April 22, 1994

GOVERNMENT SERVICES ESTIMATES COMMITTEE

The Committee met at 7:00 p.m. in the House of

Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Oldford): Order, please!

My name is Doug Oldford and I'm the Chair of the

Government Services Estimates Committee. We are here tonight to review the

estimates of the Department of Employment and Labour Relations. I want to

welcome the minister and his staff. At this time I would like to introduce our

Committee. On my left is Mr. Roger Fitzgerald, the Member for Bonavista South.

He is the vice-chair of the Committee. Next to him is Mr. Jack Byrne, the Member

for St. John's East Extern. Next to him, to his left, is Mr. Lloyd Matthews, the

Member for St. John's North. Last but not least is the late John Crane, the

Member for Harbour Grace.

At this time I would like for the minister to maybe

introduce his staff, and then we can lay down some ground rules and get right

into the estimates. Mr. Minister, if you would.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I could

probably do the quick introduction and say it is the same crew as last year, for

those of you who were here. Many of the Committee members are the same. But to

give it the just deserves, with me on my right here is the Deputy Minister of

the department, Ms. Debbie Fry; Assistant Deputy Minister for Occupational

Health and Safety, Mr. Mike Dwyer; Assistant Deputy Minister for Labour

Relations, Ms. Linda Black. In the back row, in the middle - there are a couple

of ways you can tell, it is the person in the middle and it is the female, and

that is Ms. Cathy Gogan, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister in the Employment

Services branch. Then there are our two money people who try to keep us in line

in terms of expenditures. Directly behind me is our Director of Administration,

Mr. Tom Hopkins, and Mr. Gerry Crocker on the far right who's - the exact title

I never know, but I know he is the Financial Manager of Operations and those

kinds of things.

These are the people we rely upon as I indicated

here last year to keep the rest of us on the straight and narrow. Usually they

pass the message along to one of the other people and they try to make sure that

I haven't done anything wrong, and the department hasn't done anything wrong, at

least from the point of view of expending money. The other issues, lots of other

people pass judgements, but at least that is the procedure we go through when it

comes to the expenditure of funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you for the opportunity to

introduce the staff, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ground rules we've set for

the Estimates Committee is this. We will allow the minister fifteen minutes to

introduce his department's estimates. We will then go to the vice-chair who gets

fifteen minutes to question the minister, and we will go in ten minute cycles

from there on in. Without further ado we will ask the minister to do his

introduction. We would like to limit it to fifteen minutes so we can get some

questions from our Committee members. Mr. Minister.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I

note the procedure continues to change a bit from year to year, even though we

are trying to be consistent, I suppose. Because I reminded the group last year

that the year prior out of a three-hour session I was given the first

hour-and-a-half to do my introductory comments because there were so many things

we wanted to talk about. Then we took the requisite coffee break and came back

and there were some questions for the better part of an hour. We adjourned and

everybody was satisfied that they had explored fully the estimates of the

department and were given a full opportunity to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Obviously the Chair wasn't very

competent the year before last.

MR. GRIMES: Then last year in trying to work

with this fifteen minute rule I think we ran a little bit over time and at some

point in time the Chair did remind me that I had gone beyond fifteen minutes and

that there were some people who really like to ask some questions more so than

the year before.

I will try to be very brief this year in terms of

just saying that generally we were pleased in the budgetary process, that for

the different budget headings and the different divisions and the areas of

operation for which this department has responsibility in government we

basically were able to maintain our program funding in just about every area

except areas where we by design suggested some changes that we thought were

improvements in services and could be done just as efficiently, if not more so,

with a little less money. In some areas, because they are considered to be areas

of priority for the government, there are actually some increases that show up

in our budget and in our estimates.

In any event, rather than go through the detail, I

would just like to point out a couple of areas where we have placed ongoing

emphasis. One of them carrying into a second consecutive year now is an attempt

to place some increased emphasis on occupational health and safety. This whole

issue is one that the department always took very seriously, but when it came to

a head, I guess, a few years ago, particularly as it related to some pending

changes in workers compensation, it was made clear by everyone that was

interested in that particular aspect that we, in making our changes to workers

compensation, should make sure that everybody involved was going to put

increased emphasis on occupational health and safety, and hopefully find a way

to diminish the number of lost time accidents so it would have a real positive

impact on the individuals by virtue of the fact that hopefully there would be

less injuries for which they would lose less time, and as a result that would

then be the very best way for workers compensation to bring its finances into

line.

That effort started in a big way with the budget

and the things that were announced January 1, 1993. We have had a year of

experience that shows again now for, I believe, Mike, this is the fourth

consecutive year where there have been significant decreases in the number of

lost time accidents. So the trend had started prior to the changes in the

workers compensation legislation, but has certainly continued and been

accelerated because of the fact that everybody involved did commit to put

increased emphasis on occupational health and safety as a part of the overall

attempt to have some real positive impact with workers compensation.

Since workers compensation, I guess, answers to

government through this department, and the occupational health and safety

division is funded from workers compensation on a recoverable basis, we are very

proud of the efforts that have been put in and the fact that the Workers'

Compensation Commission - that board of directors which represents employers and

employees and has some public reps - as well as the Cabinet, have both agreed

that there should be funding provided in an increased fashion within the

limitations that are legislated to enable those efforts to continue, and they

have been bearing effect and showing the fruits of the effort over the last

couple of years, so we are very pleased in that particular area.

The other

part is that in the employment services

area, particularly as it relates to opportunities for youth and women, we've

managed to maintain and in some cases increase the budget in terms of programs

that have already shown a great deal of success. There's a great deal of

interest by both employers and the individuals who get employed, and the concept

of establishing programs that lead to real possibilities for long-term

employment by offering a wage subsidy of some sorts, both for graduates trying

to seek their first jobs, for all kinds of other people trying to enter the

workforce on a regular sustained basis, that we've maintained our monies,

increased them a little in some areas, and we hope that we will find ways, along

with the federal government and Mr. Axworthy, because they're very interested in

this whole area, even though it's not budgeted here now, that some time later in

this fiscal year they may be able to participate with us in some joint shared

programs that will even see more money than is indicated in our estimates spent

on employment opportunities, particularly those targeted for young people, and

again we've maintained the funding for programs that are specifically targeted

at women and entering into areas where they are non-traditionally employed, so

the non-traditional skill and trades areas.

Those things are ones that I would like to

highlight briefly in terms of things that we have been trying to concentrate on

and that we have put emphasis on again for this year. Any other matters, I am

sure that what I would probably rather do is provide the members the maximum

opportunity to ask of myself or any of the staff if you would like more detail

than I can provide, we would like to give you as much detail as you would like

to have, to allow the maximum time for some questions and we will try our very

best to provide the answers, hopefully in a fashion that would be suitable to

the Committee and would meet the needs of all the members.

With that brief introduction, rather than go

through a description, again, of all the different programs and areas of the

department, I might better serve the use of the time and the needs of the

committee by allowing for the exchange of information through question and

answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Before we go with the

questioning I would like to remind your staff that as you speak or if you're

answering a question would you please introduce yourself because the recorder

doesn't know your staff the way they would know the members of the House because

we're here all the time. So if you could, introduce yourself and identify

yourself every time you speak. Having said that I turn it over to Mr. Fitzgerald

for any questioning.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you, Mr. Minister. As I look across the aisle I see a very balanced staff there,

Mr. Minister and I compliment you on that. Some of your staff are wearing red,

some are wearing blue and there's some neutral colours there so you've done very

well in bringing in a good relationship right from the beginning.

One concern that I'd like to bring forward, Sir, is

the part of your budget where you've decreased the number of electrical

inspectors I think to something like ten electrical inspectors that are going to

be laid off due to the changes in the 1994 Budget and I'm not sure if I'm

correct or not but probably three or four boiler inspectors. I have a great

concern about this myself having come from the construction trades and knowing

the things that are happening out there, not only today but in bygone days as

well. I have great fear that we're going to be leaving a lot of people, very

innocently, in probably very unsafe conditions and I hope that it's not a matter

of saving some dollars and cents and putting people's lives and their safety in

jeopardy. I'm wondering what you based your decision on and where you came up

with the information that you don't need those inspectors anymore, that they

weren't doing a task that was worthy of keeping them on staff?

MR. GRIMES: Thank you and if you don't mind as

well, Mr. Chairman, maybe if I used the opportunity here of the Committee to

give a little more detail to an answer then we might during a day at Question

Period because the issue has been raised a couple of times before but it's a

good opportunity to probably spell out the whole thing in a little more detail.

I'd ask too, with respect to this particular question, that at the end, if I've

missed anything, maybe you might be prepared to fill in and just make a note if

there's any gaps in the information that I provide to the Committee because I'd

like for it to be accurate and complete.

We've been looking at the issue for some while. The

questions that you raise are very legitimate questions in terms of public

safety. The Committee can be assured that they were the very questions that were

raised by myself when we looked at this as an option. I said, OK fine, if

there's going to be a shared responsibility - particularly now with respect to

the electrical inspections - between the industry, the electricians themselves

and government in terms of everybody taking some part of the responsibility to

ensure that the work is done to the appropriate standard and done so that there

would not be a concern for public safety, if we're going to do that, we'll be

making sure that we are not in fact going to leave ourselves open or leave the

people open to a concern that they should fear to go to bed at night in a new

residence because of the fact that it might not be inspected by an electrical

inspector.

The reality of it maybe, just to give a little bit

of the history is that - and there are a couple of very positive up sides to

this -is that over the years here the requirement that no occupancy occur until

the inspection was completed by a government inspector actually led to a

situation where, in some instances, particularly in the rural areas, a number of

less then fully qualified people were doing electrical installations. I think

all of us who are representing districts, particularly outside the larger

metropolitan areas, can relate to the scenario where somebody does this kind of

work, somebody does that kind of work and then as long as it passes the

inspection, the rule of thumb is that it doesn't really matter who did it as

long as it passed the inspection.

I guess what was really happening in many cases was

that the government inspector became a teacher for some of these non-qualified

people because the government inspector would go out and say; well you didn't do

that quite right. If you fix this - and the next time around try to do it this

way. Some of these people actually learned on the job with the benefit of the

inspector as an instructor.

The real change that's going to occur here is that

- and we've checked it too with the contractors, with some engineering firms and

also with representatives of IBEW. The real change is that we are going to

register both the contractors, those people that are going to put themselves

forward as legitimate electrical contractors, whether it be a one person

operation or a larger operation, and we are going to register the electricians.

All of them will be required to register. They will have to verify to the

department that they have appropriate certification.

That will carry with it, and I have not been

dealing with this publicly before, but I think if there is a political issue in

this it is not the safety factor, because that was the first question we asked:

Will this be safe? The answer every single time without reservation has been,

absolutely. It is the norm across Canada. It is the way it is done in the other

provinces. The contractor himself and the installer put their reputation, their

registration, and their ability to do this work on the line every time they do

it. They have to ensure they are going to do it according to the code.

