Manitoba Hansard — 23 February 1981 (Sitting 24B, 31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-24b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA Monday, 23 February, 1981 rime - 8:00 p.m. CONCU RRENT COMMI TTEES OF SUPPL V SUPPL V - LABOUR AND MAN POWER MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the Committee to order. We're on 2.(a)(2) - the Member from Churchill I think, or the Honourable Minister maybe has an opening statement. HON. KEN MacMASTER: Just a couple of things, I have some literature that I want to give to the Member from Churchill. Also, I've been informed by the Workers Compensation Board that their year ends March 31st, has this year, has last year, and always has.

Consequently, their report will be ready in the neighbourhood of March 31st, as of any other year. There's some of the material that we have put out and as we pick up some of the rest we'll make sure you get it. I don't know what all you have, what you haven't, but that's a start anyway. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Yes, Mr.

Chairperson, I have to go over to the other Estimates Committee for a couple of moments to ask some questions on the Minister's Salary and I know that the Member for Kildonan, and I believe the Member from Logan has some questions to ask in respect to Workplace Safety and Health, so I will leave the floor with them and be back as soon as it's possible to get out of the other Committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there's a couple of areas that I'd like to touch on in respect to The Workplace Safety and Health Act.

First, I'd like to ask whether the Minister is going to do anything about the unrest that is starting to grow in the agricultural employment area, where some of the organizations are starting to look for some protection in respect to their employees that are involved in the agriculture industry. I realize that there was an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act some time ago and that particular

section was not proclaimed because it was going to be reviewed, and of course negotiations were going to take place with the agricultural industry in respect to that and I wondered if the Minister has any comment in respect to what has taken place since that amendment was made, I believe around 1976, and if his Department has been in any kind of conference or communication with the agricultural groups in respect to this area. MR. MacMASTER: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I have had several discussions with various groups representing the agricultural community, and thought is being given, and I don't know whether it would happen in this session or not but thought certainly is being given to covering agricultural workers under The Compensation Act. In addition to that we are asking for one additional person within these Estimates, this particular section, to deal with precisely the agricultural people's concerns as it applies to Workplace Safety and some of their other regulations that they're not presently covered on and the Workers Compensation Board situation.

We find that a lot of the farming communities do in fact have their own sorts of policies. Some of the discussions I have had with them tell me that they would in fact like a bit of an option even though they did get covered under Workers Compensation to carry on their own sort of policies, if they are equal too or better.

So I guess the answer to the Member for Kildonan, precisely, is yes, we have had conversations with them; yes, we are asking within this particular section, the heading we are under now, for one SMY to be totally assigned to work with the various farming communities; yes, we are considering the Workers Compensation coverage for that group. MR. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can the Minister indicate which groups he has contacted and whether the discussions that have taken place to date have indicated what particular areas they would like to have input on and what coverage they are prepared to have? MR.

MacMASTER: The Manitoba Farm Bureau is the major one, but there have been other groups in to see me in addition to that; I just don't recall the names of their organizations. And when I have travelled throughout the province, I have met with farming people and have had general discussions with them. MR.

FOX: I understand the Manitoba Farm Bureau is the one that has been specifically pushing for some legislation because they have found that even though some of the farm employers have taken out insurance, it has generally been inadequate and in the case of accidents and injury, the employee has generally suffered and not been compensated for what has occurred.

Now, I realize that we have Medicare, but I believe that isn't sufficient to give employees any coverage when they are off work outside of Unemployment Insurance, which they may be able to get, and in some instances they may not have sufficient credits because agricultural work being seasonal, they don't always have sufficient credits. Can the Minister indicate whether there are going to be any advances in this particular area of negotiations? MR. MacMASTER: Mr.

Chairman, I can only say that there is a wide range of ·items that the member has touched on, virtually all of them, if not all of them, that have been discussed with the farming communities. lt is a new area. There is only - I'm just thinking off the top of my head - I know that there are at least one or two provinces in Canada that have quite extensive coverage of their agricultural community. Manitoba is one of seven or eight who do not have very much. 1011

Monday, 23 February, 1981 it is interesting, and I think timely, when an industry. and we'll call the agricultural community an industry, when they start coming to government in a brand-new area such as this and say, we're not very sure about the hours and we're not sure about the overtime; we're not really sure about several of these things but we really do want to sit down and start talking with you.

As I say, we have had a couple of preliminary discussions and several as I wandered through the province, and they are very interested in the fact that we are going to have one precise individual hired within the Workplace Safety Division to deal with the farming community and get on with maybe educational programs on safety, get some pamphlets and literature out. I think it is an area. Mr. Chairman. seriously, that I wouldn't want to charge into as a regulatory sort of a body into the farming community.

I think that now that they are indicating interest, it is, if I can say, poetically perfect, because I think a lot of these things should cover most people, coming from a union background, but I don't want to impose my union principles on all of society. it's very timely that the farming community is now interested. That's about all I can say, Mr. Chairman. MR.

FOX: In view of the fact that legislation was passed four years ago or better, can the Minister indicate what kind of research his Department has done into finding out what the problems would be if there are to be any problems in respect to enforcement, in respect to coverage, in respect to determining how to apply the act that was passed? Or did his Department just say, well it was the other government now there is no more work to do on this on this particular aspect. MR. MacMASTER: No, Mr.

Chairman, I don't think I could ever be quoted as saying because the other government started something and didn't finish it, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't carry on with it. I've never been quoted as saying that. The other government as you say, the NDP, when they were in office made the initial effort at least on paper that they were somewhat interested in covering farming people in this province under the Workers Compensation Act. They didn't follow through with it, I think for a probably very good reason.

They probably didn't want to go charging into the farming community in a brand new venture and ordering, thou shalt be involved in this sort of thing. I don't know what's - there has been reference made someway that they were going to do some research or study on how that would be applied. I don't know if they did. I tell you that we haven't done much of it. I tell you that the farming community is now talking to me personally. They're talking to my staff. They're now saying look, maybe it's about time that Workers Compensation - we give some thought to that.

Some of the Workplace Safety sort of things - we give some thought to that. They even get into Employment Standards and they're a little hesitant there because there's so many variables about the agricultural industry that certainly doesn't apply to virtually any other industry. But they are, without question. interested in starting to talk to us, very seriously, about some sort of coverage under the Employment Standards.

So, regardless of whether the NDP did any research or whether I did any research, what is happening today, the facts are, that the farming community is starting to display a fair amount of interest in getting involved in some of the aspects of which I'm responsible. MR. FOX: Mr.

Chairman, in view of the fact that at the present time, the agricultural workers are totally unprotected in respect to payment of wages or anything else, is there any statistics available as to how the people have fared in this particular area in respect to payment of wages or holiday pay, vacations with pay, and any other kind of areas that generally fall under The Labour Relations Act? Is any of this being compiled by the Department to see where the problem areas would be in enforcing the act? MR.

MacMASTER: There may be, but in all honesty I don't think there's ever been ten, fifteen, twenty years of government, or twenty or thirty or whatever you want to talk about; I don't think those type of statistics have been compiled. The industry is now interested, I think, and another side point which the Member might appreciate, the agricultural industry is interested I think for their own sakes, very selfishly, and that's fine.

Possibly from what I gather, nobody has ever come out and said it, maybe their workforce isn't as well thought of in the eyesight of society and maybe they're having a little trouble attracting and retaining people. The member can appreciate that when that type of feeling comes forth from an industry, it is an excellent time to sit down with them and start talking. MR. FOX: Another point was raised earlier today, and that's in respect to domestics where, again, we have no coverage of any kind that I am aware of.

I just wondered whether there has been any kind of liaison between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health, who I would presume has the Care Services under his auspices, and from which flows a lot of domestic work to assist senior citizens and others who are not capable of fending for themselves, and whether there is any kind of information that the Minister is collating to see whether there shouldn't be coverage for domestics at the present time. MR. MacMASTER: We spent about an hour on that whole domestics situation this afternoon. Does the member really want to go all back through that? MR.

FOX: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to go back to it. I want to ask specifically whether the government is aware of where it is governing and whether it is aware of the people that it covers. Now, I said I was aware of what took place this afternoon, but the Member for Churchill did not ask specifically, although the Member for Logan almost touched on it, in respect to Care workers, who come under government supervision and who are farmed out on domestic chores around the province to various people who need their assistance.

I just wonder whether the Minister is aware that this group of people come under government jurisdiction and whether they are looking at it and are going to provide any protection in the future, or 1012

Monday, 23 February, 1981 do they not care about Care workers who are domestics? MR. CH AIRM AN: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Rhineland. MR. ARNOLD BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to spend a mi nute in discussing farm la bour. I keep in pretty close contact with the Man itoba Farm Bureau, with the Canada Farm Labour Pool, with the Vegetable Growers, and just about everybody who is invo lved in employing labour in agriculture. I would just like to say that we have come a pretty long way in the last four years or so. By and large, the workers are covered by compensation.

Now, there still probably is the odd farmer who doesn't have his labour enrolled with compensation, but by and large, these are the people who - and also are going to get a very poor quality person working for them. Group insurance has also been made available to many of these empl oyees, which is contributed to partially, and usually on a 50-50 share basis by the employer and by the employee, as you have it with other labour forces.

I know that at the Manitoba Sugar Beet Producers, for instance, they have a group insurance plan available to their employees, which they can get 24-hour coverage at much lesser cost than if you wouldn't have that type of insurance. There are also other organizations who have this group in surance available. We are trying to do whatever we can to keep our labour movement happy.

In addition to bei ng in volv ed in it from the employer's side, the chap that is looking after my farm for me is also on the board representing the labourers and I am encouraging him to be on this board, because I would like to kno w what the concerns are of the labourers in the industry and we are trying to get a good relationship between the emp loyers and the emp loyees in the agricultural industry. We know that we have to have this if we're going to get competent people working in the agriculture ind ustry.

I think that by and large, they have advantage of most of the programs which are available to the other labour forces and possibly and in some ins tances they have considerable advantages. The Member for Kildonan asked about vacation pay - yes, 4 percent of the salary, the same as what it is in any other ind ustry goes towards vacation pay and they get their vacation. The Member for Kildonan says it's not enforced. No, it is not enforced at this time, because you do possibly have a much larger variety of labourers in the force. You have a lot of part-time labour in the agricultural force.

Very much of it is unskilled so it is not being enforced, but I do not detect any unrest in the farm labourer at the present time and if there is, I certainly would want to know about it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to follow through with the line of questioning that was put to the Min ister by the Member for Kildonan and that is that it seems to me that the legislation that was passed on Worker s Comp ensation for agriculture way back in 19 76, that while it was not proceeded with at that time, I think that there were good reasons for it and I think the Mi nister eluded to some of them. But I don't believe that it was the intention of the Department of Labour to not follow through on proclamation of those sec tions and indeed to impl ement them.

You know we've had three and-a-ha lf years of new government, the government that in herited that piece of legislation and has not felt obliga ted to act on it for wh atever reason. It seems to me that there's a principle at stake that ought to be considered and the question of whether or not all of the ind ustry agrees with the need to do something, I think, is here nor there, Mr. Chairman, because you are talking about people that have a particular in terest in their ind ustry; people who may not want to be regulated; not accustomed to being regulated and so on. But that has to take a back seat in my view, Mr.

