LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
June 16, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Bob Rose
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First
Report of the Committee on Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs
presents the following as its First Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, June 15,
1993, at 10 a.m. in Room 254 of the
Mr. G. Campbell MacLean, Chairperson of
the Board; Mr. Nick Diakiw, President; Ms. Marilyn Edmunds, Communications
Manager; and Mr. Randy Cameron, General Manager, Forks Market, provided such
information as was requested with respect to the annual report and the business
of The Forks Renewal Corporation.
Your committee reports that it has
considered the 1991‑1992 Annual Report of The Forks Renewal Corporation
and matters pertaining to The Forks Renewal Corporation.
Mr. Rose: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual
Report for 1991‑92 for the Multiculturalism Secretariat and the Annual
Report for 1991‑1992 of the
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the 1992 Annual Report of the Public
Utilities Board.
* (1335)
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 44‑The
Alcoholism Foundation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Monsieur le president, I move, seconded by
the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Bill 44, The
Alcoholism Foundation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la Fondation manitobaine de lutte contre l'alcoolisme et apportant
des modifications correlatives a une autre loi, be introduced and that the same
be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 45‑The
Coat of Arms, Emblems and the
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 45, The Coat of Arms,
Emblems and the
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the
House. I would like to table that
message.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 46‑The
Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), seconded by the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries Compensation
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'indemnisation des victimes d'actes
criminels), be introduced and that the same now be received and read a first
time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of the bill, recommends it to the House,
and I would like to table that message.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable
members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Immigrant
Investor Fund
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
Mr. Speaker, on November 5, 1992, the
government stated they were going to investigate all aspects of the Immigrant
Investor Fund, including media reports dealing with Mr. Michael Gobuty who had
put out proposals to build a resort in
We were very concerned, Mr. Speaker. The Premier was concerned. He asked that his name be withdrawn because
he never endorsed this project, and his name showed up on the investor
list. We were very concerned that in the
first Crewson report and the second Crewson report, there was no indication
that there was any investigation, as stated by the minister responsible.
I would like to ask the Premier: Where is that investigation, and what is the
status of the solicitation of investments under the Immigrant Investor Fund or
other solicitations? What is the status
of that investigation of the provincial government?
* (1340)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of different
elements to the question.
Firstly, I think the member opposite has a
copy of the letter I sent insisting that my name be withdrawn from the list of
references in the prospectus that Mr. Gobuty was putting out, and
acknowledgement by his solicitor that, indeed, that would take place.
When we expressed our concerns about the
Immigrant Investor Funds in a general sense, what was followed up, of course,
was the audits of five funds that did produce information that has been
publicly aired now for several weeks, that indicated many of our worst fears
and concerns were confirmed about the lack of regulations, the lack of
protection for the investor in this whole program.
That program, as we have said before, and
the lack of scrutiny and the lack of regulations and controls, was as a result
of the way in which the fund was set up by the federal government and the
government of the day, the New Democratic government, who withdrew the option
of having the Manitoba Securities Commission be a part of the scrutiny process.
That is the situation as it exists, and we
have no further information to put forth on the matter.
Immigrant
Investor Fund
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer the
question about Mr. Gobuty, his investments, his proposals and his use of names
and not using names. The minister said
clearly on the public record they would be investigating the situation.
The investigation did not appear in the
first Crewson report. It did not appear
in the second Crewson report. Are there
matters we are not aware of? Has the
minister done that investigation as he promised, or did he not do it? When will we have that investigation? When will it be tabled in the House? Is he
reviewing matters? Are there any
criminal issues raised? Has he referred this over to the Crown? What is the status of the situation? We did not get an answer from the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) on the first question.
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism): The concern at the time this issue arose was the
suggestion that Mr. Gobuty was using names such as the Premier's in his
submission and that was followed up.
There was some confusion in terms of the information the federal
government received in terms of that information not being in the original
submission. It was subsequently
submitted to them in terms of the references and the names provided, and the
Premier has clearly outlined the letter that he forwarded immediately to Mr.
Gobuty at that time and clarified that situation.
In terms of the offering memorandum by Mr.
Gobuty in that particular investment, to the best of my knowledge, it lapsed at
the end of the year without selling a single unit, I believe, Mr. Speaker.
Federal
Consultations
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): It still does not answer the question about
whether the government approved it or not.
What were the conditions of that approval? Did they falsely try to market this
sale? A lot of questions are still not
answered again by the minister's answer here today.
Mr. Speaker, on June 2, 1993, the
government was allowing the funds to continue to invest approximately $30 million
of immigrant investment funds that had been previously approved by the
Mr. Speaker, the minister was in
They were at the same convention,
supporting the same leadership candidate.
Did he have communication with the federal minister responsible, as he
indicated last week?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): First of all, let not the Leader of the
Opposition attempt to confuse people or anybody on this issue in terms of the
suggestion he is making, in terms of the funds that are available to be
invested. There is approximately $30
million available to be invested through a syndicated fund.