Really, the down side of it from any kind of a

political point of view, that ourselves as members might be confronted with

after the new system comes in place on June 1, is the fact that a person who was

able to go and wire a house with no credentials and have it passed is not going

to be allowed to wire a house.

MR. FITZGERALD: Will he not be allowed to wire

a house, or will it be a situation where he will not be allowed to take out a

permit?

MR. GRIMES: Maybe I should clarify that, too.

The only people allowed to take out a permit will be people who have been

registered and the registration will require a level of certification, whether

it be journeymen or at least to the apprentice level, and if you have been

trained in the trade. I think the reality is that some people who have no formal

training in the trade have been doing wiring and have gotten good at it just

through experience. These people will not be allowed to pick up a permit and

they will not be allowed to do the actual installation, so the passing out of

the permit is going to hinge upon the fact that the person getting the permit

must have a certain qualification and must be going to ensure that they or

someone who is equally qualified is going to do the installation and stand by

the actual work itself, and put their stamp of approval on it. Also, it is a

fact that because these will be in categories - Mike might go into more detail

for the Committee if you want to pursue it.

We estimate that about 40 per cent of the

installations will still be inspected by the remaining inspectorate because we

have to spot check the contractors and installers from time to time to make sure

they are doing the work so that they too can maintain and continue to maintain

their level of registration. Much of it, in terms of registration, will be based

upon their previous experience as to whether or not they have engineering and

design plans done, and whether or not they have inspections done by another

agency as part of their work, whether or not they inspect it and have an

engineer on staff and those kind of things, depending on the size of the

company.

We still expect that likely 40 per cent of the

installations in any event throughout the Province will be inspected before

occupancy, and that the combination of everyone doing the installations and

putting their own credibility and their own right to actually be in the business

on the line every time they do a job, plus the spot checks, will leave us in a

position which I say is the norm across Canada. It has satisfied everybody in

the other provinces that there isn't any kind of a public safety risk involved

with this, and that it has been the kind of approach that the industry is

looking forward to participating in.

One of the complaints that all members, who have

been in the Legislature long enough, one of the complaints that I regularly get

as minister would be if somebody had a building done and they were ready to go

on to some other stage, ready to do the wallboard and cover it up, but they were

not allowed because the inspector had not been there. If the inspectors were

busy, particularly in the summertime they might have to wait three or for days

and the call was: why can I not get an inspector? Under this system they will

not have to wait for an inspector.

From time to time there will be a spot check and

that kind of a problem that is in the system, which is not a problem when our

priority is safety, but it will be removed and it will be a shared system

whereby the contractors themselves and those doing the installation, the

individual qualified electricians, and the government will share responsibility

for this.

MR. FITZGERALD: So everybody out there now who

would normally wire a House if he has not went through the procedure of the

Department of Labour and does not have a license he will be expected to go and

upgrade his education or go back to school, or at least write the exam before he

will be allowed to continue wiring houses as in the past?

MR. GRIMES: That would be the basic notion.

People will have to verify already existing credentials or would have to

actually go get them to the satisfaction of the department. The last numbers we

had was that there were about 2300 certified electricians in the Province at

this point in time, and about 300 registered apprentices, so we expect that all

of those could be registered automatically just by virtue of demonstrating to

the department the qualifications and experience that they have, and anyone else

wanting to have a right to pick up permits and do installations will have to

meet whatever criteria is established to show that they belong in this category.

I don't know Mike, if there is anything that I have missed here that you should

add at this point.

MR. DWYER: There is only one minor point and

somebody will probably bring it up anyway. How about those people who had been,

over the last number of years, making a livelihood of electrical installations

and who have become competent in electrical installations?

There is a clause there for anyone who has been

making a livelihood of it over the past three years - the last three years and

who basically can identify that it has been their principal occupation; based on

references and writing an exam, using the electrical code criteria, they can be

given a restricted license and in all likelihood a restricted license will

restrict those persons to residential installations only, and most likely that

is all that they have been doing over the past number of years anyway.

MR. FITZGERALD: Much the same for the boiler

inspectors?

MR. GRIMES: The issue with the boiler

inspectors again is that, through the committee that looks at the regulation and

so on, the requirements for many of the boiler-pressure vessels that are in the

Province and so on, particularly, many of the newer installations have been

changing over the years and they don't need and require as constant and regular

inspections as before.

The other thing that the department has done is,

moved into a very aggressive targeting and auditing of inspections, and have

looked very closely at the concept of changing the regularity and necessity and

I think, to give an example: when there may have been a requirement here, that

there be an annual inspection regardless of the age of the pressure vessel and

so on; the notion now with the new standards and so on that are out, that many

of the new vessels may not require an inspection each year, they may only

require an inspection after the third year, much like the cars when you take

them in to the garage you don't need to do it the first year and those kinds of

things, so we are looking at the present itinerary in terms of the number of

pressure vessels that are in the Province, the age of them, what kind of real

inspection that they require.

Again, to make sure is the number one priority

every time, that safety is the number one concern, that any safety concern has

been addressed, but with the new targeting and auditing it is clear that with

the number of pressure vessels installed and operative in the Province, we will

not need the same inspectorate. I think most members will know that many of the

pressure vessels, a number of them are involved with fish plant operations; a

number of which have remained idle for a period of time now and are expected to

for a number of years. Even before, if there was a requirement whether it was in

use or not, for an annual inspection you had to go and inspect, so with the new

auditing and targeting inspections, it has been shown that we could reduce the

boiler-pressured vessels inspectorate by three positions and still with the

remaining staff get all of the necessary and required inspections done and not

under any set of circumstances as we see it increase any level of risk for any

of the operations that have the use of pressure vessels on their premises.

MR. FITZGERALD: There seems to be quite a

movement in one direction. I have come from industry myself and I know, up until

now, even if the smallest size of a pressure vessel is brought into any kind of

a plant, whether it was just a compressor to put out enough pressure to blow up

a tire on an automobile, it had to be inspected before you were allowed to put

it into operation in those plants, and now, it seems that we are moving away

from it and we could almost go in and put in almost any type of a pressure

vessel and not have it inspected.

The same thing with housing I suppose, you

indicated that there have been people who have had to wait two and three days

and have been screaming trying to get an inspection, but I can assure you, if it

were a house that I was having built, I would rather wait two or three days and

have it inspected before the wallboard went on than to put something up like

that hoping, and not knowing what was inside. I have a lot of concerns and I

know there is a lot of concerns out there today regarding the safety in which

there has been so much movement now in an opposite direction from what we have

been used to. When you say you are going to be doing spot checks, can you

elaborate on that? Will it be a situation where the inspector himself will have

the privilege of getting up in the morning and just going and picking out a

certain place, or will it be a situation where certain contractors, and what

they are doing will be inspected rather than jobs?

MR. GRIMES: A combination of both actually. In

the registration for contractors and for electrical installers for these

certified electricians who are eligible to pick up the permits and do the work,

depending again on their experience and the experience that the department

through the inspectors had with them in the past. That will be taken into

account in terms of the

schedule for the inspectors. They will do a

determination as soon as the permit is picked up, depending upon who picked it

up and what the record and experience of that particular person has been as

determined by the department. They will use that as a large part of the

determination as to whether or not there should be a compulsory inspection of

the work done by that person and/or contractor.

We are in the position right now I think that - we

were targeting the end of this month, so we are probably talking about next week

for the public release of the total details of the regulations. Because we need

to give that month advance notice for both the electricians and the contractors

to register with the department so that the whole thing can be functional by the

first of June, which is the target date, I think once those are released - and

they are in the final form now.

Once they are released I think you will be able to

see that the criteria that are put in in terms of dictating or determining for

the inspectors themselves the priority list in which they do inspections I think

would also relieve any of the concerns that you've just expressed. Because it is

clear that through the registration process the remaining half of the

inspectorate will be able to tell quite clearly which of the jobs should be

inspected more so than others, and then that they are - I think in most

inspectorates it is always useful from time to time, unannounced or anything

else, just to pop into a site where you know there is activity. To verify for

yourself that if you have a record showing that a particular contractor has been

very good, even once a year or so you may want to check on a couple of their

installations to make sure that nothing has slipped in terms of their standards

and so on.

We've been discussing those kinds of issues with

representatives of the contractors and with representatives of the International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, as I say. They seem at this point in time -

they came in with some concerns, as you would expect. Went through a full

discussion with our officials and seem to have gone away reassured that the

system can work and will work. They are pledging to us that they are going to do

everything they can to cooperate with us and make it work, because they see it

as a positive step and it gives them some credit for what they do. Also it gives

them an opportunity to share the responsibility and show the people that they

can do the work credibly, safely, without always having to have somebody looking

over your shoulder.

MR. FITZGERALD: Also I understand that not all

of those boiler inspectors are going to be laid off. Some of them are going to

be moved around within your department rather than be laid off. I stand to be

corrected on that. What will government save by this lay off?

MR. GRIMES: I think the actual number in the

estimates shows that through the total changes in the inspectorate there is

expected to be in the range of about $600,000 less expended in the coming fiscal

year as compared to the previous year. I believe that number is accurate. That

is the range of it for the electrical and the boiler pressure vessel inspectors.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Crane.

MR. CRANE: I don't have many questions for you,

Mr. Minister. I have questions but I'm not going to ask them now. They are not

about your department. However, I'm happy to see that you retain most of your

monies comparable with what you had last year in these years of hard times,

tough times. I'm sure you've got to kick up and really be able to keep up your

hand to keep most of your subheads the same as last year. I noticed in one, in

particular the Youth Employment Strategy, you've increased considerably.

There is one there that really has me somewhat

bothered and I'm sure we are going to need it again this year, and that is the

Emergency Response. The program where there was $5.9 million in it last year. I

know it wasn't budgeted last year but it was spent last year and there is

nothing there this year again. It wasn't budgeted last year, was it?

MR. GRIMES: No.

MR. CRANE: So, just if you need it you find it,

is that what you are saying?

MR. GRIMES: I think that's the approach that

we've used now three years in a row. I guess by the time we did it for the third

time in the past fiscal year even the heading, the Emergency Response Program,

this is the point that our colleagues in opposition have made in Question

Period, that if you have been doing this two or three years in a row why don't

you just make it part of the program and budget for it?

I guess if it's consistent and regular and carries

on year after year then maybe it should become a regular part of the program.

