Manitoba Hansard — 13 June 1978 (Sitting 62B, 31st Legislature, 2nd Session)

31-2-62b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, June 13, 1978 Time: 8:00 p.m. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE (Cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated, in the 12 years that I have served in this House this is my first time that I am going to attempt to go on a grievance. I had really no intentions of being involved . I sat back during the debates in the Labour Department Estimates, and I tried to do my share but unfortunately the thing that gave me concern was that I didn't get an opportunity.

You know the House Leader indicated that there has to be co-operation, that we were participants in designing these rules and I think it's to our credit that we, even while we are in government, had the foresight to see that the opposition should have a good opportunity in which to debate and to look at what is going on in respect to government, have an opportunity to debate it effectively and with as much time as they desire. But you know I'm sure that the House Leader of the government sometimes has found himself in an embarrassing position.

I appreciate his co-operation when it came to rules, his desire to have things go according to parliamentary procedure and, of course , to make this parliamentary system , which I value very greatly - and I guess many other members do, too - operate as efficiently and as well as it could for the purpose of conducting the business of the Province of Manitoba, or at another level, for the government for the people of Canada .

But it so happens that unfortunately , even though he is House Leader, often he hasn't been leader of his particular group of colleagues because they are the ones who have created as much problem in respect to the Estimates, in respect to the debates that have gone on, as anyone that I can visualize in this House . I am not going to say that they are the only ones to blame but I am going to say that in the time that I have been involved , as a member of the backbench previously and as an opposition member and of course during the term when I was in the Chair, as yourself, Mr.

Speaker, I saw many things and many events take place but this is the first time that I have seen where the opposition - and sometimes they have a right; they always should participate if they can participate productively - have really gone out and , in this instance I believe, especially in the Department of Labour, have frustrated the opposition . Now, some of their debates have been very good. I did appreciate the contribution of the Honourable Member for Pembina. I felt a little regret that the Minister hadn 't done this, because she had been asked in respect to anhydrous ammonia regulations and so on.

She had given us a printed paper and when we tried to question her on it, we didn 't get too many answers from her. Her colleague, the Member for Pembina , did a very excellent job but he has also had the ability and the . . . What shall I call it? I don't wish to be unparliamentary . But he has been rude , outright, very often, and so have many of his colleagues.

You know, these members , the House Leader's colleagues, . whom he is trying to protect , and I give him credit for trying to do that because, after all, he has to indicate that he is the leader and that he is trying to make things go well, he must close his eyes to when his own colleagues do not adhere to the rules that he would like to see us function under.

I have to say this: That he really has to do a little bit of homework with his members in order to get them to participate, to co-operate , so that our members, when we try to do the job for the Province of Manitoba as members of the opposition , do have an opportunity , can be heard , can concentrate on what we are doing, so that the job is well done in the parliamentary fashion . He has had another thing to contend with. A couple of times they have pulled off quickies on him . Now, maybe he was aware of it; maybe he wasn't. But it was pressure tactics which were not necessary .

We started on the Estimates of Labour on Tuesday . Tuesday evening his members tried to force the opposition to sit late, when we tried to get some kind of indication after we had passed a

section of the Labour Estimates, where we thought it would be a normal opportunity to stop . It was a quarter to 12. Now, you know, I think that's a fair hour. We are not into speed-up yet. When we tried to determine as to how late we would be sitting, there was no answer given . Now 3677

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 that is not a sense of co-operation. We have also had the same kind of opportunity that his members pulled off in respect to the perusal of the committees . When we were on the Committee in respect to the Public Insurance Corporation, again there was a hurry-up job done in the absence of a few members who were late. Now this is not co-operation. We also had the same kind of a proposition that happened one evening, 1 believe it was two weeks ago this past Thursday, where again a committee was railroaded through in a hurry and pushed to its limit.

Now if we are going to have these kind of tactics, that is not co-operation. That is not parliamentary system. It's aquid pro quo that has to take place and I'm sure that the Honourable House Leader of the government would like to have the co-operation of this side. We are prepared to offer it, but we want to be treated fairly , equitably and not like little children, pushed and shoved, intimidated , coerced and often maligned from across the table, while we are trying to make our point with the Minister . Now, maybe we have made a mistake in having two committees and having one in here.

I have found that the proceedings in here proceed much more sedately . It may be the Chairman ; it may be the atmosphere. I cannot say which but I do know that the ones in Room 254 have not been as conducive to good work or to as much good debate as the ones in here. So maybe we have to look at the atmosphere. Maybe we have to create some rules for the operation in that particular committee . Let me get at some of the issues that have, as well, given me concern . The Honourable House Leader indicated that we hadn't come to the defense of the taxpayers. Well, I think he is wrong. You know , Mr.

Speake r, we have brought up the issue in respec t to the taxpayers that what this government is doing is totally wrong . They have - yes, they have reduced taxes , but for what taxpayers? Not the general majority , the ones who need it in this time of rising cost of living and inflation but for those who don't need it, for those who can afford to go without. Where is the equity in that? This is what we have brought up. What else have they done? This government , Mr. Speaker , has gone ahead and created restraints. How? By playing a shell game, sort of a now you see it, now you don 't.

They have not spent the money , but they know that the cost of living is rising, they know that costs have not decreased and they have pawned off those rising costs on to other areas. Munic ipal taxes will have to go up, this is what is happening . The burden has been transferred in very many ways. There is no equity in the system that they are perpetrating . Where is the ability to pay principle that would create come fairness? They don 't believe in that.

Those people on minimum wages have not been given an opportunity to keep up with the cost of living , yet , when it came to negotiating with the doctors there was no problem. Mr. Speaker , there are many ways we have tried to defend the taxpayers so I'm not buying the story of the Honourable House Leader of the government tha t we haven't done our share in respect to trying to protect the taxpayers. Yes, we have. My colleague for St.

George spoke on the two cent tax which is a transfer of tax which was not designed by the previous government as a general tax, but nevertheless this government says let' s take it off the motorists and put it into general revenue. There are a number of other areas where we have tried to protect the taxpayers. We have indicated that the succession duties were not necessary to be take n off at this time. Those people, the 140, 150 families that were involved could very well affor d the succession duties that were involved.

The money that has not been taken in by the govern ment in that regard could have been util zed for some other areas . We have created restraint in respect to our health system yet we have no problem in allocating extra funds to the Department of Highways . Now, you know , do people come after highways , what are the values of this governme nt? These are the things that have made the opposition determined to try to get at the various kind of poli cies and principles that this government is operating on. With respect to the minimum wage, t he Minister just says we're still looking at it.

Well, if we keep on looking at it from now to doomsday that's not going to put any kind of bread on the table for those people who are living at that level, yet at the same time their cost of living has not stopped , there is no restraint on the cost of living. This government has done nothing to help out people at that particular level. So, Mr. Speake, as I said in my first time in respect to a grievance I have had to get up and complain about the way the parliamentary system is working in this instance in this House.

It is a disappointment to me that in the Labour Estimates we have not been able to get to grips with all the issues that are still before us. We have two hours and here we are going to try in that two hours to discuss the Workplace Safety Health Act, discuss the labour relat ions area, discuss a number of areas and there are quite a few areas that will have to need explaining. There is detailed information and we won't be able to get at all those we want to . 3678

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 We discussed to a degree some policy in respect to the Minister of Labour's . direction and thrust. I tried to elicit from her the kind of reasoning there was in respect to letting the eminent Dr. Woods go without trying to retain him; I think he did a very great service in aligning two hostile groups . He worked in the Labour Management Review Committee. Those two groups had been at loggerheads for very many years, it was Dr.

Woods who was very successful in getting them to agree to some particular areas of general consensus, and those areas were then recommended to the government in respect to creating better statute, and in respect to unanimity as to which way labour law should be written and where there could be a consensus. He was just let go.

The Deputy Minister, very well, I can understand if their philosophies differ and if there was no agreement in respect to the Minister and her Deputy Minister - they cannot function together - but he too was a man of stature, because otherwise he wouldn 't have been hired for a very very high and very particular kind of a position in labour relations. I believe it's one of the highest posts in Canada, as Labour Attache to the United States , so therefore he couldn't have been a man who didn't know what it was all about and who couldn't serve with integrity. He too was just let go, or fired by the First Minister.

We did have a brand new creation of a law, The Workplace Safety Health Act, the person who had been hired to shepherd it through with very good credentials wasn't fired - he left of his own accord. Why? Because he was being strangled in the position that he was in. There are very many ways of doing a job, Mr.

Speaker; you know, it's so easy, and it may not seem like you're doing anything with intention, but it's so easy to cut off the funds and thereofore there was no operation to that particular vehicle that was created to do a specific job . ., I believe people all across Canada had hailed this as a very excellent piece of legislation, and from the look at the Estimates that I have had a chance to see, and of course it is very difficult to tell because we couldn 't get any real answers in respect to how it was going to operate.

The structural chart shows one thing, the Estimates show another, as to what comes under Workplace Safety and Health, and of course there being no director, one wonders how this piece of legislation will be enforced and so on. Again, we come to the area of what the Minister of Labour does in respect to labour. I had placed an order for return in respect to The Power Engineers Act and to the kind of exemptions the Minister had given. What she had done is exempted people that had been in violation of a particular Act. Now is that a policy that she is going to follow in the future?

When she was asked that question during the question period , she said we should ask her that in the Estimates, but apparently we are not going to get to have that particular opportunity to get around to asking her during the Estimates . -(Interjection)- I hear some chirping, but I didn 't understand what was said , so I won 't bother with it. Anyway, I want to get back to the Labour Estimates. I want to indicate that I had a cursory glance .

I did look at it and I wanted to find out exactly what proportion of the time was spent by the opposition and what proportion was spent by the government on the Labour Estimates . And it's true, approximately 16-'14, 16-112 hours is my estimate of what we have had on these Estimates, but I find that as well, it's not just the opposition members that have taken up most of that time, but I find that approximately 35 percent , if not better , was done by opposition backbenchers.

Now, it's fair ball that the Minister and the opposition should have pretty well equal time , but when the government members , backbenchers, take up as much time as the opposition members, then we find that there's a disproportionate time being spent in the Estimates. So therefore, I would indicate that 16-'14, 16-V2 hours wasn't too much time in which to use the guillotine and cut off debates on these particular Estimates.

Certainly the government will probably say, well you can go on the Minister's Salary , but under that kind of intimidation and coercion, we might find ourselves kind of worried whether we so should debate them at all, because if we debate them , we're liable to get another motion to cut off debate . Now this will be at the discretion of the House Leader , or maybe not at his discretion. It may be that some of his colleagues , when he isn't prepared and when he's got his back turned, will again make the motion that we cut off debate, and again he may be embarrassed that this is happening to him .

Now, I don't know whether he is embarrassed or not. That's entirely up to him, but in my opinion, knowing how he wants parliament to proceed and that he wants it to go well , that there should bequid pro quo, that there should be co-operation and so on, I would feel that he probably is embarrassed . I have one final point to make, Mr. Speaker . As I said I'm not one to belabour a point too long, but I think what is really occurring is a sad state of affairs . I have a lot of respect for the person who is the Minister of Labour and I had never any doubt that she couldn 't handle the job .

