Manitoba Hansard — 29 March 1976 (Sitting 56, 30th Legislature, 3rd Session)

30-3-56

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 8 p.m., Monday, March 29, 1976 SUPPLY - LABOUR 1665 MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 82 on Page 39 of your Estima.tes Book. Women's Bureau, Resolution (

a) Salaries $67, 400--pass; Other Expenditures. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L, R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Chairman, I believe the Minister was responding on Friday, when the committee rose, to a couple of questions I'd asked him with respect to the Women's Bureau appropriation. He had explained that part of the reduction in the appropriation this year as compared to last year related to special ex penses that were undertaken last year in connection with International Women's Year. Whether he had any more to say at that time I'm not sure.

I know the clock interrupted him and I would like to give him an opportunity to continue his reply now. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Actually, Mr. Chairman, the clock did not interrupt me at all. My honourable friend the Member for Fort Garry had asked me a specific question deal ing with the monetary input of the department or the directorship of the Women's Bureau. I gave him an answer and that was that; there was no necessity for any further comments in reply to my honourable friend. MR.

SHERMAN: Perhaps the Minister could develop a further comment with respect to where the Women's Bureau is headed; what kind of achievements he feels it has attained in the last year in the labour field; what its objectives and goals are for this year? Is it successful in achieving opportunities in the work force and the labour fields for women; has it measured up to the kind of expectations of the department; are there other goals and objectives that the department has set for it? MR. PAULLEY: I think, Mr.

Chairman, if my honourable friend would refer to the report that I tabled as required by statute dealing with the Department of Labour, in total and the Women's Bureau, he will find I believe the answers to the questions on Page 39. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 82(a). The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Oh, I can see it's going to be one of those evenings, Mr. Chairman.

Notwithstanding Page 39 of the report, I wonder if the Minister for the sake of the record, which is what is being registered here at this time, can offer a comment as to whether he feels the Wom·9n's Bureau has been successful in the terms of reference set out for it; whether there are expanded terms of reference for this year? I note that the appropriations, the total appropriation is down, the salaries appropriation is up.

Does that mean, for example, that there are additional programs being undertaken, there's additional staff being taken on, or simply that this is simply a result of increases in salaries paid existing staff members or inflationary pressures ? MR. PAULLEY: I don't really understand my friend when he prefaces his com ments, "It's going to be one of those types of evenings." I don't know where he was over the weekend, but I know I was studying very very hard the departmental Estimates and the progress that we have made, and the hopes for the future.

Maybe he will give me the benefit of indicating what he means by, "It's going to be one of those evenings," because I'm trying to expedite the passage of the Estimates of the Department of Labour. But I want to assure my honourable friend I will not, in attempting to do that, neglect him because I'm sure that my honourable friend is one of those types of characters that does not like to feel that he's neglected, whether in effect he is or whether he is not.

So if my honourable friend is a little touchy this evening then I suppose that I must accept that as one of the normal traits of an individual such as my honourable friend. However, I do not want to attempt to evade any question posed by my honourable friend. I indicated the last time the committee met why there was an apparent reduction in the appropriations dollarwise, because we had put into the Estimates for the Women's Bureau last year a certain amount of money, because there was the recognition of the International Women's Year. And that was a special appropriation.

1666 March 29, 1976 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. PAULLEY cont'

d) It is true, as he says, that there is an apparent increase, or an increase in the suggestion or requirement for dollars for salaries. I want to say to him it is not due to any actual salary increases of any nature other than< incrementals. We have taken on staff, a part-time person at Brandon for the purpose of continuing the work of the Women's Bureau in that particular area. We do intend, we do intend to have a greater involvement of personnel, and not necess arily on permanent staff, within the Women's Bureau in the various areas of the Province of Manitoba.

It is our intention to have a greater involvement within the community of competent personnel going out into the areas trying to demonstrate, or trying to educate to the labour force and in Manitoba, in partic ular the female labour force, their advantages of becoming re-involved in the work forces in the province.

Much of this falls under the direction of the Women 's Bureau and that is the basic reason for the increase in salary rise with the addition, I believe, that there is provision for, if memory serves me correctly, for about one and a half staff man year additions to the present staff of the Women's Bureau. I'm sure, Mr.

Chairman, that members of the committee will realize that the Women's Bureau was only established a comparatively short period of time, and while it may be deemed advisable in some quarte rs that there should be a continuous expansion, as far as I am concerned I think we shall not, or should not continuously expand for the purpose of expansion.

It's my intention before too long to have an asses sment on a professional basis of the job that is being done in this particular directorship of the De partment of Labour to make sure that having ventured into this particular arena that we don't just simply establish another bureaucracy and expand the sa me for the sake of expansion under Parkinson's Law.

In saying that I do not want to indicate in any way, shape or form other than the fact that the Women's Bureau has and is accomplishing a great deal insofar as attracting women into the work force and also on an educational basis to inform the women partici pants in the work force of their rights and opportunities. And this as I say is an ongoing fact of life.

Had my honourable friend listened, and I'm sure that he did, he 's not now, but I'm sure that had my honourable friend listened when I was introducing my Estimate s, I did indicate to the House that I was hoping that this was one of those areas of govern mental involvement that would before too long outlive its usefulne ss in, that if the pro grams and policies and the objectives of the Women's Bureau were achieved, that is, to bring about equality of opportunity in the work force, equality of opportunities in the broad spectrums of human engagement and achieved our objectives, then it would no longer be necessa ry because we would have true equality, and that is the aim, objective of this department.

We do intend to become involved with the engagement of a number of students under our STEP program to make asses sments across the province as to involvement of women in the work force. We did that last year; we 're going to continue that in the next ensuing fiscal year. Now I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether I've answered precisely my honourable friend 's questions, whether he needs any more information or not, but certainly I as Minister have no objective in attempting to withhold any information from either the labour critic of the Conser vative Party or any other member of this House.

We feel that there 's a job being done. We think it's worthwhile. We are expanding slightly for this year, but the major reason for the lowering of the net cost to the taxpayer is because International Women's Year is now passed. MR. SHERMAN: Well, I appreciate the Minister's answer, Mr. Chairman. I think that he would agree with me that his answer is considerably fuller and considerably more illuminating than Page 39 of the report to which he referred me, and this is pre cisely the reason for my question.

His answer is relatively full, certainly in comparison to that page in the report, and I think for the record those are important thoughts and important proposals from the Minister to have on hand. I know that he referred to the work of the Women's Bureau in his opening re marks, but there were one or two points that he has made that I think are provocative

March 29, 1976 1667 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) •.••. and indeed worth having on the record and worth developing, worth thinking about. One in particular is that obviously if the kind of equality and equality of opporhmity and equality of training should be achieved that we're presum ably seeking in tl1is society, there would be no need for a Women's Bureau. So I tl1ink that it's important and helpful to have that acknowledgement on both sides of the House on the record. I wondered how close we were to achieving that kind of an eventuality in the Minister's mind.

The report sheds little light on that kind of operational type of question and I think the Minister's remarks shed a good deal of light on it. So I'm pleased to have them. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 82(a)- -pass. The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of matters I'd like to draw to the attention of the Minister under this, and the one is the Tri-Service monument that Mrs.

Beryl Simpson and her group propose to dedicate this summer, and I wonder if the Minister has had any further consultation with this group, because I know they were in consultation with him last year on this matter, and wonder if in fact he's had further consultation. I'm wondering also in the studies that's been carried out by summer students and others if the matter of wages for the housewife was being studied by this group or if they've had any enquiries about it. It has been raised to me from time to time because the issue certainly has had public attention from coast to coast.

So I'm wondering if the Minister would care to comment on those two matters. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: First of all of course, Mr. Chairman, the Tri-Service Memorial has nothing to do basically with the Women's Bureau as such or the Department of Labour Estimates. It certainly has something to do with the Minister of Labour who as one who has had a deep and continuing association with the Legion movement in Manitoba, of which I happen to be a member, and as my honourable friend the Member for Portage la Prairie interjected, an association with women.

My first association of course with women was when my mother gave birth to me, and I think that that was a good start and I've carried it on to one degree or another, and in one area or another.

But as far as the Tri-Service Memorial itself is concerned it's true that I had consul tations with the President of the Women's Auxiliary of the Royal Canadian Legion and I think the Premier announced, either today or the last time we met, that there is an in volvement on a matching grant between, I believe Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, or the Northwest Command I guess maybe would be the more proper designation, with the Northwest Command of the Royal Canadian Legion that there was permission given for the erection of the monument.

A sketch was presented to the government of the type of memorial to be erected and I believe a general satisfaction has been exhibited as a result of that type of co-operation. And I was pleased that I had, oh just a minor input in the deliberations.

As far as wages for housewives is concerned of course, I'm sure my honourable friend is in the same boat as many husbands, continuous requests from respective wives for payment for services rendered, and the likes of this, and of course that's expanded now into a request by some that legislation of the Employment Standards Act should be broadened to provide precisely for wages for housewives.

I would say to my honourable friend in all seriousness, yes, I've had some representations made to me from some groups, mainly women incidentally, to. establish employment standards as far as wage is concerned, minimum wages for housewives. But I do say to my honourable friend as well, the Member for Roblin, I haven't given it as much consideration as some would like me to give it in order to establish it in legislation.

And if my honourable friend the Member for Roblin would like to draft legislation and sign the same so that the desires of some insofar as payment for housewives is concerned, I'd be more than pleased to consider the same. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, if I could say a few words on this subject. I might begin by saying that the Minister of Labour and myself for some years

1668 March 29, 1976 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. G. JOHNSTON cont'd) ..••• have done some work with respect to obtaining not only recognition but action with respect to the Provincial Government's various depart ments where women and men are doing similar jobs, and I'm talking now about equal pay for equal work.

I know that for a few years it was an embarrassment to the Minister that he couldn't either move fast enough or he couldn't get the bureaucracy going to m1.ke some of the long overdue changes that were needed to be made, and I of course am reflecting back in past administrations to Conservative and Liberal where there was glar ing inequality in some of our institutions.

And of course I refer specifically to the Manitoba School for Retardates at Portage where finally two years ago this group of women workers at the Institution finally had the opportunity to take the government to court and they won their case, and they received a considerable amount of back pay. I know the Minister is sympathetic, and I know in his own way he is trying his best to complete the job that still is there, still has to be done with respect to provincial employees, men and women.

I would like to know from the Minister if, for example, at the Portage Jail for Women, if the women superintendents and the custodians, if that's the term, are now receiving the same salaries that the male custodians or jailers - or what ever their names are - at Headingley are receiving, because this has been a real source of a feeling of injustice by the working women concerned in these particular positions. I would like to know also from the Minister about the other institutions in the province, and I'm talking provincial institutions.

Is there still areas of inequality, where men and women are performing similar jobs? Has the Women's Bureau, and I know they have, but what impact have their studies had on my friend's department, and what is he doing to finish this job? Now, with interest, I'll listen to the Minister's response and perhaps have something else to say. MR. CHAIRMi\N: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR.