Chairman, to the needs and equity that all workers should be entitled to as a matter of principle, whether they are working in a factory, or whether they work on the land is of no consequence or relevance. The fact is that they are workers and they are working for emplo yers. And if there is pain and suffering as a result of injury, it seems to that is the paramount question that has to be answer ed, not whether or not the empl oyer agrees that it should be answered. I think that has to take a secondary or back seat position. I would urge the government, Mr.

Chairman, to proceed and indeed to co-op the farm groups into some kind of legislation. I don't expect it to be equal to that, that perhaps is already on the books for other workers, as a first step; ultimately, I think there should be no difference. But if it is a question of finding out the coolness of the water, if you like, if the Minis ter wants to proceed one step at a time, I wouldn't fault him, as long as he was proceeding in that direction.

I really can't accept the theory that we must yield to the sensitivities of those in the community who don't want to somehow be regulated by government, by law, with respect to working conditions, with respect to unempl oyment insurance, with respect to worker's compensation, with respect to fair employer practices, or whatever it is, or unfair practices. It seems to me that's the role of government, if there ever was a role. I happen to believe government has a major role, not only in a regulatory sense, but in the ec onomic s of th e countr y.

But certa inly a Conservative Government has a role in the regulatory sense, if you want to accept the Cons ervative philosophy, Mr. Chairman. Here is an example where, I believe, that part of the Cons ervative Government's philo sophy falls down because they are not involved in the economic areas to the extent that we would like to see them involved, but they are also failing with respect to regulatory areas where they ought to at least be the watchdog of society so that we have some degree of fair play as between employers and emp loyees.

I would lik e to suggest to you that emp loyers ought to have equal protection from emp loyees. I am not suggesting that you weight the legislation on one side. But it seems to me that it is very difficult to put together an argument that there should not be legislation. 1013 l

Monday, 23 February, 1981 The Member for Rhineland suggests that it's not really a major problem because if employers were not treating their workers well, then they would have poor-quality people working for them. Now, I don't know what a poor-quality worker is but, Mr.

Chairman, if that perception were correct, then why are we not abolishing all of the legislation that does apply to workers in all other jurisdictions and let the employers suffer the consequences, because if you listen to that point of view, that is the answer and, that is, if they don't pay well, if they don't have good employment standards, that they will not have the quality of work and therefore it's a self-policing mechanism. Why don't we apply that in Canada Packers; why don't we apply that in General Motors, Mr. Chairman?

Why do we have all those other rules for all the other people if that is something that works? Obviously those rules were brought in because, while it may work by and large, it doesn't work in every case and therefore we must have rules that govern those instances where people are prepared to violate the principles of equity and rights and fairness and so on. Mr.

Chairman, I would suggest to the Minister that while I don't expect a revolution, I would expect some steps in the direction of providing all the necessary la bour legislation protection for all employees in Manitoba, not just farmers - domestics, it doesn't matter who they are as long as they are working for someone, they ought to have the protection of regulation and the laws of the land as they apply, so that they may be applied in a way that is equal to all citizens in the province. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR.

MacMASTER: Well I can concur with the general statements that the member is talking about, but we can't get over dramatic about the need and I'd say over dramatic. The need was there when the original legislation was brought in in 1976 and for a good reason. I suspect the NDP didn't bring it in, I think, for the same good reason we haven't, if you are talking about Workers Compensation, and I think we're talking about it, we haven't committed that particular piece of legislation yet.

We really believe that there's an education job to be done by ourselves within the community, being a brand new area that never in the history of any legislation has ever been covered in the province. We have no fear of those and we think the, those, number will be very small by the time we're through working with the community. But we have no fear of those who may object. There's always objectors. But it's closer to being more acceptable.

In my opinion the more dialogue you have with the agricultural community in this particular instance and we're certainly now starting to have a fair amount of dialogue with them .. . Now that they have asked for some very definite assistance, some definite education programs, some literature, we're going to assign one person specifically for that. it's in the estimates under this heading, to work with them, and we expect Workers Compensation wanted to proclaim that would be the easiest one. I really expect that somewhere in the future that's going to become a reality sooner than later. MR.

CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Portage. HON. LLOYD G. HYDE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, as I see it, what with the larger farms, whether they be corporate or otherwise, the stress of this is, they're emphasizing on more protection actually and this of course brings in the unempoyment insurance and Workers Compensation, pension plans and otherwise.

If these here larger firms, whether they're corporate or what - they're operating on a far larger scale than what they were say ten years ago, so you naturally have to have a well qualified individual to operate these $75,000 tractors that the farmers are having or being forced to purchase, and the large equipment - you have to have a competent man to be able to keep these machines within the fence lines or the ditches and in order to do that we have to protect them. So there it is, as far as I can understand it.

The farmers today are in the position where they're ready and willing to take advantage of these programs, compensation and unemployment insurance. In the older days when there were more of the family farms around, than what there is today, they didn't - well of course these programs weren't available to us. But they didn't take and emphasize on, or even think about the compensation and such. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I have a question to the Minister.

Since we have a split jurisdiction here in Manitoba, and this is dealing with workplace and the jurisdiction of The Workplace Safety and Health Act, we have certain industries in this province that come under Federal jurisdiction, under the Federal Labour Code. Does the act that we have in place in Manitoba today, with respect to The Workplace Safety and Health Act - is that legislation in effect in places of Federal jurisdiction in this province? MR. MacMASTER: Well where there's a Federal jurisdiction the Federal standards or Federal legislation prevails. MR.

JENKINS: Well a number of years ago, with respect to safety regulations and what not, there was an agreement worked out between the Federal and Provincial Government, that they would use Department of Labour experts in safety, pollution control, in places of Federal jurisdiction. Now, I don't know if this is still in effect in the Province of Manitoba and I wonder if the Minister could enlighten us.

Due to the fact that a few years ago, one Health and Safety Inspector for the Federal Government was domiciled in the Province of Alberta, in the city of Edmonton and so where you were working in places under Federal jurisdiction, in order to get a Federal inspector in here, it was just about, almost like pulling hen's teeth. it was a very difficult situation. I wonder if that agreement is still in effect between the province and the Federal Government at this time. MR. MacMASTER: No, it's not, Mr. Chairman. it was cancelled January 1st, 1978. The Feds said they wanted to run their own show. MR.

JENKI NS: With respect to the Workplace Health and Safety Committees, as we understand 1014

Monday, 23 February, 1981 them under the act, how many comm ittees have been set up in the Province of Manitoba in the various industries that come under the Mi nister's jurisdiction or jurisprudence? I have some figur es here in the . MR. MacMASTER: 438 - I gave those numbers to the memb ers this after noon and th ere's 19 workp laces that requir e a Sa fety and Health Representative. MR.

JENKINS: I don't know, maybe this is an unfair question to the Min ister, but since it is under the places under Federal jurisdic tion, is the Mini ster aware, or maybe I shouldn't say aware, because we're not supposed to say that, but can the Minis ter enlighten the committee, has he had any information from the Federal Mi nister responsible for places of Federal jurisprudence in this province of how many health and safety committees have been set up? Mr.

Chairman, has the Mi nister been in contact with his Federal counterpart to make him aware of the programs that we have here in Manitoba and ask for his compli ance for workers in Manitoba that come under the Federal? Otherwise, from what I can see, if we have one set of standards for those that were under - which we have jurisdiction - they'r e all citizens of Manitoba - unfortunately, because of the jurisdiction which they fall under . . .

Has the Mi nister been in contact with his Federal counterpart to bring to his attention - I think that, I'm hoping that our program of health safety comm ittees and the information and education that we're carrrying on in the Province of Manitoba, is of superior quality to that under the Federal jurisdiction.

I would hope that the Min ister, when he is dealing with his Federal counterparts, that he would certainly be aware of his own program and if it is superior to what the Feds have in place, that he would be urging them at least to upgrade their legislation, or if not, ask them to allow the workers who are covered under Federal jurisdiction, to fal l under those guidelines that have been set up here in the Province of Manitoba and I hope that the Min ister will reply in the affirmative to this. I hope he has been doing something. MR. MacMASTER: Yes, we'v e been in to uch periodically with the Federal Government.

It's an answer, I suppose there's a lot of rhetoric but the simple bottom line is that they are saying it's their show, it's their responsibility, it's their money, it's their jurisdiction, and thank you but no thanks. MR. JENKINS: Maybe this is an unfair question and the Minis ter doesn't have to answer it if he doesn't want to, but is the Mi nister satisfied that the Feds are doing as good a job or an equally as good a job as what his department is doing in the provincial field? If the Minister - he can just shake his head. MR. MacMASTER: Mr.

Chairman, if I was satisfied I wouldn't be continuously after them hoping that they would take ours. MR. JENKINS: I thank the Mi nister for that answer. The Mi nister now is dealing with farm organizations with respect to Workp lace Health and Safety committees. I see the Min ister has bulletined for extra personnel in this field, one person.

Has there been any prelimi nary work done, especially now when we're looking at corporate farms, where when the season gets busy we may have corporate farms that are working maybe on two eight hour shifts, it could be even three eight hour shifts, depending if the necessity is there to take crops off. In view of the fact that both the Member for Rhineland and the Member for Portage Ia Prairie said that farrroers are dealing with pi eces of machi nery th at are 75, 100,0 00, 15 0, 000, and I don't dis agree with it, because I think that's exactly the type of machinery that you're dealing with today.

Is the department going to set up in this health safety program, the safe operation of machinery; that means driving that machinery, operating it properly, and hopefully setting up of Workpla ce Safety and Health comm ittees in this field? If we are dealing with the farm industry here in Manitoba, the agricultural community - if we are to believe what we read in the paper here of Friday, November 21s t, the record of some of these farms is not that good, especially when there has been no coverage for workers in this. If they are injured they sometimes have a 50-50 cost sharing of some compen satory insurance.

In some cases th ey are told to go on Unem pl oyment Insurance. The only other out at the present time if someone is operat ing a pie ce of machiner y that's worth $1 50,000, and someone is injured through - it could be the worker's negligence, it could be the owner's negligence. Then we have the only other case where it can work in this case, we'll wind up like they are in some of the states to the south of us, where there is no Workers Compensation, where you find out that people are suing the employer for conditions and sometimes working on a fee-for-service basis by the legal profession.

Some of the - I don't think I have to tell the Min ister that some of the awards that have been awarded in th e Un ited Sta tes are of a considerable amount of money. I am gla d to see that some farm groups are starting to come forward but I think that the Mini ster should be pressing and pressing very hard for some sort of coverage, because otherwise we are going to wind up with litigation all across this province.

No di srespect to the legal profession, but if there is money to be made on a fee-for-service basis, and they can get awards in the courts, I would say that the farm community is going to be in a very sad situation unless the Min ister ·is prepared to in some way or another bring under coverage of some type - it may not be Workers Compensation, it may be some other type of compensation th at can be worked out with the farming community of Manitoba, but eventually there will be litigation. The price of a piece of machinery might be small in comparison to the settlement that someone may receive in a court of law.