Maybe not to my liking , maybe not to the liking of a lot of people , but at least I thought she had the capacity to do it, whether it was wrongly or rightly, that was immaterial. But I really am sorry that her own colleagues are the ones who didn 't give her that chance. They were acting out of chivalry, or 3679

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 chivalry, or some darn thing which I can 't fathom today -(Interjection)- well, it may have been chauvinism too because they may have felt that the Minister being a woman couldn't do as good a job as anyone else.

And I think that that's a mistake they 've made, because for that reason, they went out on a limb to protect her, they were overprotective as backbenchers , they were overprotective as Ministers in suggesting what she should do, how she should conduct herself, telling her to do this, telling her to do that , bank the questions, do the other thing , and unfortunately, 1 think it has created the particular situation that we are at today , and as I say, I think that they have made a mistake in being that way, and in doing that as they did .

The other thing I want to say is that if anyone is to blame for the Minister of Labour being involved the way she is, or what position she holds, I put that blame particula rly on the shouldeis of the First Minister . He was the one who selected her and if she's ineff icient , or if she's anything else in that particular portfolio, it's because maybe that is the thrust he wanted to indicate through his government to the people of Manitoba , that he doesn't care for labour , that he couldn't care less how it goes, what happens , or anything else. Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

QUESTION put, MOTION carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of Health and Social Development and the Honourable Member for Crescentwood in the Chair for the Department of Labour.to$ CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - LABOUR MR. CHAIRMAN, Mr. WarrenSteen: Gentlemen, we have a quorum now, and we are on Labour Estimates. I will note the time , for the record, is 8:26; if we go till 10:26, then the two hours are up. The Member for St. Vital, am I reading the time correct? MR. D.

JAMES WALDING: I believe that would be correct, Mr. Chairman. I would just ask you, perhaps, whether you will add on any time that is taken on points of order or points of privilege, or any procedural disputes the Committee might get itself into? MR. CHAIRMAN: I am informed that I can't add on any time, but I can tell you that I have spoken to members of the same politica l stripe as I am of, and have asked them if they would be silent, if possible, so that the two hours are spent as valuably as possible. I don't have a list of speakers, I must say.

The Member for Flin Flon has asked me for two days if he can have an opportunity to partic ipate in the debate , so perhaps I could start with my friend, the Member for Flin Flon. MR. THOMAS BARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . It's been a very interesting debate. I think it's the most interesting debate we have when you debate in Labou r. Of course, it is to miners or northerners. I was very interested in the views taken by the Member for Gladstone and the Member for Rock Lake, for they are so anti-un ion -(Inter jection)- Yes. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Rock Lake. MR. EINARSON: I want to correct the Member for Flin Flon. When I spoke the other night, that I said that I feel that labour and management have responsibi lity to themselves and society. I did not single out the unions ; I said labour and management. I want that to be known for the record and for honourable members opposite . MR. CHAIRMAN: To members of the Committee, you can see how much influence I have on points of orders. The Member for Flin Flon. MR. BARROW: But nevertheless, most of the members on our side are for unions. MR. EINARSON: We know that. MR.

BARROW: When you compare farmers, and you can't take it away from farmers, they 're workers and you give the impression that no one else wants to work . Well, I'd like to have you know that there's very little difference between a farmer and a miner as far as the work goes. A miner is 3680

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 on a contract basis , and if he doesn't work he doesn't make any bonus. So i t' s there - they work, and they work hard . The only difference is, a farmer has a lot healthier life, I th ink. You know , he is outdoors , and h e takes a beating too , but a miner really takes a beat ing. And they work long hours too ; they don 't just work when they're in the mines and go home and go to bed; they do their own build ing, their own carpen try wor k, their own plumbing , their own painting, dig their own gardens , and they keep quite busy.

So, I wishyyou wou ld take a different look at some workers . They aren't all living on welfare, as your colleague suggested. In fact , there are many , many -(Interj ect ion)- Oh, yes, he did , he certainly did . No, the Member for Gladstone. There are people tha t just simply refuse to go on welfare . We had families in Flin Flon, you had to coax them to take grocery orders . They wouldn 't go and pick up their welfare cheques. They wouldn 't even go over to get a welfa re cheque and agree to pay i t back later ; they just didn't go. So, it's not all one-sided . And a miner 's future , you know, it isn't good.

He's very lucky if he doesn 't get silicosis or gassed or rheumat ism or whateve r, and it isn't the safest professio n i n the world . In fact when I first started, that was some 40 years ago , a Gallup poll taken in the mines in the States was seven years for an individual not to have a very disabling accident or fatal accident. That was his career before unions came in and changed the whole situation around and they say now unions are getting too strong , and I agree maybe they are, I think it's a good thing -(Interjection)- Pardon? That unions are getting too strong ? MR.

CRAIK: That 's what the Gallup poll said . MR. BARROW: But my question is a very simple question Madam Minister and I'd like to ask the questions, they might not seem importa nt to government or to the biggest crowd , but they are very important to me and I asked this question I think a month ago, that the jurisdiction in Flin Flon, you realize that Flin Flon's on the border of Saskatchewan which isn't bad right now on account of the beer strike, but it's not so hot when you come to jurisdiction . We're under Federal and the Federal's so far away.

When you're separated from anybody, the less communication you have. Now everyone agrees , the Feds agree, Saskatchewan agrees and Manitoba did agree that Manitoba legislation would apply in that mine, but it hasn't moved . It was agreeable it seems but you know, it hasn't moved at all. I wonder if you'd answer that Madam Minister? MRS. PRICE: I'll come back to that, if you'd just like to carry on for a minute I'll get right back to you on it. MR. BARROW: Will you? MRS. PRICE: Yes. MR. BARROW: Another thing that has irked me for many many years, we have fatal accidents in the mines and we've had a lot of them .

We had nine in Manitoba . We had in one year in Springhill 80, one year 40 that was disastrous , but when things were going the very best we had one a month; out of a popu lation of 8,000 we'd have eight a year or an average of one a month. And when they had the inquiry , I believe, it seemed that they put it off as long as they possibly could and you know what happened, Madam Minister, the more time it takes to have these inquiries it wears off, or people forget , or they lose interest , or they leave and they really don't prove anything.

I wonder if you could shorten the time between the accident and the inquiry, would that be difficult to do? MRS. PRICE: Could we? MR. BARROW: Could we, yes. MRS. PRICE: Yes, I'm sure that we could and I agree with you that the longer it is put off an inquiry that the further people 's minds go away from it, you are quite right and if that needs to be jumped up and it's in the provincial jurisdiction , then we will certainly look into it. MR. BARROW: That's fine with me.

And the third question is when we passed this legislation pertaining to safety, we passed a clause where no man has to go into a working place he considers dangerous. Now, do you agree with that? Are you in favour of . that kind of legislation? MRS. PRICE: I am very concerned about the safety in the mines and that's why we are having the committee that has just been formed now, as of this week, to go into the mines and check 36.81

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 on the safety and come back and report to the department so that we can work along with the Workplace Safety Advisory Council and improve the conditions that are now existing. MR. BARROW: So you would agree that it would be up to the individual to go into the working place or not if he thought it was dangerous? MRS. PRICE: Yes. MR. BARROW: That's fine. Now the fourth question might be a little facetious, but I honestly mean it, Madam Minister. - Would the Minister prefer a different portfolio if given the opportunity? MRS. PRICE: No, I don't think I would . MR.

BARROW: You enjoy ... oh, pardon me. A MEMBER: Everybody wants to be Prime Minister. MR. BARROW: No, I'm not being facetious, I mean that. MRS. PRICE: No, I'm enjoying this portfolio in spite of what all the honourable gentlemen across have had to say about me. I think that I am doing as well as any of my . . . MR. BARROW: Colleagues . MRS. PRICE: Colleagues . No, just a moment.

With the exception of the Department of Health , the Minister of Health who has had experience as a labour critic , and the Minister of Northern Affairs who has had experience in unions, I don't think any of the others have had any more experience than I have had and I don 't think what any of the members that sit opposite have had, with the exception of the Member for Logan who has had a lot of experience I believe with unions, but for the average one of you, I don 't think they would have faired any better. MR.

BARROW: Well, Madam Ministe r, I'll conclude this with saying that when the Minister of Health was a labour critic and Russ Paulley was the Labour Minister , he'd already given out to the public and to his colleagues that this was his last effort, he was retiring, and Mr. Sherman was very very rough on him. He said that he was senile and another expression that he'd ask him continually , that he ought to see a psychiatrist. I think this has some bearing on the way this is going with these Estimates, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. MRS.

PRICE: Well, for the Member for Flin Flon, I don't think I should be the batting board for you because you have something against what the Minister of Health has said with regard to my predecessor . I can't be held responsible for it and I don't think it should be taken out on me. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kildonan . MR. FOX: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . I don't intend to be personal to the Minister, in fact I think I was defending her during my little speech just prior to coming to committee . I would like to deal with the Mechanical and Engineer ing

section at this time . I would like to know, and the Minister can bank these questions becau se she'll have to get them as information , what number of violations are presently pending under the Power Engineers Act in respect to personnel and in respect to equipment? I would like to know what length of time is allowed before corrective action is taken and when the decision is made in respect to charging the offenders if they are not conforming to the law? Who makes the decision in respect to prosecutions? Am I going too fast MRS. PRICE: Just about. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, to the Member for Kildonan, you could slow down a step or so. MR. FOX: What kind of prosecutions have taken to date aside from the two that we are aware of in respect to Simplot and Hooker, and I mean since the last report, that would be to March of last year? And how many are pending at the present time? One other question which is a general question, and that's in respect to Hooker and Simplot. The Minister did give those companies exemptions . Is that a policy or is this going to just occur 3682

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 occasionally . Is their policy going to be enunciated? Is there going to be change in The Power Engineers Act in this regard? Will other companies who violate also receive exemp tions and under what conditions? MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps , to the Member for Kildonan, the Minister can get those answers and we can go on to another speaker . Is that all right, or would you want to wait a minute or two . MR. FOX: I would like to get a general outline of the Workplace Safety Health Act .

We aren't going to have time to be able to determine exactly the thrust that is going to take place under this government - if the Minister could give us a brief outline of what is going to take place, the amount of money that has been re-juggled, where it's going to be spent in general terms - ball park figures - so that we have an idea of which areas we want to ask questions on when we get down to the details again . MRS. PRICE: Would you tell me specifically which one where you're referr ing to the moneys being juggled? MR. FOX: Well, your organizational chart shows one thing; the Estimates show another.

The figures from last year are different from the figures of this year because there was a different kind of alignment in respect to capital and operating funds, so therefore it's a little difficult to determine exactly where the changes have taken place, if any. That's all I'd like to know , in general terms as to what is going to be the thrust of the Workplace Safety and Health Division and how it's going to function, where it's going to have its major thrust. MRS. PRICE: There's a difference in the workplace safety money on account of last year it was predicated on three-quarters of the year as you recall.