PAULLEY: I want to say to my honourable friend that as far as I am aware the situation that prevailed some time ago insofar as the superintendent of the Women's Jail at Portage by comparison with the superintendent of the jail at Headingley remains the same, that there is a vast difference in the responsibility and the input re quired for the relative positions. But I want to assure my honourable friend that the difference is not based on sex. The diff erence in the salary

schedule is based on the administrative responsibility, based on the amount of areas of jurisdictions and numbers concerned. I thought that I had satisfied my honourable friend to this fact a couple of years ago. I know, and my honourable friend talks about other situations insofar as the difference between the nurses' aids and others at the Portage Hospital for the Mental Hospital, but it didn't have to go to court, it was resolved without the full necessity. The only part that went into the arena of the court was the time element, but not the work element.

It is our principle, it was my principle then, and I give my honourable friend credit for indicating that it was my basic principle then of equality between the sexes, and it still is. Again I say that the diff erence in the salary

schedule between the super intendents in the Women's Jail at Portage la Prairie who happens to be a female, and the superintendent at Headingley who happens to be a male, is not based on sex but based on the involvement and the requirements for the respective positions.

I think this is generally recognized, of a fact, and I would suggest to my honourable friend as far as the policy of myself as Minister of Labour or the Minister responsible for the Civil Service, that if the present superintendent of the Women's Jail at Portage la Prairie, if she was transfer red into Headingley, the relatively higher salary would be paid to her. Now of course what my honourable friend might say is a corollary, if the superintendent of Headingley was sent to Portage la Prairie would the reduction take place, and I would suggest that relatively speaking the answer would be yes.

I appreciate the fact that no one would want to go to receive a lesser amount of take-home pay; when one considers the responsibility however for the job, then that is a fact of life. What I am trying to suggest to my friend that the relative pay indemnities is not based on sex, but on responsibilities. And that's not only true insofar as the particular area of concern of my honourable friend, it's true in other areas of responsibility as well, because we have some people who are

March 29, 1976 1669 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) ••.• . called directors of departments in government who m'ly all be male, that we have different salary levels which are associated with their responsi bilities. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we have some Deputy Ministers who re ceive varying diff erences in their pay as a result of the diff erent involvement in the area of responsibility.

And my honourable friend then asks m3 the question, are there areas of inequality between the sexes, we must note his question was between the sexes in the government's employment at the present time; I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that there are no inequalities in payment as a result of sex, there are differences in pay because again of responsibilities; and I am not aware, I am not aware of any clause or term of condition either under the collective agreement that we have or any directive of the Civil Service Commission where there is any permissibility for diff erence in pay between male and female on the basis of sex. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest to the Minister and it seems to me he made some strange statements .

First of all, he was all in favour of the equality of pay for men and women in the provincial service who are doing similar types of work, and then he quoted an actual case that I wasn't aware of when he mentioned specifically the superintendent of the Portage Women's Jail vis-a-vis --(Interjection)-- no it isn't - versus the superintendent of the Men's Jail at Headingley.

It's a pretty weak argument it would seem to me, because there may be - and I am using ball park figures now - there may be 600 men inmates at Headingley and 100 women inmates in Portage, and the responsibility is the same; the work is the same, you are working with corrective programs, you are dealing with people who are confined, and it's an odd argument that he says that one's job is paid on the basis of more importance than the others, and I don't accept that.

Now what I have asked the Minister in previous years, if the women - I don't know the term, guards or jailers, I'm not quite sure of the term - are paid the same --(Interjection)-- custodian I always thought was a fellow or a woman that swept the floor and maintained the building, but I'm not too sure. But anyway, I want to know from the Minister if the women employees doing custodial work at Portage Women's Jail are being paid the same as men who are doing the same type of work at Headingley.

Now I under stood him to say that there is no more inequality, he solved all the problems, everybody's being paid the same for the same work completely throughout the Civil Service, is that a fair assessment of what you said, Mr. Minister? MR. PAULLEY: You know, sometimes it's tough for a person in my position to get the story across to my honourable friend.

The reason I referred to the superin tendent of the Women's Jail at Portage and the superintendent at Headingley is precisely because that is the illustration - he may be getting a little forgetful in retiring years, but that was the particular instance that he constantly drew to my attention a few years ago. He nods his head now in assent, Mr. Chairman, so I guess I am not too far out on a limb on that. As far as I am aware, under the terms of the collective agreement the custodian male or female gets the same pay, if that is the correct term, wherever they happen to be engaged.

So all I can say to my honourable friend, as far as I am aware that is the case. I haven't as Minister created any Utopia, I have been relatively persistent in attempting to bring about equality; I don't want any crown placed, because crowns slip, don't they? - but I do want to say to my friend that as far as I am aware as I stand before the Committee tonight, there are no inequalities in the performance of like work on the basis of sex within the Civil Service.

If my honourable friend can - or even the Member for Lakeside who has been chirping in, even if my honourable friend from Lake side can give me some illustrations I would be more than pleased, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of equality to take the matter up. When I am talking about equality, I'm not just talking of equality for one sex, but both sexes as well, because as I indicated and repeated again tonight, as far as equality is concerned it doesn't matter a continental to me whether it's female or male, there should be the same equality. MR. CHAIRM..A..N: Resolution 82(a)--pass; Resolution 82(b)--pass.

Resolution 82, resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $117, 500 for Labour --pass. Resolution 83, Pension Commission. Salaries $62,500. The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Garry.

1670 March 29, 1976 SUPPLY - LABOUR MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, we will of course be considering this

section of the Pension Benefits Act in this session of the Legislature. As a matter of fact it ap peared on the Order Paper today, first reading, and so I imagine that many of the questions we would be asking in this area can be dealt with during consideration of that legislation.

But I would be interested at this juncture specifically in the appropriation of $100,000, I would like to know from the Minister, is that to fund the new Pension Com mission of Manitoba or to fund the support staff that the Pension Commission would have as a separate unit or a self-contained unit within the Department of Labour, or precisely what is that appropriation earmarked for? MR.

PAULLEY: Well I haven't got all the information I would like to have had here, some of it, I must confess, is on my desk in my office because I knew that questions would be raised, although I appreciate the fact that the Honourable Member for Fort Garry has noted the introduction of a bill dealing with the Pensions Act and I antic ipate a more full discussion at that particular time. The provision for $100, 000 for the operation of this

section of the govermnent is arrived at for the expenses of a superinten dent of pensions. I may say to the members of the Committee, Mr. Chairman, that competitions were held for inviting applications for the position of superintendent of pen sions, a decision has been arrived as to the person concerned, and while I am not in a position to disclose precisely at this time who the person is, due to the fact that his or her decision has to be referred back of the acceptance of the job, I want to say to the Committee that a superintendent of a pensions' position is in the process of being filled.

There are positions for two analyists and one clerical staff to operate the Pensions Com mission, or the Pensions' legislation, and I say and I made a report, I gave a report that is required by law in the House, tabled the first report of the Pensions Commission which has been functioning I believe since the beginning of October, somewhere in that general time period. Yes in October, under part one of the Act, the seven member Pension Commission of Manitoba was appointed and the Minister of Labour was designated as the Minister to which the Commission report.

My honourable friend will recall when the legislation was introduced into the House at our last session, it was introduced by the First Minister; and following that he asked me if I would - well, he told me, I guess would be better than really say ask - he thought that it would be advisable for the operation or the ministerial responsibility for the Pensions Benefit Act be vested in the Department of Labour, the Minister of Labour, and that is the reason that it is before us at the present time.

I'm sorry, really, and I think members will appreciate that I can't go into much more detail as to the actual operation, this is the first time that there is a request for an appropriation within the department for the operation of the Pension Commission.

We did have a meeting of the Committee on Statutory Rules, at which time members of the Committee had an opportunity to direct questions to the members of the Pension Com mission, which they did; that was really by way of opening up consultation with the Pension Commission and to make the members of that particular Committee aware of what is going on and our hopes for the future.

I might say without - well I don't think that I'm being unparliamentary or disclosing features of the bill that I introduced for the first time today, when I say that the amendments suggested in there are rather of a relatively minor or housekeeping nature, dealing to some degree with the time element of the commencement of the plan and the responsibilities of the superintendent of pensions. I must say, and I think members will appreciate this, that

whereas in the original legis lation we had set a dateline - I believe one of the datelines for the registration of actual plans was the 1st of April, which is only a couple of days away - we found that for vary ing reasons we are not able to reach that time limit, and one of the purposes of the amendments would be to extend that deadline • So really, Mr. Chairman, if my honourable friends have any further questions of a precise nature, I may be able to answer them, but I think that the report that I tabled in the House gave an indication of where this stands.

It's our ultimate hope of course, and this was joined in by all members of the House when the Premier introduced the legislation, that we would have far better control over the operation of pension plans in

March 29, 1976 1671 SUPPLY - lABOUR (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) ••••• the Province of Manitoba and that those who are making contributions to the pension plans would have greater protection of their interests under the pension plans. As the days go on we will become more involved, but I do want to assure the members of the committee that in this very important field, unlike maybe some other fields, there will be no endeavour to prevent open consultations and deliberations with the House, with the committee and with the public. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, the report of the Minister's department on Page 19 says that when the whole of the Act comes into effect in the new year, the Com mission will be assisted by a small administrative unit to be established within the Depart ment of Labour, consisting of a Superintendent of Pensions and support staff. So my question, and I infer from the Minister's answer, is that this $100,000 appropriation is to go to fund the Superintendent's office and his support staff. Is that correct? And pay ment to the Commission. Okay, thanks. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 83(a)--pass; Resolution 83(b)--pass.

Resolution 83, resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $100,000 for Labour- pass. Resolution 84, Occupational, Safety and Health, $100.00. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess first the most obvious question is, what's a hundred dollars, which appears to be the appropriation for the year ending March 31st, 1977 ?

But far more important than that, because it seems to be so negligible as to be hardly worthy of spending much time on it, far more important than that item is the question that I posed last week in a series of questions to the Minister which he hasn't I suppose strictly speaking had a chance to answer yet until we came to this resolution - and that is that the Throne Speech which opened this session on the 12th of February told us that during the last year there were four times more working days lost through acci dents at work than were lost through industrial strikes and lockouts.

Now the Minister's report for the year says that the estimated number of working days lost in the 12-month period ended October 31st, 1975 through work stoppages was 147,940. Well putting that mathematics together, that means that the number of working days lost through accidents at work in Manitoba last year was something in the neighborhood of 600,000, and I would suggest that the committee would be most intrigued, most disturbed and most interested in having the Minister elaborate on what is a staggering figure, a staggering total.

If we lost 600,000 working days in this province last year through industrial accidents, then something is seriously wrong and I hope we can get at it and get a solution tonight. So this is the basic question under this resolution, Mr. Chairman, and the sup plementary question to that is, how in the name of heaven do we expect to do anything about it with the massive appropriation of $100.00? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Most intriguing, Mr. Chairman, most intriguing.

