Manitoba Hansard — 19 February 1981 (Sitting 22B, 31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-22b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 19 February, 1981 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - LABOUR AND MANPOWER MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the Committee to order. We're on page 84, Labour and Manpower 1.(b)(1)- The Honourable Minister. HON. KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): Mr. Chairman, I promised the Member for Churchill a copy of the speech. It was a typographical error, the 303, we have penciled and corrected the error. It's 313 plus the 1. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. The Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Yes, I know the Member for Inkster is not here right at the moment.

He may be coming in later. I'm just wondering if the Minister wanted to hold his answer to his questions until he got here. The Minister indicates yes, so perhaps we can go on to some of the matters which we normally discuss under this particular allocation. Perhaps I'll pass and allow the Member for Logan to proceed with some specifics and pick up the speaking order after that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Chairman, first I would like to ask the Minister just under what section, I believe it's under here that we discuss Workers Compensation or where do we, because I don't see any specific item in the Estimates anywhere and I just wondered if the Minister could tell me just where we discuss that? MR. MacMASTER: That's a bit of a debate among ourselves. If it's okay with the committee, I'm quite prepared to talk about it now or under Minister's Salary. It's a responsibility that I hold.

It's not earmarked as a division within the estimates, so let her go anytime now or at a later date, if you want to prepare questions. MR. JENKINS: A later time then, Mr. Chairman. MR. MacMASTER: Okay, that's fine. MR. JENKINS: I want to pick up on the point that the Member for St. Johns was raising with the Minister this afternoon.

Since the Minister is the administrator of quite a number of Acts here, I don't intend to read them all out, but the Minister, this afternoon, was saying that policy developed for the administration of these Acts were, if I understand him correctly, the responsibility of the various sections or whatever you want to call the portions of his portfolio. Now, can the Minister elaborate how the policy is developed for the administration of these Acts?

Is there certain responsibilities allocated to well, say fire prevention, or the Manitoba Labour Board or the Employment Standards Act or Labour Relations Act and how is the policy evolved for the administration, since the Minister has said that there are different ways in which he interprets the policy. Are these policies developed by the various departments and then does the recommendation of how the Acts will be administered come to the Deputy Minister and in turn to the Minister for final decision on approval of the policy for the administration of the various Acts under his jurisdiction? MR.

MacMASTER: The Member for Logan has spelled it our reasonably clearly, keeping in mind that some Acts and some legislation are very specific to the duties of those that are assigned the titles of heading up that particular division and keeping in mind that some policies per se, an approach to dealing with a matter, has been in place by and large in some cases for many, many, many, many years. And I'm not sure philosophically whether, well, I am sure that in a lot of cases, parties over the years, in different governments, haven't changed the approach to dealing with certain segments of legislation.

That's why it's, I don't suppose nothing's impossible, but it's close to being impossible to give you a blanket statement. Because if I do, as we go through, you're going to say, well what's the policy in dealing with this particular division and how does the regulations and legislation apply and is there any variations and under what circumstances - everyone varies to a degree and that's really what I'm very openly and honestly trying to tell you and was trying to tell the Member for St. Johns. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. McMASTER: . . . but by and large what the member has said is correct.

Time has dictated. Time of previous governments and ours has dictated the most sensible method of dealing with certain situations. So time and practices has established a policy to a degree. Your departments and your divisions certainly are continuously looking at better ways, different ways, and bringing them forth up through the process, the exact process that the Member for Logan was talking about. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now that leads me then to the next question.

Since the Minister has taken over this portfolio, has there been any change in the policy of administrating any of the Acts that he has under his jurisdiction? Has there been any radical change in the policy or is it, as he said, a time and practice system, mainly in place. What changes has the . Minister made since he has taken over the portfolio? MR. MacMASTER: I don't believe there have been any dramatic changes. Civil servants within, particularly the Department of Labour have been there, some of them, for many, many years.

And I am blessed with the company of many, especially on the labour side who have a tremendous amount of experience, my Deputy Minister, for example, who has been right through the system from the bottom to the top. And I think by and large, you know, the 905

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 Department of Labour isn't the same as Economic Development, we'll say for example, because the Minister of Economic Development may have a philosophical approach to things, that maybe the previous administration didn't. But when you've got a man, for example, like my Deputy Minister, who's been here many, many, many years, been part of the system, a Minister would be very foolish and I say this without any hesitation, would be very foolish to throw out his advice and his caution and his attitudes totally.

Now, during conversation, or through discussions with your Deputy, you may decide to approach a particular problem in a little different way. But by and large, the Department of Labour is somewhat unique in government circles, I believe, not just because I happen to be the Minister, but I really believe that. And I believe Ministers of Labour across the country would by and large say the same thing.

So established practice that's worked well and reasonably for industry and labour within jurisdictions across this country is certainly - an awful lot of credit is given to that by any Minister of any particular political stripe in this country, I'm sure. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Minister for that information. I just want to say a few words on administration here because of some of the items here that I will later on particularly have an interest in, and I will take a more active

part in it. I think that my colleague, the Member for Churchill raised one this afternoon which I think is a topic that is very current nowadays, and that is the age of mandatory retirement.

I realize that while the Minister has a certain responsibility in this area especially with the fact that he is also responsible for the Pension Commission here in Manitoba, I hope that the Minister will, as was brought out this afternoon, get to grips with this situation because it is one, and I want to tell my friend from Churchill that I'm not entirely opposed to some of his views but I have some differing points of view that I would - before I would see the age of mandatory retirement completely abolished that in order to protect pension plans that are in place there has to be some very serious decisions made.

For instance, many plans have a mandatory time of contribution. I know the railway unions which I belong to, after 35 years times two gives you 70 units. That puts you at a maximum of contribution to the plan and there is no further contribution. Now, I am sure the Minister is aware, is aware as I am and many other people, that people can reach that maximum long before the age of retirement.

True, there is a policy in effect in places where early retirement without any cutback in the pension is in place, but if we allow people to work beyond the age of 65 there could be cases of people working 15 to 20 years without any contribution into a pension plan which would put a tremendous onus on those who are still below the number of units that would have to carry the plan, and so those are some of the views -(Interjection)- Pardon? -(Interjection)- This is quite true. As the Minister of Agriculture says, there is the contributions in the Canada Pension Plan.

Once we start tinkering with the age of retirement, we certainly have to take a lot of other factors into consideration and I, for one, I want to say to the Minister and to my colleague, I can remember my father retiring from the railway and he retired at the age of 65 but he was absolutely lost because that was his whole life. So we have to consider these factors. We have to consider what contributions, and I realize that some of our people at that age still have many good years of actual contribution that they can make to society, but we have to be very careful when we are studying this.

It is something that is not going to go away, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister. We have already had cases before the courts and cases that have been heard and upheld by the Human Rights Commission.

But before we do that tinkering with the age of mandatory retirement, we have to have in place an awful lot of information, and it's not simply the fact that it is just this Minister we are dealing with now, but there are other Ministers who are involved and I think that the point that was brought out this afternoon, which is a good one, that it should be perhaps three or four Ministers who should be working in conjunction with each other, because it eventually will require some type of legislation. That is one aspect that we will discuss, I think, in greater length when we get to the

section on the Pension Commission. Another one that I would like to deal with a little bit later on when we get to it is fire prevention. I think it is something that has become of major concern to all of us, and I say to all of us, not only in Manitoba but in Canada and in North America. There has been of late seemingly almost an epidemic of hotel fires. We see two in Las Vegas, I think two in Toronto. We had a minor thing here in Manitoba.

I would hope that the Minister and his staff would be looking very seriously at some of the building codes, some of the fire prevention and some of the fire warning systems that are in place in some of the hotels and motels, anyplace where the public is. That also, Mr. Chairman, applies to some of our high-rises that we have in our modern society of cliff dwellings that we seem to be evolving to, where many many people are living together in close proximity. Of course, the incidence of fire, in many cases, some cases, it has been proved that it has been arson, or there are allegations that there has been arson.

I would hope that the Minister and his staff would be seriously considering some form of inspection, some form of recommendation to upgrade the facilities in some of the hotels that we have in place - and it's not, you know, well enough to say well, because the building code when these hotels were built, say five or ten years ago didn't require these things to happen. Because the Minister has already taken some steps which I congratulate him for in some of the developments of housing that nt>,eded some changes.

There are also perhaps cases in apartment dwellings, hotels, places like that, that perhaps the same prompt action should be forthcoming from the Minister because we could have some very disastrous happenings, as has been proven already, the city of Las Vegas, I'm not making any charges, I'm just saying that I think that the Minister is, because it's his department - you know it's a bit of a misnomer, this department, the Minister of Labour and Manpower, but it includes many other facets of our whole fabric of life here in the Province of Manitoba, and the Minister is involved with many of 906

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 them. So that's another one, I hope that when we get to that, I would - what I am trying to do and hope that the Minister will take cognizance of, that when we get to these points, that's one of the points that I would like to discuss with him in perhaps greater detail than I have right now. I still haven't forgot about the apprenticeship programs and women in the work force, but I wanted to point out those two items to the Minister, because they are particular concern to me at this time that we're looking at his departmental Estimates. MR.

MacMASTER: Just a quick comment, I spelled out some of the problems I have seen this afternoon dealing with age, the age of 65, that magic age and it's certainly not with any glee that I know the MFL's position, I know the Member for Churchill's position, which is contrary to the MFL. I have listened to the Member for Logan. I suppose we could circulate the opinions around quite a bit and come up with differing approaches to it, which is where we're at now. We are trying to get some good sensible, logical, rationale to deal with that particular problem. On the fire thing, just a quick comment.

The Member for Logan must always remember, as we all do, that regulations and laws are not going to, they can help, but they're not going to save sometimes the lives and fatalities and disasters that we have when society has some sick people running through it, doing some very unforgivable things. So if we just keep that in mind when we talk about the Fire Commissioner's office, that's something that we just can't forget. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX: Mr.

Chairman, I'm not certain whether this area was covered, but I understand we were discussing, in a general way, under administration, the fire aspects and I know that the Minister made a few comments, but I just would like to get my two cents worth in too, if he doesn't mind. With the view of the experiences that have occurred in respect to hotels and highrises and I know we've been updating our standards in respect to what has to be placed in respect to new construction. Are we looking at any retrofitting in respect to other areas that have been constructed earlier when the code wasn't as strict as it is?

Are we doing any research into that and are we learning from past experience, not only our own but others, because I think last year I mentioned the fact that we were having difficulties in respect to high rises. The ladders will only go so high; the pressure will only reach so far, and then of course we also had other areas of problem in respect to getting into some of these areas. Elevators were being used and I know we got around some of that by having special lock mechanisms put on elevators so the firefighters could get at it.