It was only a part of a year and this year we have the full year of course so that's where there's a difference of the $180,000.00. MR. FOX: Well, the question follows right after that: Is there 25 percent more or is there less than 25 percent allocated for that Act? MRS. PRICE: It's approximately the same amount as it was last year . MR. FOX: You mean the same amount is being used for a full year's operation as there was for 75 percent? MRS. PRICE: No, in proportion. MR. FOX: Well, that's what I asked - 25 percent more than last year. MRS. PRICE: Oh, yes. MR. FOX: Okay. MR. CHIIRMAN: The Minister of Labour. MRS.

PRICE: With regard to any violations re personnel or equipment there aren't any at this present time . With regard to the corrective action that is taken it depends on the seriousness of the problem and that has been prevailing , I believe - that 's been the procedure over the last few years . And with regard to who makes the decisions re the prosecutions it's the Minister and the Deputy Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister. MR. FOX: Well, out of that flows another couple of questions, Mr. Chairman.

(1) Being an operating engineer myself I am aware that no plant operates perfectly and there are people changing jobs so I find it a little difficult to believe that there are no violations. So my question is: Is the level of inspection the same as it has been, . or has it deteriorated because of moneys being re-allocated and of course from that also flows , can the Minister explain when harassment takes place? How many inspections create harassment? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Labour . MRS. PRICE: There isn't any lessening in the inspections that are taking place now as have done 3683

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 in the past. When I made the reference to harassment, it was with regard that the inspectors were going at the turn of the shift around the clock to the two places, and that, in my opinion, constituted harassment. MR. FOX: Well, was that normal for them to be doing . . . ? The Minister indicates that they are doing exactly what they were doing before , so therefore that must have been normal at that time. MRS. PRICE: They are not going around at the turn of the shifts now because they have been told not to.

They are going around during the day, and they are go ng aroun looking to see that the i plants are operating in a safe manner, which we are of the opin ion that they are. MR. FOX: So, therefore the Minister is indicating that if a violation takes place, after the hours of normal working hours that doesn 't count. Is that what the Minister is saying? MRS. PRICE: No, 1 am not saying that. I am saying that we feel that the inspections that are taking place are assuring us that they are carrying on in a safe manner . MR. FOX: Well, we certainly hope so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood.

MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman , I think we have reached a fairly sad state of affairs in this committee and in this Session, and I regard the present debate as somewhat of a sham, because it's really very similar to looking down the barrel of a gun. Were given a couple of hours and told to make all our points , and then all of a sudden the debate will be cut off . And that to me, is a pretty sad state of affairs.

And I think it is also very easy to deduce how this came about, namely that the opposition has not been satisfied with the answers of the Minister , and that the backbench has been trying to defend the Minister , which is I must say a highly unusual state of affairs . I don't recall since 1966, a case where you had a score of backbenchers springing to the defence of a Minister in the Roblin government or in the Schreyer government. And what we saw essentially was the government backbench interrupting and interjecting and criticizing the members of the opposit ion for doing their job. And I would say, Mr.

Chairman, also somewhat guardedly because I don't want to incur your wrath, but I would say somewhat guardedly, that last night , which was the prelude to tonight, that your chairing of the meeting I think was somewhat lax, that the members of the government were simply carrying on in a ridiculous fashion which, as a result , led to a frustrated opposition , a lengthy debate and then finally of course a closure motion.

I think that it has to be recognized by members of the government backbench, who are unaware of some of the parliamentary traditions, that the weapon held by the opposition is in fact the right to speak, and that it is only by allowing the opposition an opportunity to speak without re striction and without interruption , that you really have an effective parliamentary process. We do not have the privilege that is held by members of the government to introduce legislation. · Mr.

Chairman , I find it somewhat peculiar that the House Leader is one of those people who probably owed his election to the Liberal Government in Ottawa, and their arrogance, and the Pipeline Debate which eventually brough t down that government and which eventually led to the direct election of the Conservatives under John Diefenbake r.

It was because of a particular state of affairs and a motion of closure in a Pipeline Debate , that the Liberal Governme nt went out , and instead of learning from that, it strikes me that the Conservative opposition hasn't learned from that all, the Conservative Government in this partiuclar case. So, now we're debating within prescribed limits , and as far as I'm concerned the department is finished now. I think that the government has demonstrated weakness in its closure motion rather than strength. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance , on a point of order. MR.

CRAIK: 1 want to raise the question as to whether the member is speaking on a matter of privilege, or if he is not, then what he is essentially doing, is speaking out of order , and not speaking to the resolutions before the committee. Mr. Chairman , this is a prime example of why we're having the difficulty, he is not speaking to the point that is before the committee . MR. DOERN: Now you are cutting me off, is that right? MR. CRAIK: I'm raising a point of order, Mr. Chairman, to point out that if it were not for this matter of deviating from the points before the committee, we would be making progress . 3684

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 MR. DOERN: And you're the judge of that? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I have the full right to raise a point of order, and if the member is telling me that I don't have, then who is trying to practice closure. All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the comments, unless he's on a point of privilege, it's more like a grievance - if he wants to go on a grievance there's a full mechanism for provision of that. But in the meantime, the members opposite were doing a fine job of getting to the point until he got us deviated off onto a grievance. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Inkster , on a point of order? MR. GREEN: Yes, to the point of order. The Member for Elmwood, in discussing this point on the Estimates is dealing with the problem that he has in making it because of the actions of closure. I don 't know why that would bother my honourable friend, the Minister of Finance , because the Member for Elmwood is using his time, that is, the Member for Elmwood's time - (Interjection) - Mr.

Chairman, in two hours, or less, one hour and I suppose 35 minutes or something, the Member for Elmwood , who, if he took time on this item, to say things that were far ranging, which he is entitled to do, and I have gathered that what the Member for Elmwood on this item is discussing his difficulty in dealing with it, which he could get up and do. "" If he chooses to use his time in that way he has thirty minutes according to the rules in which to make a speech . If his thirty minutes is in the Minister of Finance's view wasted that doesn't mean that he is not discussing the item . MR.

CHAIRMAN: To the Member for Elmwood I might just say that I'll carry on in the fashion you described from last night and be lax in the ruling but do mention, as the Minister of Finance did say, that you are encroaching on the two hour time limit and perhaps you might want to get to detailed questions. But again, as the Member for Lac du Bonnet says, "That's your business. " The Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I have to remind my friend, the Minister of Finance, that we are speaking on the Department of Labour's Estimates within the context, within the context, within the limitations of closure.

This is not a free debate. This is not an ordinary debate. This is not a regular debate. This is a strained debate within certain parameters and I object to that, and I object to being forced to speak while the clock runs . MR. CRAIK: Some of your colleagues were. MR. DOERN: Yes, well I'm telling you that I don't like it, and I'm telling you that you have set limits on the debate . I object to those limits and I am now making that objection registered. This is not a free debate . This is not a normal debate. This is a debate under stress and that's what I'm dealing with. Mr.

Chairman I say this, that the whole! whole problem , the ultimate problem when shaken down, I believe, is the fact that the Premier of Manitoba decided in his wisdom, or lack of it, a number of months ago to appoint the present Minister of Labour .

I do not say that as a criticism of the Minister of Labour, I say that as a criticism of the Premier, because the Premier decided that he wasn't going to take a member, the Premier of Manitoba elected in the fall decided that he was not going to make an appointment that would be acceptable perhaps to the labour movement, that he would take somebody who had a feel for the department, that perhaps he would have taken the present Minister of Health and placed him in that portfolio which would have made sense from this point of view, that whatever in his innermost heart and mind he feels about the labour movement the Minister of Health has a background and had the experience of handling that portfolio.

And I say that the Premier, in deciding which portfolio the present Minister should have, made a mistake. I believe that the Minister is capable of being a Cabinet Minister and would have been well-suited to a number of portfolios but this is one that she is not suited for , just as each and every one of us may have a range of abilities that are suitable for two or three portfolios and are certainly ill-qualified , ill-qualified and ill-suited for others.

And I say that this decision has led to this impasse, that the original decision to appoint this Minister to this portfolio has led to this situation and I think it's a sorry state of affairs. I can only draw a parallel in the sense of the kind of appointment that I believe should have been made , and I believe that each government has certain portfolios that it has a feel for and some that it doesn't have a feel for. I think that in our government a similar parallel is the Portfolio of Industry and Commerce and I believe that the Member for Brandon who filled that portfolio did 3685

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 an excellent job. He tried his best to . . . MR. CRAIK: Mr. Chairman, I again raise a point of order. The member is illustrating a classic example of where the comments should be made on the Minister 's salary. Rather than using up the time on Workplace Safety and Health portion and the mechanical and other features that are involved, that the comments he's making with regard to the qualifications of the Minister or none, or whatever the case may be, are in the Estimates on the Minister 's salary . MR. DOERN: Well, on the point of order I again say to . . . MR.

CHAIRMAN: To the Member for Elmwood, I might point out that in Rule 64(2) it says that speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under discussion and just ask him to bear that in mind. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I am almost complete in my comments but I again say, you are talking about precision and you're ignoring a fact that we are not talking about the department in the normal sense, we're talking about the department in a context, and the context is a limit and that limit has been imposed upon the opposition and I think the opposition has a right to register its opposition to that particular action by the government. So I simply say this, Mr.

Chairman, that I believe that the time has come - I mean, the government will do what it likes, the government has the votes to do as it sees fit, but I believe that the time has come for the Premier to appoint a new Minister of Labour , and I tell you this - you know, the Minister just answered a question. I'm glad she did.

She answered a question from my colleague, the Member for Flin Flon and she said, I think, if I recall exactly what she said, that she wasn't unhappy or that she to some extent enjoyed the position that she's in and, although I don't wish to doubt her word, I find that hard to believe because I know that the Minister would probably be better suited to the field of Consumers Affairs or other portfolios . I just say that I believe that the central problem that we are dealing with, it comes through as a debate that the government saw fit should be wrapped up. That's the context.

It comes through as a motion of closure but I say that the fundamental reality is that the present Minister of Labour is not the person to fill that portfolio and that the sooner this government replaces her and moves her into a portfolio that she is better suited to, the better off will be this government , the labour movement in general, and the Province of Manitoba in

part icular . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the stricture we have right now I'm going to try and deal with the Workplace and Safety Health Act

section - Mr. Chairman, could you just quieten some of the people down? If you want me to yell, I can yell. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the members of the Committee ptease show some courtesy to the recognized speaker, in this case the Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: If the honourable members of the government side want me to yell, they know I can yell, and I can yell just as bloody loud as anybody . So I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that, particularly the Member for Minnedosa who has a bold foghorn voice, that I wish he would just shut up and listen once in a while . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minnedosa . MR.

BLAKE: I was answering a question on a point of order . I was answering a question posed to me by the Member for Lac du Bonnet and that's how I became engaged in conversation when the member was wanting to speak . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I think the Member for Minnedosa has a lapse of memory. It was the reverse. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Logan, please. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . To get back to what I attempted to start to do was to deal with this whole

section dealing with Workplace Safety and Health , and my interest here is 3686

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 to an extent , because the Canadian Bronze Foundary happens to be in my constituency. I know some of the workers who work in this place . I asked the Minister approximately a week or ten days ago, and she took the question as notice , why lab tests, which I understand are taken at the rate of about 40 workers every week, take four to six weeks for a test report to be filed and an employee, the doctor and company to be informed? When last year, in checking with the business agent of the International Motors Union, I was informed that it took approximately two weeks last year.