You know, I used to enjoy myself when I sat - I believe for a little while I sat in the same seat as the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, or where the Honourable Member for Minnedosa and I used to enjoy myself, and my honourable friend the Member for Lakeside enjoyed himself saying "heh heh heh heh". How can you reconcile an expenditure of $100 with 600, 000 man hours or man days lost in an accident and how are you going to pay him off? Gee, you know, it's lovely to be in that position. But --(Interjection)-- Yes, I've got the answers and I've given those answers.

I've given those answers into this House but they've fallen upon deaf ears, Mr. Chairman. You know there's none so deaf as those that won't hear. --(Interjection)-- That's right. That's right. And isn't it fun sitting on your fannies over there without responsibility, but without even trying, without even trying to assess the situation that prevails at the present time. Of course, Mr. Chairman, when the Throne Speech was introduced by my two colleagues on behalf of the government, reference was made --(Interjections)-- MR. CHAIRMAN: ORDER PLEASE!

Maybe the honourable member should go to Corrections for a bit of corrective therapy. MR. PAULLEY: You know, honourable members of this House should know what

1672 March 29, 1976 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) • • I have attempted to do as an individual, on both sides of the House over the years in the interest, in the interest of safety and industrial hygiene and industrial environment. And yet when we are reaching, as I fully believe that we are reaching, a new area, a new approach, in the field of industrial safety, it causes laughter on the part of the opposition, because in that process there is a token amount contained within the Estimates, Mr.

Chairman, for this new venture, for this new consolidation of all of the efforts toward industrial safety in the Province of Manitoba instead of the fragmentation that has prevailed over the years.

And surely to goodness, my honourable friends should have, and maybe I'm giving them too damn much credit, sufficient intellec tual knowledgeability to know that when a new program is being developed, and that when we're going to consolidate, as our legislation will reveal that we're going to do, various areas of industrial safety and environment that have been distributed between different sections of government over the years, I doubt very much whether it should even take a child in first grade school to know it, what it's all about.

But such is not the case with Her Majesty's loyal opposition and their representatives because it's too incomprehensive for them to have any understanding and knowledge. I can understand somebody - oh hell I won't even go into that. --(Interjection)-- Yes, you're the one that I can understand not knowing because I don't think that you, over your period of career, have given a tinker's damn about industrial safety except to try and make a mockery out of what we are at tempting to do on behalf of workers and employers alike.

It is unquestionably disturbing, to say the least, that the costs of Workers Com pensation is continuously escalating. Who pays for it? All of us as consumers pay for it. The first direct input as to costs is levied against the employer but in the final analysis the greater suff ering is done by those who are injured and as a result of the past deficiencies over the years of governments, including Liberals, Conservatives and yes, up until now --(Interjection)-- Yes, I am serious. I am serious, Mr. Chairman, and I'll tell you why I am serious.

I hate people in this House attempting to laugh off and slough off an important division of society such as this. That's why I feel that I have to be serious, Mr. Chairman. Ask the fellow who loses an arm whether he would laugh at the endeavours of this government to try and consolidate all approaches in Workers Compen sation and accident and safety prevention into one general agency. Ask the fellow who insofar as noise pollution and the likes of that, may have to deal with one department of government and can be sloughed around.

Ask the fellow who is a spray painter who has to deal, in order to achieve reasonably satisfactory answers as to whether he has emphysema or some chest condition, that he has to go from one department to the other - to the Compensation Board, back to the Department of Labour and the Fire Commissioner's office, back to the Environment Division of the Health Division and then back to somebody else. Ask him whether it's a laughing matter that at long last they're going to be able --(Interjection)-- Then why laugh. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Order please. MR. PAULLEY: You know, boy oh boy I think you should.

I think you should go where you're going. Out. It's not a laughing matter and it's not a question of the $100.00. We haven't got legislative authority as yet to transfer all of the financial responsibilities that we're hopeful of having domiciled in the Department of Labour on behalf of the general public and in particular the workers, at the present time. This is not something, Mr. Chairman, that is new; it's been done before.

The $100 - laugh at the amount if you will - is there only to put a line in the Estimates of Expenditure and that will be adjusted as the full cost implications of the domiciling under one umbrella, services that are being performed at the present time in various areas of jurisdiction. I sat on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Labour in that particular year, I believe the Honourable Obie Baizley, took out of the Department of Labour the responsibility for The Employment Safety Act and domiciled it in the Workers Compensation Board, under the Board.

I joined in support at that particular time of that move because I felt that a better job could be done internally through the Workers Compensation Board or as it was called then the Workmens Compensation Board, before we had equality of the sexes • I felt that because of the association between the

March 29, 1976 1673 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) .•••• employer who was doing the paying and the injured worker that there would be more inducement and there would be more involvement by he who is basically paying the shot in an endeavour to eliminate an incident of accident. To some degree it was successful but now the objective is to bring it under one umbrella; noise pollution, industrial hygiene, all aspects of safety, construction safety standards which are domiciled in some areas and not in others .

Many sections of the Department of Labour are going to come under the general umbrella of this legislation which the Throne Speech indicated that we were going to introduce on behalf of all con cerned. We're living in diff erent ages now and different days in industry, Mr. Chairman. The incidence of asbestosis, poisoning particularly of the lungs as the result of the use of plastics and other materials in the building industry, in the manufacturing of draperies. Even the seamstress today - and I mean it not in any derogatory sense at all - but the seamstress today, Mr.

Chairman, is subjected to the possibility of many harmful diseases of the lungs because of the type of fabrics that she is using to manufacture the draperies that we use in our homes, many of which, of course, as I stated the other day, causes fires because of their texture • That is what this is all about, Mr. Chairman. Now surely to goodness instead of laughing, as far as the actual dollar and cents input in a line in the Estimates, my honourable friends should concentrate on what we say is the endeavour - provides for safeguarding the safety and health for the labour force of Manitoba.

It's the basic line within the Estimates to accommodate the legislation that I might say, Mr. Chairman, is in the process of being drafted at this particular time. Had that legislation been here before and passed, I might say that instead of an estimate of approximately $100, it would be closer to bordering on a million dollars which I estimate an approximation of the dollar input. Fault me, fault the government for not having this done before the Estimates were tabled, if you will.

But don't laugh, please, at the objectives that this government is attempting to achieve in the interests of workers in society as a whole. We have so much fragmentation at the present time, Mr. Chairman, as you well know, as I do, as a railroader as I was, so much fragmentation in the field of industrial safety.

I would suggest, and my colleague the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources knows what of I speak, when that in the area of the mining industry there is an involve ment of three or four different sections of government or government departments charged with the responsibility of safety protection and the like.

I'm sure that my honourable friend were he here, the Minister of Health and Social Development, would appreciate as I do the involvement of his department in the area of diseases of the lungs • I will be tabling tomorrow the Annual Report of the Workers Compensation Board which will give precise documentation to the actual numbers of man hours lost as a result of industrial accidents. My honourable friend, the Member for Fort Garry, was astounded at the figure of 600,000 lost days in industrial accidents and I join with him, I join with him in being astounded, Mr.

Chairman, when we look at that input, when we see and we know that there were nearly 150,000 man hours lost as a result of strikes. And there is a concentration by politicians and the public as to the loss figure in strikes. I'm happy for one thing, Mr. Chairman, that the Honourable Member for Fort Garry is now cognizant as I hope everybody else is, that the ratio of man hours lost or man days lost as a result of industrial accidents is about four times that, as those lost in strikes. Sure, Mr. Chairman, the incident of strikes make headlines in our newspapers and what are you going to do about it?

Are you going to be bringing in compulsory legislation to force the worker back to work in order to continue creating an accident incident rate four times as great as that caused by a strike? That, Mr. Chairman, is one of the realistic approaches that this government is making. We know of the ratio of approximately four to one, from lost time by strike to lost time by accidents. My honourable friends - and they're not alone - emphasized that loss, the loss of strikes.

What I am attempting to do as the Minister of Labour, even though it's an insignificant one hundred dollar bill contained in the Estimates at the present time, I am

1674 March 29, 1976 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) •..•. trying to concentrate what we are endeavouring to do in the field of industrial accidents. Mr. Chairman, if the public and indeed the members of this Assembly became as concerned over the incident of industrial accidents as they are with the incident of strikes, then I think we would really accomplish something because we are often told that strikes can be prevented. I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, and I am sure I am joined by many in this House that there is another area of human endeavour in which preventative measures can stave off or eliminate so much more human suffering than the loss of a number of days in strikes. How often have we, Mr. Chairman, as fellow rail readers, aided and carried out our fellow workers on stretchers and the likes of that and sometimes they haven't come back. That's what adds up to the total of approximately 600, 000 man lost days in accidents.

If only by this one hundred dollar bill, contained in the Estimates, that we could reduce the total accident input or statistics to that of the comparable strikes - about 150 man days, what an achievement we would be making and how much we would be aiding society. That is our objective and again, Mr. Chairman, having said all of that, and I trust it will be accepted by my honourable friends in all quarters of the House, but having said all of that, I'm sorry that I haven't got the precise legislation or didn't have the precise legislation for the consideration of the House before we got down to this $100.

Because I think and I feel that when the legislation is produced that my honourable friends in all quarters will say, it's a step in the right direction. We hope that your desires are achieved and we're going to support you. Because I've heard my honourable friend, the Member for Fort Garry, speak before on the question of Workers Compensation, I know his keen interest. Just the other day my honourable friend, aided and joined by a representative of the Liberal party complimented the Minister of Labour for the introduction of additional benefits for the injured workers of Manitoba.

The cost of those added benefits, Mr. Chairman, are going to amount over the next seven years to some $13 million. If we could cut that down by ten percent, there's 1. 3 million. And if eventually in the Esti mates of this department or this

section of the department, the total bill is ten percent of the added cost of Workers Compensation, the benefit to humans would offset any financial input. So, Mr. Chairman, when I say to the Honourable Member for Lakeside who is now absent, I had a resentment against his laughter because there was only an item of $100 contained in the Estimates. I certainly felt that I had cause for resentment.

I trust and hope now that I have attempted to explain the position of the government and the reasons thereof, that rather than laughter at the input of any amount of dollars there will be full support of our objectives of trying to alleviate suff ering caused by the incident of accident in our industrial climate which is expanding. But far more important, prevention of those accidents occurring.

I recommend to all members of the House not laughter, but support for a basic principle in program that I for one over many years in this House have been advocating and it seems that today I can look forward in reality to something really worthwhile. I trust and hope that when the legislation is introduced and applied - it didn't matter a damned to me, Mr.

Chairman, whether it was to be applied in the Department of Labour, the Department of Health, Mines and Resources but in one particular minis terial responsibility so that we had a comprehensive attack so we could make a concen trated attack on this huge expenditure, this huge loss of life and suffering that has been going on. My friend from Fort Garry in the debates on Workers Compensation pointed out to me many cases of suff ering and loss. A hundred dollars ? So what?