We have already put on record that we are
not approving any new funds, no new syndicated funds, and no new project‑specific
funds, but there is a pool of resources that is available, not about to be
monitored in terms of potential investment.
We have outlined in this House a procedure we have in place in terms of
potential investments, in terms of economic benefit analysis, and we have also
made a very specific request to the federal government in terms of the
monitoring provision, to which, to date, I have not had a response to the
letter I forwarded to Mr. Valcourt or to a phone call I recently placed to him.
We will continue to pursue the matter with
the federal government. In the interim,
we are not approving any further syndicated fund investments. If we need to, we will enhance the monitoring
provisions, but we have said all along, and the Leader of the Opposition knows
full well, this is a national program. There should be national monitoring
provisions. Funds across
Mr. Speaker, to suggest that we are at a
leadership convention and that I should seek out Mr. Valcourt to pursue this is
absolutely unreasonable and unrealistic.
I have corresponded with him through the proper channels in
writing. I have corresponded to his
office by phone call, and we will continue to pursue the matter with the
federal government.
* (1345)
Licensed
Practical Nurses
Layoffs
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister agreed
with the fact that St. Boniface Hospital was reducing its staff by 10 percent
and threw the lives of hundreds of hardworking and long‑time employees
into disarray.
What assurances can this minister give
today to the other several thousand LPNs who are working in the hospital and in
the health care field, to assure them that they, too, will not be part of the
casualty list of the government's reform package?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable
friend, always in his preamble, attempts to paint pictures and innuendoes that
are not appropriate.
My honourable friend made the allegation
yesterday incorrectly that this was stimulated by the work of the APM
contract. That was wrong. Today, he says I concurred or agreed with or
initiated these staff layoffs at St. Boniface Hospital and now is alleging it
is part of health care reform.
Mr. Speaker, every hospital in
Subsequent to that, in working with
government, St. Boniface and other hospitals have examined the way they
undertake care provision. Not‑for‑admission
surgery is part of it, and that led to the reduction of the need for surgical
beds at St. Boniface and the resulting layoffs, Sir.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, only this Minister of Health can
blame yesterday's cuts on somebody else, everyone else, and evade the
responsibility of where the decision is made.
My supplementary to the minister, Mr.
Speaker, is: How can Ms. Connie Curran
now cut an additional $45 million to $65 million out of the Health Sciences
Centre budget and the St. Boniface budget after they have pared down to the
bone? Where are the $45‑million to
$65‑million cuts going to come from at St. Boniface and Health Sciences
Centre?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that, of course, is a subject of
discussion and investigation at both Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface as
a result of the initiation by those two facilities and the agreement by
government to enter into that contract with Connie Curran.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say, with all the
respect I can muster, to my honourable friend the New Democrat, that across the
length and breadth of
The only people who have consistently said
the system does not have to change are New Democrats in opposition. From the luxury of opposition, New Democrats
say spend, tax and borrow, but from the reality of government, they try to
reduce costs in government. They
introduce legislation, as in
When will my honourable friend acknowledge
reality and come into the real world and stop living in the past and being
afraid of the future?
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, how can this minister state this
system is somehow rational in reforming itself when he has not put any
community services in place to deal with those, and, secondly, he let all the
LPNs be fired while he is still awaiting a report on the mix of hospital staff
and LPNs by the end of the month?
* (1350)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, again, my honourable friend does not
have his facts straight. I am sorry.
One of these days my honourable friend
might actually research a question he poses so he does not look so foolish,
but, then, of course, Sir, I have come to the conclusion my honourable friend
lives in a fool's paradise, and by his length of stay there, his fellow
residents have elevated him to the status of reigning monarch.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, our
rules are very clear. The minister does
not have to answer the question, but he should at least be in the ballpark.
I would like to ask him to at least
attempt, once, to give a straightforward answer to a very serious question
raised by our Health critic on behalf of the people of
Mr. Speaker: I believe the honourable minister is
attempting to answer the question.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister, answer the question,
please.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend says there
should be services in the community to replace the employment for 39 surgical
beds that is not necessary because surgical procedures are moving from
inpatient to outpatient. He wants to
create community services when they are not needed to replace services in the
institution.
My honourable friend simply does not
understand the changes, the shifts in health care. You replace services in other areas of the
health care department when you have to, in moving them from a tertiary
hospital, but for not‑for‑admission surgery and a better admission
process, you do not need additional community‑based services.
It is a management‑efficiency task
that allows you to make reductions and maintain the level of service, quality
of service, and the budget integrity of the hospital.
Child
Protection Centre
Service
Levels
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Family Services.
Today, we read in the paper yet again
about individuals who are before the courts charged with brutally beating and
injuring their child. The story is truly
horrific and, unfortunately, all too common in our society.
It is shocking that cases like this exist
at all, and, in fact, I think, far more often than many of us are prepared to
admit. It is also cases like this that
highlight the importance of the Child Protection Centre and the work it does at
the Health Sciences Centre.