Now is this because we have a shortage of personnel in the testing? Why do we find that this year it takes approximately anywhere from two to three times as long as it took last year? Another problem that the workers at Canadian Bronze have a problem with is the fact that the reports are four to six weeks in coming , a person could have a blood level count of about .05, .06, and I think if she checks with her experts in this field that that type of a reading indicates that there is a chance of perhaps lead poisoning occurring .

I'm sure that the Honourable Minister has been briefed on some of the effects of lead poisoning and one of the complaints that the business agent and through him , his members have voiced to me, is the fact that these reports are not available to the employees. I believe that your Mr. John Elias has said that this is a doctor-patient relationship , but in this case, it is not a doctor of their own choosing, it's a company doctor, I believe a Dr. Waugh , and the reports don't come to the employee , they come to the employer and to the company doctor .

Now, if the person is at a .05, .06, .07, getting close to the .08 at which level in most cases lead poisoning does take place, with the result that a person who will be working maybe three or four more weeks, the concentration of lead level in the blood and in the system builds up, and so where it would be possible maybe to take this person away from the job he's doing, perhaps even on a recuperative program, but lo and behold , we find by the time that reports are made, and a further check is made that the person now suffers at least .08 or maybe even higher.

And so, this is the problem that they have, and it is a problem I think that's been voiced to the Minister, and it's been voiced to Mr. Elias. Another problem too that the business agent told me about , that if he requested a check of the plant facilities for air pollution, and pollution is one of the problems and one of the ways that you can absorb lead poisoning, it's available through the lungs, it's availabele through the skin pours, and available in other methods. But if he made the request today, it would be approximately October before such a test would be made .

Now, the only conclusion one can come to is that in the field of inspection, we don't have enough people, because if it is going to take six months for a test to be made, if a request is made say today, then the answers that the Minister has been giving us, that we have sufficient inspectorial staff , well then that certainly doesn't tie in with the people who have to work in these places.

I would also ask the Minister how many lead battery operations do we have in the City of Winnipeg and in the Province of Manitoba as a whole, because I understand that is another place where there is a possibility of lead poisoning occurring and if the Minister could give us that type of information, that would be very much appreciated . And under the

section dealing with industrial hygiene, we were able to elicit from the Minister the other day that under this

section and occupational medicine, research is being done, and what research is being done in the province of Manitoba dealing with the effects of leads of poisoning , how to cut down the occurrence of it, and that is another answer that we as members of the opposition would appreciate. I would also like to ask her under the item of safety and health, which is the item that she told us deals with education, because it is no longer in Item (aX1) or (aX2). So, the education for the workplace and safety health diision is carried out, I understand, under the division, safety and health.

What type of an educat,ional program is she envisaging for the effects of lead poisoning, to warn the workers, to warn management of the effects and the dangers of handling this type of materials and to make sure that an educational program is being carried out and that the type of research that must tie in with your education, and to try and put in some of the pollution controls, and I understand that they have put some in at Canadian Bronze . But I want to know what type of pollution controls and other things that they have in other places that deal with items dealing with the use of lead.

I understand some types of paint manufacturers - do we have paint manufacturing and paint spraying where lead is used in workshops in the Province of Manitoba. Perhaps her research people could give us some answeron that. I think for the time being I'll let that go, and if the Minister wishes to answer them now or later, that's up to her. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Labour. MRS. PRICE: Firstly, Mr. Chairman, I think the business agent's facts are not entirely correct. There has been volumes of tests that are being undertaken, are substantially greater than they have been in the past, it's the reverse .

I am advised that it isn't a four to six eeek wait . The reports are coming in much faster this year than they did last year. There was one claim from Canada Bronze and 3687

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 three other companies and foundaries in 1977 and there was 10 in 1978 this year so far, and there was 10 in 1977. With regard to lead poisoning tests taking place, in other jurisdictions the testing is being done right by the plants, but here we do it ourselves in our government labs. So, I think that is a little more thorough than the other way.

If you have any specifics with regard to the business agent, what he has told you, then I would appreciate your either telling us or asking the business agent to call our department and tell us what it is, because we certainly haven't had any complaints to that effect . Every man who is exposed to lead is tested every two to three months by our government people. In the Act it reads that it should be done every six months, but they are done every two to three months. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Logan. MR.

JENKINS: Well, I thank the Minister for the answers, and unfortunately the rules of the House state that I must believe what the Minister said. MR. USKIW: You don't have to believe her. MR. JENKINS: I don't have to believe her, but I can't dispute her word, but I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, disputing the word of the business agent. Now, the business agent told me that he is going to make representations to your department. MRS. PRICE: Good. MR. JENKINS: I took it upon myself to contact Mr. Roufo, Mr.

Roufo is the business agent for the International Molders Union which hold the contract at Canadian Bronze. There's one question the Minister didn't answer - a couple of questions, one was dealing with the lead battery manufacturing plants in the City of Winnipeg, and in the province of Manitoba, or plants where they render down old batteries, what kind of checks are being made there, what kind of pollution controls are in place in these plants?

I also asked her about paint manufacturing, and paint spray, where lead is one of the items that is used in manufacture of certain types of paint, and what checks are being made of the workers and the workplace safety in places such as this. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Labour. MRS. PRICE: I understand that there isn't any lead poisoning from the batteries. They have the same inspections carried on by the doctors, but there isn't any lead poisoning dangers there.

I had a visit to my office about a week ago from the gentlemen from I think they call it the Canadian Paint Manufacturing, and he came in with a couple of local paint men -the Manufacturing Association and they are doing an extensive study and they are sending all their brochures and they are going to be coming around and giving types of seminars that our people are going to have a chance to take

part in. They are going to be quite extensive, and this is something new that's just coming out. A man came in from Montreal and spent some time in my office. MR. JENKINS: The Minister then is saying that there is no inspection of battery plants, physical inspections . . MRS. PRICE: Yes there are. MR. JENKINS: There are no inspections of paint manufacturing plants, paint spraying plants. Is there any checks being made of these for types of lead poisoning? There are various types of lead poisoning .

I find it very hard to believe the Minister when she says that plants that manufacture or render down old batteries, that there have been no incidents of lead poisoning in these plants. What type of pollution control have they got in these places? MRS. PRICE: There are the same inspections take place in the battery companies as there is in the paint companies, and that's a visit from the doctors once a week. I didn't say that there wasn't any inspections, I said that there was, but there wasn't to date found any lead exposure to the people by the batteries. MR.

JENKINS: Can the Minister then tell us whether any air checks are made in these places? Surely to see that the air level content within these plants - and I understand that they are doing this in a place like Canadian Bronze - at least air checks are being made, pollution control equipment 3688

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 has been put in. Now I'm asking the Minister, do any poution control devices in these battery , th j have rendering plants, paint manufacturers? Surely somewhere within her department, her inspectorial staff must know this, surely that's not too much to expect. MRS. PRICE: I think for the Member for Logan, I've just told you that the inspections take place in every plant and there was a thorough survey done just yesterday in Canadian Bronze, just completeyesterday, but I have not said that there is not inspections taking place in these different places, I have said that there is. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The next person, the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman , I want to begin my comments by expressing a degree of regret -(Interjection)- MR. CHAIRMAN: To the Memberfor Minnedosa and Logan, would you show some courtesy to the Member for Lac du Bonnet . MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman , I again want to begin by expressing a degree of regrettthat this committee has to function under a fairly severe restraint which is very common and typical of our present administration's philosophy , restraint on everything including speechmaking.

I would like to also take a moment or two to comment on why we are in this dilemma, Mr. Chairman. And in searching that out, it seems to me that it is very logical that this was pre-determined by the action of the Premier in the appointment of his Ministers. I'm not going to make the argument that this Minister is incompetent , because I don 't believe that to be true . I'm not going to make the argument that this Minister is unwilling . I think she is extremely competent, Mr.

Chairman, to do what the Conservative Party wants her to do, and that is to do nothing with respect to labour legislation, and in fact, and in fact, if anything , to rol the clock back and to exp,ress a very negative attitude towards the issues involving the working people of this province . I think that's really what the job is, and that's what we have seen here in debate, Mr. Chairman .

We have witnesse, over the last few days, a reluctance on the part of the department to furnish information with respect to a whole host of items , and I don 't believe that it's because they are incompetent to do so or it's because the Ministerincompetent to answer the questions .

I believe it is part of the design, part of the plan to give a message to their gallery, the Conservative gallery, and that is that they are going to come down hard on labour in Manitoba, and in doing so, they will set an exale to all of the private sector, the large companies who employ many people to also come down hard on the labour people of this province . -(Interjection)- It's part of the pre-determined, pre-planned scenario ; which is unfolding piece by piece, Mr. Chairman .

I don't think that we should feel sorry , as the Member for Inkster suggested the other day, for this Minister , because I think they know precisely where they are heading, and it's being demonstrated every minute with respect to the consideration of these Estimates . So, Mr. Chairman, it's obvious what the logistics are.

They know that in taking this position that the opposition can hamstrng the government's process in the consideration of Estimates, and so we have to come down heavy with some other mechanism, because if the Minister isn't going to respond, and we are going to have an indefinite sort of period of debate , then that is not acceptable either. So, we have to bring in a threat that there will be a limitation on debate in order to force the opposition into a position of not , of not getting any answers from the Minister who has them but is unwilling to provide them to the opposition .

And so I think that is a miscarriage of responsibility on the part of the government and on the part of this Minister in sobeing used, Mr. Chairman, in so being used . The Minister of Finance , I wish he was here, probably would have raised a point of order. He probably would have raised a point of order on the basis of the comments that I've already made, but I think I can put them in context to satisfy him, Mr. Chairman, by suggesting that there is an unwillingness on the part of this department and this Minister to bring proper effect to the workplace safety and health program.

I think that's a matter of fact admitted to by the Minister just a moment ago when she said that she has instructed her inspectors to inspect plants only durin certain hours. Perhaps she has also sent a memorandum to the plants that they will be inspected only during certain hours of each day. MR. BLAKE: That's not true, Sam. MR. USKIW: Because that's the conclusion that I draw from her statement, Mr. Chairman . MR. BLAKE: That's a lot of nonsense . 3689

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 MR. USKIW: That's the conclusion that I draw from her statement. That only in certain hours will an inspector appear on the scene to ascertain whether the Workplace Safety and Health rules are being adequately applied. Now, Mr. Chairman, how would one visualize even the Police Department working that way if it was known in advance that the policemen will never make an inspection after a certain hour or between certain hours. Perhaps that's the notice that that is when all the crime should take place, Mr. Chairman . MR. BLAKE: Only when there's a robbery or a rape they'll investigate it. MR.

USKIW: . This demonstrates fully , Mr. Chairman, that this government and this Department of Labour has no intention of looking after the legitimate interest of labour in this province . This demonstrates it fully when the Minister can sit there responsible for this particular appropriation of $2.5 million, which is supposed to assure the safety and well being of workers in Manitoba, to tell us quite openly, a bare-faced admission, that she has instructed her inspectors never to sort of sneak up on the industry, to let them know in advance what the hours of inspection will be.