We've had that discussion, however, in Cabinet, and each time it has been

exactly as the heading describes. Government is committed to trying to get to a

point in time where we will not need to put people to work on projects, that

there will be some other way to have meaningful employment opportunities and/or

some consistent way of income maintenance without having to put people to work,

because each time we've done this the last three years, in our initial

announcement we made no bones about exactly what we were doing. The initial

announcement each time said that we were going to put people to work for the

minimum period that they required to qualify for unemployment insurance, and

that was said without reservation, without trying to disguise what it was, or

anything else, and it was done because a real income need existed in the

Province each of the last three years that wasn't being met through any other

avenue.

Ourselves and the federal government are currently

involved in discussions with the National Social Security Reform Program and, of

course, we had another proposal that we put to the federal government that I

won't talk about in any detail this evening talking about maintaining income for

people through a certain mechanism that is still being discussed, and we are

trying to find ways creatively now with the federal government that of an $800

million strategic initiative fund that Mr. Axworthy announced in the federal

budget, to see if we can't get a fair share of that into Newfoundland and

Labrador to meet some income needs of the people in our Province who don't meet

their income needs through earnings from employment.

It looks like we could look ahead and guess that

there is probably going to be some sort of need again in the coming year, but in

the debate we said: Should we sit down and say we're definitely going to plan to

spend some money on the emergency basis later on this year? We said: Well, if

the emergency arises we'll try to find a way, in some way, shape or form, as we

did in each of the last three years, to meet the emergency should it arise. Do

we want to try and guess right now as to their best guess as to whether or not

there will be an emergency type situation come August, September or October? We

said: No, we're better to leave the judgement to that point in time.

MR. CRANE: It's nice to be prepared if there

is.

There's one other thing that bothered me, and

that's the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal. I see on the human rights side

of the page you've raised the money, a fair amount, but I know every one of us

were bombarded with people trying to get their appeals through the tribunal, and

phoning the Workers Compensation you would forever get the same answer; we just

don't have enough people.

I wonder why you haven't found some more money to

at least hire one or two other people to help us out, or help the people out who

are in desperate need sometime, and are run afoul out there in Workers

Compensation and just can't get a tribunal case heard?

MR. GRIMES: I can certainly understand and

share with the sense of frustration, because I think certainly every elected

member in the Legislature shares it, because if you've had one dealing at all

with Workers Compensation, particularly the appeals tribunal, unquestionably the

individual you have been trying to represent, to present something on their

behalf, has been frustrated by the time, and that becomes the consistent

problem, that once they go into that appeal process they can, if they are really

lucky, get a hearing date and get something back in nine or ten months, but more

than likely it goes beyond a year. It's an area where we're putting extra

attention into it now, and actually at this point in time there are proposals

that are in the Cabinet system that we've put forward to try to look at ways to

speed up the process.

We looked at it in the budgetary exercise as to

whether or not adding money to this, which pays for the large part of it here,

because they do have a small staff, but the large part of the money goes into

paying for the chairs and vice-chairs, and representatives that actually sit and

hear the cases and the expenses related to that.

The real problem I guess, is that the Workers'

Compensation Appeals Tribunal, as verified by their annual report, has just

about doubled its efforts in the last year or so and has continued - they're

hearing more cases, they're making more decisions, they're not getting done any

faster but at least they're putting more effort into it and there are a number

and variety of problems. It depends on - you might get some different answers,

some different times but some of the problems are unavailability of an employee

rep. They can't get an employee rep, sometimes one of the chairs or vice-chairs

are not available and a date gets postponed. Sometimes the person themselves,

the claimant, when offered a hearing date has to postpone. Then that causes

another problem because it's likely to be two or three months before they get

another hearing date and those kinds of things.

We asked the tribunal itself actually, if just

putting more money in and making more people available would enable them to hear

more cases and dispose of them more quickly. The answer was no, that they're

operating, right now, at just about capacity in terms of how many cases they

could possibly hear on a monthly basis, a weekly basis or a yearly basis. So

that putting more money in here to pay for more people to hear cases didn't seem

to be a solution. So that's why I think there has been some preliminary public

dialogue about the notion of whether or not we should go to a single adjudicator

so at least you don't have to wait to get a couple of sides people and whether

we can put legislative time lines in to say that every person must be guaranteed

a hearing date within x number of days and following the hearing date, must be

guaranteed at least a preliminary decision within x number of days and so on. So

we're actively considering those types of things now but they don't require any

additional money to do.

MR. CRANE: But I think even after the cases are

heard that's a real problem, why it takes months to render a verdict. I mean I

don't care what kind of a case it is. A group of three can certainly put

together a decision in less then four or five months and sometimes it's taken

that long after the case is heard. Thank you, that's all I have for you.

MR. GRIMES: You did mention the Human Rights

Commission as well in terms of increased funding.

MR. CRANE: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: Their caseload has increased a fair

bit as well. There's been a fair bit of activity at the Human Rights Commission

and the major part of the increase here is because they came forward indicating

that they needed some more dedicated secretarial assistance, even in getting the

cases through, so they wouldn't fall into the same kinds of delays that are at

Workers' Compensation Appeals. So there's been another secretarial position

added plus they were having some difficulties sometimes in accessing legal

advice because they had to rely upon a solicitor in the Department of Justice.

So the idea here is to provide some funds so that the Human Rights Commission

can actually hire its own council and therefore speed up the process so that we

don't start getting similar types of complaints about delays at the Human Rights

Commission that are very obvious, as you pointed out, at the Workers'

Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

MR. CRANE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I have a lot of concerns myself with

respect to the electrical inspectors. I have a lot of questions on the income

supplement program that your government proposed but I don't want to get into

those questions now because they're a matter of policy more so than anything. We

are here to look at the estimates and I have a number of questions on the

estimates themselves. I want to take advantage of you having your staff here

with you. I'm going to put them to work more then likely, more so then yourself,

with the questions I have.

So if you have the estimates in front of you, on

Page 219, under the very first section, minister's office, subsection 3, 4 and

MR. GRIMES: That's a good place to start.

MR. J. BYRNE: In Transportation and

Communications you had budgeted $29,400 and you spent $48,000. Supplies you had

budgeted $3,800 and you spent $7,400. The same thing with Purchase Services, can

you give some explanation for that because when you look at the Transportation

and Communication, you had budgeted $36,400 for this year, you spent $48,000

last year and you only had $29,400 budgeted for.

MR. GRIMES: I'd ask Tom or Gerry, either, to

provide this because they would know the detailed listings of those kinds of

expenditures under those heads.

MR. HOPKINS: Under Transportation and

Communications; obviously that accounts for the travel budget of the minister

and his telephone account, both of which have been relatively high this year

with the increased activity in the employment area and the minister may want to

speak a little more to that.

MR. J. BYRNE: This is the first meeting that I

attended this year and I have two others with Works, Services and Transportation

and Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the first thing popped in my mind - it is

not your department I know - but where government has so many cutbacks with

respect to the unions and hospitals and whatever the case may be, I see, through

this meeting for example: $100,000 for the child abuse group that was cut - I

mean, it is so easy to see that you could pick up $100,000 out of the general

budget to keep something like that; fifty hospital beds cut and I see right

through this budget, these estimates here I mean, there is money so easily to be

saved; anyway, heave it out of you.

MR. GRIMES: In that respect as well, I think up

until probably about Christmas, we were probably very well on target in trying

to stay within the travel budget and so on, then we got involved as you

indicated in the Income Supplementation Proposal, which was publicly released

here, I believe it was the middle of December. It involved myself as the lead

minister on a ministerial committee in discussions federally and also here,

provincially, that put us in a position that required travel that was not

expected at the beginning of the year, and put us as Mr. Hopkins says, into a

position where we over spent and as I indicated in the introductions, for Tom

and Gerry who try to keep us in line in terms of our spending, they used to say:

well, Mr. Minister, you really don't have any money and I would say: well, it's

a meeting to which I have to go, so they would have to find creative ways to

transfer from other heads and so on to make sure that I could travel and perform

the functions that I was to perform, many of them related to the position that

came up in the last quarter of the year as a chair of a cabinet committee

relating to ISP, and in targeting this year, again at $36,400, the notion on the

Travel and Communication, is that it shows a bit of an increase over last year

because I am still chairing that particular committee.

There has been a lot of activity that was already

initiated as we were finalizing our Budget with respect to the National Social

Security Reform Agenda which I am also chairing in the cabinet committee on that

and requires travel that we expect might be above and beyond what I, as a

minister might have done in any normal year or in the previous year, so we tried

to strike the compromise and say let's target the number somewhere in between

where we started last year and where we ended up last year and see if that might

be a reasonable amount to cover the necessary travel expenses for myself.

The other thing that has happened at the department

is - with a full year of experience and myself moving here and with an executive

assistant who with the previous minister, was living right in the metropolitan

St. John's area had very little travel representing a district here. My

executive assistant operates out of an office in Botwood and covers some

thirteen communities and his travel expenses and communication expenses for

telephone and so on are also covered under this same head, so our numbers are up

a little higher that they would have been in previous years.

MR. J. BYRNE: In the heading for Minister's

Office?

MR. GRIMES: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. The next page, page 220,

Administrative Support. Under salaries, you had budgeted $530,300, you spent

$560,700 and you have budgeted this year $535,400 and there are just a few

points I would like to make on that.

Employees benefits, you spent $50,000 last year,

yet you only had $13,900 budgeted which was the same as the previous year.

Transportation and Communications, you had budgeted $77,100, you have $75,500

spent but this year you have budgeted $102,100 which is quite an increase. Here

is a big one in which I am really interested: Professional Services, No. 5,

nothing budgeted last year, you spent $40,000 and you have $75,000 budgeted for

next year, and the other one is Information Technology, you had budgeted

$385,500 and spent $393,600, you have $509,100 budgeted for this year which is

$124,000 more. Can you just give me some kind of explanation as to what is going

on there?

MR. GRIMES: Okay, probably I can just -

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes sir, it seems to be a lot of

money.

MR. GRIMES: - touch on each of them, I will ask

Mr. Hopkins to jump in if I miss something.

In the Employee Benefits area the revised number

that went from $13,900 to $50,000 then back to $13,900. Thirteen thousand nine

hundred dollars consistently over the years has been a number adequate to cover

that but in this past year we've had some workers' compensation claims that were

extraordinary in the department, and some injuries in the department that had to

be paid for through this particular budget head. That is what caused it in

1993-1994 to go up to $50,000 unexpectedly. Maybe Tom if you wanted, if you

wanted to further question it, might give you some detail if there is any of

that that you would like to have.

MR. J. BYRNE: Just on that one there, Employee

Benefits. Did you say there were some workers' claims within your own department

which came out of your own funds?

MR. GRIMES: That is the way it is done with

each department of government. Workers' Compensation, we are self-insured. We

pay an administrative fee to Workers' Compensation, but if the claims increase

they actually come out of the department's budget, wherever the accidents

occurred. Wherever the lost time and injuries were. That is the head in which

that is covered in the department.