But, are we looking at upgrading some of the standards which did not apply when these places were constructed? MR. MacMASTER: We can get into some more detail on the Fire Commissioner's section, but the general answer is yes, yes it is being . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: I suppose we should go through the statistics first before we get into some general questions which normally flow as to which activities, boards and commissions that report directly to the Minister have taken.

I would ask the Minister if he would be amiable to my running down a list of positions which were filled in the past, and he can just indicate if the numbers have stayed the same or if they have increased, and that would probably be the most efficient way to go through it. Of course the Minister and Deputy Minister are one each. Executive assistant . . . MR. MacMASTER: Two Assistant Deputy Ministers. MR. COWAN: Two Assistant Deputy Ministers. MR. MacMASTER: Would it expediate things if I read them out and you can compare them with your . . .

One Deputy Minister, two Assistant Deputy Ministers, one Director of Administration, two Executive Assistants, one new position this year - that's the one that I outlined before, an Assistant - no, pardon me, the Assistant to the Deputy Minister was there last year.

A communications co-ordinator, consultant on the Status of Women, administrative secretary to the Minister, administrative secretary to the Deputy Minister, one investigator, and two new special projects officers, one chief of financial and administration services, one supervisor of accounting services, one administrative services officer, one supervisor of voucher accounting, four clerks in that same area; one administrative officer, one chief of personnel services, a personnel administrator, and three personnel payroll clerks within that same area; eight administrative secretaries, two clerk typists, one office manager; two administrative secretaries in Brandon; one administrative secretary in Thompson; one clerk typist, one term SMY for clerical assistance during peak periods.

That's the 44 that we had last year. MR. COWAN: According to my files on this, in 1978, and I'm sorry I don't have 1979 figures, but in 1978 and 1977 there were three clerical staff in Brandon. The Minister mentioned specifically two in Brandon. Does that mean one position has been removed from Brandon, or is that under a different area that I missed? MR. MacMASTER: There are still three people in Brandon, two Administrative Secretaries, and one has been promoted to Office Manager. MR. COWAN: Thank you. We had discussed very briefly Workers Compensation.

I would ask the Minister if he can indicate when the Workers Compensation annual report will be available to us, because we will need that in order to fully discuss the matter during the Minister's Salary. MR. MacMASTER: I am advised that we hope to have that report late next week and to save a question, the Cam Maclean Labour/Management Review Commission, that report I hope to be tabling in the House on Monday. MR. COWAN: When speaking about Workers Compensation, I think it might be appropriate, while not to address ourselves to the general subject, to address ourselves to the specifics of the Workers 907

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 Compens<~tion Review Committee, which I gather would report directly to the Minister, which we discussed under this same item last year. I would ask the Minister if he can provide us with an update as to when we can expect that report, as it is overdue, given the self-imposed timetable that the Minister had forwarded to us a year and a half ago and if he can indicate what action he will be taking once he has received that report. MR.

MacMASTER: Well, Ministers sometimes impose deadlines that they are very optimistic all people can concur with and then they sort of sweat and run around in circles when they don't get them. This is like other reports, I am sure. I guess the answer to the problem, if there is a problem in getting that report down, is that I think if we checked the history books in the Province of Manitoba, there probably hasn't been a review like that there might have been someplace, somewhere.

There are three, I think, exceptionally good people on that committee and certainly I would have liked to have had it three or four months ago but I really believe, and it is just a part of me that if you give good people a job to do, then you can ask them to do it as quickly as possible, and the Opposition has witnessed several things where I have hoped it would be in by the following Thursday and it wasn't in for another week.

But when you charge people with the responsibility of doing something, particularly with the three people involved in that review, I would rather not, at a future date, have any one of them ever say, well, if that damn Minister had just left us alone and given us another month or let us have one more hearing in Dauphin or given us time to research a little more, it might have been a better, more accurate report. If the Member for Churchill is a little frustrated at not having it, I share that frustration; I think we all do. But I think they should be allowed to bring in a good report.

I understand it is going to be a very comprehensive report, much exceeding what we thought would be the general guidelines. I know when they travelled throughout the province, before they left the question was posed, how defined; how tight do we contain people who are making presentations? My answer, and I say to you very frankly, was, let it go; we are out to find out what is going on in the field of compensation, what the problems are, so let it be and use your own good judgment as to how far you stretch the supposed terms of reference. When do I expect it?

I don't want to put another deadline but I would think it is going to be another month or month and a half. MR. COWAN: The reason I ask the question at this time is I think it would probably be beneficial to us to have that report to review before in fact, we went into detailed Estimates on Workers Compensation.

I am certain the Minister can appreciate that we do find ourselves sometimes in the position of not having all the research material available to us that we would like to have in order to ask the most comprehensive questions and to thereby be better able to determine the action which the government is taking, or the action which we think they should take. So if we had that report before these Estimates were completed, then of course it would have been of some real value to the Opposition. It appears as if that is not going to be the case.

I would ask the Minister if he can indicate at what stage that report is presently? I will be more specific in the question: Can the Minister indicate if that report has gone to the printers? MR. MacMASTER: The last I heard, the report was - I don't know whether it was in the third stage or the second stage - it was in the final stage, I believe, and I am guessing - it was a week or 10 days ago, maybe it was last week - that they had had their final meeting to review the final draft and I knew that if the final draft was accepted by all parties, it was going to the printers. MR.

COWAN: The question specifically was: Does the Minister know, or can he report back to us at the next sitting of this committee, as to whether or not that final draft is in fact at the printers? MR. MacMASTER: As far as we know, the final draft was approved, so I have to assume that it has gone to the printers. MR.

COWAN: Now, I don't want to put the Minister in the position of getting himself into a procedural problem, but I would ask the Minister if it might not be possible to get Xerox copies, advance copies, of that report so that we can review it before the Estimates are through so that we can have the opportunity to look through the materials and have some good, healthy and detailed discussion on where Workers Compensation will be going in this province over the next little period of time. MR. MacMASTER: can take that under consideration. I will get back to the member on that. MR. COWAN: Thank you.

I would appreciate that. I understand that is a lengthy report as well and may take some time to Xerox, but if you gave us one, I am certain that we could make certain that we were able to make copies available to all the members on our side. I would ask the Minister what action he will be taking upon receipt of that report?

Are we going to follow the same procedure that the Minister followed with the Wright Committee Report on the Health and Safety and Conditions in Manitoba's Metallic Industry, and that is the setting up of another committee for review and implementation, or does the Minister propose to act directly upon receipt of that report and to put into place those recommendations which he finds he is in agreement with? MR. MacMASTER: Maybe the member has me at a disadvantage; he might know more about the report than I do. I would have to wait until I see the report. That is an honest an answer as I can give him. MR.

COWAN: Then I'll be as honest back. I don't believe I know more about the report than the Minister does. I have not seen a copy of the report but I do understand that it is long, comprehensive, and should be before the printers. But notwithstanding the details of the report, what we are talking about is a mechanism. Does the 908

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 Minister foresee being able to act immediately on some of the recommendations, those recommendations which he can get Cabinet approval for and then can implement as soon as possible, or does he see the intervention of another committee to examine that, as happened with the Wright Committee Report? MR. MacMASTER: Without seeing the report it is virtually impossible to say whether there is any that can implemented immediately or what effect they would have on organized labour, individuals, industry, whatever.

I know with the Wright report it was unanimously agreed by the unions, primarily the steel workers and the mining industry that they themselves should have a committee to tell us how to implement that. That's fair. I think all three parties, government, unions and industry, in that particular case felt that some of those recommendations could be implemented immediately, and that's fair too. The committee themselves chose not to recommend in piece meal 5, 10, 15 or 20 of the quick possible ones that might be implemented.

They chose to review the entire report and come in with what I understand will be a total comprehensive recommendation of the entire report. I suggested to the Member from Churchill that that's fair too.

All I can say, I know with the Wright report if you were to take round figures and they're very round, there might have been twenty-five recommendations that could have in fact been implemented reasonably quickly and I'm using round figures again, 25 that might have been implemented in six to eight months or a year and it's felt that 25, there should be somewhat of an ongoing committee because there's some things that are a lot of lengthy review and research has to go in to how you would implement the others. Now that's a very rough breakdown.

We might find within the Compensation Review Committee that something very similar is in place. I'm not sure how I would deal with that till I have a look at that particular situation. I may find that organized labour and industry and people in this province look at that report and say look, that's great, because they're all going to have to view it. It is going to affect the entire province and maybe they want to talk about how it should beto be implemented, maybe some of them we've been discussing already within government that we think should be implemented.

So that isn't, I guess, the answer the member wants. but that's the best that I can give him at this time. MR. COWAN: What I really wanted was the answer that the Minister gave us last year on March 6th to this question when he said, and I quote the Minister, "Once a committee comes in with it's findings and that we have a good look at it, and implement as quickly as possible what is possible to implement". So, that was the answer that I had anticipated and I'll put that answer on the record for review, I guess, at next years Estimates if it's necessary.

When speaking to the issue of the Implementation Committee for the Wright Committee Report, can the Minister indicated when we can expect a report from the second committee, that is the Implementation Committee. MR. MacMASTER: To the best of my knowledge, that Committee started meeting in October. They met November, December, one, two or three days, two days I believe in January.

I think they've met a couple of days this month, they were scheduled to meet next Tuesday and Wednesday and the Steel Workers informed us yesterday that they couldn't make it next Tuesday and Wednesday, that they wanted to postpone it for another week or ten days or something, but they postponed next week's meeting.

I understand, and I have to say it that way, that it will be a two day meeting if it's scheduled to be a two meeting next week, it's going to be now scheduled the early part of March, a two day meeting and to the best of the information I have, and we never know how these committees will go, but to the best of my information, they seem to think that that will be the last meetings that are required to totally complete their report and their recommendations on how that Wright Commission of Inquiry into Workplace Safety in the Mines and this province should be implemented and they will be handing that to government.

I don't know whether they want that printed or whether they want that retyped or what they want but it's just a matter of physically getting it together after that, I think. MR. COWAN: And the Minister anticipates at that point being able to implement many of the recommendations? MR. MacMASTER: I certainly hope so. When we met in Flin Flon, there seemed to be some agreement by union and industry at that time that some of the recommendations could have been implemented very rapidly, so I really suspect that a good number of their recommendations can be in fact put in place very quickly. MR.

COWAN: I don't mean to pre-empt the committee report, but there is one specific recommendation that I would like to discuss, not because it is a recommendation but because it is matter of discussion before this committee for several years now and that is appointment of an occupational medical officer for the Workplace Safety and Health Committee. I'd ask the Minister if he can indicate if such an officer has been appointed as of yet and if not why has that not transpired? MR.

