in there. I know the Labour Board has already ruled on the fact that these individuals or these people that do this work are determined to be employees, and I know the newspaper had tried to reference them as independent contractors which did not work with the Labour Board, so that matter has been resolved. But with respect to the Employment Standards as applied to people who have to work seven days a week, what provisions of The Employment Standards Act apply? I guess, maybe what I need to do is go back and have a clear look or talk with the union that represents those carriers whether or not that is built into the contract. If there are problems there, then what we will get them to do is refer that to the Employment Standards. I am finished with that section.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): 11.2.(j) Employment Standards (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1, 948,800–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $637,600–pass.

11.2.(k) Worker Advisor Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $611,000–pass. (2) Other Expenditures.

Mr. Reid: With respect to the Worker Advisor Office, can you tell me what the caseload is for the Worker Advisor Office at present?

Mr. Radcliffe: The caseload is 50 cases per officer.

Mr. Reid: The overall caseloads, what is the waiting time that you have for the people that would require assistance of the Worker Advisor Office where people may call seeking the support of the worker advisor? What would be the waiting time for the individuals in that regard?

Mr. Radcliffe: There is no waiting at this point in time, and I inquired of the department. They advise me that even over the course of the past year, they have been able to keep up with the demand for their services. So there has been, even over the past year, no waiting time.

Mr. Reid: I know our time is growing short, Mr. Chairperson. So the overall cases, we have 10 worker advisors working, I take it, in addition to the manager or director of the branch. So we would have 500–

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., committee rise.