You mentioned Transportation and Communication

again. The additional monies being budgeted up to $100,000, the additional

$25,000 or so, are basically increased postage amounts that are expected in the

coming year. Those amounts for us will be recoverable. Twenty-five thousand

dollars is shown in other parts of the budget as recoverable income. Even though

it shows here as an increase it will be a wash in terms of the cost to the

department, because it is in an area of Administrative Support where part of our

cost in Administrative Support, because it deals with occupational health and

safety, is also paid on our behalf by Workers' Compensation. Any part of the

Administrative Support that deals with occupational health and safety gets

reimbursed to the department through Workers' Compensation. That is an area in

which there is expected to be additional expenditure which will be recovered

through the department through that mechanism.

You mentioned as well the Professional Services,

that there is no item budgeted and then $40,000 expended in the past fiscal year

and $75,000. That is the line in the budget where the money has been provided to

pay for the services of our occupational health and safety consultant who is a

Mr. Hogan, who was hired last year on a contract basis. This is the line in the

budget that provides for the payment of that particular gentleman for his

consulting services.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is the job you made for Mr.

Hogan.

MR. GRIMES: You said that. (Inaudible) the line

that we use to pay for the occupational health and safety consultant.

MR. J. BYRNE: That is three-quarters of the

$100,000 we need for the child abuse group.

MR. GRIMES: I think either yourself or one of

the members made a point like that in question period one day, I think, as well.

MR. J. BYRNE: It wasn't me, no.

MR. GRIMES: Something along those lines. This

is the line in which the payment for those services are budgeted through our

department under this budget head. Were there others there that...?

MR. J. BYRNE: Information Technology, $124,000

more.

MR. GRIMES: Yes. Maybe the Deputy Minister

might give the information, because we've been involved in an exercise with

respect to information technology that has been very successful in the

department, but....

MS. FRY: Thank you. The department has

participated in a strategic systems planning exercise authorized by Treasury

Board. We were one of the first departments to do so and this is now year two of

our implementation procedure. Really what this increase does allow for us is to

expand our local area networks. We now have all of our offices that are outside

of St. John's connected to us by computer hook-up, and we have electronic mail

communication with all of our offices, not only within this building but

outside. Just as if they were here. This is really to allow us to purchase the

additional hardware and software to do that. Because we have been successful in

completing the planning exercise I think Treasury Board has been very positive

about approving this expenditure. Because we have used the electronic system

very well.

MR. J. BYRNE: I personally have been promoting

information technology over the past few years myself because I'm kind of

familiar with that. Maybe it is money well spent. What actual benefits will the

recipients of Workers' Comp -

MS. FRY: This is money for our whole

department.

MR. J. BYRNE: For your department, okay.

MS. FRY: Yes.

MR. J. BYRNE: Anyway. How long can I continue?

Because I have lots more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible) Matthews then we go

around the circle again and I will give you another opportunity.

MR. J. BYRNE: Alright, good enough.

The next page, page 221, Administration. Salaries

went from $445,000 up to $522,000, and again Transportation and Communications,

and number 10 on the bottom, Grants and Subsidies, went from $800 up to $25,000.

It seems like throughout the whole department Transportation and Communications

has been up a lot.

MR. GRIMES: Looking at labour relations and

labour standards, one of the things that we did last year on a pilot basis was

to introduce the Preventive Mediation Program for the first full year. Funding

was provided for that in terms of salaries for staff, as you get to the top of

the page, through the Strategic Economic Plan. That was a one-shot deal in terms

of 1993-1994. If the pilot which we did was deemed successful, which it was,

then the funding for the future year was to be incorporated into the regular

budget of the department. That is where you show the increase in salaries and so

on at the top of the page from $445,000 budgeted up to $471,000, because we had

spent some additional money hiring a coordinator for the Preventive Mediation

Program, and now it is funded, a full-time position, on a full year basis in the

normal department expenditures in that $522,300 head.

That is a program actually that has gotten very

good use and has gotten very good reviews in terms of both employers and

employee groups accessing the service so that they could have simmering disputes

dealt with in a non-controversial and non-adversarial way rather than have to go

through a grievance arbitration procedure. They go to this particular mechanism

and deal with it in that fashion.

I didn't make the list accurately when you went

through them so if you would want to point the other couple again.

MR. J. BYRNE: Transportation and

Communications, and Grants and Subsidies, the differences there.

MR. GRIMES: In Transportation and

Communications again, the bulk of that actually is not so much in travel in the

work that they do but in phone charges. Because these people are in constant

contact, the conciliation, mediation and arbitration service people. They

administer hundreds of particular collective agreements. Anyone who is looking

for an application or applying to them for the use of the services, a good

portion of their work is done by telephone. The history over the years has shown

that the bulk of that has been telephone charges and it is expected that there

certainly may not be any decrease at all but again because of interest in the

Preventive Mediation Program as well as the other services that there is

expected to be probably increases, with the increase in staff and so on.

In the Grants and Subsidies it is intended this

year to try to action another one of the action items under the Strategic

Economic Plan. The preventive mediation was one of them. Sectoral committees and

so on was another. This is money that was granted this year though to try to do

the groundwork in terms of developing a labour education and research centre

that was outlined in the Strategic Economic Plan two years ago. We've had

expressions of interest from the community college system saying that they would

probably be interested in offering some courses or developing a centre where

people could go to learn about labour relations, labour education and those

kinds of things. Where you could probably go to train to enter into some of the

roles in there, but also enter into dialogue and look at an area where you could

go and further positive labour relations in a number of ways.

We are also looking at a prospect of whether or not

it might be offered through the University, that the University might have a

centre for labour relations education and research. This $25,000 that is new in

the estimates this year is put in place to do the exploratory work and to look

at the proposals along the terms of where we might actually develop that centre.

I don't remember the particular numbered item of the Strategic Economic Plan but

it is one of the eight or nine items that were listed for consideration in the

labour relations areas. This money is put forward to allow for further

development of that concept and to look at the proposals from the community

college system, the University, or anyone else who might be interested in

saying: We can establish the centre or we can deliver the programs that you

think we should have.

MR. J. BYRNE: The Labour Relations Board, the

same page, number five, professional services. You had $269,000, spent $230,000

and now you are down to $111,800 budgeted for this year. Why is there such a cut

there, and what was it for, those professional services?

MR. GRIMES: The professional services at the

Labour Relations Board is basically the Budget head that pays for the cost of

the part-time chair, vice-chair and the sides people, the representatives that

sit on the board. They perform two functions, they sit on the board in a regular

monthly meeting and they also sit in hearings when there is a request for

certification, decertification, and other things. There is an actual hearing

held where a tribunal sits and disposes of the issues.

There is the regular meeting dealing with the

issues of the board, principles, policy, and those kind of things, as well as

the necessary hearings, so this pays for the attendance of the people. You will

remember that one of the things we did at the end of last year was to bring in

new legislation which came into effect on Valentine's Day, or somewhere around

there, about requiring legislative votes. Was that the day?

AN HON. MEMBER: February 28.

MR. GRIMES: Okay, February 28. Well, that is

close to Valentine's Day. The days all run together for me anyway at some point

in time. The 28 February could be Valentine's Day as far as I am concerned just

as well as the 14th. We should have it every day as far as I am concerned.

In any event the legislation came into effect and

instead of all the investigation and the hearings every time necessitated by an

application for either certification or decertification it triggers an automatic

vote, and then there is only the need for a hearing and the detailed process if

in fact there are some objections raised and so on, so we expect there might be

less need for hearings in the first instance. This is a projection and if that

does not turn out then the experience of the first number of months we would

have to re-evaluate and reassess it but these are the targets for this year at

this point in time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Matthews, please.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: A minister who has such great

affinity with Valentine's Day must certainly, in his department, be considered a

real sweetheart. I do not want to ask any hard questions of him, not because he

is a government minister, but because I am his member and he might decide to

vote in the north the next time rather than in Exploits, so I will be as

gracious as I can be. I do not have a great reputation for being gracious in the

meantime, but there are a couple of areas I just wanted to speak about, or chat

about, and get some comment and reaction from you and your staff.

The electrical inspectors situation has been dealt

with and the possibility of a similar thing happening with some other type of

inspections. I am wondering what your thinking is as a department with respect

to the possibility - in cases where these types of positions have to be

retained, the inspection type positions, the people who provide those similar

type services, what your thoughts are on the possibility of contracting them out

and getting them outside of government altogether?

Privatization is something we have heard a lot

about and it is certainly an interest and a key part of our agenda as a

government. A form of privatization to me can be involved in the aspect of

contracting out for goods and services by government. Less government to me is

the best government.

I am just wondering if you have any thoughts on

that or if you have any interest in going in that direction?

MR. GRIMES: Actually, it is an interesting

thought again because it is one that we have only discussed in a preliminary

fashion, but when we went through the exercise, particularly in electrical

inspection, using the more co-operative approach with the contractors, the

electricians, everyone taking shared responsibility and so on, one of the issues

that was actually raised was, well, why would we not go back to the function of

government through the department setting the standards, doing that particular

road, determining what the regulations and the standards would be, and then

allowing anyone who thinks they are qualified to go out and actually provide the

service, whether it be inspection or anything else. It is not an issue we have

pursued beyond that other than to say it could be a possibility at some point in

the future.

We haven't returned to the issue in terms of that

agenda since we discussed it briefly during this budgetary process early in this

calendar year, but by way of looking at it in terms of policy, at this point in

time there hasn't been anything brought to my attention that would suggest that

it could not be considered in terms of making sure that the regulations that we

wanted enforced in terms of what an inspector is looking for when the inspector

does an inspection, could that be done by a qualified person and put it out on a

tender and say: does somebody want to provide ten electrical inspectors to do

these kinds of duties on behalf of the government because we think these things

should be done.

It is certainly not something that we have looked

at as I said beyond that but it was a question that was raised and the only

thing I could say to you, to repeat it again is that: no obvious reasons come

forward right now as to why it could not be considered if we wanted to get

serious about that in terms of it and there does not seem to be any particular

reason of which I am aware at this point in time, why we would have to say: no,

that could not be contracted out or privatized; that is something that could be

considered but it is not actively under consideration at this time.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you.

With respect to inspections that relate to trades

other than the electrical, is there any move afoot to have the other trades

treated similar to the electricians, with the electrical trade in terms of the

inspection requirements?

MR. GRIMES: There is a move afoot in this

respect only, that the Building Trades Council of Newfoundland and Labrador,

Building Trades and Construction Council representing all the different trades

have made several requests of myself as minister and of the department, to

consider if the general concept of a registration of the trades which will be

the first step in identifying who it is that is entitled to be called a

carpenter, a pipefitter, a welder and those types of things and then that would

lead to other types of things.