MacMASTER: I wonder if the Member from Churchill would be kind enough to deal with that precise position under the Workplace Safety and Health section, and we'll get in to who's in place and where they are, if that's fair. I think it is. MR. COWAN: That's perfectly acceptable. I'd ask the Minister if he'd like to discuss the Advisory Council to the Workplace Safety and Health division under this

section as it reports directly to him or if he would prefer to cover that area generally when we talk about the Workplace Safety and Health division. I'm in his hands on this. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(b)(1) - The Member from Churchill. MR. COWAN: Just to make certain that the record is clear then at that point, we would also discuss the designation of mandatory safety and health 909

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 committees at workplaces. The Minister has indicated that he is in agreement with that so we will leave that for that particular line-by-line examination. I'd ask the Minister if he can report to us as to the activities of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. I know over the past year he has made several appointments to that, I would ask him if he could detail the appointments to us, the specifics of those appointments and who those individuals were? Last year the Minister indicated that he would be making those appointments on a geographical basis.

I think that it's appropriate then to when asking him whom has been appointed to the committee to ask him where that person resides or where it is intended that person should represent? MR. MacMASTER: There were ten appointments. I can read them off and give you an idea, well, maybe I could give you a copy, to save some time, of the press release that we released. I can just run through it quickly, give you the copy and then you'll have it at your fingertips.

Stephanie Hodges of Winnipeg is an Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood Winnipeg; Elizabeth Legge is a teacher at th~ University of Winnipeg; Bev Goodwin is a housewife, Past President of the Provincial Council of Women a volunteer in the Canadian Cancer Society, YWCA and many others; Leona Penner of Winnipeg is a home care nurse, Past President of the Westgate Mennonite College Auxiliary and she's been a writer for some newspapers; Josephine Klymkiw of Winnipeg is a partner of B & D Plumbing, Immediate Past President Ukrainian Women's Winnipeg Branch, newly elected First Vice-President Ukrainian Canadian Committee Women's Council, and she's on the National Executive; Susan Shineton of McCreary 1s a teacher; Ann Moore of Nelson House is a former child welfare worker, school co-ordinator and former Indian Band Councillor, Past President of the United Church in the Nelson House area and has many other northern activities and credits; Patricia Graham of Newdale is a real estate broker; Kay Hamblin of St.

Jean is a housewife, former teacher, immediate Past-President of the Manitoba Women's Institute she is active in many other areas, she is associated with the planning of the First National Farm Women's Conference in Ottawa, she has been on the planning comm1ttee for the Conference of Associated Country Women of the World, and is involved in many other . . . ; Mrs. Muriel Arpin is the head of that committee, her credentials are very credible and lengthy. I'll hand this press release over to the Member for Churchill to view. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. 1 thank the Minister for the press release.

Going over it very bnefly, can the Minister indicate why it is that there appears to be no woman on there from the workforce other than the teaching sector. There appears to be, and I may be wrong, no woman there that would be considered to be part of secretarial or clerical staff, or heavy trades staff, industrial sector, and if that is an oversight on the Minister's part, or if the Minister thought that it was not necessary to have that particular occupational sector represented on such an important commission or council? MR.

MacMASTER: I think all the women who are involved in this particular committee are hard- working persons in their own right. I didn't precisely look for a person that belonged to any particular difficult working area in society. I assumed, by the credibility of these people, that they have been hard working women in their own professions and in their own lifestyles for many many years.

We received recommendations from organizations all over the Province of Manitoba and I tell you that it was with a great deal of difficulty that we eventually ended up with the group that we have which I really believe is pretty wide and well: represented. MR. COWAN: I certainly don't mean to take away any of the credibility or to denigrate any of the qualifications of the members of that council. 1 am certain that they are all well-motivated and very capable and will serve the council and the women in this province, as well as women in this country, extremely well.

However, I do point out to the Minister that there appears to be an area of the occupational sector that could be better represented on the particular committee. I don't mean to say that in a negative sense or to cast a finger of blame. I just say that to point out what I perceive to be a deficiency and perhaps ask the Minister to consider dealing with that in some way in the future. I would ask the Minister if he can provide us with a list of meetings that that council has held since it has been appointed. MR.

MacMASTER: The council has had two meetings, one in November and the one in January was a two-day meeting. I intend certainly at a later date, maybe even the next session, to table their report. They haven't been at it long enough, really, to have a comprehensive report. It is a brand-new council; they are getting to know each other; they are getting to know the experience that each other has had, the contributions each other can make.

You have to appreciate that here are 10 women put together from all walks of life, all segments of society, and it is going to take them a period of time to really get down to dealing with some of the problems that they all in their own way feel are facing the women in this province. But I intend at a future date and, again, I say in all honesty I don't believe it will be this session, but I do intend to make it a practice of an annual report being tabled by this particular council. MR.

COWAN: The Minister indicated a year ago that he would be asking that committee to review the entry of women into the skilled trades area. I would ask him if he has passed that recommendation on to the committee and if they are now examining that particular problem or area of concern? MR. MacMASTER: I asked the provincial advisory council if they would do three things. One was to look at the Women in Trades Program that we have initiated in Manitoba. It is certainly not without fault, 1 suspect, but it is, again, the first of its kind not only in Manitoba, but in Canada.

We are reasonably pleased with the progress we have made in that particular endeavour. We expect, as we get into the apprenticeship training - I'll bring it to the member's attention that we expect to extend that 910

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 program very shortly. I have asked them to review that. I also asked them to review something that keeps cropping up not in a specific manner, but occasionally I hear it, and that is that some job postings within the Manitoba Government, as in all provincial governments, as is in the Federal Government, are in fact worded in such a way that women feel they shouldn't apply.

I say to you very honestly and frankly, as I said to the Provincial Council of Women when one person raised it, that I have looked at them and I have looked at them since and I guess I look through a different set of eyes, but I can't see where the words are such that women wouldn't feel comfortable in applying. The Provincial Council of Women did not precisely give me examples, but they did in fact say that it was a feeling.

I have asked this Advisory Council, through 10 sets of eyes, to look at those job postings within this Manitoba Government and to assure me that women feel comfortable in applying for jobs that are posted within this government. MR. COWAN: The Minister indicated there were three areas. One was the Women in Trades Program; the other is job postings. I am wondering if he can inform us of the third area. MR. MacMASTER: I am afraid that my three thoughts got tied up with a whole bunch of theirs; I can't remember what the third one was.

I can give the member, in addition to the three things that I gave him - I will find out what that third one was - they are looking themselves; they have itemized seven areas that they are interested in, for starters, and again you have to appreciate everything is just getting started, and that is family law; the rape crisis in our country; rural women; women in trades; that is one of the thoughts that I had in there - equal opportunities for women. Now I remember what the third one was that I mentioned and I will spell it out to the Member for Churchill.

The third point that I had was the Civil Service Commission, through myself as Minister, is reasonably pleased and in fact fairly proud of the fact that we are running some exceptionally good courses through the Civil Service Commission, and we'll get into that when we get into that section. We believe they are being very very helpful to all civil servants in the Province of Manitoba, but especially for women.

I have asked the Advisory Council if they would look at that whole host of courses that are available to women within the Civil Service of Manitoba and tell me whether in fact they are doing the job that I, as a Minister, believe them to be doing. So that was the third point. There also, well, here's another one of my points and the seventh point on here is the same as my point too, so they've thrown in my three points along with three or four of their own. And that's the points that they're dealing with at this precise time. MR.

COWAN: I would just indicate to the Minister that we look forward to receiving their report on an annual basis as well as any ad hoc or specific documents which originate out of their work. We wish them well in their work.

We have pointed out what we believe to be a deficiency in regard to their composition, which is in fact, no reflection on any member of the commiSSIOn, but rather is an area which we believe can be fairly effectively and easily taken care of by an additional appointment or two of persons in different occupational sectors so as to round out the committee and perhaps make it easier for all the members to provide the type of first-rate materials which we anticipate will come out of their work.

Moving on to another area, I would ask the Minister - and if the Minister wishes to discuss these items under line-by-line sectors, we'd be more than pleased to, but these are items that we have discussed under this particular area during the past Estimates. So I thought it would be appropriate to bring them up here and if we direct them to another area, than at least we know where we want to discuss them at a later time. I'd ask the Minister if he is g1vmg any consideration to any legislation in regard to those Acts which he is responsible for administering in this session. MR.

MacMASTER: Just on a procedural thing, can I answer that question at the next sitting? The reason being, I don't profess to be the expert on procedures. Yes, the answer in general is that we are bringing in some amendments to some legislation. I think procedure-wise it would be improper and inappropriate for me to say at this time what they are or what Act they are, until at least I've tabled them in the House. Now maybe that procedure can be waived because we're in Estimates, but just let me check out the procedure with my own House Leader and see. I'm not trying to skate away from it.

If he says it's fine, let her go, I'm quite prepared to let them go. MR. COWAN: We appreciate that there are certain ways in which legislation and amendments to legislation are traditionally announced. If we can discuss it during the Estimates, it certainly provides another area where we can discuss and debate and examine legislation, however, there is no lack of opportunity to do the same in the House.

I was hoping to get some more information from the Minister because it's always nice to know what amendments to anticipate and now the Minister has whetted my appetite, as the Member for Logan says, has put me a bit on edge as to which amendments he's going to bring forward, but I certainly appreciate that he will have to check with his caucus, his Cabinet and his House Leader and if he can come back and tell us, well we will certainly welcome any information he can provide to us in that particular regard. In the past we have discussed the appointments to the various boards.

I don't want to take up the time of the committee in detailing them out completely. I would just ask the Minister if at some time during the Estimates he can provide us with a list of appointments and changes in boards that he's made over the past year. It doesn't have to be a verbal exchange between the two of us. It can be written on a piece of paper. The Minister indicates he'll do that by written correspondence and we'll look forward to that as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: (1)- the Member for Churchill. 911

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 MR. COWAN: The Minister indicated in his opening remarks that Manitoba is one of five provinces to table materials for Canadian plan of action at the Mid-Decade World Conference in Denmark. I would hope that the Minister would be able to provide us with a copy of Manitoba's contribution to that conference and perhaps at this point, he may not have the copy available.

If he does not we can have it at a different sitting of the committee, but at this point he can indicate, or he can give us some more information on what that conference was and what generally was Manitoba's participation in it. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to give the member what information I have as it relates to that conference. I can give him the document. He can probably, and rightly so, review it and he may wish at a later date to discuss a point, or two or three or four in it. So I can hand that copy over to him. MR. COWAN: Perhaps the Minister can indicate who presented the paper.

