GOVERNMENT SERVICES ESTIMATES

COMMITTEE

May 15, 1991

Department of Employment and Labour Relations

(Unedited)

The Committee met at 9:00 p.m.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I would like to welcome everybody to the fifth meeting

of the Government Services Estimates Committee. This is the second meeting in

which we will be reviewing the estimates of the Department of Employment and

Labour Relations. My name is Melvin Penny, the Member for Lewisporte, and I will

be Chairing tonight's meeting. To my right is Mr. Bob Aylward, the Member for

Kilbride, he will be Vice-Chairman for this evening; Mr. Larry Short, the Member

for St. George's; Mr. John Crane, the Member for Harbour Grace; Mr. Percy

Barrett, the Member for Bellevue; and Mr. Norman Doyle, the Member for Harbour

Main.

I will not bother to go through the regular

introductory remarks about the role of the Chairman and how we will proceed,

because everybody here has been here already for at least one meeting. Our Clerk

of the Committee for the evening is Ms. Elizabeth Murphy.

Instead of the Minister responsible for that

department, Patricia Cowan, we have with us tonight the hon. Winston Baker, the

President of Treasury Board sitting in for the Minister.

Mr. Baker, would you introduce the officials who are

with you? And since the opening remarks have already been made by the Minister I

see no necessity to go through that again. We will just start where we left off

before and I will turn it over to any Member of the Committee who wishes to ask

you a question.

MR. BAKER: First of all let me explain that Ms.

Cowan is in a speaking engagement tonight and the normal person who would fill

in for her is her alternate in this department who is the Minister of Health,

but he also happens to have an estimates meeting tonight in the House. So as

President of Executive Council I am supposed to oversee all departments and have

some knowledge of what is going on in all the departments, so I thought I would

fill in tonight, and I am very happy to be here.

With me tonight is the Deputy Minister, Deborah Fry,

and two ADMs: Michael Dwyer and Catherine Gogan.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I don't think I have anything else to

say. I am sure there are some questions that were left over from the last

meeting, otherwise, obviously, we would not be here now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Committee that

the Department officials may not be questioned. Any questions will be directed

directly to the Minister, and the officials can answer if so requested by the

Minister. I would also remind the officials that it would be convenient for the

sake of Hansard if you would state your name and your position within the

department before answering.

Mr. Doyle.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few

questions left over from last time, and obviously we have to give the Minister

some consideration. So if he wants to direct some of these questions to his

officials, feel free to do so. We are perfectly at ease with that.

In the estimates committee debate last time around it

was disclosed that at least one occupational health and safety inspector had

been eliminated because of cutbacks in the public service. In view of the fact

that the largest construction project in recent memory is ongoing in the

Province right now, I am wondering if that is a good move.

Does the Minister consider it to be a wise decision

when you consider occupational health and safety to be of such prime importance,

especially on the Hibernia project? Is it a wise move to be cutting back right

now on occupational health and safety and eliminating one position in that

Department?

Now I remember when we questioned the Minister last

time around, I believe the cutback in occupational health and safety was in the

mining sector, and there was one individual going. But does it mean that we are

going to have less occupational health and safety expertise in that Department

to deal with projects such as Hibernia and what have you?

MR. BAKER: I think Mr. Dwyer could answer that

question better than I could. However, I would like to point out that certainly

a lot of the downsizing that has been done is unfortunate. We are short in a

variety of fields. We are perhaps short in some areas of the health care field,

we are certainly short in some areas of post-secondary education and directly in

some of the Government Departments. So it is unfortunate a downsizing had to

occur. However, it had to occur, and I suppose we are far from the ideal

situation, if that is what the hon. Member means.

Ideally we should have a lot more doctors and nurses

and workers in the post-secondary education field than we have, and perhaps a

lot more workers in the Social Services Department as well. So we do not have

the ideal circumstance, and I would agree with the premise of the Member's

question, that we in a lot of areas are perhaps short (Inaudible). As to the

specific answer I suppose Ms. Fry or Mr. Dwyer could answer it.