We haven't dealt with the issue in a direct fashion

other than to say - I addressed the Building Trades Council in Gander a couple

nights ago about a similar type of issue; they are looking at the future of the

unionized construction sector in the building trades in it, and indicated to

them that we have committed at some point in the not too distant future, to a

significant review of all of the labour legislation in the Province, and in the

Labour Relations Act there are particular sectors or sections of it that relate

to the construction sector, the construction industry, and it is in there, that

they are proposing that we place some legislation to require registration of the

trades so that when anybody calls for a plumber, they will know they are getting

a certified registered plumber instead of just somebody who says I can fix your

pipes, so that concept is around and I am sure that it will get discussed

further in that public consultation and there is likely to be a definitive

request from the Building Trades Council for us to take the first step down that

road in terms of legislating the need for registration of all of the identifying

building trades, we haven't gone beyond that at this point, but I think the

issue will be raised in the context at that review.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: In the case of larger

municipalities, the City of St. John's I suppose would be a prime example, who

have their own electrical inspectors and plumbing inspectors et cetera, not that

it's your area of responsibility, but is there any indication that they will be

moving to displace or do away with the requirement on their own staff of

inspectors, and that they will follow the standard or the minimum if you want,

the provincial standard?

MR. GRIMES: I can only answer to the extent

that they have made inquiries; there have been expressions of interest in terms

of the exact detail of what we are doing, the rationale behind it and so on

which has been provided to them as I understand at this point in time and it may

be at the point now, I am not sure whether it has gone beyond that but I believe

that there are some - certainly some officials at City Hall - I know we have had

a contact here in St. John's who is probably looking at it in terms of whether

or not that should change the manner in which electrical inspections are done by

the city's inspectorate, so they are very interested in the concept. We are

sharing the information with them and I am sure that the council will make its

own decision in due course as to whether or not they follow this practice.

I am not sure how many other municipalities

actually have their own electrical inspectorate. I wasn't sure about Corner

Brook but they apparently don't have electrical inspectors on staff, provincial

inspectors have done all the inspections within the other cities and so on. So

the City of St. John's, which has made the inquiries, are looking at it and they

will make a council decision as to whether or not they follow course in terms of

the manner in which they conduct their electrical inspections within the city.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Thank you.

The Emergency Response Program that has kicked in

over the last two or three years as a result of employment or unemployment

conditions in the Province, am I correct in understanding that those funds are

primarily or exclusively accessed or able to be accessed only by non-profit or

for want of a better name, make-work type projects?

MR. GRIMES: In each of the last three years,

we've had different types of groups sponsoring programs. I don't think it's very

common at all and it probably may not have happened whereby a for profit

organization has actually been a sponsor. We've usually used organizations like

development associations, town councils and recreation committees. Those are the

types of groups that have been the sponsors of the project work and have been

the actual employer of the people that have been hired. They just adhered to the

criteria in terms of who was eligible, how long they should be or were entitled

to be employed and at what levels they would be paid. These things were

specified in the general parameters of the program but the experience has

largely been non-profit organizations acting as the sponsor but Cathy, if you

would please, answer whether or not there have been any businesses or profit

organizations that have ever acted as a sponsor for us under the Emergency

Response Program in the last three years.

MS. GOGAN: Due to the nature of the program and

subjective to assist people to access unemployment insurance and the fact that

some of the employment is for a very, very short duration, the profit business

sector does not like to fund these sort of programs. It's not profitable for

them. So we usually do have to fund them through development associations, et

cetera. To the best of my knowledge everything has been funded through the

non-profit.

MR. L. MATTHEWS: Yes, I asked that question I

guess in the context of my own experience. Probably the best kept secret last

year was that, contrary to popular belief that it was only Pleasantville that

didn't get any money out of the program, neither did St. John's North but I have

no complaints in that regard because there were no applications from my

district. I guess the north is composed of not to many non-profit organizations

but a very significant business community in terms of businesses that are

located there. I'm wondering if there shouldn't be some thought given to

allowing, at least permitting, normal business operations to avail and access

funds under this program if they so choose. For two reasons; number one, I think

it would serve the best interest of a district like St. John's North or any

district that has a high business community in it. Secondly, it seems to me that

that is where the best hope lies for a job, once created, to become long term

employment. Make-work projects are not by nature a definition given to becoming

long term future career oriented jobs but certainly private industry offers that

chance and I'm asking if my thinking in that regard is not valid. If it is to

confirm it to me or if it's not to explain to me why it would not be a good way

to go.

MR. GRIMES: It's certainly an interesting

concept. As Ms. Gogan pointed out, I don't think that the criteria actually

prohibits an employer from applying under the Emergency Response Program. The

criteria probably didn't have a prohibition; however, the other reason why not

only were they usually not interested because they could get a few people for a

few weeks here or there, depending on how many weeks they needed for their

unemployment, it didn't necessarily fit in with the business operation very

well; but the whole gist, I think, of the rest of the employment programs that

are offered on an ongoing year-round basis was to try to assist exactly the

group that you described, that through the employment generation program, for

example, the graduate employment program, the student employment program in the

summer, through our seasonal employment program for seasonal operators, that

while they can't get a person given to them like you can under emergency

response with the full funding, there are wage subsidies available so that at

least part of the wages is provided for an ongoing employer to get a break on

the wage side while introducing additional staff into the operation and adding

to the viability and hopefully the profitability of the operations so they could

consider expansion.

I think probably the very best programs, the two in

particular, we could point to would be both the Employment Generation Program,

which offers a subsidy over a sixty week period, because both the employer and

the person involved are making a long-term commitment right off the bat, up

front, that you're not looking at three or four weeks to qualify for U.I.;

you're looking at making a commitment at the beginning to bring somebody into

your business for over a year.

The Graduate Employment Program offers a subsidy up

to $10,000 per graduate with a certification or diploma of some sort to get

their first job in that area for a full year, for fifty-two weeks, and it fits

into that hole, and that one fits very nicely because I think again all of us

here, as members are very aware of the people who have come to us, young people,

educated, certified, ready to go to work, and then there's catch-22, they've got

the paper but no experience. Then the employer says: Okay, but where did you

work?

This program is put in place so they can get that

first job, because an employer might want them, probably couldn't afford the

full cost of them, would get a significant subsidy towards the wage of the

person for fifty-two weeks, and hopefully in that period of time the person

would have demonstrated how valuable they are to the operation, the company

would have gotten enough of a break to find a way then to find the rest of the

money in the next year to keep them, and those programs have been very

successful. The Graduate Employment Program, for example, we fund about a couple

of hundred positions each year where young people get their first opportunity

and get over that hurdle, and that's funded jointly with the federal government

through the Canada\Newfoundland Youth Strategy, part of that continuum of

encouraging people to get trained and then trying to make sure they get that

first job wherever possible.

The Employment Generation Program, Mr. Chairman,

just to touch on that for a second, we've been doing about 600 jobs each year. I

think probably every member here in the committee has had some experience with

employers in their area who have been participating in that program and finding

it to be very helpful in terms of meeting some of the staffing needs for the

employer and also providing a real job opportunity for the person rather than

just getting them enough work to qualify for unemployment insurance, so the

focus of the regular ongoing year-round employment programs in the department

are exactly what you describe, and the emergency response ones then have been

trying to fill the gap for another need, and they really have not been intended

to, and have never been described as being opportunities for a real job, an

ongoing job, a continuing job, but just to get the person enough work to meet

their immediate income need and to access some income maintenance program for

the rest of the year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr.

Matthews, we will give you an opportunity to follow up with your questions

after. We now go to Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You've always impressed me with your knowledge of

your department, and you continue to do that tonight. The only thing that I've

been a little bit let down in, and getting back to the make-work projects and

the emergency response projects, is the disappointment that I faced last year. I

suppose it was a training program of being in opposition when many, many

projects were announced and when our own people were trying to get information

if even we had one project approved. I think there were projects announced that

were up and running and people hired before most of us even knew if we had a

project in place. However, that's just my thought on that.

You haven't shown in your estimates here any

funding for the Emergency Response Program, as has been stated by the Member for

Harbour Grace, but I feel certain that we will see some monies there. In fact

we're going to have to when you look at the number of people who are going to be

out there not being able to find work. If the past years have been any

indication, and up until now this year, I think it would probably be a fair

projection of what might be happening.

The only thing I say to you is when that funding is

brought forward, if you could try to talk to your cousins up in Ottawa and try

to get away from this silliness of having to have one fishing stamp in order to

qualify for a federal project or not being allowed inside a fish plant in order

to qualify for a provincial project, which was the case last year. Many people I

think were told that if they had one hours work, if they walked inside a fish

plant or they didn't qualify for the provincial funding that was put forward or

to apply for a job - then all of a sudden we saw the federal government come out

with a project where you had to have had at least three weeks work in a fish

plant - if you needed ten or twelve, if you needed twenty - and you had this

certain group of people who were penalized because they had enough initiative to

get off their rears and go to work, work for a few days in any one week, not

being qualified to get the federal project and being eliminated from the

provincial one.

I think this is something that should be taken out

altogether. I realize you have to have criteria but this doesn't seem to be

criteria that makes any sense. Everybody should be judged on their merits or

else be judged on how bad they need a job. I think those are the things that I'd

like to see taken out of those rules and regulations if you intend to bring any

monies forward for emergency response this year. I don't know what your thoughts

are on that.

MR. GRIMES: A point very well made in the sense

that, I think there was a lot of activity on the phone lines generated by people

expressing concern about the criteria and individuals calling in looking for

work and wondering why. I believe members here had it but I think if the number

of calls that you may have had - for two or three weeks after we started that

program I don't believe I did anything except answer complaints on the phone. In

the minds of the people, as you say, they don't make the distinction and they

don't understand why the distinction is there. I think that there are a couple

of things where there's a possibility that in whatever is done in a future year,

this year, later or whatever, between the federal and provincial governments -

we're working at trying to do things a little bit differently and to stop having

to necessarily have the jurisdictional exercise played out.

The reality of it has been that the provincial

government has been on record, I guess since 1989 with the Stein Commission

Report that went a long ways and then stopped at the last minute, by saying it's

tied into the issue of jurisdiction and responsibility. It's unfortunate for the

people who just want to go to work but the two governments, regardless of the

political stripe of them, played the exercise about whose territory is it, whose

turf is it, whose budget is it, whose responsibility is it?

We've been saying consistently since that time that

if the Province has some meaningful shared say in the real issues raised in the

fishery - being the resource issues and those types of things - then we've

recognized that if that is ever provided to us, shared say comes with it the

responsibility for shared pay. That we could no longer say: The fishery is a

federal responsibility so they have to pay. That has been the exercise here

since 1949, that anything related to the fishery unfortunately the provincial

government won't agree to pay money into the fishery because it then puts the

argument over to the federal argument. They say: If they are willing to pay we

don't have to pay any more.