The principle is what is counting and I want to be able one of these days to say to my honourable friend that he assisted in reducing the incident of accident by support for this program even though it started out with a measly hundred dollar bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I feel certain that I can assure the Minister at this point without having seen what he proposes, without having seen the legislation that he is talking about, that he will have my support for any efforts moving in that direction,

March 29, 1976 1675 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) . • the direction of greater industrial safety prevention and prevention of accident. But I cannot let the inference remain on the record that there was laughter from - certainly laughter in the accepted sense of the word - from anybody on this side of the House with respect to the urgent and critical question of industrial health and safety. The Minister said, fault me but don't laugh at what this government is trying to do in the area of health and safety of workers in this province.

There was no laughter with respect to what he is trying to do or what he is hoping to do with respect to health and safety of workers in this province. Certainly for my own

part I asked him a seriom; question and my basic question was: what explanation can he give and what elaboration can he give on the challenge in the Throne Speech that there were four times as many days lost through industrial accident last year as days lost through work stoppages. In other words some 600, 000. I said as a supplementary question that I felt the appropriation cited here, and not very well ex plained until the Minister got up to speak about it, was pretty inadequate to deal with it. If there was any laughter it was not coming from this particular corner of the House. But, Sir, the sub-li ne in the Appropriations explaining what Resolution 84 is all about and what

Section 10 of the Labour Department Estimates having to do with Occupa tional Safety and Health is all about, is a sub-line that I suggest with all respect to the Minister is pretty uninformative. He has stood up and told us what he hopes to do in terms of co-ordinating the various programs aimed at health and safety, developing a comprehensive program, developing an umbrella type approach and if that is what he is aiming at then that is something devoutly to be pursued.

But it is certainly not the impression that one would get from reading the sub-line in that particular Appropriation and just for the record I would like to read it into the record. It says, "10. Occupa tional Safety and Health - Provides for safeguarding the safety and health of the labour force of Manitoba. $100 .00".

Now I think that it is reasonable to suggest to anybody in any opposition, and even if it was my honourable friend the Honourable the Minister of Labour sitting on this side as a New Democrat in opposition, and he read that in Estimates that were brought into this House by a Progressive Conservative Government or a Liberal Government or a government of any stripe that he would ask the same question and lead to the same kind of query and the same kind of criticism that I led to and that some of my colleagues joined.

Because it is a serious and critical topic as alluded to in the Throne Speech and as explained by the Minister and as discm;sed by us on other occasions in this House. Certainly the descriptive line and the sum cited as the appropriation does neither answer nor inform nor enlighten nor serve those who would be interested either in opposition or in government in this province in pursuing a worthwhile occupational safety and health program.

So if the Minister feels that we have taken unfair advantage or that we have read things into the particular item for the sake of embarrassing him or putting him on the spot I suggest to him that the knife cuts both ways. In preparing the printed dis closure of his Estimates that there was failure there to describe what is at stake and what is involved in the vote and what is not involved in the vote. His explanation is certainly important and crucial to this consideration. I would hope that he is progressing rapidly with that kind of co-ordination, that kind of development of an umbrella program.

But that leads me to another question as a critic in this House faced with a government spending program. The Minister has said that he would expect that probably the outlay for the program hereinunder not described would be likely to be something not in the neighbourhood of $100 but something in the neighbourhood of $1,000, 000 by the time he has it properly co-ordinated. He said that it will be a program that requires an adjustment of the listing and the organization and the arranging of other programs . Well where will the adjustment come from ? Where will that $1 million come from ?

It is not in the Estimates facing us at the present time so we can only assume that what we are looking at here is really only partial Estimates for the Department of Labour for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977. Now it can be argued that this is customary, that we always face the main

1676 March 29, 1976 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) •••.• Estimates and later on we are faced with Supplementary Estimates. But not in the magnitude of 25 percent over and above the main Estimates. If we were dealing with a percentage of two, three, four, five percent we would be roughly probably in the area of the Supplementary Estimates we are looking at in compar ison to main Estimates on the normal plane. But here we are looking at total Estimates for the Department of Labour of $3.1 million which well may not be enough but that is what they are.

The Minister is saying that this comprehensive program once it is co ordinated under the umbrella will probably cost a million dollars. I see no allowance for that million anywhere in the Estimates so presumably we are going to be voting Supple mentary Estimates for the Department of Labour of $1 million. If it was $1 million as against $10 million or $20 million that would be one thing, but $1 million against $3 mil lion is an increase of, well not 25 percent - I think I said 25 percent - it is something closer to 33 percent. I don't say it isn't worthwhile, but it is still an increase of 33 percent.

For the sake of argument if that were carried across the Estimates in general, across this Estimates Book, we would be faced with a pretty formidable threat in terms of Supplementary Estimates. So I would want to know first and foremost where that ad ditional $1 million adjustment is coming from. Let me put another question to the Minister. He has said that the ratio of days lost in industry through accidents is four to one over days lost through work stoppages. That's what started this discussion, the 600,000 days lost through accident as compared to the 150, 000 approximately lost through work stoppages.

Well I would remind the Minister that just five years ago in 1971-1972 the estimated number of working days lost were 49,430. Well if the accepted ratio is four to one that would mean that the days lost through • • • MR. PAULLEY: Where was that 49,000 figure from? MR. SHERMAN: It is from Page 51 of the Department of Labour Annual Report for 1975, the year 1971-1972. The report lists the last five years for ••. MR. PAULLEY: Work stoppage. MR. SHERMAN: Yes. The report shows the last five years of work stoppages and it shows in 1971-1972 that the estimated number of working days lost is 49,430, strike loss.

Days lost through work stoppages. Well if the ratio is four to one, if that is a constant or fairly constant ratio that would mean that the estimated number of work ing days lost through industrial accident in 1971-1972 was approximately 200,000 and this year, or for the last year we have the record, we're saying that it is approximately 600, 000. So in other words what has happened here is that within the space of five years we are now losing three times as many man days of work through industrial accidents as was the case five years ago.

Well if one follows those mathematics through - the Minister shakes his head - but four times 150,000 is 600,000 which gives us our figure for last year --(Interjection)-- Oh. Well the Minister says that just happens to be the ratio in the given year. But certainly in his comments one would get the impression from his comments that the ratio that he --(Interjection)-- Well he didn't use the term "constant" but I certainly had the impression that what he was suggesting was the ratio that he has been wrestling with in this province, in industry in this province is a four to one ratio.

If one were to look then at 1971-1972 you come up with a pretty significant difference in the number of days lost through industrial accidents. Well let me ask him then: was the ratio in 1971-1972 less than four to one or was it three to one or was it two to one? --(Interjection)-- Well then the kind of mathe matical equations that we are dealing with are different but the question is still the same, Mr. Chairman. The question is still the same.

Why are there more days lost through industrial accidents in 1975 or '76 or '77 or whatever, the year we are dealing with here is November 1st, 1974, to October 31, 1975, so we are really looking at the year 1975. Why are there so many more days lost through industrial accidents in 1975 than was the case in 1971 or 1972? Is the Minister going to tell me it's because there is a great deal more industry in Manitoba in 1975? Because that isn't true. There hasn't been that mathematical equivalent of increase in industry or in the labour force.

The labour force in this province has remained pretty static in the five years under review,

March 29, 1976 1677 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) . . . . . relatively static between 400, 000 and 430, 000 people, working people , men and women . That's remained pretty static. So I think that we come to a pretty provacative question here as to why we are into a situation where we now have the overwhelming, the overwhelming number of some 600, 000 days lost through industrial accidents in this province in 19 75 . I would still like to have the Minister elaborate on that point.

He has told us about the $1 00; he has told us that he has got legisl ation coming; he has told us that he is trying to put a comprehensive umbrella plan together; he has told us that he is as committed as he ever was to the pursuit of occupational safety and health standards in industry and industry's workers in this province. So that explains the errors or the faulty impression created in the Es timates before us where the $100 appropriation is concerned. But he hasn't addressed himself to the question that I started with which is a basic question.

That is why did we have 600 ,0 00 man days lost to us in 1975 through industrial accident and how does that compare with the two, three four years before that and who was at fault ess entially in the Minister's view . Was it private industry? Is it the regulations and the statutes of the Province of Manitoba whether enacted by this gov ernment or previous governments or whether this or previous governments have failed to enact the necessa ry protective measures ? I would like the Minister to enlighten me and if he will, educate me in that sphere .

Because I think a great many people exposed to this kind of presentation of the spending plans for this year and the record for the last five years would ask the same ques tions . One final question before I sit down, Mr. Chairman. The Minister said in his response a few moments ago that he would be introducing or tabling a report in the House tomorrow that would provide us with the documentation of the approximate 600, 000 days lost figure to whic h we are referring. Will that report provide us with a breakdown of those 600, 000 days lost ?

Will there be a breakdown roughly industry by industry or industrial category by category so that we can see and un derstand where most of those costly industrial accidents took place and where the safety program should be pursued the most vigorously . I will leave those que stions to the Minister's attention for the next few moments if he cares to respond to them, Mr. Chairman. MR. PAULLEY: I just want to say to my honourable friend I enjoyed very much his rambling non-approach to the facts of life in industrial accidents. My honourable friend has been in this House now for a few years .

Each year there is tabled in this House a requirement of the law, the Annual Statement and Report of the Workers Compen sation Board. If my honourable friend has never seen one before , or took note of it, I'm sure that he will the next one that is tabled, because he asked questions as to whether or not the report contains the incidence of accidents in various branches of industry. I leave it to him to heed to after he has taken a look at the document to read what he 's had the opportunity of reading ever since he became a member of this House . -- (Inter jection) -- Well, my goodness gracious.

You see, oh, never mind, I'll ignore that. -- (Interjection) -- Of the Workers Compensation Board. My honourable friend was chortling with his laughable friend from Lakeside at the time and poss ibly didn't hear it. -- (Interjection) -- MR . CHAIRMAN: Order pleas e. Order plea se . The honourable member is mistaken, I distinctly heard the Minister say he was tabling the Workers Compensation Board Report. -(Interjection) -- MR. PAULLEY: Oh, well, no, there 's a hell of a lot doesn 't reach that side of the Hou se .

I often think there is an invisible barrier of intellect between each side of the House, and I'm not going to go any further than just say that. But I say to my honourable friend, the Member for Fort Garry, he wears the mantle. My honourable friend was talking about the percentage.

All I can say in the ratio of incidence of accident to the incidence of strike, all I can say, that I was informed statistically speak ing - and I don't go around counting on my fingertips industrial accidents and the man days lost, but I was informed that the approximate ratio of the incidence on strikes to the incidence of industrial accidents last year was about four to one . -- (Interjection) -- Here again you see, I again haven't penetrated that invisible barrier of intellect over to that side of the Hous e, but I'll leave that .

I haven't received really any intellectual criticism from my honourable friend of the statements that I have made of what are our

1678 March 29, 1976 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) •.•.• objectives. He's tried to rant and to rave about past deficiencies, which I accept and said so, not only of this government but of previous governments before . My honourable friend wants to attempt to slough off what was said in the Throne Speech introduced at the beginning of this session in respect of industrial safety. But such is not the case, Mr. Chairman, people outside of this House are far more knowledgeable of what's going on inside of this House than my honourable friend, the Member for Fort Garry .