My question for the minister is based on
his statement two weeks ago in Family Services Estimates when he said: We are asking the Child Protection Centre to
use an accumulated surplus which they have at their disposal to continue to
provide the same level of service.
We have now learned that the $417,000
surplus, which they were to have used and have used in the past to cover
deficits, has been taken away by the department.
My question for the minister: What is the Child Protection Centre to do
with their $125,000 deficit now that they do not have the accumulated surplus
to cover that, which the minister said they would have? What is his response to the 1.6 staff
positions, nursing positions, which are currently being laid off at the Child
Protection Centre? How are they going to
continue that same level of service?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, certainly, all of us are concerned about the cases that are brought up
in the media where the safety net of agencies and social workers and the
services put in place are not as effective as we would all want them to be.
As a result, we are working on many fronts
to improve the abilities of child welfare agencies through a number of reforms
we have talked about both in the House and in Estimates. Currently, we have a
task force that is also investigating what are perceived to be some of the
weaknesses in native child welfare agencies.
So there are a number of reforms that are in place.
In reference to the Child Protection
Centre, there are some discussions going on at the present time between our
staff to clarify some of the issues the member has referenced.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, specific to those discussions,
Mr. Fenwick, the director of Child and Family Services, has told the centre
there will be no further funds allocated.
They were originally told they could use $200,000 of that $417,000 to
cover their deficit and to maintain the current level of care they offer.
My question to the minister: How does he link and put together,
rationalize, that statement that they will no longer be able to do that and the
resulting layoffs which are required with his statement 12 days ago that he
wanted and he was going to make sure that this agency was able to continue to
provide the same level of service?
Those are his words. How does he defend those in the wake of the
information they have been given that they are going to have to have layoffs?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, we certainly value the services
that have been provided by the child protection agency. There are some discussions going on at this
time regarding the level of that surplus and funding.
I can assure you our department will work
together with them and seriously consider how we can maintain the services they
have provided.
* (1355)
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, my final question is for the
minister.
Given that the layoffs are currently
occurring and that the positions which are being cut were for training of
medical students and staff at Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface, as well
as for an outreach program to the schools, will the minister commit today that,
in fact, those are essential services of the Child Protection Centre and that
they need to be maintained and that those layoffs should not and cannot occur
if he is going to maintain his commitment to the children of this province and
this agency to maintain current levels of service?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, our commitment is to continue to
work with the Child Protection Centre and to certainly proceed with the review
of those services that are being undertaken at this time with members of our
department.
Health
Care System
Kidney
Dialysis Services
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Concern about adequate kidney dialysis
service is turning into fear and taking on life‑threatening
proportions. We have been informed that
dialysis patients have been told by hospital staff at the Health Sciences
Centre that if provincial funding is not forthcoming, anyone not on a waiting
list for a transplant would be sent home and not receive dialysis services.
The minister and others will know, of
course, that anyone who needs dialysis and does not receive it would have a
life expectancy of about two weeks.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health
if he will assure all dialysis patients today that this is not government
policy and that services will be available to all patients who need dialysis.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned with the
allegation my honourable friend has indicated, that staff‑‑and I
want to make sure what my honourable friend is saying‑‑at the
Health Sciences Centre dialysis program, under the leadership of Dr. Jeffery,
are telling, who, current patients that no more admissions, and people will be
sent home to die?
Is that what is being communicated at
Health Sciences Centre? I want to be
absolutely sure of what my honourable friend is saying.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to clarify for
the minister since this is a serious matter, and I do not want the minister to
at all distort what is being said, although it is serious enough on its own.
I want to ask him how he feels about the
situation where dialysis patients are being told by hospital staff that if
provincial funding was not forthcoming, anyone not on the transplant list would
be sent home.
My question again: Will the minister assure us and all patients
that this is not government policy and services will be there for patients who
need them?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is why I am so concerned
about my honourable friend's statement and question, because that is not a
policy of this government, and, secondly, I do not believe that is a policy of
the renal dialysis program at the Health Sciences Centre.
That is why, if my honourable friend can
possibly provide me with more detailed information as to who is making that
statement to whom, I want to investigate that very quickly and very seriously
because that has all the implications that are disruptive, not at all helpful
to individuals who are suffering from kidney failure and need the services of
dialysis. That is a very inappropriate
message for anyone to be giving to patients who are that vulnerable in their
need for care.
I would like my honourable friend, if she
can, after Question Period, to provide me with details and more specifics.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Obviously, an individual who is fearing for
his or her life is going to be somewhat reluctant to go public. We will
certainly do our best to encourage these individuals to call the minister and
to relay their concerns and to have that treated in confidence.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Health: Further to the comments made
this past Monday by the head of Nephrology at Health Sciences Centre when he
said that only more money, patient deaths or transplants will prevent overload,
given that transplants are not able to meet the need, is the minister now
prepared to assure all of us that funding of dialysis services will be adequate
to meet the need?
* (1400)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, the dialysis program is one in
which we have very seriously invested new resource, additional resource and
additional program in the five years I have been minister. This program is very
valuable to government, and we are trying very much to work with the
professionals, the head of dialysis, Dr. Jeffery.