Every government that has been here since 1949 has

said: The fishery is a federal responsibility. If there are people in the

fishery who need assistance the federal government must pay for it. The glimmer

of hope comes in two areas. One is that I guess in principle we've looked at the

notion of committing to fishing industry renewal boards. It won't be joint

management, that is clear, it won't go that far. But the concept is clear that

both governments will take its areas of responsibility - the resource allocation

and the processing, the issuing of the licences for processing - into those

board structures, in all likelihood. If we go to that kind of a cooperative

approach then we are moving in that direction. We say: Okay, if we are going to

together start having a real shared say in what is going to happen, there is no

need to go through the exercise again of saying: You have to pay for all that

because it is the fishery.

If we are going to start doing it jointly, the

recognition from the provincial governments, we know that at that point in time

there is a price tag that will be associated. We will have to start paying

jointly. We will argue over whether it should be 90-10, 70-30, 50-50, but that

will become the argument just out of saying: You are in the fishery, we don't

pay. I found it a very draining experience last year in particular, to have to

take call after call from people who had worked for a week in a plant because it

was the only week's work available, probably with caplin -

MR. FITZGERALD: And penalized for it.

MR. GRIMES: - and because of that because they

had shown the initiative while other people stayed home and collected their

compensation and in some cases refused to work, that they were denied access to

the only program that was available in the area which was a provincial one, and

we made the criteria very clear up front. I think in the room there were two of

my colleagues who spent quite a bit of time wringing my neck over it, the Member

for Harbour Grace and the Member for Trinity North, who didn't at all like it in

any shape or form because they too were getting the calls and I think that's why

I got so many; they just took the approach: call the minister. I tried my best

to convince him it didn't work, he wouldn't listen - the man wouldn't listen and

I think all he did was put their calls on - I call it fast forward, what is it

really called on the phone? Call ahead or whatever that thing is, I think that's

what they did to me. But it was -

AN HON. MEMBER: Call forward.

MR. GRIMES: Call forward. - so it was a

particularly frustrating exercise and while it was frustrating for us because we

had to take some phone calls, it was unbelievably frustrating for the

individuals who were being denied access to the only program in their

communities, in their areas where they could possibly have gotten work faster

and I hope too, for their sakes, that if we do some things with respect to an

education supplement or a work supplement, the kinds of things on a pilot

project basis that were in the Income Supplementation Proposal,

whereas that in

its entirety will not be introduced, but if one or the other of those kinds of

programs is introduced here as a pilot, I am certainly one who hopes that it

won't be the kind of thing that will be described: you can only access this if

you are in or out of the fishery.

People who are taken care of through the TAGS

program obviously won't need access to these programs but for all the others, I

think it's in all of our best interest if we can find a way, even though it

hasn't been done since 1949, but if we can find a way to put in place jointly

some kind of a program to meet those income needs, hopefully through work,

through a work opportunity for the people and not have to make the distinction

then we would all be better off. I am not sure that that can be done but I

certainly know that the effort from our side will be in that direction if at all

possible.

MR. FITZGERALD: The other part of the same

program that caused a lot of confusion, and I am sure only too well to other

members here who represent rural Newfoundland districts, in some cases the

funding that was brought forward was given to municipalities, councils and that

sort of thing and the mentality of some places being what it is, felt that it is

only the people from that particular community should be allowed to go to work.

I suggest in the future, that maybe, we should look

at a broader way of giving out those projects and give it to either Rural

Development Associations or Community Future Associations where they would

encompass a much larger area and give other people a chance, because it seems to

be totally unfair one community was fortunate enough to get a project that

everybody in the surrounding communities were deprived of applying or getting a

job. That has happened in the past.

In fact, I remember one of the student projects in

my district where this little community had everybody in the community working

back to Grade VII. There were only probably four or five people going to high

school there and they were fortunate enough that the seven or eight who were

going to high school, and there was one I think even from elementary school,

were working that summer on a project because the community got the funding

rather than the Rural Development Association; and in larger towns like

Bonavista, you had people probably in their third or fourth year university who

couldn't find a job, you know, so that's another example of what happens when

you direct funding towards certain communities rather than the broader spectrum

like Community Futures or Rural Development.

MR. GRIMES: If I could just comment, Mr.

Chairman, to follow up on that.

One of the difficulties when the town council or

the local service district or whatever the representative agency of that

community is, once we go that route, the real pressure then is to make sure that

every community in the area gets a program of some sort, otherwise, exactly what

you describe does show itself unfortunately, I think almost without exception in

cases in the last couple of years where we have used a community-based

organization as the funding agency. They have 100 per cent employed people from

that community, and I guess there are two things about that. If you were in

their position, and if I was, we would probably do the exact same thing because

it's the same thing we find about trucking fish outside to another area and

those kinds of things. If there's an opportunity in the area, the people in the

area expect to be the first ones picked, even though if you looked at a needs

criteria in terms of that group versus some people in the next community up the

road, some of those people might be in much greater need than some of the people

selected from the community.

The other aspect that we looked at last year, there

were a number of people who suggested to us that once people met the minimum

criteria, whatever were laid down through the program criteria, that the names

should be placed in a hat, that everybody should be considered equal.

(Inaudible) have a committee go through them and say: We'll pick these five

here... that is the fairest thing to do if there are only going to be five jobs

and there are twenty people who met the criteria, throw it in a hat.

Each of the last couple of years we've looked at it

in terms of, after the outcome and the reports come in, considering whether or

not we would institute some of those changes in terms of the criteria for the

next year if there were to be a program.

There are certainly interesting things tempting to

put into the criteria, but I guess sometimes if you are trying to solve a

problem you might create another one because the real focus was to try to find

ways without being charged with discrimination of applying a real needs or means

test, so that the most needy families could get access and get at least one

person from the family on to a project or a program so there would be income for

the household.

We put those kinds of words in there, I think, that

it would be restricted to one person in the household. The unfortunate part then

is that in the view of those who didn't get hired, and didn't get a chance to

work on the project, there might be only one person in the household but the

other person, in some cases, was working, and people found that to be very

unfair. So it's very difficult, I think, in those kinds of circumstances, to put

together a program that won't be, in some way, criticized for one aspect or

another, but most of the criticisms come down to the selection criteria, and

most of it relates to the fact, I think, that members in this committee have

raised in the Legislature that if we had a need we recognized the need, and we

put I think it was $6 million into it; but I think most people said: Well, you

would need four or five times that to do a real, meaningful approach to that

problem if you're going to put people to work; there were that many people out

there.

We announced, I think up front last year, that we

expected only to be able to meet the need for around 2,500 to 3,000 people, when

our numbers showed that we could realistically identify, even when we announced

the program, that there was somewhere in the range of 11,000 to 13,000 people

who needed the help, but that for financial reasons all we could come up with in

the budget was $6 million when we probably needed three or four times that.

So if there was an opportunity for everybody in a

particular area who met the criteria, then a lot of the criticisms of the

program on that basis would disappear because they were largely in terms of who

got hired, because every time someone got hired for the program or the project,

and three or four or five or ten people got left out, one person was pleased and

the rest were more dissatisfied than ever; but I certainly hope that if we do

the kind of thing jointly that the first matter that you raised can be dealt

with in some constructive manner so that we don't have to be very definitive

about you are eligible and you're not eligible because of what you do or don't

do, but that if there's a need we will try to meet the need in some way for

everybody who has the need rather than categorize it.

MR. FITZGERALD: Just to make another comment on

that, I think there's probably been more bad friends caused in small rural areas

of Newfoundland over those make-work projects than anything else we've ever done

and brought about here, and I personally feel that I've been involved in a lot

of this myself doing volunteer work, is that any hiring should be done by the

people who are getting paid to do that type of work, which is CEC and whatever

the nearest office is. In that way you wouldn't have a situation where you have

brother against brother and families split up over getting somebody seven or

eight weeks work a year at the minimum wage.

Moving on to something bigger, I suppose, the

Hibernia project. Did you hear the news tonight?

MR. GRIMES: No, I didn't see the evening news.

MR. FITZGERALD: On the news tonight apparently

it was mentioned that the Hibernia project, which is about halfway through to

completion, is estimated to come in at $1 billion over budget. That must give

you a great deal of concern. I suppose it might echo some of the thoughts again

that I brought up here in the House, and other members as well, that this

massive amount of overtime is being paid out at the Hibernia project while many

of our people who are out of work, able to do the same jobs, are sitting at home

drawing unemployment insurance. I wonder if government, if your department,

intends to monitor what is happening out at Hibernia or to have some input into

this serious situation.

MR. GRIMES: Probably before I deal with that -

because while I didn't hear the news I was party to information today about

Hibernia, but I would like to make a comment if I could to finish up the other

issue you raised about the bad friends.

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: Because I think many of us here

recognize it. It manifested itself last year to the point that I think for the

first time to my knowledge - Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are normally noted

to be a very sort of generous, friendly type of people that wished everybody

else well and their neighbour well and so on.

In two areas - both in our programs, those job

creation programs, and with respect to compensation in the fishery - the phrase

I use is that they weren't generous, that they started turning each other in. We

had calls from people saying: There is somebody on the project, I want him taken

off because they are not eligible. That would not have happened a few years ago.

But they are getting to the point I think that the criteria being what they are,

they wanted a job so desperately that they actually would phone the office -

they would phone me or they would phone some other member - and say: So-and-so

is on that program, he must have lied. I don't think we would have seen that in

our Province ten years ago for sure, and probably not five years ago.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is right.

MR. GRIMES: I certainly didn't experience that

kind of reaction in the first two years that we ran the Emergency Response

Program. It was only last year that in any big numbers people would phone in.

The procedure that we always used was if the complaint came from a member or

directly from someone in the community we would have someone call the sponsoring

agency and check it out and say: Could you check and see if so-and-so actually

did meet the criteria? If not, would you please ask the sponsor to remove them

from the project? We had to do that on a number of occasions. I think it shows

the seriousness of exactly what you say, and it is one of the unfortunate

outcomes that we don't want to perpetuate in any way, shape or form.

With respect to Hibernia, the information that we

had this morning was that I think the - I don't know exactly the context in

which the news reported a billion dollar overrun. The context in which it was

explained to me earlier today was that $5.2 billion was the number that was

always associated with the construction phase of the work at Bull Arm. Then

there were costs for the production period and so on, and the whole project was

going to take about $19 billion. That would be the cost over the twenty years of

production and the five or six years of construction.

They had done some estimates a year or so ago to

indicate that because things were looking pretty good at that point in time the

actual construction cost mightn't be $5.2 billion but might be closer to $4.6

billion. Each of the partners were given the information that the way things

were going if things stayed on schedule, stayed on time, if the drawings came

in, it looked like they might be under target. That because of some changes in

the sub-sea base and the operation they might even get the total production cost

down, so it might cost in the range of $16 billion over the whole life of it

rather than $19 billion. That it would be $4.6 billion instead of $5.2 billion.