I would say that the Min ister ha s a defini te responsibility here to take up the gauntlet that has been th rown to him now, evidently by the Farm Bureau, and to put the bit in his teeth and really get to work on it. I am sure that there is some coverage for those workers, who unfortunately in the past through no fault of their own, sometimes do get - I believe one case here, somebody else pulled the lever. It went down on the other fellow's hand. You can't blame the worker that was involved. 1015

Monday, 23 February, 1981 Then it comes down to management. Management should be making sure that the workers that they are employing in that in dustry are protected and are aware of the pitfalls of opera ting tha t type of machinery. There are some very complicated pieces of machinery that are in the agricultural field today as compared to what they were 25-30 years ago. We are seeing all sorts of machinery coming onto the market every year and I am sure that the people who are far more familiar with the farm ind ustry than I am are aware of this.

For the Member for Rhineland to say that he's not aware that people are - that the farm workers are - I would say that they're up in arms - but they are certa inly -(I nterje ction)- the Memb er for Roblin says there's nobody out in their part of the country at all . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: One speaker at a time. MR. JENK INS: ... mayb e that's part of the problem, why they are not getting the workers.

And I would say that if a person is injured he is entitled to go on so many weeks of sick or injured leave, but if tha t is the only protection that he has in this province other than the two weeks coverage prior to him becoming eligible for UIC payments, and if he hasn't the sufficient time in, then he's out in left field with no coverage whatsoever, and I would say to the Mini ster that I would hope that he would be pressing, and pres sing ha rd to make sur e that th ere is coverage for these people in this field. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rhineland. MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There have been a number of things mentioned over here which I thought that I should reply to, and one of them mentioned both by the Member tor Logan and the Member for Lac du Bonnet was labour protection. The Member for Logan also mentioned the work litigation. I know that every farmer is aware of how these litigations have gone, and in order to get farmer protect ion , then you have to have labour protection.

The farmers are protect ing themse lves against this type of thing because labour can take them for a ride, because your usual litigation cases have invariably gone against the farmer, and the farmer ends up being responsible for keeping this person as long as his injury is sustained and if it's a lifetime injury then he becomes a liability on that particular farm.

So the farmers are doing this not only for labour's pr otect ion but for their own protection, so they're getting into various insurance schemes not only Workers Compensation but their other insurance schemes which are probably much better than Workers Compensation that give you 24- hour coverage instead of just coverage or just while you are on the job. The Member from Lac du Bonnet also mentioned that we should have many more regulations. Well Mr. Chairman, if I may say that this is exactly the reason why the member probably is sitting on that side of the table than on this side.

We remember, very well, when he was the former Minister of Agriculture, that the regulations that he was going to impose upon the farming communities, where your labourer, he was going to be classified , it was going to be either a tractor operator or a truck operator or he was going to work in a hog operation or whatever. Well, any body who is familiar with farming operation kn ows that your tractor operator also has to drive a truck at certain times or your truck operator has to drive a tractor at certain times. There's just no way that you can regulate the farming ind ustry in that way.

Shift work was also mentioned, and I think that the best example of what we had when you'r e trying to regulate the farming ind ustry is what happened last year. When the farmers went out to hir e their employees in April it was very warm weather, and they got their labour but everyt hing was dry, they didn't get their labour really working until such a time as the rains came which was the end of June.

So, they were out there with their labourer paying them the regular wage because they were hoping that they were going to get rain the next day or the next week or whenever and they wanted to be sure that they had the help available, and when the rains came then naturally that labourer was asked to work and they were glad to work more than eight hours a day.

I don't think any farmer is going to ask any more hours of work from his employee than what that employee can handle because again the nature of the implements that he's operati ng, you don't want a tired man when you're having him operate $150,000 worth of equipment. So, your're very careful in your entire operation.

I jus t can't see where we can put the farmin g operation under the same type of regulations which you would be putting on a factory where you 're working on a line which is doing certain things and every body does his thing and you can stop after eight hours of work, but you certainly cannot do that on the farm, so Mr. Chairman, I just cannot buy that type of logic at all and I would again assure the members that ther e really is no problem at the present time with the farm labour, if there was then I'm sure that I would be the first one to know about it. MR. USKI W: Well, Mr.

Chairman, it's a very interesting contribution on the part of the Member for Portage and inde ed the Member for Rhineland on this question of whether or not there is a need to something for labour that is inv olved in Agriculture. The thing that bothers me is not so much their reticence to move into the direc tion of legislation, as opposed to the reasons that they give for it, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Member for Portage has spelled it out perhaps not realizing what he was inde ed conveying to this committee and I would hope that he wouldn't want to leave us with tha t impr ession but the impression that he left us with is that there's a need to protect capital, capital tied up in the expensive farm machinery and therefore that in itself is a sell policing device, that farmers will respect the need to protect their capital and ther efore will pay well, will have fair standards of employment and so on.

You know if we're going to have some decency about this debate, it has not to do with whether capital ought to be protected but whether human beings ought to be properly protected and reinforced in the workpla ce. What has capital got to do in the consideration of whether we pass labour law or not. lt is again the · same old argument as we had a moment ago about conditions if they were bad enough wouldn't attract the employees. The same argument appli es, then 1016

Monday, 23 February, 1981 why do we have labour laws in the first place? So, I would hope the Member for Portage would reflect on his contribution to this debate and at least clarify it, because I don't believe that the Member for Portage is putting capital ahead of the interest of workers or safety or fairness, Mr. Chairman, at least I would hope that he is not conveying that kind of philosophy to this debate. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Mr.

Chairman, I'v e only got a couple of que stions, for the Honourabl e Mi nister or the committee and of course it deals with in fact if the farmer has taken out coverage with Workers Compensation or private insur ance. it's in the matter of deal ing with th e fert il izers, the anhydrous ammonia, the pesticides, the carcinogens, etc. , etc. as to whether in fact the Province is totally responsible, the Department of Agriculture in this Province is responsible or Federal Agriculture or the Licensing Bureau at the Federal level is responsible and I know the problems of the dust, the fumes, the gases are on the record and I think that maybe if the Minister, maybe he couldn't do it today, could put it in the record, as far as the Province is concerned for members like myself, or I could take it to the farm people in the province as to who is in charge of this ever changing world that we're in today regarding th ese different formulas that are being used by the farm communities today and then I could certainly pass it on, but as far as the year ahead is concerned it like ly would change in the next year.

The other one th at ha unts people from my constituency the most about the farm labour pool is Unemployment Insurance. lt's almost impossible to, once the Unemployment Insurance periods come on to take a farm chap, he would draw Unemplo yment Insurance, he doesn't want to get cut off, so to get back through all the red tape to declare his earnings and then un der the terms of reference of the Unemployment Insurance Act, they're supposed to go around from place to place to place and try and get a job and to the best of my kno wledge, I don't think that a farm is considered to be a workpla ce when they can go to a store or garage or a hardware or all these places and say, I have been at those places to try and find a job, but to my knowledge I've never and I've tried to get the Unempl oyment Insurance - if they go to a farm and ask for a job, it's no t cons idered a legitima te pl ace in the Unemplo yment Insurance Act.

I could be wrong on that but those are creating many problems for the farmers in my area and in the wintertime maybe they only need help for maybe two months but the Unemp loyment Insurance legislation certainly creates a lot of problems. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Transcona MR. WILSON PARASIUK (Transcona): Well, I'd like to start off, Mr. Chairman, by thanking the Member for Roblin for his last point. I had never realized that before and I think that was a go od pie ce of information to this dis cussion on the Workplace and Safety and farm workers generally. So I thank him for it.

I' d like to ask th e Mini ster some foll ow-up qu estions, to those raised by my colleague, the Member for Logan, with respect to the role of the Province in areas where the Federal Government might ha ve ju risdiction but where in particular circums tances, the Province might be involved. I have a particular case in mind, one is the case whereby a person employed by a provincial firm incorpor ated in Manitoba, and I would think subject to Manitoba law and regulations, was kille d in an explosion that took place in the C.N. reclaim yards th ree years ago. Appa rently, possi bly, a shell exploded.

I took that matter up with the Attorne y General, who informed me sometime ago, and also repeated this in the Legislature, that he had sent a letter to the CNR asking that a check be made of the reclaim yards to ensure that there weren't any other explosives, especially shells, that were lying around that could in fact lead to another fatality if another explosion took place. As far as 1 can ascert ain, the CNR has not responded to that request, has not formally notified the Attorney-General tha t they have in fact un dertaken that sweep of the reclaim yards.

What brought this to mind again was the accident that took place in Transcona a few months ago where a person employed by a company incorp orated in Manitoba, was killed on land that supposedly was un der the jurisdiction of the province, but I do belie ve they have run into some difficulty in terms of jurisdiction there because the shells were from the army, and the army said that they were looking into this.

What I am afraid of in these instances is that the ball does drop between stools, and I think that with respect to the CNR, that they have not, to my satisfaction and too bad he's not here, the Attorne y General 's satisfaction, responded sufficiently with respect to their check that they were supposed to have made, of the reclaim yards at the C.N. Shops in Transcona. We can say, well, this isn't our business, but surely it is our busi ness because provincial firms do go onto that property from time to time and undertake work.

So I would like to ask the Mini ster, under whose jurisdiction is it when a provincial firm goes onto Federal property or C.N . property or C.P. prop erty to undertake work? Are those workers under the jurisdiction of the provincial laws, or are they under the jurisdiction of the Federal laws. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, the CNR situation is something that I wasn't aware of, the one that the Member for Transcona said is three years old and he ha s been dealing with the Attorne y-Genera l's Department.

If he wishes to scratch down some details on it for me, from my viewpoint, or our department's view point, I would be glad to give him as many specifics as I could. On the other one where the death occurred , it is our jurisdiction, but the army has, because of their very di rect involvement, they are carrying out, with their massive amount of expertise, the investigation. I believe - I could stand corrected - I don't know how much farther we should go into the last one because I believe the inquest is presently in place.

But, yes, there are areas where we have - I don't know if the proper expression is joint responsibility - but we do in fact have some responsibility in the seco nd ins tance you talk about; we do have respon sibil ity in there. 1017

Monday, 23 February, 1981 MR. PARASIUK: I will in fact provide the specific information and I will get the Attorney-General to send to you a copy of the letter which he indi cated he had sent to the CNR in the House last week. I know that the CNR has taken the position that this is within their jurisdiction and they wi ll look at it, but it strikes me that it is important that they satisfy the province, and especially the Department of Labour, that workers goin g into that area can expect a reasonable, and I would go even further, could expect to work in safe conditions.

The reason why I went through the Attorney General is that at that time, the investigation had taken place under The Fatal Enquir ies Investigation Act and is a follow-up to that. But I certainly will provide that specific information to the Min ister, because I would like to get formal assurance from the CNR that they have inde ed comp leted the sweep; tha t they have called in experts; and that that area is safe for workers, not only under Federal jurisdiction, but safe for workers under provincial jurisdiction who may have to go there.

I would like to ask the Min ister a general question regard ing Workpla ce Safety and Health committees. The legislation states that these will be volunta ry committees, I belie ve, and I would like to ask the Min ister if he could ind icate whether his department has done much research to determine how many work places in Manitoba would be eligible, under the legislation, to establish Workplace Safety and Health committees? MR. MacMASTER: No, we haven't researched the precise number, Mr. Chairman.