In the five years that I have been
Minister of Health, we have added, if my numbers quickly made are correct, some
15 new dialysis machines in
Mr. Speaker, if we had not put that kind
of additional resource into this, I would accept my honourable friend's
attempted politicization of this issue, but we are working very
diligently. I look forward to my
honourable friend sharing more information with me and not try to put out these‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne is very clear in terms of not imputing unworthy motives
to members in raising questions.
I had the opportunity to speak to the
spouse of one of the patients myself this morning, and if the minister perhaps
would have listened to the concerns raised by the member for
This is not politicizing the issue. This is dealing with a matter of life or
death for those kidney dialysis patients.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member does not have a point of
order. It is clearly a dispute over the
facts.
ACCESS
Programs
Alternative
Funding
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, today on the steps of the
Legislature, there were students from the Winnipeg Education Centre who have
lost their ACCESS funding. These are
young people, many of them single parents, aboriginal, visible minorities for
whom the ACCESS program offered hope and an opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
minister responsible for the cuts to‑‑(interjection)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe this question will be directed to
the honourable Minister of Education and Training.
I think the honourable Madam Minister
would have great difficulty in hearing the question unless the honourable
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) would
like to carry their discussion outside of this Chamber. The honourable Madam
Minister is attempting to listen to the question.
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister
responsible for the cuts to the ACCESS programs what alternatives she has to
offer these students.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, let me say to the member that I must challenge him in the terms he has
used, the word "lost."
This government continues to provide $9.9
million to the ACCESS programs. Let me
also tell the member across the way, in case he is not entirely familiar with
the program, that for an ACCESS student, the average amount of money available
is $10,600 for those students.
Students who require additional funding
may then go to the
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, the issue is a cut of over $1
million to the ACCESS program‑‑over $1 million cut‑‑and
at a time when other programs like New Careers and Student Social Allowances
are also being cut. This government
talks about the importance of education and of sharing the pain, but in fact
targets‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Point
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister
is: What other programs can these
students access so that they can gain the education necessary to get employment
and get off social assistance programs?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the member, as I
have said in this House before, the federal government has changed the way in
which they provide funding for ACCESS students.
They will be providing their money directly to the bands, the loss which
the member sees here.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, this government
came forward and provided $1.1 million.
We stepped in to provide support where the federal government had
withdrawn its funding, so those students last year could finish their
program. That was our commitment. Our commitment remains this year.
Again, I will remind the member, $9.9
million available for ACCESS programs.
We continue to support ACCESS programs.
We continue to support students who are in the ACCESS programs.
HIV
Compensation Package
Blood
Transfusion Recipients
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
Mr. Speaker, one of the recommendations
made by the committee on blood and HIV in the House of Commons was to trace all
those potential patients who have contracted AIDS during the period between
1980 and 1985. Based on those
recommendations, the
Can the Minister of Health tell us what is
being done in
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, when
that issue arose approximately six or eight weeks ago with the children's
hospital in
Where there is a difficulty is dependent
on the type of blood product that was transfused. As my honourable friend will well know, there
are some blood transfusion materials that are single source. In the case where Red Cross has identified a
contaminated donor and it is single source back to patients, that contact
tracing has been undertaken. It may not
be complete, but is reasonably effective.
The difficulty arises where the transfused
product is fractionated from a whole series of donors, and there it is
virtually impossible to trace with any accuracy. As a consequence, what we are attempting to
do right now is create communication with the medical profession in
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, we have five provinces in this
country which are going to compensate patients:
recently
Can the minister tell us now, will they
finally also have a compensation package for these patients who are dying
because of AIDS?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, we are very cognizant of the
challenge to hemophiliacs whose assistance from the federal government only
lasted until roughly April of this year.
We have always been willing to approach the issue of supportive
programs, not as single provinces, and we are there on behalf of hemophiliacs
in
We have some additional initiatives we
want to assure happen so there is consistency across
We are fully supportive of that, and we
will be there, Sir, with the federal government to make appropriate supportive
initiatives for those individuals whose lives have been so irreversibly altered
through no fault of their own.
* (1410)
Skills
Training Program
Reduction
Justification
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, when the government eliminated
adult high school bursaries and student social allowances and cut New Careers
and ACCESS and Human Resources Opportunity Centres, they made a choice to take
away the future from those who have nothing and nowhere else to turn.
I want to ask the Minister of
Education: How do any of these cuts fit with
the advice of her Skills Training and Advisory Committee, the Winnipeg 2000
economic program or even last week's Framework for Economic Growth? How does it benefit Manitobans to cut away
that very first rung on the Education and Training ladder?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, again, we
are making every effort, No. 1, to see that students who are currently in
school remain in school so that we have students who are at risk identified and
so that they finish their high school educations, and then they can progress on
to post‑secondary education.
For adults, they have the opportunity, the
opportunity which still exists, to attend programs within their home
division. So there is certainly the
opportunity to make sure that adults are able to get their high school
education.