MR. MICHAEL DWYER: The position referred to was a

vacant position, an unfilled position. If indeed the Occupational Health and

Safety Division foresees that it is going to have a negative affect upon the

occupational health and safety of the workers, and especially to the Bull Arm

project, we will put strong representation forward to the Minister, who in

return would also put strong recommendations forward to have the position

reinstated.

However, the mechanism in place for the Bull Arm

project is not one in which we have inspectors out on a day-to-day basis

correcting faulty actions on behalf of the workers and the employers. When the

official system is in place - and it will be as the situation in the work

dictates that it should be - a safety management plan of self-institution of

safety work habits on the work place will be in place. It will be far beyond the

norm of what has been seen in the Province, and in the Department's opinion pave

the way towards the new occupational health and safety concept in the Province.

MR. DOYLE: The Minister indicated in the

examination of estimates a couple of weeks ago that the main health and safety

inspection is to be done by Nodeco itself. I am more or less directing this

question toward Mr. Dwyer because the Minister will not be aware of what went on

last time around. So if he wishes to answer it, fine and dandy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Toward the Minister. The Minister

indicated that the main health and safety inspection is to be done by Nodeco,

which was based on a model I believe, according to the Minister, an example from

Norway. Does the Minister consider it good health and safety measures to have a

construction company police itself with respect to health and safety? Is that

what the Minister was talking about at that time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Dwyer.

MR. DWYER: If we refer to the Occupation Health

and Safety Act,

Section 4 and

Section 6 respectively, this places the onus upon

the employer and the employee for occupational health and safety on any project.

This has been in effect since 1978. From statistics shown in Norway, based on

similar gravity type construction, it is shown historically since back in 1952

that the old mechanism of having regulators run around finding fault with

different things on projects just does not work.

What they have found however, is that if the onus is

placed on the employee and the employer to provide safe work place areas et

cetera and if indeed it is taken as a genuine concern, which it is being taken

as at the Bull Arm site currently, and if the regulators see their place as an

audit function and ensure that the proper health and safety inspections and

programmes are carried out, it seems to be the more favourable way of looking at

this project exactly at Bull Arm.

MR. DOYLE: So the recent tragedy and the accident

that occurred at Bull Arm points out very much the deficiencies in that type of

system which the Minister was referring to in the committee meetings.

In light of the fact that the labour department is

considering possibly laying charges on that particular one, does the Minister

now intend to have health and safety inspectors become a little bit more

involved in that project; to have health and safety inspectors from the Province

more actively involved in construction supervision?

MR. BAKER: The hon. Member Opposite, can realize

that the only way to guarantee that there are going to be no accidents is to

shut down the project. Accidents by nature are accidents. Now we try to create

situations where accidents are not as likely to happen and have proper safety

procedures in place, restraints and all that kind of thing, but the fact there

was an accident does not mean that the system is not working, and if you are

going to have a project, if you are going to build a road, if you are going to

have Bull Arm in operation, then there are, from time to time going to be some

accidents, but I will pass it over to Mr. Dwyer.

MR. DWYER: The incident referred to is a missing

person incident at this point in time. Just to reiterate what Mr. Baker said,

there will be a certain number of accidents, we hope to minimize and make them

few and far between, and I believe unless this approach is taken of

self-inspection with the proper system and the regulators being this department

in a function of auditing and ensuring, we are still ensuring a certain degree

of standard and I think our role as that is much better lent to occupational

health and safety at Bull Arm.

The formal safety management plan is not in place and

at this point in time the necessity of it is not in place, there is only

probably 450 employees there. We have had inspectors out on the project and we

are treating the project at this point in time as a project above and beyond

what would be our ordinary involvement be if it were a civil type project.