What kind of nonsense are we listening to, Mr. Chairman? This is absolutely ludicrous, and this is what the Minister has told us this evening . So, Mr. Chairman, I'm more and more convinced as we proceed in the debate of these Estimates that the design is as I stated and that is to roll back the clock with respect to all things that are very important to working people in the Province of Manitoba and that that should set the stage for the private sector as well on the assumption, which is a fairly right -win g assumption, Mr.

Chairman, that labour has to be brought under some stringent control, that we need a very strong bridle on one sector of our economy without at least applying the same kind of restraint on other sectors of the economy . I think that's a very sad admission on the part of this government, Mr.

Chairman, and it's too bad that the Conservative Government chose, and I say that probably in the method - well, I would like to be kind to this Minister and I find it difficult - I would like to say that they chose a lady to be Minister of Labour on the assumption that they can do all the dirty work, and in the hope that the opposition would tend her lightly because the Minister of Labour is indeed a lady and that we would not want to pursue too aggressively by the points in the discussion of her Estimates . I just make that point for the record, Mr. Chairman , because we have seen through this veil.

It is very clear to us what is happening and we regret very much that the government has played down the importance of labour to the extent that it has. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Selkirk and then the Minister of Highways. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Chairman , I'm going to raise questions and comments with respect to workplace safety and health because that's the topic we're on and I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister will be answering questions that she has banked over the last two or three days.

These are questions in relation to workplace safety and health that she has banked , and I am wondering whether she will answer them before we move on to another appropriation, Mr. Chairman, or whether she is going to wait until we get to Minister's salary because there has been some concern as to when she would answer those questions and I just want some clarification from the Minister on that, because there are a number of question s that she has banked that she hasn't answered yet. MRS. PRICE: I did answer yesterday. MR.

CHAIRMAN: To the Member for Transcona , I'm of the opinion that the Minister has answered most of the questions and you'll have to remind both the Minister and myself some of those questions that we've failed to answer . MR. PARASIUK: Okay, I will take a few seconds to try and do those quickly because again I don't want to get into a long debate.

I think one of the reasons why we've spent a bit of extra time than might have been taken on this department is that since the Minister decided on the urging of the Minister of Finance to change her tactic and bank questions we've had a lot of repetition of questions, and I can recall repeating a number of these questions and I don't think she's answered them and she can choose , of course, not to answer them, but I'm not sure whether she's choosing not to answer them or whether she's just forgotten to answer them. For example , Mr.

Goodison had been accused of appearing on the Peter Warren show and I asked her if it was true that Mr. Jack King, a Deputy Minister , his successor, had appeared on the Peter Warren show. Did he do so on the instruction of the Minister? Was his tec hnical opinion reaarding the Minister's exemptions for Hooker and Simplot contrary to the technical opinion of 3690

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 his predecessor, Mr. Jim Goodison? Those were a specific set of questions that I'd asked three days ago on this particular matter . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Labour . MRS. PRICE: In answer to the Member tor Transcona, the Deputy Minister did not appear on the Peter Warren show. He called in. It wasn't a technical question he answered nor did he do it because I had asked him to. MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Chairman, I was interrupted again by some comments from the periphery, and what I was trying to determine was whether in tact the present Deputy Minister appeared on, or I think I used the term "spoke by telephone" on the Peter Warren show, and I wonder if the Deputy Minister received perm ission from the Minister to do so in that the previous Deputy Minister has been somehow put into some disrepute by statements by the Minister that this former Deputy Minister had made some comments on the Peter Warren show.

Now I think what's good tor the goose is good tor the gander and I'm just wondering whether in tact the same situation arose here, and again when I raise these questions which again I think are valid questions, we have a whole set of comments coming in from the periphery again. Now I'm wondering if the Minister will answer those specific questions. MRS. PRICE: Firstly , I was referred to as Norma in Wonderland the other day by the Member tor Inkster. I think we can refer to the Member tor Transcona as Willie in Wonderland. Firstly, the present Deputy Ministe r did not appear on the Peter Warren show.

He called in and did not give an answer that was a technical one. What he did was he phoned in to say that the decision to give Simplot and Hooker permission to operate was not done without iscussing it with the experts in our department. With making reference to the former Deputy Minister being on the Peter Warren show , he did so after he was out of the department. He took my private tiles out, phoned Peter Warren , and went down to CJOB and gave my private files and memos to Peter Warren to read on his program . I think there is no parallel there; it's a complete opposite. MR.

PARASIUK: But I asked very specifically , and I did use the term - did the present Deputy speak on the Peter Warren show via telephone, and I think I said that quite specifically. I also asked whether the opinion provided by the present Deputy was contrary to that provided by his predecessor, and the predecessor had indicated that the technical opinion of the department was that the exemptions tor Simplot and Hooker shouldn't be given. And that was a very important point of contention with respect to workplace safety and health.

It becomes more important when that Deputy who tried to put forward the technical expertise of his department when this Deputy is fired . Now that 's what's important and that 's an issue. If, in tact , technical people are going to put forward technical positions and technical analysis to the Minister, and the Minister is going to disregard that or appear to disregard it, and then later on fire those technical people who put forward technical expertise which the Minister possibly doesn't want to hear, then that is an important issue with respect to workplace safety and health .

So I repeat the question, were the opinions of Mr. Goodison and Mr. King with respect to this particular issue of exemptions tor Simplot and Hooker contrary? MRS. PRICE: Firstly , I would like to correct you. You asked me, "Did the Deputy Minister appear?" There's a lot of difference between appearing and talking on the telephone. Secondly, you're referring to the former Deputy Minister as a technical expert. I don't think in less than a year he would become a technical expert in the running of the department.

I think with regard to disregarding what you are saying, you are the one that is disregarding when I am trying to tell you that he took my files and when he made those comments on the air he wasn't even a member of the Civil Service or the Department of Labour. MR. PARASIUK: I really don 't want to get into the whole history of the Peter Warren show because what happened in that instance, Mr.

Chairman, he said that the Minister wasn 't telling the truth, and he felt that he had a higher duty to Manitobans to provide the truth and I think really we'd all agree that truth comes first, and that's why he put that forward . Those files were files that he had as Deputy Minister . He has put forward a technical position, and also, to refer back to what the Minister had said before and I can check through Hansard and I think she can herself .

I said " appeared " and then I corrected myself and I said "appeared by telephone," and I did say that in my original question two or three days ago, but I do think we're getting off on a red herring. The point is that two technical people are providing contradictory opinions regarding a technical matter . The Attorney-General 's office was involved in that technical matter . The Attorney-General 3691

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 chose to follow the technical advice, it would appear, which supports the position of the former Deputy Minister of Labour . So I think that's a very important issue as to which direction the Minister is taking with respect to workplace safety and health. That's one particular question . I also asked what are the responsibilities of the Acting Director of the Workplace Safety and Health Branch? Does the Acting Director presently hold any other positions? MRS.

PRICE: I agree for once with the Member for Transcona, the truth is very important, and when he is speaking about the former Deputy and his truthful character I think that is disputable when you see how he denied having taken an oath when he knew very well he had taken an oath so he's not above reproach . With regard to the Acting Director of the Workplace Safety he is working as an Acting Director right now. The bulletin came out advertising the job today and at the present time the Acting Director is acting as the Director . MR. PARASIUK: The Acting Director didn't have any other responsibi litie s beforehand.

I thought that the present Acting Director also has another position as Acting Director of one of the sub-branches that we are talking about . Is that correct or incorrect? MRS. PRICE: No, he worked directly in the Workplace Safety. MR. PARASIUK: Which would that be, the Workplace Safety, would that be 2.(

e) because there are about six groups there? MRS. PRICE: The man that is the Acting Director now - there is another man that has been given his position in the meantime until the new position is filled . MR. PARASIUK: Is that in

Section 2(e), Safety and Health? Is that what it's called?! MRS. PRICE: 2.(e). MR. PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, in that I think the Minister originally said workplace - I now know exactly where that acting director was drawn from . Can the Minister inform us if the position that is now being bulletined as executive direct or of Workplace Safety and Health, has been classified downward? What was the Civil Service status of the previous permanent director, and what is the new position being classified at? MRS. PRICE: It is being marked down from a senior to a P .O. 10. MR.

PARASIUK: So that means that the position is being downward classified. Does this reflect a change in responsibilities or a change in priorities or what , in that if you take into account, the previous answers of the Minister of Labour, she has indicated that the executive director in the new setup, will have a great deal more responsibility than the past one, and a great deal more tasks. This executive director will have to handle Research and Education, will have to handle a number of administrative tasks, because those positions have been deleted from this year's program.

So what we are doing, we are increasing the workload of the executive director, a person has more to do , more things to do, taking away support positions to the executive director , and we are also downward classifying the position . Does this reflect a change in priorities or a change in workload? Can the Minister explain why the position has been downward classified? MRS. PRICE: The reason it is being downward class ified is because it was over-classified before.

It was a new position that was put in in the past year, we are bringing it down so that it is in line with the other directors in the rest of the departments . MR. PARASIUK: Can the Minister indicate whether in fact the director of Mechanical and Engineering - as a P.O. 10, or a Professional Officer position, what are the position classifications of the head of Mechanical and Engineering , Industrial Hygiene, Safety and Health, Occupational Medicine , what are the classification levels for those people? MRS.

PRICE: The Director of the Mechanical Engineers is a P.O. 10, Fire Commissioner is an eight , the Vice-Chairman of the Labour Board I believe is a P.O. 10, so we are bringing it down so it is in relation to the others , Industrial Hygiene is a P.O. 8. MR. PARASIUK: Well, Mr. Chairman , I can recall Management Committee staff and the Civil Service Commission taking a look at that particular position when it was established last year, and they 3692

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 came out with an S.O. 1 classification. I also find it rather strange in public administration terms that you will have P.O. 10s reporting to P.O. 10s, that's not normally usual, in that the Minister has indicated that the executive director does have a larger responsibility than the Director of Mechanical and Engineering. So there is a contradiction in public administration terms, and I'm wondering whether in fact, this is not reflecting a change in priorities, and I don't know if the Minister has any documentation to blithely state that the position had been overclassified in the past.

MRS. PRICE: The Director of the Mechanical Engineering Department and the Director of the Fire Prevention do not report to the Workplace Safety. The other directors that are in the Industrial ygien Safety and Health and Occupational Medicine, H two of them are P.O. 8s, and the Dr. is an MD II. MR.

PARASIUK: So what you are saying then, is that according to the Organizational Chart, some people do not report to the executive director, and yet in your Estimates Book, you have your appropriation number and your sub-sets of that set up in such a way that one would draw the conclusion that Industrial Hygiene and Fire Prevention are all under the larger appropriation No. 2, which is Workplace Safety and Health . MRS. PRICE: That is the way it was set up by the former director of the Workplace Safety, but it is not correct, and it'll be changed before next year, I assure you in the book. MR.

PASIUK: I'd like to know how many educational courses were put on by the Workplace Safety and Health Branch last year . The Minister has indicatded that this will be the big thrust of the department. She indicated that she would rely on education rather than Commissions of Inquiry, to try and deal with safety issues in the province. Can the Minister indicate how many educational courses were put on last year? MRS. PRICE: If the Member for Transcona would have been here yesterday, I gave all that information yesterday.