It's under the letterhead of the Premier of the province. I'd ask him if we had representatives at the conference that participated in the conference and brought this forward on behalf of the Province of Manitoba? MR. MacMASTER: Not precisely, Mr. Chairman, we presented it, Manitoba sent the copy through to the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy. He selected people from across our country to represent our country and accompany him and it was presented as a Canadian paper.

There was a great deal of dialogue, phone calls, letters, telegrams, floating across Canada during that period of time in an effort by the Federal Government to get a total provincial participation in that endeavour. I am somewhat sorry to say that there was in fact, only five provinces in our country. If the member wants the names of those provinces I can get that. but there was only five that sent in their provincial position. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I would anticipate that we can probably discuss this under the Woman's Bureau as well, this particular item.

Would that be the proper place to carry on a more detailed discussion of that which is contained in the document? MR. MacMASTER: It certainly is. MR. COWAN: Last year in the Estimates, the Minister, in response to a question from one of my colleagues, indicated that he was going to talking to the Cam Maclean Committee about a list of arbitrators.

By way of background this list was drawn up by the Cam Maclean Committee and presented to the Minister as a standing list of arbitrators at which time the Minister indicated that he had some questions. not concerns. but some questions about the criteria, the selection, the methods of selection of the arbitrators and whether or not real agreement existed in respect to that selection. The Minister indicated at that time that we were just going to have to bear with him, while he reviewed the list and while he in fact sat down with the committee and talked to them about the list.

I would hope that the Minister would be able to, at this point, provide us with an update as to whether or not he held those conversations, firstly, and secondly, if so, what the result of those conversations were, and lastly, if we can expect to see a formalized list of arbitrators coming from his department in the near future. MR. MacMASTER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, a list was presented to myself and I certainly had some questions about it.

I talked to the Chairman of that committee and it appears that they had the very same difficulty that I suppose any committee would have, but the committee, the differences were certainly enlarged where it appears that what ended up is labour presented who they thought were fine and management presented who they thought were fine and I suspect that the routine that then took place is they tried to take off the ones who might not be acceptable to their side and they wrestled with that and eventually ended up with not coming to any conclusions and it's very obvious by the list that each side had their good group of people, very credible people, I suppose, in the eyesight of either side, but couldn't come to any mutual or neutral sort of agreement as to who might be down the road, middle of an arbitrator type person, and the list signified that to me, when you see it, and where are we at?

I say that the Provincial Government today is in a position, very candidly and openly, we are in a position where we do not have a long established list of arbitrators. We have some people in Winnipeg, five or six or seven, who are generally acceptable to both sides, that we're still utilizing on occasion.

My Deputy Minister and I can't give you a specific but I know on occasion or two in the last year he's approached labour and approached management on a particular case and said what do you think of so and so, and we have had one or two favourable reactions to that approach, so the list, if you wish a list, it's not a list, but the group of which we can call on has enlarged by a couple over the course of the year. MR. COWAN: Perhaps the Minister can explain in more detail, the reason for calling for a long list in the first place.

Was that to rotate through the list on a specific basis, or was that just to provide the Minister with more names upon which to call in the event an arbitration was necessary? MR. MacMASTER: I think idealistically, and I am being very idealistic, a Provincial Government might have 12 or 15 names, but what happens in the labour industrial field in any province is, these people who are good arbitrators today, during the course of time, may end up not always working for labour. They may end up doing a fair amount of work for management and they get themselves involved with a steel company, for example.

Now that gentleman or woman, whoever it might be, at one time might have been considered by all sides as generally neutral, but now because of their work pattern, they have eventually ended up working for either labour very extensively - got themselves involved in some pretty heated hot issues - or for industry, got themselves involved again, then they become somewhat unacceptable to either or other party. So 912

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 it's a cycle that carries on and there is really no way as a government that you can stop what an individual lawyer or businessman or union leader or whatever the case may be, what he's prepared to do with his life in future. Sometimes it's quite possible for a person to work himself out. I have had the odd union say to me we just can't accept that guy, absolutely - he's been involved in something. You go back and you worry that around, you wrestle it around, and on some occasions you say fine, I guess they have a point.

The guy has been involved in something and it's just a little too close to the situation. I have had members of the Labour Board tell me the same thing. They say look, I just can't sit on that case - hell, I'm just a little too close to it or something very related to it. So I suppose we could be very idealistic, and maybe I was, and hoped that I'd have a nice big list and it's just check, check, check, but it just doesn't seemed to have worked that way. MR.

COWAN: Is the Minister prepared to provide us with a copy of the list which was not acceptable and a copy of the list of those arbitrators whom are frequently used by the department presently? MR. MacMASTER: Okay. MR. COWAN: The Minister has indicated that he will be able to do that and we again look forward to being able to review that. It is a difficult process as the Minister knows. It's difficult for the government that's involved as well as for management and for labour.

In order to pick out "neutral" arbitrators, they must many times go through a long arduous process of picking and choosing and finally coming down to name which is acceptable, so I empathize with the Minister's difficulty with this. I do hope that they are able to compile a larger list as time goes on and develop some system whereby the appointment of arbitrators is a bit more - planned would perhaps be the wrong word, but at least a bit more systematic, and that may take some of the burden off of the Minister or he in fact then would not need so many new additions to his adminstrative staff. MR.

MacMASTER: I understand the difficulty right from experience. I was a sole arbitrator myself, selected by a hospital board and what then was a retail clerk's union, as not an arbitration board chairman, which I might suggest to the member is a far different thing than the sole arbitrator. When you put your trust in a sole arbitrator that person must be pretty credible and I suppose I was in the eyesights of the people at that particular time.

It is very difficult - I had dreams one time I suppose of having a list and as I say going check, check, down the list, but you also find if you really get into it as I have, that a person may be very very acceptable to the packing house workers and their particular industry, but he sure as heck might not be acceptable to the steelworkers out at Dominion Bridge, and yet the person is pretty valuable and he may be one, two, or ten, on the list, and might be used once evey two years because he's very acceptable and unions have had a good experience with him, industry has had a good experience with him - so, I don't know what kind of a list he goes on, but there's that variation to the system too.

MR. COWAN: I think the Minister and I both appreciate, as do all members here, the difficulties that face him in this regard and I can only wish him luck in developing a longer list. Moving on to another point which was brought up in past Estimates and I think might be discussed at this time, I would ask the Minister if he can indicate what progress if any has been made in regard to the Cam Maclean Committee's deliberations on essential services. It's a matter which we discussed last year. It's a matter that's been before that committee for quite some time now.

In the past the Minister indicated that progress was being made and that he was hopeful that an understanding would be reached in regard to being able to identify essential services, when and where necessary, and had been fairly optimistic. Given that information, I would expect that we should be able to hear at this time of some specific progress which has been made in this regard. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, I in no way can control fate, and fate took its toll last summer in the health service industry in this province, where by and large the majority of health institutes were shut down.

The reason I talk about fate - the unions involved in that particular industry and the industrialists, if you wish, on the other side - I guess that's the wrong term but certainly management on the other side, were, if I was to guess, a month or two away from coming to some pretty solid conclusions as to how they would deal with essential services in the health industry. Maybe they were closer than that, but the fever of the negotiations got in the way.

I know very well that in times of peace, it's the time that you should plan for the future, not in times of when you are getting revved up and when the blood is running a little fast at negotiating time. Consequently, there was some difficulty. There was an attempt. I don't think anybody, CUPE or the Health Sciences Centre, would think it was very successful, but they both made an attempt to utilize the essential service portion of the agreement that they had just about reached in the Health Sciences Centre during that particular strike.

We are asking the Cam Maclean Committee to have a look at really what took place there, how effective that was, what the faults were, and we have said to them, "Let's not forget that; let's not forget that particular industry." Now that there is peace in that industry, I think now is a heck of a good time to go back at that essential service philosophy, which I had preached, and an awful lot of people seem to agree that there was some merit to it.

Now, I haven't read the Cam Maclean Committee report, but I have signified to the Member for Churchill that I will be tabling that, I think next Monday or Tuesday, early next week anyway, and he will have an opportunity at exactly the same time I will to review it. Maybe they have said something very specific in there, I don't know, but it certainly hasn't been forgotten. MR.

COWAN: But the long and short of it would be that as far as the Minister knows, there has been no agreement reached in regard to the provision of essential services and further to that, if I have been interpreting the Minister's statements correctly, it 913

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 would appear as if they have not been actively discussing this particular item since the health care strike of last year. MR. MacMASTER: I think that is a reasonably correct statement. Now, they might have had some preliminary discussions that I am not aware of. That committee and that group of people deal in not always regimentalized sort of meetings. They meet and they talk and each side talks to the other and they meet with Cam Maclean, they meet with John Atwell and they discuss different ways to approach different problems.

It is very difficult to get a concise written and documented method of how they reach their conclusions because it is a very difficult field. But a lot of their resolutions to problems are very worthwhile. MR. COWAN: Mr. Chairperson, on the subject of the Cam Maclean Committee, can the Minister indicate if he has received any word back from the committee in regard to his appeal to them to come forward with a plan to deal with a problem that workers may face when their employer goes out of business and they are left being owed wages. MR. MacMASTER: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, when we brought in the legislation last spring which took the payment of wages out of first place, which in fact the courts of our country had taken it out of first place, whether I be chastized for doing that or not - certainly I was by some and wasn't by others, I know the Member for Churchill certainly chastized me through various union publications, which I have read.

The problem, of course, as I saw it, rightly or wrongly, it has been done, was that we shouldn't carry on with a piece of legislation which in fact was a teasing piece of legislation, certainly not false but it led people to have expecfations that something was there that wasn't there. At that time, I said the Cam Maclean Committee was going to be asked to develop some type of procedure for this province. I said I didn't really care if there is no other type of procedure similar to it in Canada· or the United States.

I suspect that when the procedures are in place, and I have a general idea now what they are and I again, because of government procedures, am not prepared to discuss them at this time. Without question I believe that all parties in the Legislature here in Manitoba will be pleased with the effort. I think they are going to find that it can't be touched by the courts of this country. which is so terribly important. That committee has been working on that for several months.

They have reviewed many many approaches to the problem and 1 guess the major criteria that I wanted was, I didn't want to have to, after the next election when I am back as the Minister of Labour, two or three years from now have my friends in Opposition say, "Great, you chastized us for our piece of legislation, which we thought was good, the courts found it wrong and you did something about it, now you brought in something you thought was better, that's great, now three years later, Mr.

Minister of Labour, get the hell out there and do something about it because we find it's no good." So I think, really, regardless of the political flak that that would create, the injustice that it would be to the working men and women of this province would far supersede the political flak that I might get, but nevertheless, I am satisfied now that there is a procedure. I am satisfied now that quite possibly there is not another procedure like it certainly in our country; we don't believe there is one like it in the United States either.