I received a letter the other day from the Canadian Manufacturers Association, from the Manager of the Canadian Manufacturers Association. I don't mind quoting it: ''Dear Mr. Paulley: The recent Speech from the Throne indicates that the government is considering 'An Act pertaining to the safety and health at work of persons employed in Manitoba' and that it is 'concerned with the increasing capacity of employers and employ ees to agree jointly on improving safety and health conditions in the work place ." ' The Canadian Manufacturers Association, Mr. Chairman, knows what we are endeavouring to do .

Apparently my honourable friend had his hearing aid turned down at the time that portion of the Throne Speech was referred to by His Honour at the opening day of this House . The letter goes on to say: "I interpret this to mean you are contemplating mandatory joint labour-management safety committees, perhaps similar in function to the occupational health committees in effect in Saskatchewan, and I would greatly appreci ate it if you would let me know if this assumption is correct ." Then the letter goes on .

He is seeking my co-operation and consultation with them in this matter of importance of industrial health and safety conditions. And of course there's no question or doubt that that spirit of co-operation will be extended to all groups of society. I only wish that I had that same co-operation from certain members in this House . May I refer to another letter, Mr . Chairman, to indicate an interest outside of this House, and this comes from the Executive Director of the Labour Council of Ontario, who works under the Ministry of Labour in that great Conservative bastion of democracy.

The letter reads as follows: "Dear Russ: I note from the Winnipeg Tribune of February 3rd that you are making successful progress towards bringing all industrial health and safety into a single branch of your department, as well as making labour-management safety committees compulsory in all Manitoba work places . As you may recall from our previous discussions, I am interested in such concepts, and am pleased to report that the labour safety council of Ontario is currently examining the same questions .

Our work has not reached the stage of concrete recommendations and any such reports that you have would be helpful ; in turn I promise to send you material as soon as possible . My memory tells me that I suggested to you last summer that you are not only ahead of us in having the courage to do this, but we wish you every success in your endeavours." From the Conservative Government spokesman on Safety of the Province of Ontario.

And damn it all, all that I get in this House from the Conservative opposition is about a bunch of malar key and veiled criticisms because we 're attempting to do it and because the Estimates only has a line for 100 bucks. My honourable friend asked a number of other simple questions . I refer the answers to his own research department, they have the material and the information available . MR. SHERMAN: Well, Mr .

Chairman, the Minister can indulge in all the typical familiar indignation he wants to, the fact of the matter is I asked him a question tonight about the Women's Bureau when we started the committee proceedings this evening, he responded that all I had to do was look at Page 39 of the report of his department .

Then when pressed and urged to get over his temporary fit and pique and indignation, he elaborated at great length, which what I was seeking and what I wanted for the record and what I submit the people of Manitoba would like to have for the record, on a very impor tant part of his department and its function of responsibility.

I ask him to consult Hansard a few days from now, and ask himself whether the report he finally gave me after some cajolling that I would have thought would not have been necessary, if there is any rela tionship whatever to the 12 lines - in fact they are not 12 full lines, there are six full lines and six half lines on Page 39 of his departmental report, what I wanted on the

March 29, 1976 1679 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) ....• Women's Bureau was not contained in those six full lines and six half lines, what I wanted I did get, at least in substantial part , in the explanation that he subsequently gave . So we managed to weave our way through that jungle of indignation and rancour. Now he 's doing the same thing again on Resolution 84 with respect to Occupational Safety and Health .

He apparently thinks he doesn't have to answer, he apparently thinks he can act in as autocratic a manner as he choos es , but I tell him that he can't act in that autocratic manner and get away with it; if he thinks he can't answer me I can stay as long as he can, and furthermore the people of Manitoba can stay longer, until we do get an answer . He has read me from his letters that he has received . Well unfortunately, Mr .

Chairman, or perhaps fortunately, we are not privy to the lett ers that the Minister of Labour gets from his admirers in one province or another back and forth across this country who add ress him by the salutation "Dear Russ" and pat him on the back for the work that he has done . Unfortunately we 're not copied in for copies of those lette rs, so we are at a great disadvantage, we have to come into this House and ask him to reach into his correspondence file and pull out the favourable back-patting letters and read them to us .

If I had copies of those lette rs, perhaps I would have some answ ers, although those answers don't shed very much light on the subjects about which I have been question ing him. But that has no bearing on the debate that we're in at the present time, the fact that he 's had a correspondent from Ontario congratulate him on the things that he is attempting to do to increase and improve the health and safety of workers in Manitoba. He has referred me to the Speech from the Throne, Mr .

Chairman, I've got the Speech from the Throne in front of me and I've had it in front of me since the 12th of February, and I would say that it's about as enlightening in the area of improvements projected and proposed in the field of industrial health and safety as are the Estimates and the sub-line that I referred to a moment ago. He got himself into a jackpot with people on this side from which he was only able to extricate himself by his usual rancour and bombast, because the sub-line explaining vote 84 and

Section 10 explains nothing, it's a bland generalization which says that this vote is to provide for safeguarding the safety and health of the labour force of Manitoba. And then he takes off and tees off on us because we ask him how is he going to do that with an appropriation of $100 which is as listed here, and he says, well you fools, in effect he says, can't you understand what this is all about, the $100 has nothing to do with total provision providing for the safety and health of the labour force of Manitoba .

Well I say then, why in heaven's name did he prepare the Est imates or allow them to be prepared that way? If he 's got something to say about how the safety and health of the labour force of Manitoba is going to be safeguarded, this is the place where he 's supposed to be saying it, he is not supposed to be saying it in correspondence back and forth to some admirer in Ontario, he is supposed to be saying here to the people of Manitoba and to the opposition when they are legitimately quest ioning him to what is happening in these field .

And in referring to the Throne Speech and what the Throne Speech had to say about this subject, I submit with all respect, Mr. Chairman, that it is no more enlightening, no more informative than that particular mis directed sub-line on the Est imates, Page 39 . The Throne Speech is not supposed to be specific in its desc riptions of government programs, and we are aware of that, but surely the examination of a Minister's Est imates and his department's spending program does provide an opportunity where the programs can be desc ribed in specific terms .

Surely they provide an area for questioning and examination in which specific answers should be available . The Throne Speech says this, and I quote it to read it into the record, Mr . Chairman: "You will be asked to consider

an Act pertaining to the safety and health at work of persons employed in Manitoba. My Ministers are aware that during the last year four times more working days were lost through accidents at work than were lost through industrial strikes and lock-outs , therefore my Min isters are concerned with increasing the capacity of employers and employees to agree jointly on improving safety and health conditions in work places ." Well that 's very very admirable, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure we are all in favour of it, as I'm sure we're all in favour of democracy,

1680 March 29, 1976 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR . SHERMAN cont'd) ••••• and we're all in fa vour of clean air, and we're all in favour of motherhood. That's okay in a Throne Speech, nobody expects them to be more specific than that. But we 're down to the Estimates now, Mr.

Chairman, and we're down to the item on the Estimates having to do with Occupational Safety and Health in the field of labour under the aegis and responsibility of the Minister of Labour, and if we can't ask specific questions or seek specific answers and get specific answers in this area of the legislative process and in this stage of the legislative session, then where in heaven's name can an opposition, and can a citizen, can a taxpayer ever get those answers ? So for the Minister to glibly dismiss it as something that I can look up in his report, I suggest to him as arrogance of the highest degree.

What good does that do the taxpayer or the public? And I remind the Minister, certainly he's sitting on the govern ment side of the House today; he reminds us that he once was aver on this side - well if he persists in that attitude of arrogance he is liable to be back on this side, and very quickly. The Minister has got a responsibility, Mr .

Chairman, as a Minister and as an elected official and as a peer in this House among equals, fortunate to be on that side only because of the mathematics of the election process, to deliver and to answer some of these questions. -- (Interjection) -- Well he says he got more votes than I got, I suggest to him that - his Party got more votes than my Party got -- (Interjection) - Exactly, and as he is aware, those situations can change very quickly in the political arena, political sphere. He has a responsibility, Mr.

Chairman, to face up with some degree of candor to examinations of his Estimates; if we don't know about them, that's hardly our fault. Our function as opposition is to find out about them, is to ask questions about them. I can't see what is so objectionable to the Minister in the pursuit of ques tions about his Estimates and about his spending program when they are not explained either in the Throne Speech, in the report of his department or on the Estimate pages that we're considering.

So he can attempt to dismiss them in that manner until the cows come home as far as I am concerned; I say that the opposition is not prepared to allow them to be dismissed in that manner and I challenge him on the point - and I'm sure he is a good enough and a professional enough and an expert enough politician to to know that the public and the taxpayers are not prepared to let him get away with that kind of an answer either.

I am asking the Minister what the ratio is in terms of days lost through industrial accidents compared to days lost through strikes in terms of a median, in terms of a mean or an average whether the four to one ratio still existed a few years ago and whether the mathematics mean that there has been an enormous increase in industrial accidents, and what the reasons are . If he is Minister of Labour of this province he surely knows or has some suspicion and some ideas of what the reasons are and what can be done about them.

I suggest that it is not good enough for the people of Manitoba any more so than for the opposition in this House for him simply to say that we are taking steps, we are doing things in the field of providing better safety and safeguarding the health of the labour force of Manitoba. That's a title; that's a generalization. What we are asking him here in this consideration of his Estimates is what is he doing? What does that mean? What are the steps that he is taking to ensure that kind of improve ment, that kind of safety and safeguard.

That, sir, I submit, put to any government of any stripe, coming from any opposition of any stripe is a highly legitimate, highly valid question on behalf of the taxpayers of the province. The Minister evades that I suggest at his political peril. MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 84--pass? (Interjection) - - Is the honourable member finished or is he going to proceed? MR . SHERMAN: No, I'm not. When I sat down, Mr. Chairman, it was to give the Minister a chance to answer my question. I've asked him ••• MR . PAULLEY: If you had asked a question, I could have answered MR .

SHERMAN: I've asked him to explain to the people of Manitoba, through the opposition, simply the questions as to what the ratio in terms of an average, in terms of a median, during the past five years is for industrial accident work days lost as compared to work days lost through work stoppages and strikes; whether there has

March 29, 1976 1681 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR . SHERMAN cont'd) ••••• been an enormous increase; whether that 600, 000 repre sents an enormous increase and what he and his colleagues in the government mean by the generalization in the Throne Speech that they are working to increase the capacity of employers and employees to improve safety and health conditions in work places . Is that too much to ask him - what programs he and his colleagues are undertaking or planning to undertake in order to effect that ? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister of Labour . MR.

PAULLEY: My honourable friend I am sure is filibustering, I don't know why . Because he hasn't said anything different within the last half, three-quarters of an hour, than he did say an hour or so ago . He 's very repetitious and, of course, I suppose we have to accept that. I said to my honourable friend -although he disputes that I said it - I said to the members of the committee that there would be a report tabled tomorrow from the Workers Compensation Board insofar as lost time of accidents was concerned . He disputed that I said it until you, Mr.