Some recent preliminary looks again, a year and a

half or so later since the last ones were done, indicate that now they are

suggesting that due to late arrival of drawings, the pull-out of the Gulf thing

which slowed down productivity for awhile and those kinds of things, that a new

estimate was given to the partners and to the government for their information

suggesting that the construction phase might now go to $5.6 billion. I guess if

somebody is using a number of a billion dollars it is a billion dollars over

their last estimate, but it is still just $400 million over what the preliminary

estimate was. Over the whole life of the thing it might now have gone from $16

billion over the whole production phase to maybe $16.5 billion, but still under

$17 billion and so on. The whole life of the project is still estimated to be

under, but the construction phase might be - at this stage their best estimates,

the best preliminary estimates, are about $400 million over budget in the

construction phase.

That does cause a concern for the partners and so

on, but they indicated in the information that was provided to us today that

these are very preliminary figures. They are very soft figures but they felt

they should provide them to the partners. If they have particular concerns they

will go back and do more detailed studies to see if they can confirm them or

not.

You raised the issue of overtime and scheduling,

and so on. That has been raised several times. I mentioned I spoke to the

Building Trade Council in Gander just a couple of nights ago. They were out

there for a series of meetings and it is one of the issues I raised with them

because the government has been hesitant to take any kind of direct intervention

role at Hibernia for several good reasons. The main one is because we can't.

We have signed a special project order which

basically said in exchange for delivering on time without work interruption we

have put the project in the hands of the contractors and the unions and they

have given their best efforts. They have guaranteed us there would be no work

stoppage and in exchange for that they give their best efforts, they will do a

top-notch job, demonstrate how good the Newfoundland building trades unionized

workforce is, and show this off as a model of an example for the whole world, to

prove that we can be real players in this industry for a long time in the

future, so there is no basis for a direct daily intervention role of government.

If we could order them to do something we would

have to have a debate as to whether we would or not, but the point is we cannot

order them. We do not have any basis on which to order them any more than we

could go out, I suppose, and order Abitibi to do something. We could order some

environmental things or some regulatory things but to tell them which shifts to

put on, or how much to pay people, we have signed off a deal that says that is

not a role for us. We can just monitor complaints and monitor information, check

things out for people, have it assured every time by them that they are living

up to the commitments they have given to governments through the collective

agreements. That is the role we play.

I did raise that overtime issue with the building

trades from the point of view of it being one of their big concerns. They are

fortunate now that their regular membership roles are pretty fully employed, but

with the rush for Hibernia, of course, they have very long roles of new

membership on the Hibernia list and so on that are only getting partial work.

There is always pressure on the unions to say, am I going to get work at Bull

Arm, in particular? There are other opportunities but they are limited compared

to what they are at Bull Arm.

I raised as a question with them, if they would go

to their membership and say: okay, you go to your own members. Would you

consider going to your own members in a union hall setting and saying let us

agree that the standard will be a regular week's work for everybody? We will try

to get the contract amended with the companies that a week's work will be forty

hours and nobody will work beyond that unless there are extenuating

circumstances, a special skill, or somebody must stay there, the work cannot

stop and they have to continue. See how your members would deal with that,

because it certainly could create employment opportunities for more workers, and

as long as the company was guaranteed that it was not going to hinder

productivity then they would probably not object to it. The real challenge is

whether or not, in that union hall setting, that the union leadership, the

business agents, the presidents, and the members themselves, how they would deal

with that issue?

It is one I have challenged them to look at but one

of the problems, as you can probably relate to yourself, is once the workers get

in there they know if they get laid off they go back to the bottom of the list

so they want to maximize every minute they are in there. If they can get ten

hours of overtime a day, and they are allowed to work it, they will take it,

because while you are in there, for whatever that phase of work is, the

individual wants to get the maximum number of hours.

I wonder what the discussion would be if you went

into the union hall and suggested, okay, let us all agree that none of us will

work overtime. It is a perplexing question that we have been nervous about to

this point, but not one that we have approached the companies and unions with,

other than to say would they consider it. We would not suggest it to them as an

alternative because we have been very hesitant to ask, or even suggest that

government would like to see the Bull Arm construction site used as a major

make-work project.

We want quality work and the establishment of the

possibility of real demonstrated expertise in the construction industry as it

relates to the oil patch to be the number one outcome of Bull Arm. I do not

think we have ever suggested to them that they should maximize the number of

workers they put in other than what is in the special project order, that what

workers are required and deemed to be appropriate by the companies and the

unions, that the maximum number of those where possible will be Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, either because they already have the skills and are trained,

or because, as they have done, they can train them and put them out there and

use them.

That is the emphasis we put on it but it is a great

issue, I think, for the unions themselves, particularly in the building trades,

to deal with. It is going to be an issue that they will probably - the

conference, by the way, that they were having was the future of the construction

industry and the unionized trades in it. They were dealing with those kinds of

issues that once Bull Arm moves off the scene in three years' time - these

people have had the advantage of working in a tremendous construction

opportunity.

What are they going to do in terms of - now the

pressure will be on to try to place the members on the membership roles and to

job opportunities. Even if not at Bull Arm then for the future would it make

sense for them to try to build into collective agreements and so on? Or come to

the government and say: Let's suggest that the normal work week will be X number

of hours and no one will work beyond that unless there are extenuating

circumstances. They guaranteed me that they would start having that discussion

and they might even bring it up in that public legislation review that is going

to happen in the not too distant future.

MR. FITZGERALD: I think they are right. If you

probably went out to the Hibernia site and asked people what their thoughts were

on working a forty hour week you may not get everybody agreeing. I've a funny

feeling if you went into most of the union halls where most of the people are

unemployed and put the question you will get directly different answers.

A couple of days ago I raised the issue after some

people were laid off there in my District. I thought they were very qualified

people. They laid off one individual who was working there as an iron worker in

excess of a year. He got laid off while people from another province continued

to work there. I had my own thoughts on that. I did make a phone call to the

project and Mr. Simpkins called me back on a cellular telephone. I raised the

question with him about a constituent being laid off, and I also brought up the

question of overtime being paid out, because there are a lot of taxpayers'

dollars going into that project. He indicated to me that the numbers were all

wrong and there wasn't a lot of overtime work there. It was at the most one

shift in the eleven day turnaround period.

Somebody happened to have picked up the telephone

conversation and I had two phone calls that night from two individuals who had

been working there in the rebar shop. They indicated to me at that time that

they had been working in excess of thirty days and haven't been given a day off.

They approached their supervisor to look for their regular turnaround and were

told: If you don't want to work then we will take the machines out of here and

put them somewhere else. Mr. Simpkins in my next conversation, when I called him

back to ask him about that particular working situation, called me back two days

after and said again that there was no overtime being paid out. Somebody is not

telling the truth. I think I know who, I believe.

MR. GRIMES: You've done the right thing in

going directly to the source. Each time that there is an issue brought to our

attention we have raised the issue with representatives of the companies at Bull

Arm and the union in which the person was involved. We've tried in each case to

make sure that the individual got answers from both the union rep responsible

and from whichever one of the employers or contractors it was. We've found the

system to be effective but we are hesitant to say: We will get involved in it.

Because as I say, there is no real regulatory or intervention role for us as the

government because of the nature of the project.

In most cases - in all cases that I'm aware of -

the individual at the end of the day has been satisfied that at least the

frustration in many cases is that they haven't been able to get hold of anybody.

At least by contacting say yourself or another member, or our own offices, they

will facilitate at least a contact. Then the person is in touch with those who

can deal directly with whether or not they have been treated fairly.

The overtime issue has been explained to us on a

number of occasions. Again, I think the details are different depending upon the

part of the project that the people are working on and so on. There is no doubt

that there is some overtime involved. How considerable it is in terms of the

whole scope of the wage package at the site and so on is I guess a judgement

call. We've been comfortable with the fact that they've provided us accurate

information. I've indicated most times it is not a matter of providing me with

the information, but provide it to the affected worker, to the person who needs

the information and deal with them directly. That's the route that's worked most

effectively for us so far.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Byrne.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a number of questions here, so how long

we're going to be here is directly related to the length of your answers.

MR. GRIMES: I apologize for being a little

lengthy but I don't get a chance to speak very often so I take advantage.

MR. J. BYRNE: No I know you don't.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: I see the Member for Harbour Grace

is getting used to this role he's playing up here in the chair that he wants to

cut us all short.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions should be brief and

answers also.

AN HON. MEMBER: And everyone should be quiet.

MR. J. BYRNE: That's right. With respect to the

Emergency Response Program, last year in around St. John's there was another

problem created by that program and that was with respect to the qualifying time

for people for unemployment. When we first started out it was, I believe twelve

weeks to qualify and when it was finished it was thirteen weeks and it was

directly related to the extra work that was created by the employment program

itself. So I don't know if there's anything we can do about that?

MR. GRIMES: It was one of the factors in our

contact with - I guess it was CEIC at that time because it was probably before

it became HRD - the change in the department aims and so on, they indicated that

it wasn't one of the major factors but it was certainly one of the ones because

of the fact that more people did get employed which dropped the rate and caused

the qualifying period to go up.

One of the other outcomes by the way, that we've

recognized each of the years by putting these people to work, is that the

potential exists for us to actually increase the unemployment rate a couple of

months down the road because all these people that we put to work become

unemployed. The whole objective is to get them on the UI roles and that while we

were trying to help people get work and access to money, if you only look at the

UI rate itself as an indicator of how successful it was - we might have actually

made it look bad. So it was one of the circumstances in most cases I'm pleased

to say because we checked into just about all of them - because they either

contacted a member like yourself who passed it on to us or contacted us

directly. They did find some adjustments within their own programming monies in

many cases because what they did is they crimped a little bit on either their

administration or maybe even their materials so that they could give the extra

week and I was really very thankful that the program sponsors went the extra

mile in terms of doing that.

I think at the very end of it, when we were cluing

up and getting the final reports in, there was a very small amount of money that

didn't get expended in some programs that came back. What we did, we had kept a

list of those that were short a week or so and there were a couple or three I

think that we managed to take care of while there were ten or eleven that had a

problem. We managed to take care of a couple of them but it was, again, a

troublesome type of thing. The time of the year again complicated it because the

peak employment in the retail sector happens just before Christmas, where all

the firms call everybody in for the big sales, which did happen last year

apparently from the reports and that complicated the fact by putting the rate

down and the qualifying period up. So it was one of those things that while we

knew part of the problem we were satisfied that most people had found a way to

make an accommodation.