We think, without question, the British Columbia Government, probably the Saskatchewan Government and a couple of other that do have payment of wages legislation similar to the one that the NDP brought in here, that they will be giving a heck of a lot of consideration, in fact I think pressure; pressure in society will probably force them to adopt something, if not identical, very similar to what we are going to bring in in Manitoba.

Yes, I have close to the final document and, yes, I expect that to be tabled long before this House is out, unless the Member for Churchill can tell me we are going to be through in about two weeks, and I don't think it is going to be that quick. But, yes, we will have a method in place in the Province of Manitoba which I don't think the courts can do anything about. I think, in fact, they will be happy with it. Everybody in the Province of Manitoba is going to be happy with it and I think maybe the members opposite are going to be very pleased with it also. MR.

COWAN: I hope that we are pleased with the program which the Minister has dangled before us and yet, justifiably so, I imagine, refuses to provide us with any details in respect to what it is and how it will operate. I would ask the Minister if he has asked the Cam Maclean Committee as well to investigate the actions on the part of the Federal Government in regard to the priority of wages owing to employees in the event of bankruptcies and foreclosures, so that there is not a duplication of the service, nor may in fact be a contradiction of the service. MR. MacMASTER: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I just wanted to assure myself, I knew, as individuals supposedly sometimes know that we had, and I have been assured by my Assistant Deputy Minister that, in fact, yes, we have been dealing very closely and working very closely with the Federal Government. I understand that they are proposing some legislation. The members opposite and my own caucus and myself are not satisfied with the length of time it has taken me to get it together. I think we would all be less satisfied if we were to wait until the Federal Government comes in with theirs.

The closest prediction we have is that the Federal Government will not have theirs in place in the year 1981; it will be some time in 1982. I have said ours will be within the next short period of time, so yes, we have been in touch with the Federal Government. I don't know what their legislation is. I don't think it can be any fairer, any more equitable, or any more of a guaranteer, than the legislation that we'll be presenting and the method that we'll have in place in Manitoba. So regardless of what they bring in, I think we're going to be satisfied and comfortable with the one that we have. MR.

COWAN: I don't want to leave on the record any impression that I had suggested that the Minister of Labour wait for anything for the Federal Government to act, just as I would not suggest to 914

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 the Federal Government that they wait in respect to any of their actions for the Provincial Government to act. I think that governments have to take action onto themselves and if you didn't put in a position of waiting for the other to act, it becomes a very frustrating process. However, I did suggest and that is what I wish to have clearly stated on the record, that the Minister consult with them to ensure that there was not duplication or contradiction and he has assured me that has been done.

We are going to have to choose to disagree, or agree to disagree as they say, in respect to the withdrawal of the protection which existed previously; we have before. I want to again make certain that the record is clear, that not only did I speak out against the Minister's actions in certain union publications, but also as well in debates in the House and Estimates in the House at every opportunity that 1 had. I would continue to do that when I believe that the action he had taken or he was taking and in all fairness it was action that was being taken by the Attorney-General in this regard.

But when I believe that the action that his government is taking is detremental to the working people of this province, I believe that then, I believe it now, I am willing to wait to see the proposal which the Minister has suggested will take care of the difficulties which are currently present before I make any valued judgment as to whether or not, they in fact do provide the type of protection which we all seek for working people, but we are going to have disagreements from time to time on how to achieve that protection.

Certainly we have in the past and I expect it will go on in the future, no matter who is Minister of Labour, for whatever party, there will be disagreements between the two parties on what labour legislation should do and where it should go. There may even be disagreement within the parties; one can never say. I would ask the Minister if he can give us a more specific time table as to when we can expect those particular programs to be made public. He mentioned two weeks as a hint.

I'd ask if that is more than a hint on the programs pertaining to protection for workers in the event of businesses going out of business and owing them wages. MR. MacMASTER: I think I made reference to two weeks but I thought it was something else; I didn't mean to say two weeks. I said to the member that it would be before this House adjourns, unless he tells me that the House will be adjourned in two weeks and then I might have a heck of a time getting that thing through that quick. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (b)

(1) Member for Churchill. pass - the MR. COWAN: Thank you. There are a number of other areas. This is a fairly detailed portion of the Estimates, we usually spend a fair amount of time going through the various sectors, because it gives us an opportunity to talk about a number of committees and also to discuss some policy in very general terms, although we have other opportunities for that as well. Last year the Minister indicated that he was setting up an advisory group or he had set up an advisory group.

I'm not certain as to the specifics in regard to identifying where manpower training and funding should be directed. He at that time said that there were representatives from the Mechanical Contractors Association on that advisory committee. He said there were representatives from several companies and several unions on that committee and they were examining new methods for attracting more workers into the blue collar trades. That's all the information that the Minister provided to us last year. I would hope that he would be able to update that information and elaborate upon his comments of last March 5th. MR.

MacMASTER: There are several of those types of groups in place. I would prefer to get into that under the Manpower section, if you don't mind. We think under Manpower and the Federal-Provincial agreements, critical trades, apprenticeship, there have been a tremendous amount of committees set up, committees revitalized. We found some committees where people were not only absent, but had passed away, in fact, many years previous and that was both on labour and management sides. So some of the trades advisory committees certainly were less than functional. We believe today that they are all in place.

Now there might be one or two that isn't. But under the Federal-Provincial Training Agreement section, I'll be quite pleased to talk about the type of membership the people, what segment of society they represent. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last year under this section, we discussed the carcinogen program, which was at that time, part of this particular portion of the Estimates. I believe the position for that came under the administration. The Minister indicates it's now been changed to Workplace, Safety and Health and that we'll discuss it under that area.

I'd ask the Minister then, because my figures last year show that he had indicated that there were 45 persons under this particular item. This year he says that there are 44. I'd ask him if that extra person was a carcinogen study program, or however you call it and that that has been transferred out and that is why we have a discrepancy between 45 and 44. MR. MacMASTER: Yes, there was one position. There was some confusion on it. If I recall right the gentlemen in question was I think in England on a leave of absence from the government taking some courses. I just don't recall the details.

But I think we agreed amongst ourselves at Estimates debate that we could consider that person under administration and a later date would be transferred the position, would be transferred to the Workplace, Safety division and that's what happened. MR. COWAN: Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Chairperson. The Chairperson indicates that he is not certain whether that is a compliment or not. I assure him that it is a compliment and I only said that out of respect for the fine way in which he handles the committee hearings.

Having said that I am certain that I will have an opportunity to remind the Chairperson of those accolades throughout these Estimates from time to time. It's a matter of record now. I would like to discuss the issue of mandatory retirement, which the Minister has discussed with 915

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 other of my colleagues, but I would like to follow up on a number of statements he made and ask him some specific questions in regard to those statements he made in the afternoon, during the sitting of this committee. He at that time said that he was continuing to have discussions with the Manitoba Federation of Labour in regard to mandatory retirement. I would ask the Minister if he could provide us with the details of discussions which have been held to date with the Manitoba Federation of Labour in respect to mandatory retirement. MR. MacMASTER: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I don,t know if it's always important to clear the record or Hansard but if I use the word continuing, that's incorrect. I had meant to say and I think I said, it certainly was my intention and I think when Hansard is out, it will show that was the trend of thought that people such as the Manitoba Federation of Labour, tradespeople, the MGA, CMA, Chamber of Commerce, that we intend or at least I intend and I don't know who all the other Ministers are dealing with; I know that we will pool our findings.

But I intend to contact all those organizations and you will have to excuse me if you find out that I contact many more than that, but they are the precise organizations that I will in fact be asking for their position and their rationale for thier position. It's just too big, too big a problem, if you wish, and I'm not sure if you call it a problem, but it's too big a turn of events within the Province of Manitoba to attempt to make some decision yourself.

So certainly I have a great number of dealings with the MFL and trade unions and the MGA and certainly on occasions with the CMA and Chamber, so those are organizations that I'll certainly be contacting and I don't mean a week or two or three from now. I've directed that communications go to those people and I expect to be receiving it very shortly. MR. COWAN: Just to clarify the record then, the Minister. said at that time that he would be carrying on discussions with industry.

What he meant was that over, I don't want to put questions or answers in his mouth, but what I anticipate he means given his last answer, was that in the course of carrying on general discussions with those groups he would be directing specific attention to this matter. He has not met with industry in regard to mandatory retirement; he indicates no. MR. MacMASTER: Yes, the two questions, I think we have to start from, is what is the policy. What is the position of these organizations and secondly, and just as importantly, what is the rationale?

That's the two precise questions that I'll be posing to, at the very least, the organizations that I've mentioned this evening. MR. COWAN: Yes, as the Minister knows, as I mentioned earlier, I am not in agreement with my brothers and sisters in the labour movement or at least in agreement with their organizations stated positions and that ranges from the Winnipeg Labour Council, the Winnipeg and District Labour Council, right up to the Canadian Labour Congress in respect to mandatory retirement.

I think I only have to mention that that shows that no political party is handcuffed to any labour organization or is any labour organization handcuffed to any political party, as the Minister had indicated in his speech earlier. Again the record should be clear. The Minister put that statement on the record and I think it's important that one realizes that it's not exactly the case. There is room for honest disagreement between all parties. The Minister indicated earlier that the Advisory Council on Aging might be directed to review this specific problem.

Can the Minister now inform us as to what direct action he will be taking in regard to seeing that this problem is brought to the attention of the Advisory Council, in that they are directed to report back as quickly as is possible with their findings, because they are a credible body and a body that should be consulted in respect to this situation. MR.

MacMASTER: Well, as easy as one Minister can assure what another Minister is doing, I can say to the Member for Churchill that I am sure the Minister of Health who is responsible for the Council of Aging in the Province of Manitoba, will in fact be asking for their viewpoints on that particular problem. MR. COWAN: We saw earlier that the different Ministers may have some contact with this problem in various ways and that they all seem to be dealing with their specific area of concern. Their jurisdictional involvement was confined to their own department.

Is the Minister prepared to impress upon his colleagues in the Cabinet, the necessity for a co-ordinated approach to the whole area of mandatory retirement and retirement in general and make certain that there is a co-ordinated approach to dealing with the problem and that may in fact necessitate a Cabinet Committee which has been formed from time to time to deal with specific problems of this nature. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, three Ministers are dealing with this. If you wish to call them a committee, that's fine; the Attorney-General and the Minister of Health and myself.

It was suggested this afternoon that the Minister of Economic Development should involve himself in this problem and I can concur. I think that it certainly, he certainly has some input and some expertise and the people close to him certainly have. I have no hesitation in saying that the three of us will call on the Minister of Economic Development for his input into this too. So three of us are at the moment reviewing that. MR.