There was 2,100 short safety sessions provided last year at an average of one hour each, as well as 155 longer sessions of half day and full day. MR. PAIISIUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate occasionay the frustration of the Minister, but there are also two committees running simultaneously, so if one wants to catch any other part of the other Estimates, one has to leave the room, and I think that's going to happen this year, next year, and it happened in the past. I can recall reading Hansard and seeing that situation arise. I'd like to know how many educational sessions are planned for this year.

Is there any great change in the program that the department has envisaged in this respect? MRS. PRICE: Last year in the safety talks, in the industry, there was 1,158 one-hour sessions; in the construction there was 942. In the Safety Committee in Winnipeg there were two that had three sessions of one-day duration each, and one in Brandon. In-plant training in industry there was 94; construction 58. These sessions are of a minimum of one-half day in a series of six to eight sessions, and up to a one-day session in a series of three or four . This was last year 's and it will be approximately the same this year.

MR. PARASIUK: You indicated that there are something in the order of 320 Workplace Safety and Health Committees, joint committees that have been set up by regulation. Is it 320? MRS. PRICE: 313. MR. PARASIUK: 313. I think 320 were called for by regulation, does that mean 7 are yet to be set up? MRS. PRICE: Pardon me. MR. PARASIUK: I think 320 were called for in regulation, but I ca"t recall specifically. Have they all been set up? MRS. PRICE: There was 313 called originally, and there's 290 set up so far. MR. PARASIUK: Do you expect the others to be set up?

Are there any particular problems occurring right now? 3693

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 MRS. PRICE: They will be set up very shortly. MR. PARASIUK: Now these have been set up by legislation. Is the Minister aware of any that have been set up through collective agreement, because I believe that there do exist a number through collective agreement. Is that correct? MRS. PRICE: Apparently there are a number of them, but I know there are others who have set them up on their own volition without having been legislated to. MR.

PARASIUK: I think that these committees were set up in a sense as the first phase or first stage of committees under the Workplace Safety and Health Legislation . Does the Minister intend to increase the number of Workp lace Safety and Health Committees through regulation, because I think there are far more than 320 workplaces in Manitoba? MRS. PRICE: Yes, we are working on that now and we certainly do intend to not only encourage but to see that there are more Workplace Safety Committees in the city . MR. PARASIUK: So then you maybe providing more through regulation in the coming year? MRS.

PRICE: I think that not only we are desirous of it, so are the people themselves, and we've had a lot of interest in it and in asking us how to go about it. So the interest expressed is very encouraging. MR. PARASIUK: We are tight for time , but I was wondering if the Minister could give us a very capsule

summary of what happens when the committees come in place. I imagine that the management and workers select members to this committee , then what happens? I'm not sure of what takes place after that and how this will in a sense promote Workplace Safety and Health . Could the Minister give us a capsule

summary of how the committee s operate or if she wishes could she take it as notice and perhaps give it when we come to the Minister 's salary . Or is she in a position to answer that particular question? MRS. PRICE: Yes, as you mentioned, there are people picked from both management and the employees, and they have their own regular meetings, and sometimes they call our department and ask for advice and our people go down and give them any in-plant training or talks that they desire. MR.

PARASIUK: Would the department undertake research in a particular area of concern that the Workplace Safety and Health Committee of a particular workplace identified? MRS. PRICE: I don't follow you. , MR. PARASIUK: Well, if the Workplace Safety and Health Committee in a workplace for example, say, one of these bettery plants, does become concerned with lead poisoning, will the department then be in a sense the staff research a? Within the staffing limitations, will the department then undertake to do that type of research, if a Workplace Safety and Health Committee does have some concern? MRS. PRICE: Definitely.

MR. PARASIUK: Because I would think that the Workplace Safety and Health Committee wouldn't have the resources to undertake that type of research. MRS. PRICE: That's the purpose of having the committees set up and we certainly will work with them. MR. PARASIUK: Now, the research capacity, in order to do that type of work, then I assume exists in the salary

section of 2.(a), 2.(b), 2.(e), 2.(f). Is that correct then? These staff people , who are the liaison people , also would undertake the research requirements of the department in this respect. MRS. PRICE: Yes. ..._ ______ ~ 3694

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 MR. PARASIUK: Does the Minister feel that she has sufficient research capacity to meet the demands of the Workplace Safety and Health Committees? MRS. PRICE: Yes, we do. MR. PARASIUK: I would like ask a couple of questions relating to the procedures involved after an industrial accident , and I would like to thank the Minister for past information that she has given me in this respect. There are a couple of gaps in it that I would now like to raise with the Minister . Will she ensure that the workers in a workplace get the departmental report after an industrial accident?

Will they get this free of charge? Is it posted somewhere for all the workers to see it or is the departmental report only sent to the management of the company? MRS. PRICE: I am informed that the managemen t doesn 't get it either. MR. PARASIUK : Well, I know of one report where management had been asked by the department to make four or five changes to the way in which they operate , following an accident .

I would assume that in order for them to make those changes they would be given the recommendations, and they would be given the reasons and that probably one way or another would entail the report into the accident. MRS. PRICE: I don 't think tha t would necessarily entail the full report. They are just given certain directions to amend some of their regulations and that doesn 't necessarily relate to the full report. MR.

PARASIUK: Well , if there is an industrial accident , and say an industrial death in a workplace , do the workers themselves get to find out what happened from the investigative group, namely the Workplace Safety and Health Group in the Department of Labour? Will they be told what happened or are they left to specula te on their own as to what might have arisen? MRS . PRICE: Yes, the employees are advised what happened in most instances. MR. PARASIUK: Well, the point is how are they advised?

You know , I'm trying to clarify this in my own mind because I can imagine a situation where you have Workplace Safety and Health Comm ittees in place, and then I would think that the process of advisement would be quite easy. You provide the report or a

summary of the report to the Workplace Safety and Health Committee . They can look at it. They can ask questions of the inspector or whoever has undertaken the investigation and prov ided the recommendations, and they might even have something to contribute in terms of try ing to improve the safety or increase the safety of that particular workplace . So I can see some type of forum within which safety concerns or real safety problems can be discussed and looked at through the Workplace Safety and Health Committee and I think it would help if that group was given the report arising from an accident. MRS.

PRICE: The inspectors go out to the workplace and have a meeting with the employees. If the employees have something to contribute to it, as to a means to a better end for their safety , the inspectors are certainly too happy to bring it back and relate to the Department of Labour. MR. PARASIUK: But I've asked specifically if the Workplace Safety and Health Committee would get a report from the Department of Labour when it does an investigation following an industrial accident of se seriousness, especially an industrial death in a particular workplace.

Will the Minister commit that the Workplace Safety and Health Committee, if one exists in a workplace , will receive a formal report form the Department of Labour Investigating Officer? MRS. PRICE: They don 't get a formal written report . They get the report as I mentioned , when the inspector goes out and discusses it with the committee , but there isn't a formal written report given to them or the employer . MR.

PARASIUK: And I guess if there is no Workplace Safety and Health Committee then it's a bit more diff icult, the forum is much more amorphous as to how you would communicate with the workers as to what the possible causes of industrial death were, and what the possible steps might be to try and improve the safety situation in that particular workplace . How then does the department 3695

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 communicate to the group of workers? Do they call them all together or do they talk informally ' with one or two workers at the plant? MRS. PRICE: Our departments have said that they have had very good relationship with them whether there is a Workplace Safety Committee installed in that workplace or not. There is always a worker from the workplace goes with the inspectors. It doesn't necessarily have to be a safety committee there. People can be congregated and have their discussion with the inspector . MR. PARASIUK: Well, Mr.

Chairman , I would like to make a very strong recommendation to the Minister that she have her department post in a public spot in the workplace itself, the report of the investigative officer after an industrial death or a serious industrial accident in a workplace. I think it's very important that the workers in that plant know what happened and get a formal written report, because often what happens is that you have a lot of hearsay circulating throughout the workplace and people don 't know exactly what happened. I think that that is the procedure in the mining industry .

I do believe that if there is an industrial death the mining inspector does send to the workers a formal report on the accident, and I'm wondering if the Minister would agree that that would also be a good step with respect to the Workplace Safety and Health proceedings? MRS. PRICE: The reason that there isn't a formal medical report posted is because of the legal ramifications . It could result in court cases against the Department of Labour. The orders that are arising out of the accident that are recommended by the inspector or the employees, could certainly be posted though in a public place . MR.

PARASIUK: I think , if I'm correct in my information, I do think that the reports are provided for mining accidents to the workers, and I don't think they've every had any great concerns about .: law cases arising from that. I think this is very important , and I've got some time to do it, I know of some specific industrial deaths.

I know of some instances where people have contacted me afterwards, asking for informa tion as to what took place, and I'm not in the position to give them specific information , and I was surprised that they were not told of what happened , and what corrective action has been proposed, and that's all I'm getting at. And I think that's a very normal thing to get at. I would like to go on because I think there's one other aspect with respect to industrial accidents and industrial deaths and this concerns the next of kin.

Now I do know from the Minister, and again I'm appreciative of that information , you can get the report from the court services office of the Attorney-General for a fee of $10.00. I'm wondering if the next of kin is informed that if they wish, they can obtain a copy of that report because often the next of kin will be left in a somewhat uncertain state as to what happened. They are told something immediately after an accident. They are usually in an emotional state then .

They sit back two, three or four months after, and they really are wonde ring what happened, and at that stage, I think it would be wise for them to know that if they want to get the detailed report they can. They may not want to get it. I'm not sure if the next of kin is always informed . I think that the Department of Labour , through the Workmen's Compensation Board or through some other group , should inform the next of kin, and secondly, frankly, the next of kin should probably receive the report for free, and shouldn't be charged $10.00, but that 's a very minor point. MRS.

PRICE: The general procedure is that the next of kin are informed by the police of any fatalities. With regard to them receiving a formal medical report, I'm under the opinion that they are a very confidential report and I would have to find out from the Attorney-General whether that is possible because I have been told that they are very private and personal information on the individuals and it would have to come through the Attorney -General's Office . MR. PARASIUK: Well, Mr.

Chairman , I'd like to just inform the Minister, that it is possible to get the report, that the insurance companies do get those reports , because they know they exist and the report is of a different nature from the report given to the next of kin by the police or RCMP following an accident. I don't know , they'll say a person was crushed and that's what's happened. But the report of the department will indicate what took place , whether in fact it was a combination of human or other error or faulty equipment.

I think it would be wise for the Minister to conssider that recommendation , and that is that the next of kin be informed that they can obtain this report. I think if they pay $10.00 right now they can get it, frankly I think that they should probably get it for free, if they wish to get it. They may not wish to get it. I would just like the Minister to take that recommendation under advisement, because I do know it's possible to get the report through the court services building . 3696

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 MRS. PRICE: I will, I'll take it under advisement. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Highways. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I was prompted to enter the debate, partly because of the remarks of the Member for Lac du Bonnet, and also recognizing the outrageous nature of the debate that has occurred during the Estimates of the Minister of Labour, that by and large were totally out of order, but under your rather liberal administration of the rules of the committee you've allowed a great deal of latitude, and I would expect that you would allow me the same latitude. Mr.