As I have spoken to the member for
Wolseley before, for those students who have additional difficulties, we
maintain literacy programs which are community‑based which address some
of the very basic needs in terms of reading and numeracy.
So we have a number of programs in which
we are continuing to assist Manitobans to receive the basic level of education
so that they will have choices and will be able to move on to skills training
programs.
Workforce
2000
Management
Training Programs
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the only
opportunity that is being offered to these programs is to go on welfare where
they are excluded from education.
I want to ask the Minister of
Education: How difficult was the choice
to take from those with nothing and, under Workforce 2000, to provide for a
three‑day session at
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
member continually, without ever naming, picks an area and attempts to speak
about it with no knowledge of really what occurred or what other issues
actually happened when they were covering in that particular training session.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are coming in the
Estimates of the Department of Education to discuss the area of Workforce 2000,
and I will be happy to discuss those particular areas of interest she has.
But just let me remind the member who has
had great difficulty with this program, when I was at the labour market
ministers' conference, ministers from across
This province under Workforce 2000 has
trained over 54,000 Manitobans.
Ms. Friesen: The issue is taking from those with nothing
and giving to Workforce 2000.
I want to ask the Minister of Education
again: How difficult was the choice to
cut student social allowances, New Careers and ACCESS in order to provide,
under Workforce 2000, days of training for managers in product knowledge and
marketing skills, training which surely should be the fundamental
responsibility of the employer.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we provide
a full range within the Department of Education and Training of skills training
opportunities now. One of the most
recent initiatives we have taken is to bring into the Department of Education
and Training areas which were previously in the Department of Family Services
and the Department of Labour.
I can tell the member that in the area of
Workforce 2000, in addition to training over 54,000 Manitobans, the government
contribution to Workforce 2000 since May 1991 has levered from the business
partners over $17 million of their contributions that they put on the table for
the training of workers so that workers would receive skills, so that workers
could‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Workers?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, workers, because the training that
occurs is for employees, and they have received additional training which has
allowed them to remain employed and has also allowed them portability of
skills.
Student
Social Allowances Program
Funding
Elimination Justification
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to remind the Premier of what his government said in the throne speech
last November about education when he said:
"My government realizes that Education and Training are the keys
that unlock a world of opportunity and the future of economic growth and
prosperity."
That is what this government said last
November. Why have they forgotten that
by eliminating the student social assistance program? Had they totally forgotten that by their April
budget, and if not, why did they eliminate the student social assistance
program?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker,
regrettably, we as a government were left with a huge debt by our predecessors,
the New Democratic administration, a public debt that sucks away $560 million
annually from our ability to provide programs.
Programs for people in education, in
health and social services can no longer be afforded because of the fact they
have left that legacy of debt that sucks up $560 million of interest. That is
the kind of situation that every government in
The only people who do not have to make
difficult choices are the New Democrats who sit from the luxury of opposition
and say, spend and tax, spend and tax.
Mr. Speaker, that kind of attitude, of
course, is why the New Democrats were shut out yesterday in Alberta‑‑wiped
out‑‑because the public can see through that. They know that kind of irresponsibility does
not deserve to be in government.
To govern is to choose, and to choose is
to have to make difficult choices. That
is why this government did not dodge those difficult choices, but, in fact,
made those choices, as tough as they were, as difficult as they were, because
we were left with that legacy of debt and high taxes by the New Democrats of
this province.
Mr.
Martindale: Mr. Speaker, the Premier
sees education as only a debt rather than an investment in the future of young
people.
I want to ask the Premier: Why does he want to be remembered as the
Premier who kicked students out of school and put them on welfare? Why does he want to be remembered as the Premier
who denied people hope, hope of an education in the future and a job?
Mr.
Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I, too, see
education as an investment, an investment that pays dividends for decades and
generations to come.
The problem is the money we could have
invested in that education was spent, $27 million of it, on the sands of Saudi
Arabia by New Democrats, and $21 million of it was just squandered on a bridge
to nowhere by New Democrats. Millions
and millions of dollars was spent by New Democrats on their friends, hiring
thousands and thousands of their friends onto the payroll, squandering millions
of dollars, running up a debt that is costing us $560 million annually.
That is the kind of ill‑conceived
investment they made so we cannot have that money to spend on education.
Speaker's
Ruling
Mr. Speaker:
On June 8, 1993, the House leader for the official opposition party, the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), rose on a point of order regarding
the words spoken by the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon). The opposition House leader cited Beauchesne
484.(3) that a member is not permitted to indulge in any reflections or impute
any motives to any members, or unworthy motives for their actions.
At that time, I took the matter under
advisement, and I have perused Hansard to determine what was said. I believe the words in question were: " . . . this is an interesting point the
member for Wolseley makes. As a former
university professor herself, she is arguing the cause for her own people,
saying only‑‑"
I have consulted parliamentary authorities
and found the following: Citation
481.(e) of Beauchesne reads: . . . a
Member, while speaking, must not: impute
bad motives or motives different from those acknowledged by a Member."