Chairman, had to point out the accuracy of what I said that I said and it penetrated, I presume rather reluctantly, into the cranium of my dearly beloved friend from Fort Garry. He said as a member of the opposition that I owe it to the public of Manitoba to give an indication of the incident of accident and strike time lost over the years .

It is a requirement under the law, as I tried to sugge st to my honourable friend a little while ago, that a member of the government annually table the report of the Workers Compensa tion Board which contains that information and it's available -- (Interjection) -- You haven't got it? Every member of this Asse mbly gets that report every year, Mr . Chairman. It's also a requirement of the Statutes of Manitoba that the Minister of Labour tables an Annual Report of the Department of Labour which contains the figures of lost man hours as the incident of strike.

Yet my honourable friend flamboyantly, with deep emotion, devotion and what-have -you criticizes the Minister of Labour because the public hasn't got the infor mation. Well I suggest the public gets the information and I would sugge st, Mr . Chair man, the public is far more knowledgeable of what goes on in this House than the Con servative opposition because those reports are public knowledge . People ask questions. The Throne Speech of this year - and my honourable friend keeps reading from the Throne Speech - indicated the comparative incident of accident and that we were going to do something about it.

My Premier, speaking the other day in a res olution or in a statement to this House, compared the ratio of approximately 600, 000 man days lost in accidents to 150,000 man day loss as result of strike, a ratio for that particular year of approximately four to one . I explained that to my honourable friend. He charges me with not giving answers . I say to him, I think that even a student in Grade 6 would have enough intellectual ability to take a look at the records over the years to ascertain for himself the ratio in preceding yea rs . I haven't that at my fingertips .

I 'm prepared, because of the apparent lack of capacity of my honourable friend, the Member for Fort Garry, to make this asses sment himself, I'm prepared to either loan him a calculator or to get one of my staff or to get one of my staff or to get one of my grandchildren to arrive at a precise percentage comparison. Of course, my grandson, he 's 13 now, he doesn't get $1,000 as the rest of us do for the field of research, to give us that informa tion that we need as members of this As sembly .

My honourable friend was somewhat abashed, disappointed, because it appeared that I didn't rise the moment he sat down after his blustering attack. So up he gets again. So now here am I. The reason I didn't get up, Mr. Chairman, was there was no comprehensive sensible questions asked of me by the Member for Fort Garry that he couldn 't obtain or may even have the answers before he asked the questions .

This is typical, quite typical of my friend from Fort Garry and, of course, he has some col leagues there that want to aid and abet him in his, oh, sort of miniature, amateurish, actorish approaches to the problems of this province . I said the other day in respect of my honourable friend that he missed his calling in life, that he should have been, and maybe he is really, Mr. Chairman, maybe I'm not being too complimentary to my friend . I made reference or comparisons with my honourable friend to that great actor who was knighted not so long ago by the name of

1682 March 29, 1976 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) •••.. Charles Chaplin . Maybe I'm doing my friend a dis service when I said that he attempts to mimic him. Maybe I should say that he 's a modern version of that SO-year old gentleman. But I seriously did not think that any of the questions that my friend for Fort Garry raised in his last blistering, blustering attack, needed any answers because he could ascer tain them for himself.

He sort of played down the fact that I did have a couple of letters that I was able to refer to, where I'm getting support for what I'm attempting to do from the Manufac turers Association and even from repres entatives of the Conser vative Government in Onta rio . Because I'm attempting to do something - or not me, because I don't do it alone, of course, Mr. Ch airman - this government is attempting to do something in the field of accident prevention. My friend wants to know why I would do that.

Maybe I have to go outside into other areas of endeavour to try and get support or indications of support for our endeavours . Because surely, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the orations that we have heard tonight from the Member for Fort Garry, we haven't apparently any support from that side of the House for endeavours we 're attempting to make for a better deal for all concerned in Manitoba in the field of accidents. As I indicated a little while ago - and I apologize for the fact that I didn't have the precise legislation before the House at this particular time .

Instead of accepting that as is normal or was normal in the House, as a fact, there was condemnation and criticism . I'm going to look forward in keen anticipation to the day when that legislation is introduced into this House as to whether or not the Honourable Member for Fort Garry is going to give it support or whether he would dare, he would dare to rejent the concept and then dare to go the people in his constituency and say to them, they had a good idea but I didn't like it because I didn't like the Minister. MR. SHERMAN: Mr .

Chairman, the Minister has again dragged a red herring across the examination of the particular vote on his Estimates that we 're trying to get at. His suggestion, his inference that there won't be support over here for measures that he may propose in the field of occupational safety and health is entirely and utterly unjust and contrived on his part . It's a typical tactic of the Minister to try to ascribe positions and impute motives, I would say, to members on this side of the House without basis, without fact and without honesty .

There has been no suggestion on this side of the House that there won't be support for legislation aimed at improving occupational safety and health . I can tell him in fact when I rose to speak the last time I said to him that I thought I could assure him without even seeing the legislation that he would rec eive support from me and from our side . But we have asked a few basic questions about the occu pational safety and health crisis which obviously is at hand if we 're losing 600, 000 man days in the Province of Manitoba in a given year through industrial accidents.

I repeat that all the inferences that he can read into our position or attempt to place on the record, all the allusions that he can direct towards us, all the arguments that he can raise to try and misrepre sent the attitude of my colleague from Lakeside or anybody else on this side, or my position in this debate, are simply smoke screens and red herrings being dragged across this particular trail to cover up for the fact that he doesn't know and he may not even care, but he certainly doesn't know.

If he knew, he would stand up and tell us what he is proposing to do in the field of occupational health and safety; why the re were 600, 000 man days lost last year; how that compares in terms of the record year by year in this province; whether it is substantially and significantly worse than immediately preceding years and why .

I say to him that that is a fair, legitimate, honest, political question and all the arguments that he drags into the House to try to run me down and run the Member for Lakeside down and the rest of our colleagues are a typical noisy, blustery smokescr een from a Minister who doesn't know and maybe doesn't even care . So he can adopt the attitude of misrepresentation of our position all he likes to try to cover up. But the fact of the matter is the inadequacies in his position are very glaring. I think we've been extremely charitable and considerate with respect to his position, Mr .

Chairman, because he has, by his own admission, come into this House with his Estimates in front of us, without providing us as yet with some very critical

March 29, 1976 1683 SUPPLY - LABOUR (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) • • • • • information. He has said to us: I'm sorry that approp riation No. 10, Vote 84, is so general and so poorly explained . He has said: I was hoping to have the legislation ready and perhaps I'm at fault . Fault me if you will for not having the legislation ready. Well we haven't faulted him for not ha ving it ready although that perhaps is our error, sir . Perhaps we should do that. We 've said all right you don't have it ready but tell us what is going on in this particular sphere.

He has said to us that he has a report coming in tomorrow from the Work ers Compensation Board for the preceding year which will explain to us where and how these 600, 000 man days were lost in industry . That's coming in tomorrow. Well it's perhaps particularly convenient for the Minister that we are in the clos ing stages of consideration of his Estimates today and tonight. We 're getting that report tomorrow. We didn't get it yesterday or last week or in time to look at it before we were faced with this particular consideration . We 're getting it tomorrow. Well the Minister says, "Neither did I.

" That's fine. I'm not criticizing him for that. We have accepted that. We have not said why wasn't that report -- (Interjection) -- I did not just say it. I said we have not had it . We haven't stood up here and said why didn't we get that a week or two weeks or three weeks ago which we might have done and been validly entitled to do because that report should have been brought into this House forthwith, in the words of legisl ative propriety, once this session got under way. We have now been in session for close to two months and we 've seen no sign of it yet.

But be that as it may, fault the Minister again if you will for not having that report in . We 're not faulting him for that. We're saying okay, we haven't got the information, you haven't been able to get it ready but surely you can stand up and answer some questions on this subje ct. That, Sir, is a question and a chal lenge that this Minister cannot evade or avoid and I suggest to you, Sir, that he doesn't know the answers . He doesn't know the answers or he would provide some of them. He accused me of not asking him questions . He's talked about orations from this side of the Hou se.

He has said that he didn't get up the last time that you called the vote on this particular question because he didn't think there had been any legitimate questions put . Well, Mr. Ch airman, I've asked the same questions on several occasions tonight and I don't want to subj ect members of the committee to any more repetition than I've already subjected them to . The Minister, I ask in all fairness, Mr. Ch airman, to con sider the record of the exchange of questions and non-answers tonight. The Minister has had those questions put to him .

The Minister has been asked legitimately about occupa tional safety and health and the 600, 000 man days lost and why the total has become so staggering and so disturbing in this past year and where most of the difficulty and most of the loss occurred and what is being proje cted in terms of getting at a program to combat that in the future . Now those I think are questions that most ministers on that side of the Hou se, most ministers of any party, of any government of any stripe, would be able to understand and in their sense of responsibility would attempt to answer for an opposition .

He stands up and says he won't answer because he hasn 't been asked any questions. I ask in all fairness, Mr . Chairman, whether the record shows tonight whether he 's been asked some questions or not, questions that are deserving of some attention and not just a glib dismissal . If he continues to glibly dismiss them there's nothing much I can do about it except re emphasize my conviction that in doing so he 's demonstrating that he 's not pre pared to tackle the problem, that he doesn't know what the problem is so how can he be expected to know what the answers are .

Worse than that, perhaps he do esn't even care . If he wants to leave it that way, then he 's the one who 's going to have to live with it . MR. CHAIRMAN: Resolution 84--pass . Resol ution 84 . Resolved that there be granted to Her Maje sty a sum not exceeding $100 for Labour--pass . I now refer honourable members back to Resolution 75(a) - Minister' s Compensation. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, on Friday morning I believe it was, I asked the Minister a number of questions having to do with current issues in the area of labour relations .

I presume he has some record or recolle ction of them. I am prepared to repeat them but I won't do it unnecessarily . I hope he might be prepared to respond to some of them now .

16 84 March 29, 1976 SUPP LY - LABOUR MR� CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: I did jot down some questions raised by the honourable mem ber. Now I don't know if I have them here. Maybe I should ask him to reintroduce them lest I mis interpret, which wouldn't be deliberate of course, the qusstions posed by my honourable friend. I'm sort of leery of that beloved gentleman lest I get accused to misrepres entation, I note my remarks did say, and I say this to him on the credit side , that he did admit that the conciliation officers of the Department of Labour were good.

I would join him in that and that has been very well recognized by most people in the province who are concerned or involved in labour management relations. I believe one of his questions whether or not there was a conciliation officer involved in the discuss ions aimed toward a collective agreement between CUPE and Hydro clerical staff, I think that was one question. The answer to that is yes. I believe another question referred to the school teachers and the Winnipeg School Board, whether a conciliation officer had been appointed in those discuss ions. The answer as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, is no.

Then he wanted to know about negotiations between the Manitoba Government Employees Ass ociation and the government and we are still talking to each other. The present agreement expires in a day or two; the Com mittee of Cabinet and negotiators have met; the negotiating team on behalf of government have met with the Employees As sociation on two or three occasions and talks are continuing.