Chairman , the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet talked about rolling back the time, and that couldn 't help but remind me of the roll back of time of my own individual crisis, the first time that I met a committee such as this in the Estimates .

The only difference was that at that time the New Democratic Party found themselves in the unenviable position, led by the Member for Lac du Bonnet, of leading a few millionaire vegetable growers in a fight to sustain a closed shop against my fight for trying to make it possible for individual Manitobans to buy a few carrots , potatoes , or tomatoes, along the highway stands of Henderson Highway , Assiniboine River or Red River. But led by the Member for Lac du Bonnet , the New Democratic Party found themselves in that particular position .

At that time the accusation of course was made that I, as a new and fledging Minister, was so totally under the thumb and under the direction of the senior Ministers, or of government at that time , Sterling Lyon, Duff Roblin , and others, you know, when the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet made some similar references to this Minister, the present Minister being used in a way by the Conservative Party this way, that 's what triggered these remarks.

I must also remind some of the newer members and the generally hostile media that has so abused this Minister of the fact that the New Democratic Party of that day, collectively stood up, collectively stood up at that day, and on a counted formal vote , voted to reduce my salary to 98 cents, not a dollar, but to 98 cents. I would sily like to offer as a moment of respite to this case, that "I came back" as the add says, I'm still around.

I prdict nothing but the most illustrious career for a very very capable Minister of this government, and that she will proceed to be your Minister of Labour and if nothing, gentlemen , that you have accomplished in the last few days , is to assure the fact that she will be the Minister of Labour for the next four years, you've accomplished that, that will last three years . I also remind you that the Minister of Labour does not represent the Nels Thibault that stands up on this Legislative steps, and says that he is there to build a war chest to defeat this Minister of Labour and this government.

He represents 28 percent of labour . This Minister of Labour happens to recognize her responsibilities in a way that a Minister of Labour didn 't recognize for the last eight years. She represents all of labour , and she represents all of management, -(Interjection)- and yes, very much so, all of management and labour. It is not a Ministry of Labour that we're talking about, it is Ministry of Labour which includes management, which includes labour, which includes government. And that unfortunately , in the narrow tunnel visioned view of members opposite, they can't understand that.

Their position is as black and white , and it's expressed most appropriately by the McDiarmids and by the Nels Thibault of organized labour and they've served us public notice and honourable members opposite should take no exception if we do not bow to the altar of organized labour . We will listen to them . We'll acknowledge their appropriate position in the spectrum of our social activity in this province, but we certainly acknowledge the fact , and this Minister ' is doing an admirable job of reminding Manitobans that there are a hundred percent of Manitobans to be represented in the greater debate of labour .

That is something that was totally lost, I say it with some respect, because I have respect for any member that has served the Legislature of Manitoba over the years, and I'm now referring to the immediate past Minister of Labour, the former HOONOURABLE Russ Paulley. But unfortunately Mr. Paulley, despite the fact that he was a good man, and an Anglican on top, just as a bonus, he failed to recognize, miserably, and he failed miserably as a Minister of Labour.

What this Minister of Labour has picked up before she ever arrived at that office, before she ever arrived at that office , and I want to assure honourable members of this committee, that if they assume that by the position that the opposition is taking, that they are embarrassing this government, that they are losing us votes, losing us votes, that's wishful thinking of the highest order.

You know, when honourable members of this administration simply start finding out what the farmers have known for the last 25 years , about a fertilizer that we use and spread on our fields for the last 25 years, and now we're laying that at the foot of this Minister , that is just so much nonsense . It agains displays the dismal ignorance , the tunnel vision of these people . Unfortunately they have miners that have worked underground for a long time and they have never seen the light .

Unfortunately they have people that have been involved with such closed-shop organizations as the Smelters Mine Union organization in Sudbury , pretty tight organization with democracy little known of8 . They just don't know the fact that this Minister of Labour , in her own way, in her own 3697

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 way, is meeting acceptance, the broad width and breadth of this province that the former Minister of Labour just could never begin to touch . When she rescinded , and when she said through just common sense, which I know, I won't put my honourable friend, the Member for Inkster on the spot, but I know that he knew that a law like time and three-quarters was nonsense for Manitoba, he knew that , he knew that, he knew that.

He, in fact, didn't enter into that debate, and the records will show that, but the former Minister of Labour was busy setting up monuments to himself , but this Minister of Labour had the courage to simply exercise a bit of common sense, and say, no, it' s not fair to discriminate against family-owned businesses, small businesses , service industries , shops , hotels , everything else that said, we, in Manitoba, simply are not in that Monaco-like situation.

We haven't yet , unless the Minister of Industry and Commerce will free up the Lord Selkirk to run a casino or something like that , we haven't yet arrived at that revenue-bearing situation that we can affo rd to be the sole jurisdiction in North America - in North America that can be so out of step with the rest of economic life in North America . This Minister recognized it and acted upon it. This Minister has acted upon all those promises that we made , that we made with respect to labour and she ought to be congratulated for it. She ought to be congratulated for it. Mr.

Chairman, I just remind the Committee that , as a Minister who had his salary once formerly voted on to be reduced to 98 cents and who is still around and kicking, that if the present Minister of Labour follows that procedure, and she is being indoctrinated to much the same course that I was indoctrinated in 1966, it only measures well for her future success as a Minister of the Crown and as a servant of the people of Manitoba, because, Mr.

Chairman , there is no question in my mind that the Minister of Labour has an intuitively - intuitively a greater grasp of her responsibilities than it is possible for any members opposite to do so because they are hide-bound, Mr. Chairman. They cannot get out of the union hall. Mr. Chairman , there's nothing wrong with the union hall but, Mr. Chairman, labour doesn't end at the union hall.

The fact of the matter is 70 percent of labour is outside of the union hall and this Minister recognizes the impact, the total impact of labour legislation on the economic well-being of this province, and this Minister recognizes what is possible and what is not possible . You know, it doesn't take a Brandon University professor to tell Manitoba farmers how to apply fertilizer and that's what she's been subjected to for the last week because the Member for Brandon East thinks he's got a hot shot issue - because he thinks he's got a hot shot issue. Well , Mr.

Chairman, that issue has been around for the last 20 years - for the last 20 years - 25 years, if I were correct. The innovative farmers have been using that fertilizer for 25 years so don't lay it on this Minister - don't lay it on this Minister now belatedly - what were you doing for eight years? Where were the rules and regulations that you passed in the last eight years while this material was being used? Where were ... -(Interjection)- Well, Mr. Chairman , where were the rules passed when the unrenowned , your former Leader, who came to become the Minister of Labour, where was he for the last eight years.

Mr. Chairman , all I can tell you is that, you know, the debate amuses me. I think it amuses the Honourable Minister for Northern Affa irs, you know , as he listens to it, because it is one of these tempests in a teapot that absolutely affects nothi ng in the outside world.

I say that despite the hostile press , but it is not going to change the practices of farmers as how they apply their fertilizers and it's not going to, with all due respect to the Honourable Member for Transcona who has obviously and understandably a deep concern about the inner workings of the bureaucracy having graduated from that particular field. He's particularly concerned about who sharpens pencils and how much he's getting paid for sharpening pencils in the Estimates. I don't think that's at all appropriate for discussions in these Estimates, but Mr. Chairman, -(I nte rjection)- Well, Mr.

Chairman, I should be relieved of course because I have been accused by the former labour critic of the New Democratic Party that I, Harry Enns, who stood for killing miners, and the Honourable Member for Flin Flon used to delight in standing up in the House once a year suggesting that Harry Enns likes nothing to do but kill miners. He would stand up once a year to make that statement. I would suggest, now 1 am fortunate that I now have a colleague, the Honourable Norma Price, who has now become the Labour Min ister and now those remarks will be directed to her.

But 1 can only tell you that after eight years of having the members of the opposition telling me that and charging me with that, that has resulted from my vote increasing from 41 percent in 1969 to 49 percent in 1973 to 61 percent in 1977 , and I predict that the Honourable Norma Price's vote will increase likewise in the next three years. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet, then Kildonan , then Inkster . MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I would defer to the Member for Inkster. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Inkster . 3698 :;

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, the Member for - what is he the member for? - Lakeside . .. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Highways . MR. GREEN: Yes - has what I thin k he will acknowledge is a faulty memory with respect to certain events. When he reads what I have to say in Hansard he will , I am almost certain , agree that he was incorrect.

First of all, when his salary was reduced to 98 cents it was not on the vegetable marketing issue; it was on the issue of him having said that he was going to have a bill granting license for the raising of water levels at South Indian Lake by some 30 feet when hearings, which he started and which he thought would do his bidding , did not do his bidding. Now, the last

part is an editorial but the fact that the motion to reduce the salary was on that particular issue I am certain, and why am I certain , Mr. Chairman? Because it arises from an interesting thing. My son , Martin , was watching part of that debate and we said that we were going to reduce the salary to $1 .00, and my son, Martie, said, " Why a dollar? Why not 98 cents ," and I related that to the then Minister of Labour , Russ Paulley , and he thought that it was an excellent suggestion and that it would highlight the issue that he's not worth a dollar , he's worth 98 cents.

And that's how the motion was made and that 's w hy I am certain and the Minister will be able to probably acknowledge that it wasn't on that debate and that' s really not very important . The other area where his memory is faulty, or at least where his intuition is not correct, and were the Deputy Ministe r not a loyal Deputy Ministe r who would not reveal information I will do it for him.

I will confirm on the record that I was one of the main proponents of the premium overtime rate, and I believe tha t it was a very good thing to do, that it was a very good thing to have, that it is merely an extens ion of Conservative legislation, that they were the ones who said that there should be a premium overtime rate because one would rather have 40 people working at straight time - 60 people working at stra ight time than 40 people working at time and a half and therefore there should be a rate to discou rage overtime . That was not Socialism; that was Conservatism , that was Capitalism .

The premium rate doesn't do that any more and what we've said is that there has to be a discouragement . It would not cost the employers of th is province more money; it would cost them less money, because they would start hiring people at straight time and save the premium rate . They would be paying stra ight time and , as a matter of fact , we wou ld have less unemployment than we have in our province at the present time. So I say that for the record because the Member for Lakes ide was trying to be nice to me as not having been the one to have made that suggestion - I made it.

I don't know whether I can take credit for 100 percent of it but I was certainly in the forefront of it because there were othe r people at that time recommending , including the Conservative Party , recommending that we legislate against what they called compulsory overtime and what I call negotiate d cond itions of employment , voluntary to both sides , which is what the Conservat ive Party did not move away from . When they repealed the time and three-quarters they did not repeal what we did with regard to the overtime rates .

Well , the Membe r for Lakeside has protested too much, as Shakespeare saith, when he says how great the Minister of Labou r has - done because , Mr. Chairman , it has not been this party, it has not been the opposi tion who has administered the strongest and most fatal criticism to the Minister of Labour - it's the Conservat ive Party. They imposed closure not on us; they imposed closure on the Minister of Labour because they couldn 't stand it any more. They couldn 't take it any longer .

They had to get the Conservat ives out of their misery from having to continue with the Estimates of the Minister of Labour , and Mr.