Our approach to the Workplace Safety committee structure is such - as a matter of fact, it's not voluntary, once you have named a particular company, it is no longer voluntary; they must in fact put one in place. So I will clear up that particular point. We haven't researched the number that could be. What we are determined to do is keep chunking away at it and biting away at the situation and get thos e that we do have in place working wel l.

I wouldn't feel any better, in fact, I'd feel worse, I think, if we had a thousand or two thousand named and somebody, the Member for Transcona could be the one asking the question, how many are really working well and I had to stumble around and say, well, you know we think maybe 50 are, or 10 0 are, or 150. I would rather take it in pieces of 10 0 or 15 0, 200 or whatever, and work like heck with them, get them working well and then move on to other areas, so that eventually we have a large number but we can , by conscience, say th ey are all work ing reasonably well. MR.

PARASIUK: Could I ask the Min ister to inform me how many Workp lace Safety and Health committees are presently in place? MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, with no sarcasm, this is about the sixth time that that number has been given out: 438, plus 19 that are designated for individual representatives because the workpla ce is really too small to have a committee as such. MR. PARASIUK: I can appreciate that that question probably has been asked. I want to raise it, though, in the context of my previous question, which the Min ister said he did n't have the information to give us an answer.

Four hundr ed and thir ty-eight may be a good number; it may be a bad number. I think it depends on what should be covered, or what could be covered. If in fact we are talking about a situation whereby something in the order of, say, 3,500 or 4,000 workpla ces wi thin Manitoba could have Workpla ce Safety and Health committees, and I would suggest that if they could have Workpla ce Safety and Health committees, that the objective of the department with respect to this program is that they should ultimately have Workplace Safety and Health committees.

I can appreciate the Minister saying, well, I want to make sure that the committees are working well. Gi ven that, and I agree that I would like to have the committees working well as well, you would want to ensure that you expand that coverage, because sur ely you wou ldn 't want to ha ve, say, 3, 600 work places no t having committees. Because presumably if they are working with respect to 400 places, they could work with respect to the other 3,600 or whatever it is.

What concerns me is that we have no idea of what our overall objective is and we really don't have a good enough way of monitoring our progress in terms of trying to achieve fairly univ ersal coverage of the workplaces in Manitoba, with Workplace Safety and Health committees. I'm not a real detailed expert in this, but I am lead to bel ieve that there are something in the order of 3,000 Workplace Safety and Health committees in Saskatchewan. I know that the number of workp laces in Manitoba is larger or greater than that of Saskatchewan.

So then I wonder to myself, well shouldn't we be moving faster than 438 and if that is the case, why aren't we moving faster? Is it because we don't have sufficient staff? Because we're not really moving fast enough to promote this program, because it strikes me that the best way to ensure workplace safety and health at the workpl ace level, is to have both management and workers in volv ed in these commit tees, working together in a co-operative manner, to ensure that that happens.

And I'm pleased that it's happening in 438 and I say that it should be happening a lot more and I don't know whether it should be another 1, 000 at this stage or another 2,0 00 and one way of determining of what it should be is to get some idea from the Mi nister, from the department, as to how many workplaces might be eligible. That's why I asked the previous question. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Portage. MR. HYDE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear up one thing.

The Member for Lac du Bon net ind icated it and that possibly that I was prepared to - or indica ted that I was putting capital inv estment before the safety of the labour force. If that is the way it come out, it was not my intention to leave it and I don't want it left on the books in that form. Accidents are going to continue to happen. They're going to, they will continue, they will more as time goes on with the bigger equipment that we're using today. I want to make certain right here now, Mr.

Chairman, that I, and my family do take every precaution we can to protect the labour force that work on our place, if it's through in suranc e, unemployment insurance and Workers Compensation 1018

Monday, 23 February, 1981 or better still, the private policies that are available to us to protect our investments and the labour force. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you , Mr. Chairperson. The Member for Transcona has brought up the area of Workplace Safety and Health committees and I think it's important that we examine this area in some detail, because I think it is an area where we will find ourselves in disagreement with the government's approach to the provision of mandatory Workplace Safety and Health committees.

The Mini ster has in d icated that there are 438 committees now in place, not all of which are functioning, I would imagine, because some of them are new committees which have just been designated and have not had an opportunity to develop to the point where they're functioning satisfactorily yet and that he has done that because he feels that it in fact is a proper course of action. lt is the way in which he wishes to proceed in the development of Safety and Health Committees in this province. And we all know that they are important.

No one in this room would disagree as to the importance and the role of Safety and Health Comm ittees. They are extremely important. However, not only do we disagree with the Mini ster on this particular point, but the Advisory Council disagrees with the Mini ster on this particular point and it was a recommen dation of the Advi sory Council that all workpla ces, or excuse me, that's an ov ersi mplif ication - th at gr eat num bers of workp laces in certain catagories with more than a cert ain numb er of emp loyees have mandatoril y de si gnated Workp lace, Safety and Health committees.

And that was a recommendation that was forwarded to the Mi nister. I would ask the Mini ster why it is that he chose to proceed in the manner in which he has chosen to, rather than to proceed in the way in which the Advi sory Council offered their recommendation. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Minister. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, the Advisory Council is just exactly that. it's an Advisory Council and they put their advice forward. Some is taken in part as all advisory councils, some in total and some part of.

This is part of the numbers, part of the mythology th ey asked us to conside r and our department put toget her a number and we eve ntually implemented that number. I know what Saskatchewan's done. The Member for Transcona says 3,000, well that's easy to find. That's what they have.

And I'm not going to run a match or a race with Saskatchewan as to who has the most numbers of committees that are functioning well, but I think in all honesty, they'll tell you that large numbers of those committees are in name really only, and it's just virtually impossible for them to, with that large number, really work the heck out of it and assure thems elves those committees are working. They know that they all aren't; we know that they all aren't; and nobody's taking any glory or anything about that.

The num bers the Memb er for Transcona mentioned, we ha ve, if you combine the mines people in Saskatchewan, though they are in fact presently under the Workpla ce Safety, but if you combi ned our mines along with our Workp lace Safety, the department in Saskatchewan has 41 people involved and in Manitoba we have 67. So that's the answer to the member, for numbers sake. And again numbers don't always signify anything. I don't think person to person, they're any better or any worse than our people. MR.

COWAN: Well, the Min ister indi cates that this is one of the options which was presented to him by the Advi sory Council and by this I mean the designation of 16 2 more specific committees.

But, if I can refresh his memory, what the Advis ory Committee suggested to him, and it was passed by the Advisory Council, was th at except where committees are required under certain sections of classifications of the Workers Compensation Board, in all workpl aces where five or more persons are employed, the employer shall cause a worker not con nected with management to be designated as a worker, Health and Safety Representative.

And then it says in No. 2, In workp laces classified by the Worker's Compensation Board of Manitoba in the following groups - and it goes into the different groups, Group 1, Group 2, Group 3, Group 5, Group 6, Group 7, Group 8 and Group 9, - In employing 15 or more persons, the employer shall cause a committee to be established to be known as a Workplace Safety and Health committee and than in 3, it says, In all workpla ces not specified in

Section 2 or

Section 6, employing 25 or more workers, the employer shall cause a committee to be established to be known as the Workplace Safety and Health committee.

Then it goes to No. 6, In all workpla ces classified by the Worker's Compensation Board as group 1. 5 construc tion, the employer shall cause a wor ker from each trade no t conne cted with management with the designated worker's safety and health represented for that trade and than where there's 3 or more trades, which are represented at any one time on construction sites, there shall be a committee and according to the February 15th, 198 0 meeting of the Workpla ce Safety and Health Advisory Council, Cl ause 6 and 7 regarding construction were dropped and Clauses 1 to 5 of that proposal be adopted and Claus e 6 and 7 to be tabled for a later date and to wait for the construction report and the vote was four in favour of and two against.

Those two persons who were opposed, were opposed to Clause 3 in the proposal as it applies only to office workplaces. So it was a fairly definitive statement by the Advisory Council that there should be this type of form ula impl eme nted for the de signation of Workp lace Safety and Health Comm ittees in this province. And th e Mini ster it is only a recommendation and he's absolutely correct, it is only a recommendation.

However, if the Mi ni ster will recall, as we've gone through Estimates over the past two years, and two years running, everytime we ask the Mi nister about the designation of more Workpla ce Safety and He alth commi ttees, the Mini ster said the Advisory Council is looking at it and the Mi nister said, and th ese are his exact words, "They will come up with good criteria" for the designation of Workp lace Safety and Health committees. 1019

Monday, 23 February, 1981 And the Advisory Council, in my opinion, did come up with acceptable criteria for the designation of Safety and Health committees, and the Min ister tells us now that, after having led us to believe all that time that he was going to act on the advice and the recommendation of the council, that in fact he chose not to act on the advice and the recommendation of the council. The Mi nister may say that ther e would be an extreme amount of difficulty in being able to make all th ose committees func tion. I agree with him, however, the Advis ory Council took that under consideration also.

As a matter of fact, they went to Saskatchewan, where there are 3,000 committees functioning, in order to determine as to how that was working, and their recommendations arising our of that trip were extremely positive. The chai rperson of the Advisory Council, and I don't have it before me now, but I can recall it, sugg ested that it was in fact working for them. The employer representative on the Advis ory Council who went there said that it works well for them.

He also said, in all fairness to him, that he was not satisfied with their percentage effectiveness figures, howev er, he did say that it worked well for them. He said that it might not work well here, however, he didn't speak against it, other than to say that. The Director of the div ision, who was at that meeting, also suggested that they were performing well in respect to data base, coding their minutes, putting them on codes, and that that should be looked at here.

Those 3,000 committees were formed in a matter of months in Saskatchewan by the Saskatchewan Department making that a priority and going out and concentrating on that. So it can be done. As a matter of fact, most other jurisdictions are moving towards that type of designation of committees. I had someone, while we were in here today, calling the different jurisdictions to find out exactly how they designated committees, and I'll gi ve you a rundown, to show that we are, in fact, out of step with most of the other provinces in respect to the designation of committees.

In B.C., they have di fferent classifications: "A" is the most hazardous ind ustries, some construction ind ustries, foresty, mines, hazardous ind ustries, where 20 or more workers are involved, there is a mandatory committee; "B" as well, which is a less hazardous indu stry; and in "C" which is office, in training, in teaching and retail, a workforce at 50 or more necessitates a comm it tee . They are very satisfied with that. As matter of fact, they think it is working extremely well.

They have a system where they take the minutes from the committee hearings and they compile them, and it presents them with a fairly accurate picture of what is happening in that province in respect to occupational safety and health. That system has been in place for about 15 years and it has been developed over that period of time and they believe it to be an extremely well-run system.

Now, Al berta, and I don 't think I need to say anything about the politics in Alberta, but Al berta doe sn't mandate comm ittees at all; th at's my understanding, that it is up to the Mini ster, and they are all voluntary at this point and they find that that's working well for them. One would have to look more deeply into that to verify or not to verify. Saskatchewan, we have talked about the 3,000 committees, of which only 30 percent are giving minutes on a regular basis.