The Member for Fort Garry raised a question or two about labour relations and IBEW and labour relations and points that were raised at the Industrial Relations Committee meeting, a question of points raised by some of the deleg ates, persons who appeared before the Industrial Relations Committee dealing with the constitution of the International Brotherhood of Ele ctrical Workers ; the question of some points raised by correspondence from the Director of the Labour Relations

section of the Winnipeg Builders Exchange, the IBEW and some of their contracts and also a reference to a member of the IBEW, one by the name of A lex Tetach in respect of the constitution of the IB EW.

Having raised that question the answer I give my honourable friend: the constitution of the IBEW was arrived at democratically by the members of that organization and I don't know of any instance where a Minister of Labour of any jurisdiction has interfered with the internal constitution of a trade union movement providing that it does not contain any violations of the principles as laid down under our human rights legisl ation. The Member for Fo rt Garry referred also to the matter of the Musicians' Union and its relationships with the booking agents and hotels .

He said musicians are being let down by the union. On this particular occasion instead of the onslaught being directed towards the Minister of Labour the onslaught of my honourable friend, and of course we all know he's wont to onslaught this way, that way, and any other damned way he can, on this particular occasion the onslaught was directed towards the trade unions and not to the Minister. So at least for a little while I was relieved of his barbs . But here again I say, Mr.

Chairman, I did receive a communication from an enter tainer, as a matter of fact a couple of entertainers , who have jobs in hotels obtained through booking agents. Members of the Musicians' Union did investigate the thing. The matter, as far as I can, I find that there were no violations of The Labour Relations Act and here again I did not feel and do not feel inclined to investigate into the internal operations of the Musicians' Union under their constitution.

I just want to assure mem bers of the comm ittee that if I find or had found any violation of The Labour Relations Ac t that were carried on by the unions then they would be treated the same as violations by any other group in labour relations. My member for Fort Garry referred to the committee hearings of the Industrial Relations Committee and there were three I believe . We met on three different occasions and heard quite a number of representatives. He says he will await the results with interest.

I hope he doesn't lose interest because I anticipate the possibility of forwarding legis lation before too long, after I have had an opportunity of asses sing representations that were made to the Committee. References were made by the Member for Fort Garry in respect of the Conservative Party approach to conflicts in hospital services . I gathered from my honourable friend that the position of the Conservative Party was such that they would use the whip instead of the •

March 29, 1976 1685 SUPPLY - lABOU R (MR, PAULLEY cont'd) ••... smooth hand to try and resol ve disputes in the hospitals . He made reference to a brief that was pres ented by the Manitoba Health Organizations and that organization made suggestions to the Committee to try and arrive at provisions whereby ess ential services in the health areas would continue to function in certain areas that are more vital than others if there were to be a dispute in the hospitals . Reference was made to the Woods Committee Report that was made to me late in 1974 and which is continuing its survey .

But in the report made to me by the Woods Committee , which is comprised of repres entatives of both management and labour , that there should be no legislation preventing strikes in the hospital services . That was one of the recommendations contained in the Woods Committee report. They did suggest in the report that endeavours be made to try and get labour and management to come to an agreement to continue on with relatively small staff in the vital ser vices area of the provision of the health ser vices even though there was a strike officially on.

Efforts are being made through the continuing Woods Committee to try and arr ive at precisel y that, and I may say that just the other day I did have the assurance of one of the unions that were in ne gotiations that if they - fortunately now that dispute has been resol ved - but they were prepared to go to voluntary arbitrati on had we not been successf ul with the involvement that we were making in th at particular dispute .

Thankfully the dispute was ended but I ju st illustrate this to indicate that in some quarters at least--(I nterj ection) --They arrived at an agree ment satisfactory to management and to labour . That is right . My honourable friend , of cours e, from Swan River doesn't und erstand the difference. He says they got what they wanted. I suggested that both management and labour got what they wanted because they signed an agreement. And if management hadn't got what they wanted they wouldn 't have signed the agreement. So I don 't know where that puts my honourable friend . Anyway, you interpret it your way.

I'm just saying in giving you the facts of what hap pened, they came to an agreement and if tha t' s wrong, to come to an agreem ent, well I can't ••• But at any rate , getting back to the Manitoba Hospital Organization and their repres entations before the Industrial Relations Committee. Mr. Chairman , if you recall I asked them then to forward me additional information as to the sections in the Health Care Services that they would consider the areas that emphasis should be made on con tinuation even though they were in a strike situation.

Another point the Member for Fort Garry referred to is what we call, and I believe he's a strong advocate of the right-to-work legislation similar to what they still have in some of the slave states in the United States of America, the rights to belong to a union or not to belong.

He discounts the general application of the principle that those that receive the benefits as the result of financial contributions to a union should pay for those results which now is a fairly well-established principle in most democratic coun tries , I would suggest, unless I read my honourable friend incorrectly, he would like to return to Barry Goldwateri sm' s and the likes of that, of his ilk, the ult ra-Conser vatives who would like to legis late anybody to work under any situation or under any circumstance.

Reference was made by the Member for Fort Garry as to an observation that one of the labour delegates made during the repres entations , that the Department of Labour should only be for labour instead of both labour and management. I know this is a very interesting field , Mr. Chairman . I know there are a lot of people who figure that the Department of Labour should be solel y for the benefits of labour . But in our industrial society I reject that because I think that one of the requirem ents of a Department of Labour is to try and bring about as the

preamble of The Labour Relations Act says, har monious relationships between management and labour . While I have had repres entations made to me to change the direction so that basical ly the suggestion would be that the Depar tment of Labour should be only for labour , I say quite frankly and forthri ghtly I don't accept that concept. My honourable friend , the Member for Swan River, says we did that in 1972 when we changed The Labour Act.

I suggest he awaits to see what the new edition will bring and I hope that I have the same support in my new endeavours as I had in 1972 because I well recall that in 1972 when the amendments were introduced into this House, that my honourable friend who is well acquainted with the little red school house concept which he

1686 March 29, 1976' SUPP LY - lAB OUR (MR. PAULLEY cont'd) ••••• still dearly upholds, figured that all was los t. · The net result is that many of the more progressive Conservatives than my honourable friend now suggests to me that it was pretty damned good legislation and give us more of it, Russ. But I'm not talking about hierarchy of the Conservative Part y, I'm talking about the intelligency of the party . Now there is a big difference between the two.

So I say that · instead of the concept of the Ministry of Labour just being for labour, that the department has an obligation to three segments, labour, management and guvernment. There is no question or doubt that · when one looks at the situation the way it is at the pres ent time in the industrial world today, there is battles going on between big labour, big business and big government, and that is a fact of life that we have to face up to. It's something, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that will not just idly pass away.

There is a respo nsibility on all of us in guvernment, in labour, and in manage ment to put our collective shoulders to the wheel to try and resolve the grave situation that we are being confronted with in society today. MR. CHAffiMAN: Resolution 75(a) - the Honourable Member for Fort Garry . MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I am certainly pleased to have the Minister's assurance that he views the responsibilities of his department as being pretty catholic in embracing the three sides of the coin and--(Interjection)--Well pretty Anglo-Catholic. Put it that way .

That embraces the three sides of the coin: labour, management and government and he is not susceptible to the blandishments of those who would see him acting in the main just for one of those elements rather than for all three. Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister about northern hiring practices and some of the grievances, whether official or unofficial, of some of the trade unions who have been employed in construction projects in the north, those 16 trade unions that make up the Allied Hydro Council in particular or 16 trades that make up the Council I should sa y, and remind him of the inequities that some of the union leadership feels exist in the practices followed through northern Manpower.

The iron workers in particular have been in touch with me and I'm sure probably with the Minister with respect to hiring on northern sites , whether it be - well any of the major northern construction sites at Gillam, Jenpeg, Long Spruce or Limestone or wherever. The winter, as the Minister well knows, is a critical time for unemployment and for shortage of employment possibilities for skilled tradesmen on those sites because of the practice of northern preference, which in principle is a guod concept.

There are many union headquarters and trade union leaders here in the southern part of the prov ince who feel that some of their skilled members are discriminated against in the hiring practices . I've had specific situations brought to my attention. One of them in fact has involved the Honourable Member for Thompson and a job that he had at Limestone, I think it was on the Brodsky construction site, and the diffi culty that many of the trade union leaders here have in getting a fair break for their skilled workers.

I know of one situation where a qualified northern resident who was qualified for a job, and I believe this was on the Limestone site, he was one of two people, members of the Ironworkers Union, who were applying for that job and who, as I say, were northern residents, and who were qualified outside erection workers, who did not get that job because of practices that are imposed through the northern Manpower hiring procedures .

As a consequence, one of them who had a large family to support would have wound up on Unemployment Insurance for some considerable time had another party not - and I don't mean political party but another industrial party - not been successful in finding him a job somewhere else in the southern part of the province. This man was qualified. He was an ironworker.

The job that he was supposed to go to went apparently to an individual who was not an ironworker but a steel worker and the substance of many of th ese complaints that have come to me is that in many many cases these positions, filled through northern Manpower, are filled by only semi-skilled workers semi-skilled tradesmen if that. For the most part , only semi-skilled as compared to the skilled tradesmen that union headquarters in the south or in other parts of the province could supply for those projects. The people who were hired are hired because of a northern preference principle.

I repeat that I don't challenge the objectives of that

March 29 , 19 76 1687 SUPP LY - lABOUR (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) ••••• principle. But I think it works a considerable hardship for skilled tradesmen who are llilemployed through the winter because semi-skilled people receiving northern preference get jobs on site, on projects which should rightfully be the job of the skilled worker that could be supplied by the union here. Trade union leaders here have said to me that if they can't supply the men for those jobs then they're perfectly happy to see them supplied from other sources .

But they say if they can supply them, if they've got the qualified men, then they believe that it is inequitable that their qualified men should be unemployed, for example, through the win ter while th ose less qualified or in some cases perhaps not qualified are given jobs on those sites simply through the northern preference consideration. I recognize the anomaly that's at work because obviously efforts have to be strenuously maintained to provide northern residents with northern employment opportunities.

But I think what has happened here is that the Minister, as the Minister of Labour, through the practice and the restrictions that are imposed through this kind of hiring practice has really got himself in juxtaposition or counter-position to the best interests of the trade unions and trade union leadership and skilled workers within some of those unions. One of those, I'm at liberty to say and I'm not divulging any confidences, one of those who feels most severely handicapped in this way is the Ironworkers Union.

I have had a number of instances brought to my attention where their qualified workers have been rendered unemployed because of the practice that has put unqualified workers on the job. The work orders, of course, go out from Gillam or one of the northern offices, I believe it's Gillam, when tradesmen are required, craftsmen are required for some of those projects. It's really about 48 hours before the union headquarters in Winnipeg have an opportunity to act on those orders or to try to supply manpower to fill those orders.