COWAN: Realistically can the Minister indicate when he believes there might be some resolution or some government policy to the concept of mandatory retirement, because right now there doesn't seem to be any specific policy from the government? It seems to be floundering, as a result of recent court cases and decisions by the Human Rights Board, and that it has put the persons in this province, who are facing retirement shortly, in a precarious or at least in difficult and confusing situation.

If they do not wish to retire, they are not certain as to their rights under the law at present, because the issue is cloudy, it is murky, it's not clear, and if they should wish to work on, they are 916

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 facing a battle in almost every individual case, because there does not seem to be any government direction, any government policy, in respect to mandatory retirement and that places them in an even more difficult position at a time of their life which is stressful to begin with. The whole idea of retiring does cause a lot of stress to an individual. It's a major lifestyle change and some people would rather avoid that change; some people would rather keep on working for positive reasons in that they believe they are playing a productive and a functional role in society.

I, for one, think they should be permitted to do so. I, for one, think they should be encouraged to do so. I'll go beyond a neutral stance in that regard, they should be encouraged to continue if they want to; if that is there choice. As it stands now, we can't encourage them. It's hard to say whether or not they are permitted to, and in fact there are so many differing opinions that they themselves - and they have come to me with these questions - find themselves confused by the state of affairs, and find themselves confused as to what decisions and what options are available to them.

I had started that statement with a question. The question was, when can we expect some action on the part of government so as to clear up some of that confusion? MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, when you have what some people have termed a shock to the system, if that's two words that explains and I think it does, and that's what really happened, and there certainly is a lot of confusion, a lot of bewilderment and a lot of real concern being expressed by people in the organizations that I mentioned that I'd certainly be contacting.

It's just too immense a problem to give the Member for Churchill or anybody else a definitive answer as to when a stringent policy will be established in the Province of Manitoba. The court case, and I'm guessing was five or six weeks ago - nobody can be accused of dragging their feet.

When something as dramatic as that happens to a society that's really been built around the system of something happening at age 65, the whole system in our country has developed around that, rightly or wrongly, and it's just too big a thing to tell the member privately or publicly when I think that will be resolved in this province. MR. COWAN: I beg to differ with the Minister. It's not that recent.

The court case, which was five to six weeks ago, was the result of a court case which was a year ago and that we had discussed this very same subject last year during the estimates in much the same manner because of court cases and decisions that had been handed down at that time. It's been a year that the Minister has been able to see this coming. It's been a year that we have been trying to direct the Minister and other Ministers' attention to the problem, and so it's not a problem of recent vintage.

I do agree with the Minister that it is an immense problem, but I think it may be a case of, and if I can use the proverbial, it may be a case of not seeing the forest for the trees, or in this case seeing the forest and not seeing the trees, because while it is an immense problem for society, it is also an immense problem for individuals. You have to bring the problem down to the case of the individuals. You have to talk about individuals who are being affected today by the lack of direction from the government.

You have to talk about the case of individuals who are today confronted with a very serious and important, immense if you will, decision, a change in their lifestyle, and they are not getting direction, they are not getting any sort of positive feedback from the government. It is not a recent problem. It is a problem that should have been under consideration for quite some time, and while immense, it is also very important to specific individuals.

I would ask the Minister then if he can - and I'd ask him again - if he can indicate as to when he would expect some sort of direction to be provided to those individuals by the government. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, I guess we could keep asking ourselves the question back and forth. There has been by two speakers this evening both from the same party differing views, both people who have some knowledge of my particular estimates and my department.

That in itself signifies that there certainly is a bit of a shock treatment that is going to take place within certainly the New Democratic Party and quite possibly within our own. I have said to the member, and I don't want to repeat it, that there's many many organizations, and I'm not going to get into the ones that I have named or others that must in fact be involved, their opinions must be sought, so some day, somewhere down the line, a sound decision may be made, and it's just too immense - it's just, in my opinion, come upon us. The member talks about a decision a year ago.

If he will check with the New Democratic Party in British Columbia, he will find that there was a court decision came down somewhat contrary to the one here in Manitoba, which signifies another set of wisdom coming out of the heads of people in the courts in British Columbia. I can't give him an indication today. I can assure him as we progress along the way that I can make him aware of the progress that we're making, periodically, and that's really the best that I can do at this time. MR.

COWAN: The Minister is going to have to do better than that because I'm certain that the question I am going to direct to the Minister now, which is a question which has been directed to me outside of this House, is a question which has been directed to the Minister by persons outside of this House, and that is, what should a person who is approaching 65, who is locked into mandatory retirement by either a contract or custom or legislation and does not wish to retire - what action should that person take?

What advice would the Minister of Labour, who has to play a very vital role in any sort of resolution of this problem - what advice would that Minister give to that individual who approaches him with that specific question? MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, if there's a contract in place, I suppose that the parties involved would attempt to live up to the contract and may find that it's invalid. I can't help the member on this particular issue at this time. MR. COWAN: But it's not me who is doing the asking. There are individuals out there and I am 917

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 certain the Minister has had contact with them. I would be surprised if he has not had contact with individuals or his department has not had contact with individuals who have that very specific question. The individual is saying that they do not want to retire at age 65. They are met with conflicting ... MR. CHAIRMAN: The Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne): I would like to raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The question of mandatory retirement is a question that involves the administration of The Human Rights Act, and I would therefore suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the discussion and the questions are out of order because the administration of The Human Rights ACt is not under discussion. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Churchill on the same point of order. MR. COWAN: I thank the Attorney-General for his advice.

I assure the Attorney-General that we will be discussing the item under the other areas, which allow us an opportunity to discuss the item, but I know the Attorney-General is not able to be in Labour Estimates as much as he would like to be, and I can only hope to inform him as to what has transpired not only this year, but last year in regard to this, and hope, Mr. Chairperson, that the precedent will be acknowledged.

The precedent is that in these estimates last year on March 11th, we had fairly lengthy discussion in the Chamber in respect to mandatory retirement, and that discussion was not ruled out of order at that time. I would also hope, Mr. Chairperson, that when considering this point of order raised by the Attorney-General, that you will take into account the fact that we have had quite lengthy discussion today under this particular

section of the estimates in regard to mandatory retirement. I would hope that you would - just because the Attorney-General enters the room and sits in on the committee, that it is not then decided that we can't discuss something which we have been discussing for hours. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister on the same point of order. MR. MacMASTER: In attempting to be a conciliator -(Interjection)- I want to speak to the point of order.

I have legislation which I am responsible for and under the Civil Service Commission is The Superannuation Act, where it is mandatory - and I notice some members are nodding their heads - for civil servants to retire at 65. If we could agree that the Attorney-General has a point with The Human Rights Act, and if we could agree that the Member for Churchill says that yes, in fact, we talked about this before, maybe we can agree that the Member for Churchill can raise this again under The Superannuation Act, which I'm sure he will. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Churchill. MR.

CQWAN: 1 had fully intended to raise it under the Civil Service

section of the estimates as well as under other sections of the estimates. Maybe with one last question, which would necessitate a very brief answer from the Minister, we can agree to carry on this discussion at assorted and varied other times including the Attorney-General's estimates and any bills which may come before the House, and resolutions which may come before the House with which we can make even the vaguest connection.

I would ask the Minister if he can indicate what action he is directing his department or persons within his department to take in respect to determining whether or not The Civil Service Act as supremacy over The Human Rights Act when it comes to consideration of mandatory retirement. He may want to take that as notice and provide us with an answer during the specific discussions of the Civil Service, but I did want to provide him with notice of that question, if he doesn't wish to answer it at this time. MR.

MacMASTER: It's my advice at this particular moment and we can discuss it again under The Superannuation Act, but just to give the Member for Churchill notice, my position at this moment is that The Superannuation Act supersedes and has the authority to permit us to retire people at age 65 - so that you gave me notice, I give you notice. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(bX1) for Churchill. pass - the Member MR. COWAN: I'm just going to ask the Attorney General if he's going to take that lying down, that the Minister just indicated that The Civil Service Act has supremacy over The Human Rights Act. I'm sorry, Mr.

Chairperson, I didn't mean to get off the subject like that. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have enough trouble here without you crossfiring without the Chair getting involved. The Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. There are a number of other boards and commissions which answer to the Minister directly which we have discussed under this item in the past, however, I would be willing to discuss them under the specific line-by-line areas, if we can have some commitment from you, Mr. Chairperson, that that would be allowed at that time.

The reason I ask that is that there has been some question about that in the past in respect to where we discuss those particular committees and I don't want to lose an opportunity to be able to fully debate the estimates of the Minister. To get back to the specifics of the Minister's Department, and I have to apologize to him, because while he was reading through the detailed description of the four new positions in his department earlier this afternoon, I was unable to take down all the information that he provided to us.

I'd ask him if he has a written description, job description of those four positions that he can provide to us and if not if he can, a little bit slower this time, go through the specific job descriptions of those four individuals. MR. MACMASTER: Mr. Chairman, the two special projects officers, and as I said without being flippant, that's the easiest names that we can apply to the 918

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 two positions at this time. These two positions will be attached to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Manpower's Office and for specific projects, e.g. the Winnipeg Center Core Development Project; the Manitoba Hydro: Western Grid Project: the involvement of more native people in Northern Manitoba in those projects; the expansion, if possible, of critical trades. There's a host of fairly major endeavours coming up, we have got into new areas this year, we find that were just short of good talented people.

We've just stretched our human resources as far as we can and we just can't cope, in our opinion, with the number of manpower ventures that we're into and that we will be involved in. It's just too immense a job for the present staff. We can't say and I apologize for that, I can't give you a precise job description at this moment, because we may find that one-and-half SMYs worth of time, we have to go into negotiating very deeply with the Feds and the City on how we're, I guess, to be candid, how we get our share of Manpower involvement in the Inner City Core Area Project.

For example, we may have for a period of time assign both people to that particular project till we get it going and then reassure ourselves that, in our opinion, and of course that then goes through the agreement negotiating group, but in our opinion that Manpower needs are being met to the best of our ability under that major agreement. That's the best I can do on that particular position. On the Special Assistant to myself, I find, again being very candid, that I'm not as invo1ved as I would like to be and in as many places as I should be.

Again a lot to do with Manpower, I'm being consistently asked by my Manpower people, the Director of Training, the Assistant Deputy Minister, to involve myself more in a lot of committee meetings. There is negotiations coming up with the Federal Government on Manpower needs in Manitoba. There's agreements to be negotiated. I have to say that I just really feel that I need a particular person who can represent me in a lot of these major functions that are taking place. The secretarial service to the Director of Administration, I think, is reasonably self explanatory.