But one has to take into consideration Saskatchew an's approach, that if there is a problem, they are going to go in and demand those minutes, or at least strongly encourage th ose minutes. If there is no problem coming out of that workplace, then they are going to be more lax about the minutes.

So, while they say that there is only 30 percent reporting minutes on a regular basis, that in fact does not mean that the other 70 percent are not functioning; it just means that is their approach to it, -(I nterjection)- and as the Member for Transcona says, it's still 900 committees, and those 900 are in the most hazardous ind ustries. Ontario, 20 or more employees in shop areas.

They exclude office workers, retail establishments, multiple res ide nce accommodations, librar ies, museums, those sorts of places, or by Min isterial order, where there is a designated substance being used, and those designated substanc es numb er seven in length. They are mercury, lead, asbestos, silica, . . . cyanates, and noise. They think that their system is working extremely well, and working like a charm , because the ins pectors are very actively involved in the formation and the development of th ose com mittees.

I think our insp ectors are probably of tha t calibr e also and if they were provide d with th at dir ection to work with the committees in such a way, that we too would think the committees were working very well in such large numbers. New Brunswick, 20 or more employers, since 19 76, have to have committees; Newfound, 10 or more employers. If less, they must have a rep, which is one of the workers. Nova Scotia, I was't able to get tod ay. No committees in P.E.I. They don't like them there, they tell us; they don't think they work very we ll. So that's a qu ick run across the country.

Quebec has new legislation in place, as well, in respect to committees. So what we can see is, while Manitoba is sticking to the old process of designating certain committees, the other jurisdictions are taking a broader approach to it and seem to be enjoying success in respect to their approach. I would ask the Min ister, since he has chosen not to take a very strong recommendation from the Advisory Council, what evidence was presented to him, by whom, that would substantiate and would support his particular approach to this particular problem? MR. MacMASTER: Mr.

Chairman, we are satisfied that the committees that we have are functioning. Out of 300 - 314 originally - something in the neighbour hood or 300 or slightly better, are functioning very very adequately. We are aware of that and I am satisfied that that is the route to go. My department is satisfied that's the route to go. In three to four years, whatever it is, th ree years, I suppp ose, sinc e we have really been moving in this direction, it is a degree of success. Saskatchewan certainly now allegedly has 900 that are reporting in some method.

I wonder, really, how many insp ectors are attending their meetings and how many types of educational seminars they are putting on with the numbers of people that they have involved, which are about two-thirds of what we have. 1020

Monday, 23 February, 1981 Yes, we do deal with our com mit tees. Our ins pectors do deal with them. We run educational sessions with the employers and the employees and, I think, originally having 314 designated areas and 300 are working very well at the moment, is a very good record. If we can, a year from now, say that we have 100, or 13 5, or 14 0, whatever it was that we added, then I think that's substantial progress. There is no sense, in my opinion, of just having large num bers for the sake of large num bers.

I want whatever we have working well, working with our staff, working with our education people to assure ourselves that they are very meaningful committees, not just numbers. MR. COWAN: I certainly hope the Min ister is not sugge sti ng tha t we want large numb ers of committees just for the sake of large numbers. We want a different system of designation of committees because we believe the different system to be better, and the Min ister belie ves his system to be better.

I suggested at the beginning that we would probably be in dis agreement as to the way in which to proceed in respect to designating committees; I see that we are. That does not surprise me, nor do I believe that it surpris es the Mini ster. However, I had asked him if he could provide us with sources as to the reasons for his deciding to proceed in the way in which the government has decided to proceed. lt is in contravent ion, it is dir ectly opposed to the recommend ation of the Advisory Council.

Who is providing the Minister with advice that would suggest that he should disregard what the Advisory Council was saying to him in very strong language after so many occasions, and I can find the exact references in the Hansards if necessary, wher e he said we are awai ting the Advisory Council recommendations; the Advisory Council is going to come up with good criteria. Who told him that wasn't good criteria or did he just make that decision on his own? MR. MacMASTER: We took portions of the advice of the Advisory Committee.

The Advisory Committee is there again to advise. it's up to the government to make the decision on how their advice should be implemented and what portion of it. I have said the manner in which it's going to be implemented and at this particular time I see no reason to change our approach. MR. COWAN: The Mini ster ind icates time and time again, that they took portions of advice, and I can only suspect tha t he's talking about advic e concerning Workplace Safety and Health committees from the Advisory Council and based their decision upon those portions.

I would ask him if he could be more specific as to when the Advisory Council ever recommended to him the approach that he has chosen. MR. MacMASTER: Nobody said that I took advice on the approach that we're taking. The approach that we're taking is our approach and it's going to be maintain ed , that approa ch, un less darn good evi dence is br ought forward why it should be changed. But the methodology of acc ident experience and nature of work and that type of thing, was taken in to consideration by our departmental people and the Advisory Council is aware of that type of criteria, and we concur in that area.

We just don't don't concur on the number game. MR. COWAN: I guess we are going to have to continue to choose to disagree, or agree to di sagree in respect to this. I don't want to get into a long drawn-out dis cussion on it. We have had them in the past. I do regret that the Mi nister has chosen to proceed along the course which he has. I regret that he has rejected the advice of the Advisory Council.

I regret that we don't have more committees because I believe that just the formation of a committee, just the designation of a place as a committee, that provides an avenue for workers to more fully express their concerns in respect to workpla ce safety and health hazards. The committee doesn't have to function all the time for it to play a role in that workplace.

If the Mini ster designated, such as Sask atchewan did, 3,000 and had 900 of them working, that would still be 500 more than we have working now, and th ose other 2, 10 0 would be providing some sort of avenue and mechanism for the employee to protect himself or herself at work. We do feel that that way is better. We und erstand and we recognize the difficulties with it but we feel that the advantage of it far outweigh the approach that we have in Manitoba at this time.

The Min ister ind icated last year in Estimates that - I just have to find my notes - while I'm looking for my other notes, perhaps before going on to that, I would like to stay on another recommendation of the Advisory Council which involves itself with this department, and that was a recommendation on December 14 th, 19 79, that was unanimously passed, that the Director of the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, be named as th e Mini ster as our representative to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. They have brought that up in a number of Minu tes.

The Mini ster has chosen to name someone else, even previous to that recom menda ti on, as our representative on the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, and I would ask him if he has any intention of following the advice of the Advis ory Council in respect to our representative on the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. MR. MacMASTER: The previous Deputy Mini ster in the Province of Manitoba, Mr. Jack King, was the first representative to that committee. His term has expired.

I have been in touch with that national body and told them as soon as I have a new Deputy Mini ster, my present one is retiring, once I have him in pl ace , then we' ll dis cuss th e makeup of appointments and that one will have a high priority on my list. But I think in all fairness, the new Deputy Mini ster should be inv olved in making that decision. MR.

COWAN: The Mini ster has jogged my memory and perhaps I had neglected to say th is at the opening remarks, and I am certain the Mini ster will not suggest that it shouldn't be said now, and that is, we have to commend the Deputy Min ister who is retiring for his many long years of service to the Department. I know he has been well liked and well considered by almost all who have come in contact with him. -(In terjection)- I am going to avoid the 1021

Monday, 23 February, 1981 temptation to respond. However, just for the record the Mi nis ter had said that is the same as the Minister, and I don't want to get embroiled in that argument because he had lectu red me at the beginning of his remarks that this was not the place for character assassination, and we've been pretty good at it so far, better than most years, and I know we' ll keep the dis cussion on the high level that it has begun on. But we do want to commend the Deputy Minis ter for his many activities and his long years of service and wish him very very well in his new endeavours.

I know that he will do well, and I know that the Min ister will choose his next Deputy Mini ster very well, and that he too or she too, perhaps I shouldn't make the inference that it would be a male, that whoever it is will in fact do their utmost for the workers in this province. Having said that, I would like to get back to the Estimates at hand. The Mini ster has ind icated that there will be a dis cussion as to who th at representative on the Canadian Centre for Occupational and Health and Safety as soon as the new Deputy Minister is in place.

We look forward to that and we hope that he will take the advice of the Advis ory Council into considera tion. Can the Min ister ind icate what regulations have flowed from his department over the past three years in response to the many suggestions that there was need for more regulations to deal with matters that were not effectively dealt with under the legislation, as is always the case? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Mr. J. Wally McKenzie (Roblin): The Honourable Minister. MR. MacMASTER: None to date, Mr. Chairman. MR. COWAN: The Min ister has ind icated none.

I wonder if he could be more explicit as to why we have not had those regulations when it has been suggested by him time and time again that those reg ula tions were necessary and th at tho se regulations would be forthcom ing in the near future. Why is it that we are still left without any additional regulations for the Workplace Safety and Health Act, to supplement it and to provide better protection? MR. MacMASTER: I have never said that they were necessary in past.

I say that we are now getting to the stage where some may be very likely proposed in the near futur e, but up to date we have been trying to live with a new Act which was proclaimed about six days before we were elected, so we have had it with us for thr ee, three and half years. We have done some reasonably substantial things that all members are aware of and the possibili ty of regulations in the near future is a very real one. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 2.(aX2) - pass - The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: What regulations might those be, Mr. Chairperson? MR.

MacMASTER: There is consideration, and I want it made clear it's consideration, being given to reg ula tions as it rela tes to fir st aid, rol lover protective structure regulations, logging, asbestos, hearing, some regulations possi bly as it relates to the construction ind ustry; some regulations as it relates to toxic chemical regulations and those are in the works - nowhere near ready but I certainly sus pect that's the seven areas that we would be moving on in first. MR.

COWAN: The Min ister has, in th e past, sug gested that regulations would be forthcoming, and he has even provided himself with a schedule, and I di rect his attention specifically in regard to the hearing control conservation program where he suggested it would be forthcoming last year and on many occasions the Minister has suggested that regulations would be forthcoming in the near future.

I know that's not a specific date, however it is an ind ication that we can expect those regulations in the near future and the fact is that he's giving us that sort of general ind ication now, and we only hope that he is more successful in fulfilling the expectation than he has been in the past because there has not been very much activity in respect to formalizing reg ula tio ns, although in fact ther e ha ve been regulations dis cussed at many levels.

As a matter of fact the first aid reg ula tion which the Mi nis ter ind icates is one that should be implemented shortly, went to the Legislative Counsel over a year ago, or approximately a year ago for a review, and yet we don't see any regulation coming forward.

I would suggest that they are dragging their feet on the matter of regulations and that there is need for some change in existing regulations and there is need for new regulations. !understand that the spray painting regulation and the sanitary and hygienic welfare regulation are not consistent with the Manitoba Fire Code and the Manitoba Building Code respectively, so those have to be changed.

If they are not consistent then it would seem to be an urgent need for that sort of change as to avoid contradiction and dupl ication, and yet nothing ha s been forthc omin g in tha t respect, and the Minis ter has known about that, or at least the Department has known about that for quite some time. We are concerned that we have heard those sorts of assurances before and we are concerned that we may hear them again without the regulations having been brought forward for examination and review.