Citation 484.(3) reads: " . . . a Member will not be permitted
by the Speaker . . . to impute to any Member or Members unworthy motives for
their actions in a particular case . . . ".
Having examined what was said, I am ruling
that the opposition House leader did not have a point of order. I do not believe that the honourable First
Minister did impute unworthy motives to the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen) in the exchange in question.
However, I do note that in considering the context of all of the
questions between the honourable member for Wolseley and the honourable First
Minister during Question Period on June 8, some of the words chosen by the
honourable First Minister were less than courteous, and I would ask him, as
well as all honourable members, to pick their words with care.
Committee
Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member
for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Economic Development be amended as follows:
I move, seconded by the member for The
Maples (Mr. Cheema), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: St. James (Mr. Edwards) for St. Boniface (Mr.
Gaudry).
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek
(Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources, for the Wednesday 7 p.m. session: the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) for
the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay); the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner)
for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine); the member for Riel (Mr.
Ducharme) for the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).
I move, seconded by the member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic
Development, for the Thursday 10 a.m. session, be amended as follows: the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the
member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr.
Rose) for the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister); the member for
River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) for the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson);
the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the member for Emerson (Mr.
Penner).
I move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, firstly
I would ask if there was a willingness to waive private members' hour today.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bills 11, 14, 17,
18, followed by Bill 22.
* (1420)
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 11‑The
Regional Waste Management Authorities,
The
Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 11, The Regional Waste
Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant la
Loi sur les municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 11 coming before this House, The
Regional Waste Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act.
I want to start by saying that I am
prepared to have this bill move to committee.
I hope it goes as soon as possible.
I do not believe that there will be other members of our party speaking
to it.
We have looked through this bill, and we
have reviewed the comments not only of the minister, but of the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik), the member for Lac du Bonnet, who put comments on the
record about the importance of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill allows
municipalities to essentially, in a nutshell, come together and get together
and create regional waste management facilities. That is for a number of reasons: cost‑effectiveness
and efficiency of use of the technologies which are available. We do, of course, want to allow
municipalities to move in the directions that they see fit to best deal with
waste. If it should be on a regional as
opposed to a municipal level, then we certainly want to afford them that
opportunity.
I do believe that these municipalities do
want to deal effectively and responsibly with their waste concerns. I do believe that a co‑operative
approach to this is a good idea and important.
I do believe that we certainly do need to improve the current system in
a lot of areas of this province. We are
not adequately dealing with waste, and in particular waste that has toxicity
levels, waste that is hazardous to the soil, hazardous to the environment, not
adequately protected, not adequately treated.
Of course, that is the reason we, as a
party, as well have consistently supported the work of the Hazardous Waste
Management Corporation. We want to bring
those technologies to
I think, Mr. Speaker, we can lead in this
area. We have led and I look forward‑‑I
noticed some of the press reports recently about the Hazardous Waste Management
Corporation. We have differences, I
think, with the government about how we would approach the construction of that
project.
The point is, our party is committed to
that facility being constructed as soon as is reasonably possible. That, I think, will assist us and raise the
awareness, raise the technological ability around this province.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to indicate to the
minister, when we do reach the committee stage on this I am going to, of
course, reserve as to whether or not there may be amendments coming forward.
I do have some concerns about some of the
particulars of the bill. It is not the
appropriate time now to raise those. I
can indicate that I do not believe they are major. I am going to listen if there are any
presentations‑‑I hope there will be‑‑to indicate how
this bill might be improved, but in its current form we are certainly prepared
to have this moved to committee.
We have, of course, many bills before the
House which have yet to get to committee, but I hope that we can move this one
relatively quickly because I assume from the minister's comments that there is
some considerable desire on the part of the R.M.s to have this put into place
and that there are hopefully some projects in the wings, some who are waiting
to move on this. Of course, I would look
forward to that.
Our former critic for Environment, the
former member for Wolseley, as you will recall, was one who took his job very
seriously, and in fact visited a number of those sites, one or two I believe in
the member for Lac du Bonnet's (Mr. Praznik) riding, the Minister of Labour,
and exposed for this House some of the grave deficiencies of some of those
facilities, and I am glad to hear the minister's comments that it is a very
different scene today.
If this bill can put into place, give the
R.M.s a further option to meet the waste requirements, the waste needs of their
area, the industries and the individuals in their area, then certainly I am
prepared to accept that and to give them that option. I know that they will, as they have in the
past, go at this responsibly, and I look forward to their achieving the type of
success that I think many of them hope for.
Mr. Speaker, with those comments, as I
said, I am going to reserve on the question of some amendments. I am going to come to the committee and I am
going to listen carefully to the presentations, but in principle, which, of
course, is what this stage of debate is about, we are certainly prepared to
agree to this bill moving on to the committee stage.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 14‑The
Personal Property Security and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 14 The Personal Property Security and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les suretes relatives aux biens
personnels et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Thompson.
Stand?
No, leave is denied.