We have a new Director of Administration and he certainly needs a competent secretarial person to assist him. MR. COWAN: Can the Minister indicate what participation his department is involved in, in respect to the negotiations of that program which is to continue the Northlands Agreement of the past? MR.

MACMASTER: Well, we're involved and it's another area of deep concern to myself, we're involved to a fair degree because there are Manpower related programs that are in place within that agreement and I can't physically say the numbers of meetings and the persons and the people that go to them, but here again, we find that, and I don't think protective is probably the word, but assurance for myself I guess as the final person responsible. I am demanding that myself and my staff be kept involved in the development of that agreement. We have some projects involved in there that are cost-shared.

We, without question, are satisfied that they're very meaningful projects and they're very meaningful programs and we intend to do our very best as other Ministers will tell you if they wish to, that we're very demanding that a lot of the programs that are in place now stay there. Now that's within ourselves, and other Ministers feel very strongly about some of the other programs that they have in place. Again, I don't think I've been delinguent in my duties, but I sometimes wonder whether I really have the time, and I find in a lot of cases I don't to involve myself as much as I'd like to.

Yes, we're involved in the development of that agreement amongst ourselves and yes, without question there are some differences between ourselves and the Federal Government and yes, there seems to be a heck of a lot of big difference between what the Federal Government and the Department of Indian Affairs feel is right for the Indian people and the Mtis people in Northern Manitoba and there is a difference between what they think is right and what the Indian and Mtis people tell me is right, and that certainly came to light at the Four Nations Conference in Thompson.

I have to say politically and as a person, I was very pleased with that meeting because the Indian Chiefs told me what I thought to be the case, some of the things that they wanted in that agreement, some of the very very things that I wanted very badly myself, and we found that - and I think it was really in fairness, the kindest thing I can say was the lack of communications between the Federal Government and some of the Treaty and Mtis people in Northern Manitoba.

I hope that has been cleared up, but again here is another communications problem where I was positive that I knew what some of the needs of those people were and the desires and the aspirations of them and we were having difficulty at the negotiating table with the Federal Government. I don't think that it is irreparable, but it certainly created some difficulties. So yes, I guess the final answer, I'm sorry that I took so long, Mr. Chairman, but I think the member is interested in the whole spectrum of what is happening and how we're involved. MR.

COWAN: I can assure the Minister that I appreciate the detailed answers and that it does provide us with information which is invaluable to us as well as provide us with some insight into the actions of the governments in respect to these negotiations.

As the present Northlands Agreement with the one year extension runs out on Marcti 31st, 1981, I believe, and as the Minister has indicated that there appears to be a great deal of difficulty in reaching agreements between the parties involved in the negotiation of this agreement, further to that the Minister says that there are many differences existing now between the province and the federal government in respect to how they see this agreement being fulfilled; it leads me to the question to the Minister and that is, does he expect that these negotiations will be completed by March 31st, 1981, the date on which I have been informed the present agreement even with its one-year extension will terminate?

MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, I hope that the member was listening well when I said that there are some difficulties. I didn't mean to say that difficulties were great. I said if there was a difficulty it seemed to be the greatest difficulty was in communicating. 919

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 You have several provincial governments, provincial departments, who I think communicated very well, but then you have the Federal DREE people, then you had the Federal Indian Affairs Department, and then you had the treaty people who we thought at one time that the Indian Affairs people were representing. I'll tell you we got a heck of a shock when we got to Thompson and went to that conference and found out that wasn't the case. I don't want to leave the impression that there is insurmountable difficulties. There certainly was a problem in communications.

I think we've clarified that. I know our government is now working very hard with the federal people to assure ourselves, and in negotiations you sometimes have that difficulty assuring YP\.HSelves that the other side is really talking on behalf of the people they represent. That's sometimes a little difficult, and we certainly found out in Thompson, again, that wasn't the case coming from the other side of the table. I think the federal people appreciated that within their bureaucracy there were some difficulties and they have corrected them.

What about the deadline of March 31st, I think that's the correct date. One of the major things that we're talking about right now, as the member I'm sure can second-guess the answer, is what about retroactivity? That's the question that we are facing now in talking to the Federal Government. If that thing isn't signed, and as responsible negotiators, as I have done many years with unions, and industry does the same - you somehow as crunch-time comes there's two ways you play it, I suppose.

You either keep the hammer there to make sure that something is resolved, or your both mutually agree that you need more time, but whatever is in place is retroactive to the date of signing. That is the one situation that has been dealt with. I can assure the member that it's been well discussed, as much as a week or two ago, and I don't remember the exact date. That was being communicated to the federal people, and the federal people are aware that things just can't come to an end on March 31st. That issue is being dealt with positively, absolutely, right now. MR.

COWAN: If I understand the Minister correctly, even if an agreement is not reached by March 31st, the programs that are ongoing now will continue. Is that a proper

interpretation of his remarks of previous? MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, they sure as hell better be, and that message is very clear from our negotiators at the table with the Federal Government, and in fairness the kindest thing I can say is that the Federal Government certainly understands our position. There is no question where the Provincial Government stands on this issue, that those programs that are in place must continue and they must be carried on and that some form of understanding, some agreement of understanding has to be undertaken.

We could again be optimistic and I keep getting in trouble when I get optimistic, but we could be optimistic and say, you bet you on March 15th. there is going to be an agreement. I don't know whether we are going to have time to specifically say that or not, or whether we can actually get that in place. Our efforts are geared, and I want to assure the member and the Opposition that our efforts are being geared to having an agreement signed by March 31st. That's (

a) position; (

b) position is that somehow we come to some conclusions how we handle those programs now in place. MR. COWAN: In respect to the Minister's remarks, I just have to indicate that there are several parties negotiating and the Minister knows full well that in any negotiation or any set of negotiations, no party is entirely blameless, and I know that the Minister wishes to place a lot of responsibility tor the non completion of those negotiations on the Federal Goverment. I understand that.

It may in fact even be a tact, I'm not certain, however the Provincial Government also has to take some responsibility for the fact that this agreement has already had to be extended one year, and it looks as if there may be some difficulty in reaching agreement before the one year extension is up. I accept his perceptions of it, however I suggest that if I were talking to his federal counterpart that the perceptions would be somewhat different - (Interjection)- And the Minister says, yes, but I wouldn't believe him, and he may in fact be somewhat correct.

I would probably take the Minister's word first, but not uncategorically without some qualification and some consideration. I do believe the province does have to share some of the responsiblity tor the failure to negotiate that agreement; to have that agreement in place now, and we will be discussing that, I believe, more under another department's Estimates, but it is an issue which has to be addressed. MR.

MacMASTER: If I can just comment on that, and I don't want to mince words or play with words, but the responsibility that a Provincial Government has with citizens that agreement serves is to try and present to the best of our ability what we think their desires and aspirations are. I tell you that I was beginning to wonder at a certain period of time whether we were correct, and I thought I was correct in the endeavours that we thought we were bringing forth and the positions we were bringing forth to the Federal people.

Again, I say to the member, and it would have been refreshing - I'm sure he had friends at the meeting in the region hall in Thompson, but it was yery refreshing and enlightening to listen to position after position after position from Chiefs in the northern communities which, certainly, I got my chastisements because the odd road wasn't there and the various things, and that happens, but by and large, the Federal Government, I think, found that next time they went back to the table, they had to change their position somewhat. So, yes, both parties are always responsible if an agreement isn't signed.

To a degree, we think that there was a communic<:~tions problem and we think that's corrected and we think that we're on our way. MR. COWAN: As the Four Nations Confederacy deals primarily with the Federal Government, one would expect them to take out the bulk of their criticism on the Federal Government. I could only suggest to the Minister that if the Federal Minister was sitting at an MMF meeting, that perhaps the 920

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 criticism might be flowing the other way and that Minister might in fact be surprised by the extent and the intensity of that criticism. So the Four Nations Confederacy and their frustrations are certainly a part of the entire situation. The province and its frustrations are certainly a part of the situation but I would suggest as well that there are other participants who might look differently at the negotiations and perceive the province's role a bit differently.

But as I said, that is probably more justifiably a topic for detailed discussion under a different department, although I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss it at this time and be updated as to the perceptions of the Minister in respect to the Northlands Agreement. The Minister indicated that one of the two special project officers would be attached to - or that two special project officers, excuse me, would be attached to Manpower, one of which, or perhaps one-and-a-half of which or two of which, will be dealing with the development of Manitoba Hydro if and when it is brought on stream by this government.

He suggested that one of their tasks would be to ensure that northerners were employed as fully as possible on that job site. I think I may have gone even a bit further than the Minister's own words, but I think he said that one of the tasks would be to ensure that northerners had access to the jobs there. I would ask the Minister then if that is an indication that he is planning to come forward with positive, affirmative action programs for the employment of northerners on hydro construction sites? MR. MacMASTER: don't know what the

interpretation of affirmative action is by the Member for Churchill, but I intend to endeavour, to the best of my ability, to make sure that people living in northern Manitoba have a greater opportunity to participate in major developments up there than they tell me, and there were briefs presented when the member made his tour of northern Manitoba that signified less than satisfication with the participation of northerners on the hydro projects during the time of the NDP government, of which, in fairness to the Member for Churchill, he wasn't part.

The fact is, I suppose, that years from now somebody may present a brief to me saying, thank you, but you didn't allow us as much participation as we would have liked either. We hope to involve people of all talents wherever possible in northern developments and it is not a dramatic statement; I think it is one that was made probably by the previous administration, where they hoped that they would involve as many as possible. If the member means by affirmative action, quota systems, then I oppose quota systems, so we know where we stand on that particular issue.

I know that the president of the MFL, for example, is an advocate of quota systems and he and I disagree on occasion on various things. Maybe the Member for Churchill feels that quota systems are part of an affirmative action program and, if he does, then we will have to disagree on that particular philosophy. MR. COWAN: If that were the fact, it wouldn't stop me from trying to convince the Minister of the justice of my argument. But I don't want to discuss a quota system right now because I think there are other opportunities to delve into that in more detail, and I don't want to belabour this

section of the Estimates any more than is necessary. However, the Minister is absolutely correct when he says that there is criticism of the way in which the previous government attempted to promote greater opportunity for employment of northerners on hydro projects, and I don't back away from that criticism. I think it is in some instances justifiable criticism and I think we have to take it in the way in which it was offered, and that was constructively. The criticism is that our intentions were good but perhaps our mechanisms were not perfect, and that is exactly what happened.