We don't want regulations just for regulations' sake, we want them because, as the Mini ster kno ws, they are an important supplement to the act and they will provide more protection for workers in this provi nce, and for that reason they should be pursued with all due haste. I would like to move on to a different area now and that's in respect to the Chief Medical Officer. We had a bit of a discussion earlier in the day as to why that position has not been filled.

I went back through my notes and I cert ainly don't have all of the references to that Chief Medical Officer, but I just want to read one to the Min ister which was about two years ago, on May 14 th, 19 79. My question to the Mini ster was, could he ind icate why there had not been an appointment of a Chief Medical Officer as requir ed under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, and the Min ister said back to me, and I quote him, "I think it is just a technicality.

The doctor on staff in effect fields that position." We talked about how we didn't believe it to be just a technical ity, that there were legislative provisions made for that Chief 1022

Monday, 23 February, 1981 Medical Officer, there were legisla tive responsi bili ties that Officer could carry out that couldn't be carried out by a Chief Medical Consultant. Then the Mini ster came back to me and said, "just a point of clarification, I didn't I guess complete my statement. The gentleman in question does not have that title now," - by way of note, that gentleman was the Chief Medical Consultant - "but that is being consider ed in the very near future. I had a note on it and I didn't follow through on it but that is being considered.

I am aware of possibly all the points that the member is going to be raising, the values of ha ving that particular appointme nt ." Again we questioned and the Mini ster came back with this statement, this categorical statement, "The only guarantee I can give the member is that that position is going to be filled." - March 14 th, 19 79. lt is not a moot point This in fact is an area where problems have arisen because of the lack of a Chief Medical Officer.

I will just read into the record a letter to the Min ister dated August 11 th, 1980, from an occupational health and safety research group operating out of the Department of Social and Preventative Medicine, Un iversity of Manitoba. These were a number of students that were engaged in a summer project, and I'll read to the Min ister the pertinent parts: "We wish to bring to your attention a matter of grave concern, which is in need of immediate rectifica tion.

Earlier this summer, while engaged in a Federally-funded summer project on occupational, health and safety, we visited a worker from a steel processing plant Toward the end of our discussion, the worker, who will remain anonymous, confided in us concerning a very serious personal health matter. He had been complaining of ill health and finally paid a visit to his doctor, who diagno sed the problem as a dis ease which was exacerbated by the emplo yee 's job.

The doctor provided the employee with a no te to the for eman of the department, informing of the severity of ill ness with a medical recommendation that the worker be rotated off the job. The foreman refused to acknowledge the di rective and th e worker, fea ring lo ss of his livelihood, remained on the job. "We were appalled by the situation and contacted and later visited a Health and Safety Inspector for the Department of Labour. We queried on behalf of the worker as to the possible avenues of recourse. We were politely informed that the only obligation the for eman had was a moral one.

Not being satisfied with this we turned to the Workplace Safety and Health Act and found there

Section 51, which is titled Power to Require Alternative Work. The

section reads as, we are sure you are aware that "where it appears to the dir ector upon the advice of the Chief Occupational Medical Officer that a worker has been over-exposed to a harmful substance, the Director, may, by order require the employer to provide ... the worker temporary alternative work . . . ". We thought that we'd found the answer to the worker's dilemma and immediately contacted the Health and Safety In spector.

To our utter dis may we were informed that the worker still had no recourse, due to the fact that the Government of Manitoba had failed , sinc e October, 19 70, to appoint a Ch ief Occupational Medical Officer. "As the Honourable Minister directly responsible for the enactment of the regulations pertaining to occupational health and safety, we felt it an obli gation and duty to bring to your attention the gravity of the situation. Unless the Chief Medical Officer is appointed as mandated by the act three full years ago, workers remain with absolutely no recourse in seeking alternative work for medical reasons.

We hope that you will see to it that this position is filled promptly." Well, we hope too, th at you will see to it that this position is filled promptly and the Min ister is aware of the difficulties that they can see it creates. So I would ask him why it is that we have not seen any action on his guarantee of two years ago, or nearly two years ago, in respect to filling the position of Chief Occupational Medical Officer. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (a)(2) - pass - The Honourable Mini ster. MR. MacMASTER: The member says tha t I'm aware of the difficulties that the vacancy in this particular position has created.

I am not aware of any difficulties. I am aware of the particular letter tha t was dr afted by some very enthus iastic, I assume, young people, doing what ever they were doing during that period of time and they familarized the mselves to a degree with the procedures, not entirely. We have, in fact, administrative-wise and I've been informed by the department, that we have had no problems, because these two young people allegedly found a problem. And I say allegedly because we don't know who it was.

We, and I am assured by my staff repeatedly, that there's really no difficulty in administering that Act with that position being vacant. We have, with very little problem, had workers relocated without any difficulty when we're dealing with companies for a variety of reasons. MR.

COWAN: The Min ister says now he's not aware of the value and the arguments of having that particular apointment, but he said on May 14 th, 19 79 that he was aware and I quote him, "I am aware of possibly all the points that the member's going to be raising, the values of ha ving th at particular appointment", and that particular appointment is the Chief Medical Officer and he guaranteed us at that time, that that officer would be appointed. Now, I'm not going to or I don't want to get into the argument of what convinc ed the Min ister over the last two years that that appointment wasn't necessary.

I would ask the Mini ster point blank, is he going to appoint a Chief Medical Officer, which is requir ed under the Workplace Safety and Health Act, or he is going to continue on for another year in contravention of the Act? MR. DEPUTY CH AIRMAN: (a)(2) - pass - The Honourable Mini ster. MR. MacMASTER: I have no immediate plans to fill that position. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (a)(2) - pass; (b) - The Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Excuse me, Mr. Chairperson, I don't appreciate being rushed through these, such as the attempt has been made. The Mi nister and I have 1023

Monday, 23 February, 1981 developed what I feel to be a very good rapport in discussing these Estimates ... MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Maybe you don't need a Chairman. MR. COWAN: ... and we have been able to go along. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I apologize. I'll just let you dis cuss it back and forth. MR. COWAN: Thank you. Well that may be helpful too. The Min ister and I are both capable of that sort of discussion. We've had it in the past and I'm certain we will have it in the future, although I don't mean to suggest that a Chair person is not necessary.

I do hope that you would take into consideration the way in which these dis cussions have been proceeded with for the past couple of days, which has been a very effective and efficient way. I would ask the Min ister why it is that now they have no intention of filling that position after having assurances from him for two years running, that they in fact did have intentions of filling that position and filling that position in the near future. MR.

MacMASTER: When I'm advised by my staff that there's a need to fill that particular position and we find that we have a difficulty which we can't overcome without filling it, than I'll give greater consideration to it, be it 1979 or 1978, I can only assume the rationale at that point was just because it said it then you must do it. We have had no difficulties. I want to assure the member that we feel, certainly that we've had no difficulties with that position not being filled to this date. That doesn't say that if difficulties arise and we think we can't handle it, we can fill that position rather rapidly. MR.

COWAN: Is the Min ister then going to bring in amendments to the Act, because if the Min ister is not going to fill that position, he is going to have to change the word ing of the Act which says - the Mini ster says he knows what it says. Will the Mini ster agree that the Act requir es the appointment of Chief Medical Officer by the Min ister? -(l nterjection) the Min ister says he knows what the act says. Now I'm going to have to find the particular

section to read, so that others know what the Act says and the Act is very explicit in that regard. lt would be easier if the Min ister would agree that the Act does call, very specifica lly, for the appoin tment of th at particular person. I don't want to take up the time of the committee. I will have to find it and come back to the Minis ter in respect to it. MR. DEPU TY CH AIRMAN: The Memb er for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: Yes, I just have one concern about this.

I kno w of no member of the public or I would think that if the Minis ter was in opposition or even if he was looking at the actions of another Mi nister in the Cabinet, that he would just sort of lightly pass by a situation where the legislation calls for something and say, the Attorney-General refuses to carry out what the legislation calls for. I thought that is a classic situation where the govern ment, if it is not in favou r of what the legislation requir es, would change the legislation.

But for the government to say that we don't have to respect the legislation is to say that it has a double standard with respect to legislation. What would happen if the general public said we don't respect legislation tha t calls for certain beha viour with respect to driving. There 's the Hig hway Traffic Act. There's the Crimina l Code. There's a whole set of other things. Are we going to tell the public that there is one standard for the public and one standard for the government?

And I thought that everytime I'v e heard of this situation, the government says we think that the piece of legislation isn't warranted, they would bring in legislation to change it. But you can't say that legislation says that something is requir ed and then say we will continue to disregard it. And the Mini ster has specifically said that he understands what the Act says, but that it's not his intention to meet the requirements of the legislation. I just think that that is a double standard and I would like the Min ister to ind icate why he is leaving that inference. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (a)(2) - pass - The Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Well to read in to the record the proper section, that's

section 17 (1) of the Workplace, Safety and Health Act and it says: The Min ister shall appoint as a Ch ief Occupational Medi cal Officer, for the purpose of this Act, a person who is a duly quali fied, medical practitioner and who has training and experience in occupational medicine." The Min ister "shall appoint". Those are the words.

There is no dis cretionary power provided the Mini ster in this regard and we are disappointed that after two years of hearing the Min ister assure us that that appointment is going to forthcom ing in the near future, we now find out that that appointment, in fact, is not going to be forthcoming and that the Mini ster ha s no intention of living up to this particular aspect of the Act. So we find that that is a matter of grave concern to us and we will have to be following it up in different ways. Moving onto another item, because I don't want to belabour any one area, we are going to agree to di sagree again.

I would ask the Min ister if he can provide us a detailed update as to what has been done in respect to the hearing conservation program. At one time it was suggested that ther e would be a survey done of ind ustries that would identify high noise workpl aces, that would, then the Min ister or the department woul d develop and specify appr opriate action to be taken in respect to protection of workers in those workplaces. And regulations were talked about at that time. I'd ask the Mini ster if he can provide us with an update estimate. MR.

MacMASTER: The branch is currently developing a proposal for a comprehensive hearing conservation program, which will include regulations and a code of practice. And I mentioned that is one of the regulations which is on the books and more than just in the back of our minds. it's something that we're working very hard at. 1024

Monday, 23 February, 1981 We hope the elements to include workpla ce noise surveys, assessment of workers' exposure to sounds, eng ineering controls to reduce sound levels, selection of heari ng pro tective de vices, worker education, medical surveyance and record keeping. A draft regulation is being prepared. We hope to have it distributed. It's expected further revisions will be req uired before adoption of the propo sed regulation. That's where we're at.

Certainly I again, was optimistic a year ago, or whenver we first talked of it and I thought it was a lot easier to put together than it ultimately ended up being, but we're very close now to having some regulations that we'll be making in the very near future. MR. COWAN: I appreciate the fact that when we want to see some thing done as I'm certain the Mi nister wants to see happen in this respect that there's positive action taken to protect workers from conditions which might result in hearing loss, that we'r e enthu siastic.

I too am enthu siast ic and sometimes over-extend myself in respect to what one expects to accomplish in a given period of time. I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. MacMASTER: One mo re grouping. I was looking for the people that we've been working with to try and put this together. Your CSA Comm ittee on Acoustics Control; the Manitoba Medical Associa tion; Department of Health and Community Services; Health and Welfare Canada; Manitoba Speech and Hearing Association; Un iversity of Manitoba and the National Research Council.