Chairman , contrary to what has been said earlier, I think that a government in the posit ion that they were in had no choice but to impose closure on this Minister , because it is not a fact - you know, the Minister of Highways said that 30 percent of the labour movement is organized and that 70 percent is unorganized , and is there a person in this room and is there a person in the Conservative Party - there may be one or two - who would not have it that it were 80 percent unorganized , or 90 percent unorganized , or 95 percent unorganized. Mr.

Chairman, the Member for Pembina is very happy with what I am saying and the Minister of Labour is his Minister of Labour for that reason . It is because this ministry has a bias against organized labour . The Member for Lakeside said, " Who are we. We've got miners who have not climbed out of the mines - have not seen the light. " One of them is over there. He has seen the light. He was a miner. Was he a fool when he was a miner? Was he a fool when he was the president of the United Steelworkers of America, Local - was it 166 in Thompson?

Was he a fool when he was organiz ing the steelworkers to undo . . . in Thompson and vice versa as well? MR. MINAKER: Who said they were fools? 3699

Tuesday, June 13, 1 978 MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Lakeside in my opinion -(Interjection)- well, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion - you know, the Member for Lakeside said a lot of things that were his opinion which you were prepared to listen to but you're finding that it hurts a little bit now -(Interjection)- Mr. Chairman, the Member for Lakeside expressed ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Order please . Would the members please give the recognized speaker, the Member for Inkster, the courtesy of listening to him. MR.

GREEN: Expressed extreme , in the extreme , negativism - negativism towards organized labour and towards Nels Thibault , and towards the 30 percent , and towards the miners who have not climbed out of the dark. That's what I heard from the members of the - Mr.

Chairman , and more than I heard it from the Member for Lakeside, I've heard it every time I happen to walk into this Committee, and I've heard it from the Member for Gladstone, and I've heard it from the Member for Pembina , and I've heard nothing but deroga tory remarks about peop le who decide that in order to improve their working conditions they must unite together and with their solidarity attempt to influence their employer to bring about better conditions of employmen t. I have heard nothing but derogatory remarks from members of the opposition with regard to that.

They talk about people not wanting to work or carrying the drones - that was the Member for Gladstone's remark. Do we have to carry these drones? - about people who want to have union hiring so that there is some security as they have had for many, many years in the construction trade . So who has been the greatest critic of this now great Minister? And by the way, if you're comforted by the member's remarks saying that he was voted 98 cents and now he's the Minister of Highways - yes, but for eight years - it means that if you 're going to follow Mr.

Enns' course , and I'm not suggesting that you will , then you've got three years here, eight years in opposition , until you can hope to come back where he is. You know, if it works one way it also works the other way. But who imposed this criticism , Mr. Chairman? This whole closure motion has got nothing to do, and in this I have some disagreement with what has been said earlier, has nothing to do with muzzling the opposition. This closure motion is to muzzle the Minister of Labour and to prevent her from talking. Mr.

Chairman, this closure motion is made because the members of the government are worried that the Minister of Labour, who has thus far only succeeded in biting hrr toe nails off, will bite all her toes off as well. That 's why this motion for closure is made. Mr. Chairman, there will be a little bit of time left and she will put one foot in her mouth to exchange it for the other , and maybe she will be left with some of her toes, but not very much , and it's the Conservative Government -(Interjection)- Well, Mr.

Chairman, I will concede quite readily that I look at members of the opposite sex with a different view than I look at the Member for Gladstone. But I hope , Mr. Chairman , that 1 treat them as equals. And that is what I am trying to do at the present time. I'm trying to treat the Minister of Labour as my equal, and not as anything else.

And I say to her, that she is going to have to take the kind of criticism that is levied at a Minister, she's going to have to take it particularly because of some things that she has done , she's going to have to take it because of the attitudes that she has with regard to organized labour and which she wears on her sleeve. There 's no problem with that , Mr. Chairman, and the fact is that I believe that she could have taken it. I believe that despite the fact that from time to time she was frustrated, that she was handling herself . The capitulation did not come from the Minister of Labour.

The capitulation came from over here , the Minister of Finance . He said , " By God, we've got to get Norma out of this . We can't stand it any longer . We will move closure that will limit it to two hours, and then if we have to, we'll move closure again." So Mr. Chairman, when the Member for Lakeside talks about how we have wounded and have criticized this great Minister of Labour , she has not been stabbed in her breast as she has been stabbed in her back. Those are where the wounds are, in her back, not in her breast. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance on a point of order. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Chairman , on a point of order . It's been suggested here that the move on the closure is specifically related to the Minister of Labour and I want to point out to the committee that the closure motion was spoken to by the House Leader in the House this afternoon and it was moved at the point in time where we were also at the point of having reached a record level in hours consumption on Estimates and we're not at the end yet, we have some distance to go. Mr.

Chairman , I want to say that I think that we probably should have started using the closure motion as it's called , whatever you like , Rule 65(15), much earlier in the Session . We probably should have started when we were in Education Estimates . I don't think that on an every year basis that we can afford to spend 300 hours plus on Estimates review . It isn't related specifically to the Labou r_ 3700

r ... Tuesday, June 13, 1978 Department, it's related to the total consumption of Estimates time. So I want to straighten that out, Mr. Chairman . I also want to state that I would hope that in another year that we can mutually reach some acceptable agreement on the matter , but in the meantime, if that's the only device, and it's a very legitimate device, put there with a very clear purpose, that we would tend to use it in a very mechanical way, and it's not related to Labour. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Inkster. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, to the point of order, first of all let me say, there is no point of order. There is an attempt, by the Minister of Finance , to rati onalize his position in a way in which I disagree with. There is no way that the Minister of Finance can show that on the orders of things as they have happened, that I am wrong and that he is right. All he can say is that this is the reason that he gives for having made the motion , and I interpret what the government has done as being, in my opinion, the real thing. Because if they were mov ng it on a department, they would have moved it on Health . Mr.

Chairman, we were 16 hours on this department, and rolling along very nicely on each item. We've been over 5 weeks -(Interjection)- well, Mr. Chairman, of course, and that's why I'm glad the member raised this as a point of order. Because what he really would like to do is to now camouflage the tact, and I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that the rule is a good one. I was the proponent of the rule. I believe in the rule . MR. CRAIK: Then live by it. MR. GREEN: Who is not living by it? I'm living. Does anybody see me dying? MR. CRAIK: You're sure screaming and kicking. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister ofFinance doesn 't understand the rule. I wish the House Leader was here. The rule was as follows: That the government would have the opportunity of doing this; the opposition would have the opportunity of indicating to the public of the province of Manitoba what the government is doing; and that the government would have to bear responsibility for what they are doing . So there is no rule, Mr. Chairman , that the government will impose this rule , and the opposition will remain silent about it. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite was said.

I charge - the House Leader is now here and he will correct me if I'm wrong and I know that he won't because the House Leadei would not say that - that the government would accept the responsibility for imposing closure, and the opposition would use the imposition of closure for whatever they thought it was worth in terms of trying to discredit the government for having done it. The House Leader will not say one word in opposition to that, because that's the way the rule was formulated.

So when you impose it, you cannot complain, or you cannot cry that the opposition is kicking and screaming because one of the well known suggestions as to what would happen if it was imposed, is that the opposition would try to indicate why it was imposed. And I've indicated why. And the public is going to judge . I will be happy to be judged by them . The government says that they imposed closure because they thought the debate was lasting too long and questions were repetitious and they had to get on with the Estimates.

I say they imposed closure because the Minister of Labour was an embarrassment to them, that they wanted to get her out of the hot seat as quickly as possible , before, as I said before , she chewed her toes completely ott, and that that's what the government is going to have to live with. I'm happy to go to the people of Manitoba , you give your version, I'll give mine . It's not a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Mr. Chairman, I only have a couple of minutes.

I wanted to speak at this juncture to indicate that again, the Honourable Minister of Highways has made a hit and run which is becoming his style because ee can 't really take the debate very much anymore. Oh, he's come back, has .. he? He was out for awhile. I'm aware of what's going on. In my opinion, I think he's put on his clown prince act once more, which he does regularly with bombasts, with a lot of noise, and of course a little bit of shouting . Yes, I'm going to get to the facts in a moment, but it reminds me of the old saw about empty vessels make the most noise sometimes.

I would suggest it's not because the Honourable Minister isn't intelligent , but sometimes he gets defensive that way and he doesn't have his facts to back him up. It was a good indication that he didn't have his facts . He blamed the media; he blames the

Tuesday, June 13, 1978 opposition; even his Premier is with him because his Premier says the private enterprise is now on trial, they have to produce , too. Everybody's to blame except they, themselves, the people who are in government. You know, he says we are biased in respect to trade unions but he - (Interjection)- Let me just finish the sentence, Mr. Chairman, give me that courtesy. But he doesn't recall the fact that we weren 't just asking the Minister of Labour in respect to trade unions, we were also asking for people who have no organizations, the people on minimum wage. I'll leave it at that .

Let the public decide the issues, whether we are just for labour or whether we are for all working people . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please . Lady and gentlemen, the hour of 10:26 having arrived, I'm interrupting the proceedings of the committee in accordance with the motion passed yesterday under Rule 65(15). I will now put the question on all remaining items in the Estimates of the Department of Labour, except the Minister's compensation - pass. Committee rise.$ SUPPLY - HEALTH AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT MR. CHAIRMAN, Mr. Abe. Kovnats: I would direct the honourable members to Page 42, Resolution 63, 7.

Corrective and Rehabilitative Services . We are on Item (d)

(1) Salaries-pass -the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR. BOYCE: Mr. Chairman, we were on this item a week ago, or was it yesterday? But the Minister, in his remarks, had suggested that perhaps prevention , or he thought some people might have meant intervention, was not one of his priorities in this regard when discussing what should and should not be done relative to juveniles . I had mentioned that perhaps we should spend more time and effort on finding out who puts people in the river rather than just pulling them out.

But the Member for Fort Rouge in his remarks8 had made reference to the private sector, or agencies in the private sector , and except for perhaps a misnomer in my mind, we wouldn't be that far apart in our opinion . It was as a result of a meeting of Ministers involved in Corrections with the Federal Government that a task force was established to determine what the role of the private sector could be in the delivery of services relative to those young people in conflict with the law. And I believe the Minister has a copy of this report.

It may be somewhat strange, it was at the instigation of Manitoba that this particular study was carried out . But the disagreement that I have is, when we use the words " private sector " I don 't think that the Member for Fort Rouge would disagree, what we're really talking about is community-based organizations, organizations which reflect a community. And in this regard, my

interpretation of such organizations includes any organization which can give some evidence that they are supported by the community. It could in one instance be a church group or a synagogue group or it could be a service club, it could be almost any formal organization of people who get together to do social good in an area. There is some difficulty , when we're talking about agencies which organize themselves for private gain in the delivery of services, that perhaps we might disagree on just exactly what their role is in today's society.

Because I find it very, very difficult to accept that an agency is, in fact, a private agency if 99 44/100 percent of their funding comes from the public purse , with no direct responsibility or no

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-2-62b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 2nd hansardpdf 62b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bde5154d04d8e06df4dca0fc1159aa387a5cb420

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