The consequence is that they feel that th ey're put at a disadvantage and that their, as I say, their skilled members are being discriminated against. I would ask the Minister for his comments and views on that situation and also whether he would agree with the argument that's been advanced to me by some trade union leaders that there are very few skilled construction craftsmen in the mechanical trades at any rate, in northern Manitoba. That' s not a criticism.

I put that to him as a proposi tion that's been put to me , that unfortunately there are very few skilled mechanical trades men in the north and so this is the situation that's happening. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mi nister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Chairman, I am quite intrigued with the presentation of my honourable friend from Fort Garry and I will say that I have had some complaints in some organizations directed towards me because of some happenings.

Now first of all I want to say that I believe there are 16 trade unions that have entered into the Allied Trades Council Agreement which contains a no strike, no lock-out clause I believe for ten years , subject of course to periodic adjustments in some of the working conditions. I'm somewhat amazed to hear my honourable friend come to the defence of the so-called - or I guess maybe it's not a question of so-called - the skilled worker in the Winnipeg areas against the northern preference worker who may be only semi-skilled.

One of the difficulties that we have found here in Manitoba and I guess it's peculiar to other parts of Canada as well, is the lack of qualified people in the northern areas of our province to perform work. As a result of considerable and continuing efforts, northern preference has been written into some of the agreements and undertakings through northern Manpower and I want to pay a compliment to my colleague , the Honourable Member for Thompson, who has been one of those who have been most active in attempting to have preference employment for northerners in Manitoba for a .varied number of reasons.

First of all because they are, of course, domiciled in the north and they have their family there and they haven't had the same opportunity over the years of having a decent apprenticeship training program as those of us that live here in the south. So it is true that they may not have the full skills and qualifications of those that have had the opportunity of a real truly apprent iceship system here in southern Manitoba. Call them semi-skilled workers? Yes. Maybe the only reason that they can't even be described as

1688 March 29, 19 76 SUPP LY - lABOUR (MR. PAULLEY cont1d) • • • • • semi-skilled workers is because of the fact that they've only been utilized at the time of convenience to the construction industry. When the con struction industry could not attract people from outside of northern Manitoba to do the job that was required, they ver y reluctantly asked th ose that were available in the general area of the north and where construction was going on to - oh please come in and help us out, we can't get the so-called skilled worker from other areas.

As a result of I would suggest the partial training, a little bit this year, a little bit that year, they have· developed into a position of being designated as semi-skilled. As the availability of work in areas that· my honourable friend suggests is the area where the skilled worker resides, as the availability of work becomes less available in that area, surely to goodness it's only right and proper that the fellow in the north who has been filling in, albeit that he may only be semi-skilled, should have the preference.

One of the problems faced by this government and all governments in Canada, is the tremendously high rate of unemployment in the more remote areas of Manitoba. The federal authority, the provincial authority has been forced because of unemployment rates of 50 percent and upwards in some of our northern communities , been forced into huge expenditures of dollars just to keep life and limb together. One of the reasons for that continuing the way it has been is because we haven't had the in testinal fortitude or the intellectual approach to try and train our northern citizens into the performance of useful work.

That is what we're endeavouring to do. If the criticism that my honourable friend is receiving from some union, because of that factor and the input of a semi-skilled as against a skilled worker - and while I said a moment or two ago that I felt that my posi tion as Minister was tri-partiate, the Holy Trinity, or unholy Trinity, it's a matter of how you look at it, I'm prepared to accept criticisms from the unions if that criticism is because we are involving or attempting to involve our northern friends and fellow Manitobans in useful work efforts . Far better it be that way than otherwise.

We have an agreement under Canada Manpower that has been the subject of much negotiation between Manitoba, and I've had the honour of being closely associated with this with some of my colleagues in Cabinet and also the Honourable Member for Thompson, in trying to bring about a better deal in the operation of Canada Manpower for northern Manitobans as well.

We now have a general understanding that insofar as work applica tions or requests for work we have a general policy now that when a work order comes in or an order for employees, they call them work orders I believe, comes in, it's on a preferential basis now and it wasn't so always but just comparatively recently. The first option or first preference is northern Manitoba; the second is Manitoba as a whole; the third is Canada-wide and then if there's non-availability of the type of personnel or trades man that's required, then consideration will be given to going off-shore to bring in quali fied people.

So this is the way things are operating. And as I say, Mr. Chairman, it is true that in some areas or in some unions that there may be opposition to this general basic policy, I'm prepared as the Minister of Labour for Manitoba to take that flack, if indeed it is flack, and explain the position that we take here .

Because if they're really sincere in the development of the north in a true and comprehensive manner, surely one of our involvements should be to do our utmost to see that our friends, our cousins and fellow Manitobans in northern Manitoba have equal opportunities - a phrase that we've been using a lot in this Ass embly of recent date - equal opportunities to be fully participators in this democracy, So I can appreciate the point raised by my honourable friend that there are some that object to this approach. I think it is a fair and reasonable approach.

My only wish as Minister of Labour responsible for our apprenticeship program is that I were able to institute more apprentice programs in northern Manitoba for the benefit of Manitobans, We have made, as I indicated when we were dealing with the division of appren ticeship , we have made a little headway, We have now domiciled in Manitoba for the first time in our history, a person in our apprentice division to try and encourage the larger industries particularly the mining industries in northern Manitoba to enhance their appren ticeship training programs so that the people up there will be more qualified to be

March 29 , 1976 1689 SUPP L Y - lABOUR (MR, PAULLEY cont'd) . gainfully employed in developing what we call our last frontier in Canada. MR, CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. KEN DILLEN (Thompson) : Mr. Chairman, the Member for Fort Garry is sligh tly misinformed as to the manner in which people become employed in northern Manitoba, The northern preference provision of the collective agreements in the Allied Hydro Council's Agreement were entered into and signed by the same members of those same unions who now chose to complain about it.

Their problem is not one of the prefer ence clause; it is a problem of the hiring procedure in the preference clause. The prob lem is one of failing to accept a provision that we requested when the initial original nego tiations were going on and that of having a lay-off procedure in the reverse order of hiring. What would have occurred or what has occurred in the case of Gillam is that there has been a sli ght reduction in the work force, as a result of not having the reverse order provision in the colle ctive agreement for that particular site.

I understand now that at least there is a letter of understanding between Hydro Projects Management Association and the Allied Hydro Council that this reverse order of hiring procedure will be put in place. I can't impress upon this Assembly more that the northern preference clause did not come easy in the negotiations with the unions.

They have an organization within the Canadian Labour Congress called the Committee on Native Rights and when the negotiations were ongoing the resolutions that were passed at the CLC convention in 19 68 and again in 1970 referred specifically to affirmative action programs for the employment of native people. The same unions who were in convention passed those same resolutions unani mously.

Well when negotiations commenced on the northern preference clause in the Allied Hydro Council agreements and other agreements that have been entered into since we had to present them with the resolutions passed in 1968 and '70 and again in 17 2 to say, here is an affirmative action. This is in line with the resolutions that you passed in 1968, again in '70 and again in 172. Here is an opportunity for you to do something about it. What has made you change your mind ? They did agree to the northern preference hiring procedure .

What it really does is give the local resident the first opportunity for employment on those sites , nothing very difficult about it. The job orders come in from the site to Canada Manpower, Manpower in turn relays it to the Northern Manpower Corps who have job information officers in every major community in northern Manitoba. If there is a person who can meet the qualifications of the job that is open his name is referred back through the system back to Canada Manpower and the employer has the final decision as to whether or not to accept that person who is being referred.

But I guess what has happened is that while there was some employment in Winnipeg that took up much of the slack, or much of the employees , and there was none available in the City of Winnipeg or in the southern part of the province to refer to northern job sites the unions then went beyond Manitoba, both east and west, and recruited in those provinces that had a surplus of manpower.

Thes e people were then sent north to fill those vacant positions and when work became slack in the City of Winnipeg, rather than complaining that there were people from off-shore or people from other provinces who were filling positions that could be filled with northern Manitobans , they took the position that I alone had taken the jobs away from the union. Well this is not the case. But if the northern preference claus� qualifies me for employment on those job sites then I have every right as a northern resident to take advantage of them .

But I can tell you what conditions were like prior to the implementation of the northern preference clause. Any person who was living anywhere in northern Manitoba whether it was Thompson, Snow Lake, or Flin Fl on or The Pas or any of the communities in the north, before they had an opportunity to obtain employment on northern sites which were within 30 or 40 or 50 miles from their home or right next door, or right in the City of Thompson during the International Nickel expansion, there was no provision for them to gain employment.

The only way that they could possibly get employment on any of the sites in northern Manitoba was to come to Winnipeg and make application through the

1690 March 29, 1976 SUPPL Y - lABOUR (MR. DILLEN cont'd) ••••• hiring office of the union. Well you can't come to Winnipeg from Thompson or anywhere else in the north and if you lived outside of Thompson it meant you had to charter a plane from your hom e community because there were no air strips at that time, it was either skis or floats, and come into Thompson, catch the train, take two days to come to Winnipeg, wait in Winnipeg until there was a vacancy and then take the same route back. In all likelihood all they were doing was coming to Winnipeg on speculation.

They didn't know if there was any jobs available because nobody told them and in those days there wasn't even a Canada Manpower office in Thompson. The nearest Canada Manpower office serving all of Northern Manitoba was in The Pas and there was nothing between The Pas and I believe Swan River, I could be corrected on that, and the next one was Dauphin. --(Interjection)--None in Swan River either. According to the Member for Swan River there was none in Swan River so that left Dauphin as the next pos sible site, then Portage and Winnipeg.

How in the name of heaven was a guy that lives in Bird, or Split Lake or York Landing or Nelson House or Granville Lake or any of those communities that are adjacent to where Hydro activity is taking place, Southindian Lake, ever going to get the opportunity to be referred to those job sites if they were qualified to do the job. Then it brings up another interesting question and that is the question of appren ticeship. Up until about three years ago I don' t believe that there was an apprentice employed on any of the major sites in northern Manitoba, not one.

I'm not so sure that that number has increased that much today because there is a certain restrictive attitude about unions in that they do not want to je opardize their position by increasing the number of people that they have in their trade because it is impossible, on the basis of present forecasting at least, to determine in four or five or six years , what your manpower requirements are going to be.

But I am happy to say that at least at the Canadian Labour Congress level and at the level of the ·Manitoba Fe deration of Labour that some serious consideratio:J. is now being given to attempt at least to forecast what the manpower requirements will be in three or four years, or five years or whatever the case may be. The other thing that is very significant about the labour movement now is that, I don't know quite how to explain this, but the industry at the moment is plagued by tremen dous peaks and valleys.

You know there is a drop off in construction and everybody is unemployed and then three or four months later you may hit a peak again where there is a shortage of workers. So I think it is incumbent upon the labour movement and govern ment to try to implement its major construction projects or at least

schedule them so as to eliminate the peaks and valleys in the industry. I think that we are finally, after four years of pounding my head against the wall, there seem

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-3-56
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 3rd hansardpdf 56.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9847092e53884a717c052b444fe129c70c017bcd

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