MR. DOYLE: Just one more question on Occupational

Health and Safety. I recently met with a couple of people who are involved with

occupational health and safety in Newfoundland. They were given the

understanding that before the project was to finish, you would have on site

roughly about 120 people in occupational health and safety and security. What

are the numbers anyway that are going to be employed on that project in

occupational health and safety at peak? - it sounded a little bit out of whack

to me to say 120, but I have not been able to get a real handle on how many

people are supposed to be employed there in that field of occupational health

and safety and security.

MR. BAKER: Before we pass on to Mr. Dwyer, it

seems to me in the terms of the way the Member describes it, it seems to me to

be a bit low, because you said occupational health and safety and security and

it seems to me that if you combine the two, a lot of security is required on a

site like that and Mr. Dwyer could probably (inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Do you have any idea how many people

would be employed in that field.

MR. DWYER: Not at this particular time because it

is all according to how indeed they spread their safety function. If the company

spreads it to a line management type of function in which case occupational

health and safety becomes the responsibility of each and every person there,

including the direct supervisor, and that supervisor's performance is geared

upon that, it differs.

Whereas if we use the old method of inspectors there

would be probably six- or seven-fold the number of people that will be required

on this particular project.

To answer your question directly, at this point in

time it is all according to how they identify responsibilities, etc. in the

safety management plan. At this point in time, with a staff of 420 people, they

have a safety manager on staff, two inspectors, a nurse, and I believe they have

two medical attendants on staff, which is quite appropriate at this point in

time.

MR. DOYLE: So Nodeco of course would be

responsible for the hiring of all occupational health and safety people.

MR. DWYER: They have been given the responsibility

through HMDC for that function of the project. When the M-20 contractors come on

they will be implementing a similar safety management plan, if not identical.

MR. DOYLE: So the various union agreements that

are in place right now do not specifically identify the number of people who

would be involved in occupational health and safety. Just moving along from that

and getting on to another issue, the issue of double-breasting. Maybe the

Minister can give us some indication of when that particular issue is going to

be dealt with. I believe the Minister introduced the Bill a couple of days ago

in the House of Assembly,

An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act. Is that the

double-breasting Bill?

MR. BAKER: The double-breasting one, I believe

that is the one she introduced, that is right.

MR. DOYLE: Okay.

MR. BAKER: Whether that gets brought forward this

spring depends a lot on negotiations that are ongoing between the Opposition

House Leader and myself. There is a certain amount of legislation that

absolutely has to be done before we close. Some of it could be left 'til the

fall, and it is perhaps a value judgement as to whether that one could be left

to be done in the fall or would have to be done right now. I will be consulting

with the Opposition House Leader as well as with Ms. Cowan and her Department

and so on to make that determination sometime in the next few days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will now turn it over for any

other Member of the Committee who now wishes to ask a question. Mr. Aylward.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I just have a couple of general

questions. First of all, I am sorry that the Minister of Labour Relations

herself did not (Inaudible) come here tonight. I would expect any Minister would

consider this their number one responsibility while estimates are on. But I am

pleased that the President of Treasury Board could come here with the staff from

Labour Relations to answer some of our questions.

One of the concerns - and the Member for Harbour Maine

was questioning a lot about it - that I have, or something that I find hard to

rationalize, is that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is

legislatively and legally responsible in this Province for occupational health

and safety. How can a Minister transfer that to a private company so that the

private company will then be responsible for health and safety on a project? And

a major project, actually.

MR. BAKER: Yes. Again I will ask Mr. Dwyer in a

moment if he would care to comment on it. But my immediate reaction would be

that it was never ever the intention that the Minister would personally be

responsible for each and every project in the Province and so on. It seems to me

that the legislation is such - and that legislation has been in existence for

some time, quite a few years before we took over - that would pass on the

responsibility, the immediate responsibility, the site responsibility, to

companies, giving the Department of Labour the overall responsibility generally

in the Province, and the actual on-site stuff to be done by the companies. So I

do not know if that is what Mr. Dwyer would answer but I ask him to respond.