I believe we had very good intentions and I believe because we were dealing in an area that was somewhat new, and as the Minister has indicated, when you are dealing with areas that are new, you sometimes create difficulties as well as have difficulties that you would not have if in fact you had more experience and expertise in that specific area.

So while we put in a preferential hiring clause which was intended to ensure that northerners would have greater access to those jobs, it didn't work out exactly the way we had anticipated it to work out and that can be said because of our lack of support mechanisms to supplement that of preferential hiring clause. One of the very important things that we learned from that experience is that preferential hiring clauses alone are not enough, that you in fact need to have support mechanisms.

That's why we had the Tawow Program, which has been continued by this government in Leaf Rapids, and that is why we had a number of other programs, New Career Programs, that have been continued by this government and other programs which were intended to provide those sort of support mechanisms. One can only hope that if we had had more time, that we would have been able to do a better job. Having said that, one can only hope that we will have more time and that we will do a better job in the future. However, what we have to deal with now is the Minister's intentions in respect to this.

We know that preferential hiring clauses cannot stand alone as an effective affirmative action tool; they have to be used in conjunction with other activities. We also know that one of the problems when you bring a hydro site on stream is that you suddenly need a large number of workers at a specific time who have fairly developed skills.

You always need laborers but you will find if you hire a number of laborers from northern Manitoba, and the Minister knows full-well the scenario, the laborers were always hired to cut the bush, to do that sort of work, and then were never integrated into the system and able to develop skills that would enable them to stay on in employment once the laboring jobs and the heavy construction jobs were completed.

So that being the case, it has been determined that you need a specific period of lead time in order to develop skills so that when these projects come on stream, native northerners are able to take full advantage of them, that they aren't just going in at the labouring level. We always know that once in, and a certain number will have to go in at the labouring level, it is necessary to provide upgrading courses to try to encourage the development of 921

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 specific skills, work skills, occupational skills, to enable them to stay and progress through the occupational system as others would be able to. I would ask the Minister therefore if he is right now developing lead time programs which would encourage and enable the development of those skills by northerners currently residing in the areas where hydro projects are expected to be ongoing? MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of - I don't have numbers - there are a lot of northern native people involved in a large number of upgrading courses at the moment.

There are northern native people involved, in fact, in many apprenticeship programs that are going on in northern Manitoba. I intend, again with the help of some of the additional people that we need, to commence discussions with Manitoba Hydro. We have had preliminary discussions with them but we have to get in some greater detail what faults they have seen with the system before, with the contractors and sub-contractors. I have to determine myself why a northern preference clause did not work. It is fine for others to say it didn't work.

There are those who liked to wave the banner and said it was great and it worked. I intend to find out why in fact it did not work. I intend to carry on discussions with the trade union leaders. I have had passing conversations with some that I have met on various occasions and a fairly lengthy discussion with a couple about some of the problems that we may find with the trade unions, seniority in job hiring and a whole host of things that I believe, with some help, I can work out some system which will better assure ourselves that more northern native people are involved.

We have a lot of talented people right now in northern Manitoba who could quite easily qualify today. I don't know whether they are union members; I don't know what the union's position is and I don't wish to second-guess what their position may or may not be. I don't know what the positions of the contractors are, but I think where you start in this issue is, as I have asked in my Estimates for some additional help, we started by dealing (

a) with Hydro; ·we start by talking with some of the contractors who were involved previously and find out what problems they seemed to think they had; and we talk to the union leaders that had people involved in that particular project to find out what problems they experienced. You try and put that together and see that if in fact you had the concurrences of the people that are running the show, then maybe a northern preference clause is all that is needed. I am not saying it is or it isn't but obviously it didn't work last time.

I don't know of anybody that can precisely tell me all the details of why it didn't work, but I don't think you charge off, Mr. Chairman, and look for a bunch of new rules or regulations until you find out what was wrong with the system that was in place and how faulty was it? The Indian people have said, through presentations, through press releases, various things, that they weren't as involved as they would like to be. How factual is that? I am not saying that they weren't telling the truth. but what really are the facts as they relate to their participation? MR.

CHAIRMAN: I wonder, the Minister of Agriculture has been trying for a long time to get in and I wonder if we could give him ... The Minister of Agriculture. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): I have two points, Mr. Chairman. One, I cannot find on this particular appropriation where we have anything to do with Hydro. I think there will be an opportunity to discuss that at the time of the Hydro Estimates.

I am not trying to curtail the debate of the member but on the principle of trying to give preferential treatment to different people in Manitoba for working on any projects in any part of the province, I consider the opportunities of Manitoba should be available to everyone. I don't think that through government direction, that people should be prohibited, whether they are from southern Manitoba, western or northern Manitoba, from going to work if there is a job available.

I agree with the Minister that the last program probably didn't work and that there should be ways of encouraging those people to be employed right in their home area. I think that is a commendable objective, but when you start forcing that kind of thing on people, then I think that there is reaction, and there should be, because there are a lot of people in other parts of Manitoba, and in fact Canada, that have a lot to contribute and should have the opportunities to contribute and be part of that society, without government forcing the issue of saying, I'm sorry, these opportunities aren't available to you.

That's a basic principle that has to be protected and I will continue to fight for it. I want to come back, Mr. Chairman - I think we have continually gone all over the waterfront on these Estimates tonight. We are on Administration and there are members sitting here who, I am sure, have a lot of questions to ask in all the departments and I would like to see get on with some constructive - particularly to do with the specific appropriation. MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree. I would like to see us progress a little faster than we are, but I am at the mercy of the entire committee. The Honourable Minister. MR.

MacMASTER: Well, I suppose there's all kinds of places we could discuss this particular project; we could discuss it under Manpower Training. I want to clear up the record and add to it, not defeat anything I've said, but add to it which may satisfy the Member for Churchill and he can get into more in depth in the Manpower section. But when I said that we had started preliminary discussions with Manitoba Hydro, I've been informed it's more than preliminary.

I've been informed that they have in fact established a planning committee, that that committee does in fact involve the unions, hydro, the Federal Government and two of my people and that they are at the moment trying to establish. Now you can't do this positive, but they're trying to establish the qualifications and the calibre of workers that will be required. This froze into your Federal-Provincial negotiations, which again, 1 say in all honesty, we're short of help.

Once the list is established, it's our intention to attempt to establish funding, mutual funding from ourselves and the Feds for training programs. We're right now at the stage where we're trying to establish the qualifications with the hydro. I didn't know the committee had been set up; I knew that 922

Thursday, 19 February, 1981 they were meeting and I knew they were discussing, but there is in fact, a committee established. It involves the Feds, the Provincial Government, Hydro and the unions and they're trying to right now identify the numbers in general of what they'll need, so the unions of course, will be able to tell them what's in place and hopefully through that mechanism, plus myself of course, dealing personally with some of these people, that maybe we're progressing faster than we really thought. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I found it interesting that the Minister of Agriculture suggested that we shouldn't be discussing this item and then went on to discuss it. I'm going to avoid the temptation to be provoked into debate on the basis of his comments and try to expedite the deliberations of the committee and as the Minister has indicated, the Minister of Labour in this case, there will be other opportunities to discuss this. I am certain that we will take advantage of those opportunities. However, before leaving the item, I think it's important to make just a couple of comments on what the Minister has said.

Number one, he has indicated that his department has met with Manitoba Hydro, the trade union leaders, the contractors, and that there is a preliminary committee, planning committee made up of two provincial representatives, representatives of the Federal Government, representatives of Manitoba Hydro and representatives of the union.

The only group, or two groups that have been isolated, or three groups perhaps, that could provide input into that whole process and are not part of the process now, would be the MMF, the Foreign Nations Confederacy and the Northern Association of Community Councils and I would suggest that those groups being representative of many many northerners be included at this stage, which is the most important stage in the development of these programs in the deliberations and in the negotiations and I would just make that as a suggestion to the Minister, one which I know that he will consider seriously and follow up on if at all possible.

I would also suggest to the Minister that while reviewing the whole problem, that we as a government found and he as a government has found and the private sector have found, in respect to providing true opportunities to everyone in the province and that includes northerners for full . employment, that he consult the Canadian National Railways in respect to what they have done in Gillam, because they have had a much more successful record I'm told by the Fox Lake band in encouraging native northerners to work and to stay on and to progress their way through the system, than we did with Manitoba Hydro.

And so I think they may be able to provide some very positive input and some very specific examples as how we might be able to better accomplish what appears to be a mutual goal.

So having giving him those two small suggestions, as I said, I will resist the temptation to debate the stand that the Minister of Agriculture made, although I will just inform the Minister of Labour, if I heard him correctly, he did associate you with some of his statements and that you should review the Hansard carefully to determine whether or not you wish to remain associated with those or wish to clarify your own position in respect to that. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(b)(1) - pass; 1.(b)(2) - pass - the Member for Churchill. MR.

COWAN: On (2) and the Minister doesn't have to provide it verbally, he can provide it by correspondence, if he wishes. I would ask him for a breakdown of the different expenditures under this item and that has been given to us in the past and it's purely for my records, so if he wants to put it on the public record, by way of a verbal representation, that's fair; if not, if he wants to expedite matters and pass it to me by way of correspondence, I will make certain that my colleagues are informed of its content. MR. MacMASTER: I'll get you a copy of the expenditures. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 1.(b)(2) - pass; 1.(c)(1) - pass; 1.(c)(2)- the Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: I wonder, Mr. Chairperson, as has been done in the past, if this might not be an expedient time to have the committee rise. We have intended to do that on previous Estimates. I would ask your advice on that suggestion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise. SUPPLY - HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): This committee will come to order.

I would direct the honourable members' attention to p place irrigation reservoirs or reservoirs for water conservation so that in future years we do not find ourselves in the position that we were in this year, with an extreme dry condition or extremely droughty condition and very little water reserves held back.

So I think it's a matter of working with the people in Water Resources as well as our staff to continually make sure that we have the agriculture land base, the water resource and it be used in a responsible and productive manner and not, as I've heard the term of certain cases, not mine our soils but to improve our soils through practical and modern agricultural practices. Within this allocation falls the area of our Farmlands Protection Board. We've indicated in our Throne Speech that there will be some changes made and look forward to further opportunities to debate it at that particular time.

We have in the past year hired a full-time investigator to try and enforce the intent of the Act and I'm sure that with some of the evidence that is being brought forward it will be helpful in some of the changes that are going to be proposed. Again, I believe that it is our responsibility to work with the Federal Department of Water, of PFRA, both in the area of water development projects and/or projects that are interrelated, which I know we have last year opened the project near Dauphin where there was a joint program put in place to provide that town with additional water supplies.

I found it quite interesting when we went to open the facility with th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-22b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 22b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9d1520cbb285b616380df28a7d49faa8aa28bc12

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