Now again, a year ago when I made reference to this, I sure as heck didn't believe there was this many groups across our country involved in trying to put together a good set of reg ulations, but it's obvious now, the department's done a hell of a good job in trying to track down those that are really involved and have obviously a fair amount of input into what could be prospective regulations. That's not an excuse. It's meant as a reason and I always think there's a heck of a difference between both, and that's part of the reason that we've tried to involve so many people who are knowledgeable in the field. MR.

COWAN: I appreciate that the Minis ter is trying to put together the best possible program and really don't fault him that much in respect to that not meeting the timetables, which he suggested were the timetable he was going to follow during the last Estimates. I've done it myself; we all do it; he'll do it again; I'll do it again; it's just part of wanting to see something happen. However, I'm not certain that the program is, even with that effort, working as well he had expected it to. At that time he suggested that it would isolate or that they would find areas where the noise levels were too high.

Has his department drawn up a list of workp laces where noise levels are too high? MR. MacMASTER: Well, I think enough is said. We haven't got a precise list of areas where we think it's too high, but I think it's suffice to say that we now have come to the conclusion th at we, without question, need regulations governing noise, hearing, in the Province of Manitoba and this will of course, encompa ss all areas of emplo yment within the province. MR.

COWAN: Has the Mini ster looked at other regulations from other jurisdictions, because that was one of the areas in which he had suggested that activity would take place? -(Interjection)- The Mini ster ind icates that that was such. Moving on to the next special program of last year then, which was the carcinogen program, I would ask the Minis ter if he can provide us with a specific update as to what activity has taken place in that program. In last year's Estimates he indic ated that there would be one person working on it, and one or more summer students working on it.

I would ask the Mini ster if he can provide us with details as to how that program is shaping up at this moment. MR. MacMASTER: I gave you all th at this afternoon, item-by-item-by-item-by-item. MR. COWAN: The Mi nister suggested he gave it to us this afternoon and indeed he did. I don't have my notes here but I can remember fairly well what he said and it's my fault, I don't have my notes here. So I'll proceed on the basis of what I remember. The Mi nister last year suggested that they were going to draw up a list of chemicals which are being used in the province.

He said, quite justifiably, that there are chemicals being used in this province that nobody knows about, nobody, the workers, much less the employers. The employ ers are bringing chemicals in and they have no idea of what effect they are having, and that's not confined to this province, of course, that's all over the indus trial world right now.

The Mini ster, I am certain, knows of the difficulty sometimes in even obtaining data sheets from companies in respect to what materials they have in their substances and chemicals and preparations which they provide to be used in the workplaces, and it is a very complex area. So, at that time we said that we were concerned that with only one person, and we weren't thinking of the summer student at that time but I will include the summer student - only one person and a summer student are only two people - that you are not going to be able to make much prog ress in respect to this very large problem.

You will be able to create an expectation that something is going to be done, but you will in fact be able to do very little. So the only way to test that thesis, which we put forward last year, is to ask the specific questions. Has a list been drawn up th at shows where chemicals are being used in Manitoba's workp laces today? - (I nterject ion)- The Mi nister indicates not and I don't fault him because I don't think that that list is possible with the entire bu reauc racy of the Workpla ce Safety and Health Division working on it; I just don't think they will be able to put that sort of a list together.

So, obviously, while work must be done in respect to this, that is probably an item that is going to take a great deal of time and we don't expect it this Estimates or next Estimates, but neither do we think that we should expect it, nor do we think that the expectation should be created that it in fact will be brought about. The Min ister also indicated that they were going to look at the storage of chemicals. Has the Min ister 1025

Monday, 23 February, 1981 been able to develop any reg ula tions or any informational bulletins or any procedures in respect to the storage of chemicals in this province? MR. MacMASTER: Storage and handling is an area that we think we have made some progress on and if, in fact, we can get some regulations together in the near future, that certainly would be - I don't know whether you would call it a prime concern, but it is certainly an area that you can get into without a matter of years and years of studying a situation. MR.

COWAN: In order to have a proper storage program, one is going to have to find out where they are being stored . Is the dep artment co-operating with the City of Winnip eg in regard to their survey of where chemicals are presently being stored in the province? MR. MacMASTER: No, not precisely with the City of Winnipeg, but we are being made aware, by our ins pectors as they go through the many and varied plants within the province, of the types of storage areas that are in place.

We think we are making some progress, at least in identifying the types of storage areas that are being util ized, and certainly we will be able to gather from that what, in fact, types of storage areas are being in pla ce in Manitoba, used in place in Ma nitoba, wha t procedures are in place for handling. As I outlined before supper, we are gathering all the information we can from other provinces as to how they deal with the storage and handling, and I think that's a very basic, reasonably quick sort of an area that we can move into with the information that we are gathering. MR.

COWAN: might sugge st that this wo uld probably be a good area for co-operation, as the city ha s done a fair amount of work in regard to identifying storage areas, as well as the fire department has done a fair amount of work, because firefighters must be as aware as is possi ble of toxic chemicals which may represent severe hazards to them and to the general public in case of fire, and they are putting all this on computer banks and probably have a lot of information which can be of some value to the Minis ter. So I hope the Min ister will in fact be able to follow up on that suggestion.

I would ask the Mini ster if the people working on this project have been involved with other agencies in respect to identifying problem areas - just for cla rification - other agencies both in side and outside of the Provincial Government? MR. MacMASTER: They are certainly working with the Federal Government and they are cer tainly working with the Fire Commissioner's office. Now, I don't kno w whether the member meant the fire department as being the Fire Commissioner's and we have made a note of the fact that the City of Winnip eg is working in that area and we will get whatever information we can from them.

MR. COW AN: The Mini ster suggested at one time that these individuals would start to look at Manitoba workplaces in respect to trying to determine if there is a problem that is manifesting itself in increased rates of cancer.

The fact that there is a carcinogen does not always mean that there is going to be a significant incr ease in cancer, because some of these cancers are statistically rare and when you have a small work force that is dealing with them, you may not find a particular cancer that might be associated with a substance, because of the size of the control group which you are dealing with - not the control group - but the size of the group in which you are studying.

So I would ask the Minis ter if they have been able to conduct any studies, and I would specifically be interested if they have been able to work with the mining companies in Northern Manitoba in respect to epidemiological studies which they are conducting and of which the department is aware, because they mentioned them at the Mine Safety Seminar review last year.

They are being cond ucted on behalf of the company, sponsored by the company, and solely under the dir ection of the company but I would ask if the division had any luck in co-operating with these individuals and if the division has been looking at other areas where they might be able to develop comprehensive studies? MR. MacMASTER: We haven't been working with the Mines Department as it relates to carcinogens, but we have been working with them on the lung X rays, and both labour and the mining ind ustry have suggested that they want to carry on meetings with us as it relates to the lung X-ray program.

They think that ther e are better methods in place, qu icker response, and we are always open to suggestions from both ind ustry and labour if there is a better way to do someth ing. We will be carrying out meetings with the mining ind ustry and the trades people within that indu stry as it relates to the one particular situation, the lung X-rays. MR. CH AIRMAN: Th e Ho nourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Mr. Chairperson, it is good to see you back in the Chair.

I don't know whether or not I had made specific reference to the department but what I was referring to in specific was a study that is being conducted by Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting in Flin Flon, an epidemiological study of the workers there by a doctor who is dir ecting the activities of univ ersity doctors here in respect to studying the effects of occupational hazards on the community at large. I would ask the Min ister if the persons involv ed in the carcinogen study within the department are co operating with private enterprise in respect to this particular study or any other study. MR.

MacMASTER: No, we haven't been precisely in touch with them. MR. COWAN: I would hope again, that they would try to find out what activity is being undertaken there. I also have heard rumours that the Min es Branch is doing an epidemiological study, or that they are co operating with an epidemiological study, I don't know the details, but they might trace that down as well. Are there any other studies which are being undertaken by the division in respect to trying to determine the long-range effects, either carcinogenic 1026

Monday, 23 February, 1981 or otherwise, of hazardous substances in Manitoba's work places? MR. MacMASTER: Well, they are always looking for other data base from which to start studies. I think one member of that group has had his hands full trying to get the information together that we have got. We are interested in getting into other areas, but there are some particular regulations that we want to get in place as quickly as possi ble, and that certainly has been my direction, to try and get some of tho se regulations in place first before we start getting into other areas of studies. MR.

COWAN: The reason I asked the qu estion specifically is that I was in touch with one of the unio n reps today on a di fferent matter; however, when I mentioned that we were going into Estimates, we suggested some of the areas which might be di scussed, and he asked me to specifically question you in regard to a study whi ch was done on Manitoba Hydro. I don't know whether the study was done in respect to carcinogens; neither does he.

I don't know whether it was done in respect to short term hazards or long-term hazards, but he was approached several months ago in regard to that study and was interested in deter mining if the study had been completed, number one; and if it had been completed, if there had been any results which can be made public. Now, I know that there are interim studies; I know that there are short-term studies; I know that there are long-term studies and that it is sometimes difficult to make public a study which is in fact only half completed.

But the information that he requested was not so much the results, but what is the status of that particular study at this point? MR. MacMASTER: We have been looking at four different areas in regard to fatalities over a 30-year period, and you must appreciate that it has only been a touch-of-the-brush sort of a thing. The four that we would be talking to in the near future are right within the City of Winnipeg, and Hydro is one of them. There is nothing concrete, nothing positive.

We haven't laid out a particular formula of how to review the entire situation and, of course, once you start reviewi ng something that in-depth, I think you should really more appropriately have a medical team, if you wish, and then you have to certainly have others, national bodies for su re, to bear out wha tever information you get. MR. COWAN: The Mini ster mentioned four areas. I have only been in conta ct with the one representative from the Manitoba Hydro. Was it four areas in the Hydro or was it four different areas, one of which was Hydro and the rest were outside of Hydro? MR.

MacMASTER: The others that we are considering are outside of Hydro and I would prefer not to even name them at this particular time. We haven't got an arrangement made with them. We don't have the staff, in our opinion, to go into it in an in-depth manner, and that's what you have to do if you wanted to go into this program. MR. COWAN: The Mini ster is indicating that they don't have the staff to go into studies in an in-depth manner and what they need is a medical team.

Is there any devel opment of that medical team to study these areas in depth, so that the Min ister can more adequately provide us with information as to what has been found? MR. MacMASTER: Well, there is nothing precisely in place at the moment but if we found that, again, brushing over the situation and having a look at it on a cursory nature, if we found that it was requir ed or they were saying substantial evidence to ind icate that a more in depth review could or should take place then that certainly could be considered. MR.

COWAN: The question that follows then is has there been evidence found that would necessitate a more in depth review? Is the division embarking upon a more in depth review of any of these four different areas or all of th ese four different areas? MR. MacMASTER: We're not at that stage yet, Mr. Chairman. MR. CO WAN: When could advise the representative of Manitoba Hydro that he can expect the results of that particular study? MR. MacMASTER: I don' t know what particular study he's making reference to.