MR. DWYER: Yes; just to reiterate, the Department

is still responsible for enforcement of any Acts and Regulations under our

responsibility. Probably what was being questioned is the means of ensuring that

the Act and Regulations are adhered to. Ultimately the employer and the employee

at the work place are responsible to ensure that the Act and Regulations are

followed and our responsibility is to enforce the Act and Regulations, if indeed

they are not, then to make those aware where the Act and Regulations apply in

the work place.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Our departmental staff would be

visiting the site from time to time to make sure that the Regulations are being

enforced or being followed; is that the intention?

MR. DWYER: Yes. It will be a series of paper

audits combined with actual frequent inspections to ensure that what we are

looking at on paper is actually being conducted in the field, and in-the-field

inspections also, there will be verification on site of different elements of

the audit.

I feel there is no way that the Occupational Health

and Safety of the workers would be jeopardized in any way and if anything, it

will be greatly enhanced.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I seem to remember when some of

the planning was being done for the Hibernia site that there was a plan at one

time to send I believe, six of our Occupational Health and Safety people to

(inaudible) or some other place, where this type of construction has been

undertaken and they could be trained properly in supervising what was necessary

on a site like this.

How many of our Occupational Health and Safety people

have actually been to Norway and are being trained to supervise or do these

audits or whatever they have to do?

MR. DWYER: At this point, none. We have about

another year before we actually get into the heavy civil construction. As it is

now there is some road construction, the fabrication of camps et cetera and some

forms being constructed and different things.

The need for this type of training will be assessed

over the next short period of time and whatever training is necessary, the

Department will assure that that particular training is gotten whether it is

training for field inspection for this type of project and/or in combination

with auditing procedures.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So with the major part of the

project about a year away, we have actually nobody qualified or trained at

least, I do not know about qualified but trained in this specific area of health

and safety and we hope to be able to that when, in the next year?

MR. DWYER: It is a large civil project. What makes

it more complicated than the usual project is the large number of people working

in a small area; besides that, it is the same as other similar projects across

the Province with the exception that I have just quoted.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. Except quality control I

guess and things like that are much higher I would imagine, than any projects

that we are used to undertaking. I understand quality control is the biggest

requirement of all the contractors who go on site, but I do not know if that has

anything to do with health and safety but -

MR. DWYER: The quality control of the installation

itself, how well the installation is constructed is not the responsibility of

the Occupational Health and Safety Division, they have a quality control agent

such as Lloyds of London, ensuring that it is built to a certain standard. The

Department's concern is that it is constructed safely from a worker perspective.

MR. BAKER: I would like to add to that if I may,

Mr. Chairman. The fact that this project in a way is a make or break project

from the point of view of this Province and offshore work; what is happening at

Bull Arm and what will happen in the next three or four years is absolutely

crucial to the Province.

If the companies that are working there cannot perform

and cannot give the quality and cannot give the time schedules that are demanded

by the consortium, and this causes undue delay in the project, then the chances

of us ever extending our work in this Province - further offshore work - is

very, very slim indeed. So I believe that everybody involved recognizes the fact

of the make or break nature in the long term of this project for the Province,

and I think it cannot be stressed enough that things have to be done, quality

has to be provided, the time schedules have to be met, and the safety on the

project has to be second to none. All these things are essential if we are to

ever expand and have a long term offshore industry in this Province.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with

the Minister and that is why I am concerned. I do not think we have the training

techniques or the training programmes in place in this Province right now. I

know it is not the Minister of Labour's fault, the Minister of Education has

been cutting back on training in our post-secondary levels of education, and

that concerns me. I think this is a very critical construction project, and if

we do not have the properly trained people to go and do the job the way it

should be done they would have to be imported or the next phase of a job will be

taken out of here, and that certainly concerns me as I am sure it must concern

the Minister.