Sorry again for the lengthy answer.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, back to the figures, under

Section 3.1.01, salaries, it went up $200,000. How many new jobs are in the

department there?

MR. GRIMES: Mike would you have the details of

the increases there in Occupational Health and Safety? I probably have them here

on one of my pages but I don't have it right at my fingertips.

MR. DWYER: There's two extra positions in that

particular funded area, one is an engineer position, another one is a management

analyst position. Why it appears to be $200,000 is because there is a difference

between the 1993-94 budget. Back during the 1992-93 budgetary process we made

some changes in one of our sections, in the medical hygiene section. We

basically did away with a couple of these types of positions to incorporate new

types of positions and before we actually filled those positions we felt that

there was some work, some improvement to make in the operations before we

actually filled the positions. So therefore we didn't fill them right away. We

thought it probably would've been putting bad money in rather than fixing what

we thought had to be fixed prior to, and there are two other positions there,

and they were just like positions which, through normal people leaving, we

backfill and there's a short period in between where there would be vacancies

existing, so it's the equivalent of four positions there. That's the difference,

and then we're adding two positions this year in addition to the four that we

will be filling.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

Again, Transportation and Communications is up

substantially, but the other one, too, number 7, Property, Furnishing and

Equipment, $38,400, the same as budgeted for last year, but you only spent

$20,500. Is this kind of money really necessary?

MR. DWYER: Yes, the changes in the 1993 versus

1994 figures clearly reflect the four positions which we were (inaudible)

vacated throughout the year.

MR. J. BYRNE: Run that by me again.

MR. DWYER: Basically the difference between the

1993 and 1994 budget would be that there would be the same sort of proportional

difference throughout most of the budget areas because of the difference in the

four inspection positions.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay. The next one is Education

and Committees, salaries. You have $411,500 budgeted compared to $268,800 spent

last year. That's quite a jump. Where is this extra money going?

MR. DWYER: Basically the difference in the

1993-'94 budget, one of the large differences, is the lack of being able to

recruit an occupational therapist. The increase from 1994-'95 - this past two

years we have had a person on staff seconded from the NHNHA, Newfoundland

Hospital and Nursing Home Association. I keep conflicting with the NAHA.

MR. J. BYRNE: So now you're paying for that

position?

MR. DWYER: Yes, and basically that was paid out

of funds further down, which would see a proportional decrease, and that

position has been funded this year as one of the three, and that's why the extra

increase in the salary and the decrease in the professional services.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, thank you.

The next one I have is on page 224, Public Safety,

3.1.04. Salaries again are cut a fair bit there, aren't they, but the thing I

was interested in is number 3, transportation and communication, and supplies.

Transportation and communications is up $32,000, yet you have ten less employees

in that section, because it listed electrical installations, the inspections,

and other inspections I would imagine. So if you are letting ten electrical

inspectors go, why would you increase the vote for transportation and

communications? Shouldn't it be going down accordingly?

MR. DWYER: I believe what happened, when they

went through the budgetary process there is still a readjustment of some of the

figures here which would equate to the fourteen positions which were vacated.

MR. J. BYRNE: Fourteen?

MR. DWYER: Yes, there were ten electrical

inspectors, nine of which were full time. There were three boiler pressure

vessel inspectors, and there was another elevator inspector which was

MR. J. BYRNE: But that would be a decrease in

salary. What about the increase in transportation costs, in communication? If

you're decreasing by fourteen employees, you would think that would go down

accordingly, transportation costs.

MR. HOPKINS: If I might have a comment there,

the reason for that is that when the adjustment was made for the reduction in

the number of positions in public safety this year they took all of the money

out of the salary vote rather than adjusting the transportation and

communications and supplies. It should have been adjusted throughout the whole

activity.

MR. J. BYRNE: But it wasn't; so are you saying

now that should be decreased $32,000 bucks or more? Actually, more.

MR. HOPKINS: In all likelihood we're going to

have to transfer money out of the operating account into the salaries just to

cover our reduction.

MR. J. BYRNE: I'm missing something here.

MR. DWYER: Where we identified the net

difference in what the reductions would be - let's just say, for argument sake,

it was $630,000 - they took the $630,000 out of the salaries when indeed there

probably should have only been $580,000, for argument sake, out of salaries and

so much out of transportation and communications, and that will have to be

adjusted throughout the year.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay.

The next one, 3.2.02: "Appropriations provide for

support to various agencies...." I would like to get an example of the agencies

you are talking about. The Grants and Subsidies under that

section is increased

by $39,000, I believe. Actually had $30,000 budgeted, you spent $180,000, and

you have budgeted $219,000. Why the increase, and can I have an example of the

agencies you are talking about?

MR. HOPKINS: The reason for the difference

between the budget in 1993-1994 and the revised, the actual expenditure, is

because payments were made out of there for the employee and employer advisors

of WCAC. The reason it wasn't in the budget last year is because in the last

stages of preparing the estimates the money got voted by mistake in Strategic

Economic Plan funding. The expenditure is there but the budget allocation is not

there. The amount for 1994-1995 estimates, the reason that is up is because

$200,000 is being allocated again for the work for the employee and employer

advisors in WCAC.

MR. GRIMES: This to is scheduled for

re-evaluation at the end of one full year. It was announced last year but by the

time the people actually got it put in place - I think we've seen the public

announcement. There is Mr. Hogan, who is with the Employers Council, housed with

them, and there is - that is Mr. Denis Hogan, who is the employers' advisor,

with the Employers Council. There is Mr. Gerald Dwyer, who is actually working

up in an office at the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, who

handles enquiries and provides assistance to injured workers.

Because they didn't get put in place until August

the evaluation will be done sometime early next fall. Their budget amounts here,

assuming that the evaluation would be positive - because certainly the

preliminary indications are that people have found the services of these two

advisors very useful - that the money is allocated there to fund them again for

a full year, because they are likely to be in place for the full fiscal year.

You asked a question too about the types of outside

agencies that funds were provided to. For a number of years now we've been

providing funds to the Newfoundland Industrial Health and Safety Association.

These are just small administrative grants to help people who are involved in

occupational health and safety. They've been getting an annual grant of $6,500.

They don't really have funding mechanisms otherwise. They use this just for

administration, mailing costs for their membership, and those types of things.

The Canadian Society of Safety Engineering gets an

annual grant of $1,500; the Canada Safety Council, $1,000; the Newfoundland and

Labrador Federation of Labour for their occupational health and safety

committees and their efforts in that area, $4,000; St. John Ambulance, $3,000;

and there is another amount of $3,000 that is there depending upon requests for

the year. If there are no other organizations that are involved in occupational

health and safety efforts then the money is not expended. If there are other

agencies that come forward and show that they are fostering the goals and

objectives that we promote in terms of trying to make sure there are less

opportunities for workplace injury and lost time, then we would try to help fund

them in some small way. If not the money just rolls over as a non-expenditure.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you.

Section 4.1.01,

Employment Services. Grants and Subsidies, number 10: $271,500 budgeted, you

spent $103,000 last year, and you had budgeted $135,000. That is a huge

increase. Why is that?

MR. GRIMES: I'm sorry, I missed the question.

MR. J. BYRNE: Employment Services, Grants and

Subsidies, a huge increase there, you know.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, okay. Last year for the first

time too out of the student employment money that we had for students in the

summer we took part of that allocation and funded for the first time the

Newfoundland and Labrador Conservation Core, in which some - I think it was - I

don't remember the exact number, but a number of groups - they were described as

green teams and so on - did projects in different parts of the Province. It was

considered to be a very successful first effort.

What we've done this year is recognize that the

Conservation Core will now become a part of the program on a regular basis. The

additional $150,000 or so in that heading is there for the administrative costs

and hopefully also to be able to fund the initial projects that they will do in

this upcoming summer. We're also participating - as you heard the announcement

just last week, I guess last Friday, by Mr. Axworthy out of Ottawa about the

Canadian Youth Corp and those types of things and job opportunities for young

people. They've indicated that there's a good opportunity for us to tie in, in a

joint fashion with that program to even increase these amounts by using our

budgeted money as the provincial share, get a federal share and put even more

projects into place through the Conservation Corp or some similar arrangement.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you. The next one I have is

4.1.03, Graduate Employment Program, Grants and Subsidies, again you had

budgeted $1 million, you spent $1.4 million and you budgeted $1 million again.

If you spent $1.4 million last year why would you not have that budgeted this

year?

MR. GRIMES: One of the things that we found

last year - there's funding available over in the head across the page, in

4.1.06, Women's Employment Programs, that look at the WISE program, Women

Interested in Successful Employment and Job Bridges which is the program that

funds women into the non-traditional occupations and trades. The funding for the

women in the non-traditional occupations and trades - actually the requests were

down a little last year below budget. So because we wanted to provide

opportunities for women, what we did was transfer money - and you'll see that

the expenditures were actually down a bit under that heading - transferred some

of the money over into the graduate employment program and targeted it for

female graduates so that at least the effort for women in last years employment

efforts would have been consistent.

MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you. 4.1.05, Youth

Employment Strategy; salaries doubled pretty well; supplies up substantially and

I mean substantially. It went from $1,000 up to $92,000 spent and budgeted

$122,000 this year. Number 7, 10 and 12, I just got a bracket here saying could

you explain that because there seems to be some huge increases there too, like

Information Technology, $100,000 there again, wasn't budgeted at all.

MR. GRIMES: I'll deal with probably the first

one and then if Cathy Gogan or Mr. Hopkins would like to deal with the details

at the bottom. Take number one and ten - there are a couple of particular areas

under the youth employment strategy. We have had very large success in terms of

dealing cooperatively with the federal government in providing joint services

rather then they provide a service in some areas and we provide a similar type

of service in other areas. We've had a lot of success putting in place the

career information resource centres in buildings that CEIC runs. So that when

people go into an unemployment insurance office, which is run by the federal

government, somewhere in that same building they will be able to access a career

information resource centre, staffed and funded by the provincial government so

that we don't have to pick up the overhead cost of rent, heat and light and

those kinds of things and it's a joint agreement that we've worked out.

These kinds of things were, again, initiatives that

were done for the first time under the Canada Newfoundland Youth Strategy and

targeted at young people. They've been proven to be successful enough that the

federal government agreed with us that they would fund the monies to extend that

type of initiative into other centres. We started in St. John's, opened joint

offices in Happy Valley - Goose Bay and Clarenville and are now in the process

of trying to put similar operations in place on the west coast, probably in the

Corner Brook area and also in Central Newfoundland. We had some discussions with

the offices - the CEIC I guess now the HRD people in Grand Falls - Windsor - and

the federal government has agreed with us that they will pay for part of the

cost, therefore our contribution is also up a little. We are jointly going to

fund these kinds of centres on an expanded basis in this year.

We've also had some success with a l