* (1430)
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker, The Personal Property
Security and Consequential Amendments Act is a very large piece of legislation,
a very thorough piece of legislation, and a piece of legislation that we feel,
by and large, fulfills the objectives of the drafters of this piece of
legislation.
Basically, the purpose of the PPSA, if I
can abbreviate the legislation's name, is twofold: (1) to bring Manitoba's legislation and
regulations into phase with most other provinces, the harmonization process
that we have discussed in the context of several other bills in this session;
and (2) to bring under one piece of legislation the many laws and regulations
that are currently in place.
As I stated, we feel that, by and large,
this legislation fulfills its objectives and are, again, waiting for any public
comment that may raise some concerns.
The basic underlying objective of this piece of legislation is to treat
all commercial transactions the same unless there is a functional or
substantive reason to differentiate.
This already takes place for mortgages and other commercial kinds of
situations, but to this date has not been uniformly made for commercial
transactions.
It deals with all transactions where a
collateral is taken by some secured party‑‑that is, where there is
something bought and something sold in a collateral to promise and guarantee
delivery or to guarantee that the objectives of the commercial transaction are
fulfilled.
It attempts to provide a degree of
uniformity, harmonization and co‑ordination with other provinces'
legislation and to define, in one place, the kinds of collateral, who are the debtors
and lenders, the forms of security arrangement agreements that may be
undertaken, and who as a lender takes priority in acquiring the property of a
debtor.
As I have stated, The Consumer Protection
Act deals with these items for consumers, and this bill, Bill 14, deals mainly
with corporate or commercial transactions.
It looks at or attempts to look at all transactions where a collateral
is taken by some secured party.
It includes a number of definitions, as
all legislation does, and tries to provide for as many of the circumstances
that can surround commercial transactions as is possible. It is a very complicated and extensive piece
of legislation, and I would like to commend the people who were part of the
drafting of this legislation.
I would also like to commend the people
who gave both the critic for the second opposition party and myself an
excellent briefing on this piece of legislation. As a nonlawyer, I greatly appreciated the
nontechnical manner in which the briefing was undertaken and the willingness of
particularly Professor Braid to answer any and all questions I had about this
piece of legislation.
It is also the result of literally decades
of work by committees from across the country.
There have been groups in virtually every province that have been
attempting to make some sense out of commercial transactions and have been
trying to have a consistency across provinces and throughout the country.
Bill 14 attempts to bring under one law
all of the elements dealing with personal property in commercial
transactions: who are the parties, what
can be secured, who takes priority in collecting collateral, how can the public
be aware of the inventory, equipment, or consumer goods that may be collateral
to someone else.
This is an important part of this
legislation. It provides for the
registering of virtually all kinds of collateral and transactions so that
someone else who wants to enter into a commercial agreement with a third party
will know exactly what, if any, kinds of collateral are already involved in
another transaction.
It also brings
With those comments, Mr. Speaker, we are
prepared to pass this piece of legislation to committee hearing.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
This particular bill does, as the previous
speaker said, consolidate a number of pieces of legislation and puts them into
one piece of legislation. This is the
kind of goal that I think that we should be achieving in a number of pieces of
legislation.
It simplifies the ability of the
individual living within our province to only have to analyze and study one
very narrow piece of legislation rather than legislation over a myriad of
government departments and in a myriad of books that print and distribute the
legislation of the
Secondly, what this piece of legislation
does is to provide for greater synchronization of legislation not only in the
In addition, we too thank the government
for providing a very valid and well‑done briefing on this particular
piece of legislation. What we would like
to see is that kind of briefing made available with each piece of
legislation. I think that we would find
much easier passage in this House if the government was very clear,
particularly when a bill has some complexity, to present that information in as
clear as possible terms so that mistakes are not made, misinformation is not
given inadvertently sometimes by members of the Chamber, because they think a
piece of legislation refers to something which, in fact, it does not.
Mr. Speaker, with that we would be
delighted to see this piece of legislation go to committee as quickly as
possible. We understand there are some
presentations that are to be made. We
will, of course, listen to those presentations, but on the basis of the study
and analysis that we have been able to provide this piece of legislation, we
think it should get very quick passage. Thank you.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, just
briefly to add to the comments of the member for
I want to say as the one who attended the
briefing session with Professor Braid and with Alex Morton that they did a very
thorough job. They were very prepared to
discuss these issues with us.
I think I had some advantage because I
have some familiarity with the Personal Property Registry system in the
province; however, it is a complex area and their efforts are appreciated. I
think it is also important to recognize that there was a committee which dealt
with this and dealt with this for some considerable length of time. I know that Mr. Vecting (phonetic), among
others, was involved, and there was a lot of discussion and work that went into
making this piece of legislation as good as it can be.
* (1440)
It is intended to normalize the
legislation across the western provinces at least, and that is good because, of
course, we have a high level of transportation and movement of goods between
the provinces, and so it is important as much as possible to have security
maintained on similar, if not identical, bases from province to province.