MR. BAKER: I think most of the cutbacks in

post-secondary education have been cutbacks unrelated to this development that

you are talking about. I know there have been a lot of lay offs in terms of the

high school programme being carried out in community colleges. I know in Gander,

I believe, there were six people laid off in connection with that, so this is a

pre-vocational high school programme. There will be cutbacks in some hair

dressing courses and some nursing assistant courses and so on, so it is unfair

to categorize what has happened in the post-secondary system as being very much

related to the training of the individuals who are going to be on site. It would

be short sighted if we did very much of that.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just to get away from occupational

health and safety, I have some more education questions, but I am sure that is

not what the Minister is here to answer.

Mr. Minister, being the Vice-Chairperson of the

Government Services Legislative Review Committee, I was fortunate enough to do a

review of some of the Labour Legislation that is about to come before the House:

Bill 59, and the double breasting, all very controversial bills in the days gone

by and in another life, for me anyway. But the thing that came out loud and

clear in all our hearings, and we had a lot of people make presentations to us

on labour relations generally, one of the Members of the Committee usually would

ask whoever was making the presentation: do they think because of all the

amendments to the Labour Relations Act that exists now, do they think it is time

for a Royal Commission or a Task Force or something to try to put everything

together to try to make it work better? It did not appear from the people making

the presentations to us that it was working properly, it was overly complicated,

particularly when we had dealings with the Labour Relations Board. Anyone who

was having dealings with the Labour Relations Board found it extremely

complicated to try to get through the legalities, and the only ones who are

doing really well out of our present labour standards legislation seem to be

lawyers because it is so complicated. Is there any thought or has the Government

given any thought to the recommendation that our Committee did make to have a

look at that. We did not recommend a Royal Commission or a Task Force, we did

not recommend one or the other, but we suggested that something like that be put

in place. Has the Government given any consideration to that?

MR. BAKER: Yes, absolutely. We have not given

consideration to a Royal Commission, but we have given consideration to perhaps

consolidating everything that exists. There are a number of comments I would

like to make, and I have to be very conscious of the fact that I am here

representing the Minister of Labour and not Treasury Board, they are two totally

antagonistic positions.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Definite conflict of interest.

MR. BAKER: I agree with what you are saying in the

sense that the situation with labour legislation has been that the people who

have benefited most are the lawyers. As a matter of fact I had a letter from a

lawyer - and I am not blaming the lawyers, I am using this example to point out

- who does a lot of work on the labour side, not on management side, on labour

side, who made exactly that same point to me. He said: it is earning me a lot of

money but surely there is a better way to do it so that I do not earn as much

money.

So I agree, we certainly have to look at the whole

thing. But in terms of the essential services legislation the Member referred

to, I believe that some aspects of the essential services legislation on the

surface seem to be unworkable, and our recent experience during the summer

indicates that there may be some serious doubts as to whether it is workable.

But I will say that if we put that legislation through the House - and I am not

the only one who believes this, an awful lot of the unions believe it as well -

that we will have the best piece of essential services legislation in the

country.

MR. R. AYLWARD: One of the arguments made -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I am going to have to turn it over to some other

Member of the Committee. Mr. Doyle.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Aylward do you have a question you

want to ask?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just one last question. One of the

arguments that was made most often to our committee, especially when we were

talking about the essential services legislation or the... I've forgotten the

name of it now. The regular Labour Relations Act applies to just about everyone

in the Province, and then we have the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

We are consolidating this into one Act now, but there are still two

definitions

of workers. What most of the unions who came before us suggested, especially

CUPE, and it seemed to make sense to me, they said that if a food service worker

at the General Hospital, we will say, happens to be working for the hospital

board, they come under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. If the

person working right next to that same person happened to work for Versa Foods,

they come under the other

section of the Act.

They thought that to be extremely unfair. They

certainly made presentations to us that all workers should be treated the same.