If there was a curs ory look at the number of employees that have gone through Hydro and some tentative conclusions reached, they'd be so tentative that I don't think he should be advised as it relates to that at all at this moment. MR. COWAN: What the Min ister is telling me is that the un ion, and let's move from dealing with an individual to dealing with a group, is not a part of the studies. They are informed that a study is being conduc ted but that th ey are not part of the development of the study and that they are not privy to the information which is derived from the study.

Is that an accurate assessment of the Mi ni ste r's procedures in respect to these studies that are being done under this program or any other program? lt could be the Noise Control Program or it could be any program. The reason I ask that question is that I'm somewhat surprised, because the Mini ster had in the past, especially in dealing with the lead situation, involved the union as much as he could and that they had been a part of developing the program, although not as much of a part as they would have liked to have been, nor perhaps I would have liked them to have been.

They were at least made aware of everyt hing. Is the Min ister suggesting that when we are dealing with this area, that the un ions won't be a part of the development of studie s and programs? MR. MacMASTER: I'm not suggesting that at all. I am saying at the moment there is absolutely no progress sufficient to this time to involve any other group. If we decide to take a very thorough review of Hydro or any other operation in this province, absolutely our practise has been to involve the unions and they so will be. MR.

COWAN: Has Manitoba Hydro been advised of the results of this particular study or have any of the 1027

Monday, 23 February, 1981 other th ree areas, which I don't know of, been advised of the results of the studies which were conducted in their areas? MR. MacMASTER: The Member seems to be under the illus ion that something has been completed. Nothing has been completed. MR. COWAN: No, I don't want that misconception to be made.

What I am sugges ting is that even at the initial stages of the devel opment of a study, before even results have been made or completed or data has been compiled, the employer and the employee both should be advised of the study; should be a part of devel oping the study; should be a part of determining what that study means. In other words, they have to be part of the process right from the start to fi11ish.

Now, the employer and the employee can also be tran slated into the emplo yers' organization and the employees' organization which would be an association and a union, but that when you're dealing with those sorts of problems, you want to in fact get the best advice possible and the best advice sometimes comes from front line people as the Mi nister knows, and as the Mi ni ster has said on many, many occasions in the House and during Estimates.

What I am suggesting is that the union, if there is a union, if not the employees as a group, and the employer and the employers' groups be made a part of the whole process. Is the Mi nister saying that he does not approve of that particular approach to the deve lopment of Epidemiological Stud ies on occupational hazards? MR. MacMASTER: The Mem ber knows dif ferent than that. MR. COWAN: Exactly, I do know di fferent than that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mini ster ... one at a time. MR. COWAN: Okay, I'm sorry, I apologize. MR.

MacMASTER: The Un ion ha s been made aware that we were considering looking at the those who had been employed over thi rty years and had passed away, and Hydro is aware of that, and as I'm trying to tell the Mem ber for Churc hill, nothing concrete ha s come out of tha t yet , nothing substantial. Once that is completed if in fact it's completed, today or tomorrow or a year from now, we have a lot of work to do. That may not be at this point, the first thing that this group will be doing.

You can't do everything at once and the union will in fact be kept aware be it a month from now or six months now or a year from now, as to where we are going with that particular review. MR. COWAN: Again, I'll state the point and leave it on the record, because I think it's important. I'm not suggesting that the Min ister is not going to inform them of the results of any study, whether it be good, bad or ind ifferent. What I am hoping is that the Mini ster will make them a part of that study, not a

part in respect to being a guinea pig or the subject of the study, but a part of developing the study; a part of wo rking with the researchers; a part of reviewing the data and a part of reaching the conclusions. The reason I sug gest that it is the appropriate way to proceed is multifold. (

I) lt is going to insure that the employer and the employee buy into the study. You need their full co operation. You will most lik ely get their full co operation in most instances. I don't know the other three studies, I only know of Hydro because of the Unio n Rep. however, I'm certain that you've had good co-operation with all the parties involved in those studies, but that co-operation can be made better by making them a part of the process. (2) lt provides you with data that you might not get otherwise.

A person who comes in and superimposes himself or herself on a situation and tries to in a very short period of time determine exactly what is happening in that situation, may in fact be able to pick up the highlights and to pick up the broad picture but they certainly can't get the subtleties, and in this ins tance, it may be that those indi vid uals which you are studying in a statistical sense, had specific things wrong with them or right with them, as the case may be, but that their eo-workers knew about, and that you wouldn't find on any sort of official document.

But if you talked to the eo-workers they would say, oh, yes now I remember, this was a problem with so and so, and for that reason you increase your data base. Now that data has to be checked out because it's sometimes third hand, and sometime heresay, but it cer tainly a star ting point for further investigations.

Finally, if you find a problem, and I'm not certain that you have or haven't from what you've told me, but if you find a problem, then you are going to be able to convince those participants in the study who have been with you from day one, of the necessity for qui ck and urgent and comprehensive actions. They have bought into the study, they are part of the study and they will be able to provide you with specific information on how to develop what you belie ve might be a solution to the problem, because they are the ones that are working first hand with it.

They are ones that know what will work and what won 't work and you will avoid a great deal of duplic ation and you will avoid a great deal of unwieldy programs if you listen to them, and the Min ister knows that. The Mini ster has said that in the past, the Mini ster is aware of that and that is why I'm somewhat surpris ed that we haven't seen more involvment by the union and the employees in respect to these studies.

The Min ister is aware in other jurisdictions, I think there was just a study completed in Quebec, I kn ow ther e is one un dergoing now in lnco in Sudbur y, tha t the union is an int egral part of developing the study. As a matter of fact in Sud bury, I think they negotiated it as part of the contract, I'm not certain, but that studies are being conducted now jointly by the union and the company and they are turning out to be very effective studies.

Those two groups stick together, devise a criteria for the study, devise a stradegy for the study, devise what they want to see come out of the study and then di rect professionals such as the Mini ster has in his department, to come up with that data. I think that is an area that should be looked at very carefully and I would hope that the Mini ster 1028

Monday, 23 February, 1981 would involve those employees and the employer, and I don't know how much the employer has been involved so, I can only speak to the employees at this time, but involv e all parties more so in the activities of this particular group and of the Noise or Hearing Conservation group and of any other group. On Manitoba Hydro, I have to ask this question then. lt is my understanding that Manitoba Hydro was one of the areas designated for a committee in 1977 by Order-in-Council but was exempted from having that committee and is still exempted.

I would ask the Min ister if he can ind icate what action he has taken in regard to that exemption, because I know that it's been brough� to the division's attention through the advisory council and through other parties? MR. CH AIRMAN: 2. (a)(2) - the Memb er for Churchill. MR. COWAN: I'm waiting for the Min ister's answer on that, he is consulting, but I can go ahead on a di fferent item while he in fact does consult. MR. MacMASTER: We've been in touch with both unions and I understand from my staff that they have not replied to our request. I wasn't aware of that so I'll get back to them myself tomorrow. MR.

COWAN: The Min ister indicated both unions, that would be both unions at Manitoba Hydro which wou ld be I belie ve In ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and CU PE? MR. MacMASTER: it's the Electrical Workers that haven't replied yet. MR. COWAN: The Mini ster ind icates it's the Electrical Workers that haven't replied but that the Canadian Union of Public Employees has replied? And was there a suggestion that that exemption should be continued or did they have some concerns about that exemption? MR. MacMASTER: I understand that CUPE and Hydro are going ahead with establishing a committee.

I still don't know why and neither does my staff, why lBW hasn't concurred to do just that at this moment but we can check it out and find out. I don't know what the holdup is there. MR. COWAN: I'd appreciate the Min ister getting back to us with that information. Accord ing to the Advisory Council minutes on December 30, 198 0, ther e is an inquir y being conduc ted into lea d poisoning in the fire departments or that there is some concern about that. I'm wondering if the Mi ni ster can provide us with any more information respecting that inqu iry. MR. MacMASTER: Can you rephrase that?

I just didn't quite catch it. MR. COWAN: Okay, perhaps I can read from the minutes if I can find the proper one. I'm sorry, it's October 3, 19 80 minutes of the Advis ory Council, No. 1. lt says: "I nqu iry in to lead poison ing in fir e dep artments is being in ves ti gated . Item 2(e), Business Arising Out of Minutes." MR. MacMASTER: Apparently there were some original samples that indicated some concern.

They were resampled and found that there was no reason for concern and the only thing that our staff can assume is that the original samples must have been contaminated in some way, shape or form and this sometimes happens. MR. COWAN: I thank the Min ister for that information and indeed it does happen from time to time and it is always a consideration. When speaking to the problem in lead, I'd ask the Min ister if he can update us as to the status of the lead contamination problem in two specific workpla ces in Manitoba; one, of course, being Nort hwest Smelting and the other being Canadian Bronze. MR.

MacMASTER: We've had relatively reasonable success with both operations. The Canadian Bronze one, I understand that they have brought in a new system and some new equipment from out of the country which will be installed very shortly and in fact is in the process of being installed now. We expect that will even make it better than it is today. They have certainly cleaned up their act in a lot of ways. We understand that at Northwest presently today, there is one of the hourly rated employees who is on compensation today because of lead in blood. MR.

COWAN: Perhaps the Min ister can confirm my information, that's that Northwest Smelting has been shut down for some time now, that it has not been operating for some time and that it is starting up operations again. Is that correct? MR. MacMASTER: Yes, approximately Christmas Eve, I think, or just before that they closed down a portion of their operation. They are now presently - new equipment is in place, expecting to start up - we're guessing, in the next few days or the next week or two, and testing of that new equipment will take place at that time.

But you are right, it has been, I guess, virtually shut down, if you only have somewhere between six and ten people and you normally have 20 or 25. it's been running on a maintenance sort of a basis for the last month, month and a half. With the new equipment now ins tal led they expect to start up operations - momentarily isn't the right word - within the next week or two. At that point our people will be in specting how this new equipment - and taking tests how it's bearing up. MR.

COWAN: Perhaps the Min ister can indicate if it's his knowledge that that equipment has been brought in to al leviate many of the problems in respect to lead-in-air contam in ation. (I nterject ion)- The Mi nis ter says hopefully. Well certainly that is our hope as well and we would look forward to being provided with information as it becomes available in respect to the lead-in-air levels in that plant.

They are as important as the lead-in blood levels in numbers on compensation. it's been a long, difficult battle in respect to that, and it's my understanding that Canadian Bronze has made a number of changes which has in fact provided a more satisfactory environment for its workers and tha t Northw est Smelting has un dergone greater di fficulties in making those sorts of changes but that we may finally see something occurring in respect to 1029

Monday, 23 February, 1981 that, and I am being as kind as I can. - (I nterjection)- The Mi nister says, you sometimes need 2x4. We said that a long long time ago, but the fact is that it is as true today as it was then. The Minis ter reminded me a while back as to the question which I . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. MacMASTER: We are just trying to determine when we'd shut down. The other committee has shut down. I had hoped that we cou ld maybe fin ish Workplace Safety at least tonight, if that's agreeable with the member. MR. COWAN: We migh t be able to fin ish it. I wouldn'

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-24b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 24b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0f50a8ca60cc3e13d4cebc082cd782394f99d2c1

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).