A definition of worker in that Act should be for one. I have some problems with

that sometimes when they start thinking about essential services but I am not

sure any more. At one time I was very sure, but maybe for most of the categories

- certainly the food service worker, you would think if today Versa Foods, which

work in the hospitals and provide a service and can go on strike, come under one

section under the Labour Relations Act, you would think that a similar worker

working for the hospital board could possibly do the same thing. Has the

Government given any consideration to that? Because that point was made quite

often to our committee.

MR. BAKER: Yes. I think I am going to pass this to

Ms. Fry who in another life was very deeply involved with labour legislation and

the essential services concept and so on, so I will ask Ms. Fry if she will

answer that.

MS. DEBORAH FRY: Thank you. Deborah Fry, Deputy

Minister. Yes, the Department is currently looking at those very issues. We have

recently received the report - not recently, I suspect some time ago received

the report - which was quite helpful from the Legislative Review Committee. We

are now in the final stages I suspect of making our recommendations and that is

one of the issues that does crop up when you look at consolidating the various

pieces of labour legislation. You have mentioned two. There are several others

as well, including the teachers and the fishermen, and there are various other

pieces of bargaining legislation with interns and residents as well. Some

thought is being given to similar

definitions and perhaps give special part of

one piece of legislation that might deal with the essential services and a

definition of who would be performing essential services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Doyle.

MR. DOYLE: I think Mr. Barrett has one question he

wants to (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: A very short question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Barrett.

MR. BARRETT: For information purposes, I guess. A

lot of people are wondering when the applications for the student pilot

programme will be processed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Okay. I have one more question I want

to ask the Minister, and I will understand if he has to take this one under

advisement, because it is information I was only given a few hours ago and I am

sure he will be concerned as well, given the fact that we have an unemployment

rate of 22.2 per cent. I was given information today that there are two

engineers from New Brunswick and one ship's captain from Nova Scotia working at

the Hibernia site. I am a little bit reluctant to say what company, it is a

private company and I do not like mentioning the names of private companies. The

information was that the Coast Guard caught one individual operating a boat at

Bull Arm without a master's licence and no radio licence, and according to this

person, it is ridiculous since there are at least twenty engineers and thirty

masters who are unemployed here in the Province. I understand that it is a

question that could more appropriately of course be directed toward the unions.

But we do have the situation in Newfoundland where we do have an unemployment

rate of 22.2 per cent. Isn't it the Government's position that local labour -

and when I say "local labour" I mean Newfoundland labour - will be given top

preference for any jobs where these individuals are available for work?

MR. BAKER: I think where possible we have to make

sure that jobs that are associated with Hibernia are Newfoundland jobs. The

company has certain obligations under the Atlantic Accord. But one of the

obligations is not that all workers have to be from Newfoundland. So there are

certain guidelines we live under. Examples like this that the hon. Member runs

across - I am sure he would want to assist everybody by reporting these examples

to the appropriate people. I believe that the Hibernia monitoring group would be

one source to report to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I will let Ms. Gogan answer in a moment

and tell you what she knows about it. But if there are any problems with regards

to people who have been hired, and if there seems as if there is any attempt to

not use Newfoundland labour then I am sure we would appreciate the hon. Member

letting us know (Inaudible) so maximum Newfoundland labour is used on the

Hibernia site. I think there are some contracts that are going to be let very

shortly, within the next few days I think and tt is going to be very interesting

to see. These are contracts that are not (Inaudible) to Newfoundland, so I am

going to be very interested to see if in fact Newfoundland companies get these

contracts, and that Newfoundland labour is involved. I think within a week or so

there should be some (Inaudible) major contracts. So, Ms. Gogan?

(Sound quality very poor at this point - Hansard).

MS. CATHERINE GOGAN: We are (Inaudible) at this

point in time. Our (Inaudible) and they were employed previously, senior people

(Inaudible) subcontracted. And it was a component of the subcontract. And they

were the only ones who were non-Newfoundlanders at that point in time. Since

then they also have a male nurse from Nova Scotia and to the best of my

knowledge there are only three people.

MR. BAKER: We will certainly look into it.

MR. DOYLE: (Inaudible) but they are specifically

directed at the Minister of Employment so I am going to have to deal with these

in the House of Assembly.

MR. BAKER: We could have a go at some of them.

MR. DOYLE: Well, I have a number here from the

nurses' union, thirty recommendations from the nurses' union as a matter of

fact. I do not know if I want to get into these tonight because it is quite

lengthy. It is from the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union and the thirty

recommendations that they have made to Workers' Compensation. I would certainly

like to see somebody around from Workers' Compensation to deal specifically with

these. But I think I will hold these for the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations in the House of Assembly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Aylward, I believe, has a few

more questions. I turn it over to Mr. Aylward.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Just one more general question to

the Minister again. The double-breasting legislation: you have suggested that it

might or might not come before the spring session of the House of Assembly.

Would you know, or any of the staff know, if this legislation now is still as

critical as it was a couple of months ago as it ties into the construction

trades' negotiations with the - whatever you call the employers' group? It was

supposed to be fairly critical at one time when we had a presentation made to us

that this be passed or at least be made known what legislation will be in order

for the union and management people to get down and do their contracts.

MR. BAKER: Yes, well, of course as I indicated to

you I will be checking with the Minister and (inaudible) and the recommendations

as to whether this is an urgent thing and should be done this spring, then come

to me, so maybe as far (inaudible).

MS. FRY: The legislation is ready. I believe it

has been introduced at least at first reading, not second. I have not had the

opportunity to brief the Minister or speak to Mr. Baker, but I would suggest at

this point he would be recommending that the legislation be passed if at all

possible this session, if he is ready. So we know that construction trades have

commenced their bargaining. One

section of the Act does deal with construction

trades (INAUDIBLE)!!

MR. R. AYLWARD: It is on the Order Paper but I do

not think it was distributed yet as I do not remember seeing it.

MS. FRY: It has just been printed.

MR. BAKER: (INAUDIBLE) calls for first readings

but listed on the Order Paper as at the second reading stage, (inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: That is it for me, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (INAUDIBLE).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I move that the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations Sub-Heads from 1.1.01 to 4.2.01 inclusive, be

passed as presented.

On motion, subheads 1.1.01 through to 4.2.01, carried.

On motion, Department of Employment and Labour

Relations, total head, carried.

I declare that the Estimates for the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations have been reviewed and approved and I further

declare that the Estimates for all of the Government Departments which have been

brought before this Committee have been reviewed and approved.

The minutes of our last meeting have not been

distributed so I cannot ask for a motion to approve the minutes as distributed

because they were not ready in time, we will do that later in the House.

I would like to thank Mr. Baker, for filling in for

the Minister tonight, and I would like to thank the Department officials for

coming here for the second time, and Mr. Aylward who has Vice-Chaired this

meeting along with the other four previous meetings.

MR. DOYLE: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I must apologise; Mr. Doyle

Vice-Chaired one of them so I would like to thank both of these hon. gentlemen

and the Committee Members and I would like to thank Elizabeth Murphy, who has

been the Clerk of our Committee for all but one meeting and tonight our page,

Paula and Jeff Barter, who has been recording this session tonight and

particularly thank him for the last meeting we had here, when he had some

problems with his recording equipment.

I would like to recognize and thank Miss Cullen from

the Evening Telegram for having come and shared this evening with us. I will now

ask for a motion to adjourn.

MR. R. AYLWARD: The only media to cover all of our

meetings by the way. I congratulate The Evening Telegram.

MR. CHAIRMAN: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: I think special notice should be made

of that in the House too.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes. It will be sir, when the

Committee reports are made (inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: - in their coverages as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: Absolutely.

(Sound quality this session very poor - Hansard).

On motion, the Committee adjourned at 9:45 p.m.