Of course, the big problem with the
Personal Property Registry is that the lien registration, the security one
takes, is only good within the jurisdiction that you take it. So the problem is that, if goods move between
provinces, you can lose your rights. Of
course, it is very easy to take property in particular vehicles and other
things between provinces.
Sophisticated lenders are able to register
in a number of provinces. Some of the
less sophisticated, people who are not in the business, do not always do that
and oftentimes are caught short and are unable to recover when they are not
paid for goods which they sell on a payment basis, payment term, to others who
then leave the province.
So it is not a perfect system. I think, frankly, it would be best as a
nation to have a national model and to have a national registry. I mean, I have argued for that for a long
time that the best protection in this country would be at a national level, and
I think we should strive for that.
This is one small step in that
direction. It is an important one. I think the next step is to get together in
this country and try to normalize our Personal Property Registry systems.
I want to pick up on one other comment
that the minister made in his comments, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
who introduced this bill. He said, the
area of personal property security is a complex and technical one. I agree.
That is too bad for many of the transactions which personal property
covers because the truth is that the banks and the lending institutions all have
experts and can pay lawyers and pay others to keep track of these things and to
register and to know the rules and all those kinds of things.
Who loses by this being overly technical
and complex is the individual who happens to come into a situation where they
need to take security back on a vehicle, on a piece of property. They are selling to someone but have not been
paid in full. They need to know that
this system can work for them.
In fact, the staff is very good at the
registry. They help individuals. But it is way up on the 12th floor, I think,
of the
Mr. Speaker, if there is any way that I
think we should move as well, it is to educate the public as to what is
offered. What security is offered, what
remedies are available, what individuals can do when they want to take security
on personal property. That does happen
on a regular basis, in particular in the youth vehicle market. Many individuals, unfortunately, are not
aware that that ability is there to file a financing statement, to file a
security agreement, to take back security, and it would facilitate the
marketplace on the sale of goods and, in particular, used goods.
The other final point I want to make with
respect to personal property security is simply, Mr. Speaker, to recognize and
acknowledge that the staff who work in that branch of the Department of Justice
do a very fine job. I have dealt with them
on many occasions, and I have seen, even in the years I have been in this
Legislature, that service has improved and speed of ability to produce the
records on the file.
Mr. Speaker, it could hardly have not
improved. The Department of Justice was
in such disarray at the end of the tenure of the New Democratic Party, it is
truly hard to believe‑‑(interjection) That is true. I cut my teeth on those questions and it was
easy picking. It did give me a certain
ability to stand on a daily basis and raise these issues.
We have seen improvements on a number of
fronts. That is good, because at root,
that branch and that department serves the public, serves the individuals who
happen to come into contact with the justice system, and it is important that
it work with some speed and some efficiency.
It just plain was not, under the former government, and now, while I
still have the odd complaint, perhaps more than the odd complaint according to
the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), but the fact is it has improved, and this
is an area where it has improved as well.
Mr. Speaker, with those comments, I do not
intend to go into any detail. It is a
very detailed piece of legislation. I do
hope that there will be‑‑I know the Bar Association will want to be
involved. I hope the Department of
Justice takes on an educational role in educating the public about what is
there, how to register, financing statements, how to check whether or not there
are liens against vehicles and other goods they purchase.
It is a very important thing for the
public to know they can do that for a relatively small fee. I think it is $8 or $10. How many people buy
a used vehicle and do not check if there is a lien? The public has to know that is available and
that that is a prudent thing to do. So
there is an educational role to play as well.
It does not have to be as complicated and technical as it sounds. We should make every effort to make this
usable and used by the public who simply want to take security on property and
to check if security has been taken on property before they buy it.
With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I look
forward to the committee hearings on this bill.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 14, The Personal Property Security and Consequential Amendments
Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: That is agreed and so ordered.
Bill 17‑The
Crown Lands Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 17, The Crown Lands Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les terres domaniales, standing in the name of
the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this act
as well, we are prepared to have to move to committee. It is a bill which essentially
covers the situation where the Crown sells land and the sales agreement may
contain and does sometimes contain a restriction on the development of all or
part of the land in order to protect natural resources. This restriction can be enforced against the
subsequent owner of the land. The
agreement can be filed in the Land Titles Office. The filing makes future owners aware of the
restriction on the use of the land.
That is only fair, Mr. Speaker, that a
purchaser of land, when a title search is done prior to sale proceeds flowing,
will have notice on the title that there is, in fact, a restriction on the use
of the natural resources. Of course,
that is very important to know if you are buying a piece of land, what
restrictions are on the use of the land, because the assumption is that the
restrictions are very few, if any, and what there are will be on the title, so
you will know before you buy it, and you will be able to understand. That, of course, will affect the price and
desirability of the purchase.
This is an important thing. Although it is a small bill, it is certainly
important to any prospective purchaser of land which happens to have those
restrictions on it. We are pleased to
see that this has come forward and again look forward to some more detailed
discussion on it at committee stage and will listen eagerly to anyone wishing
to present on this.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this bill pass
without making reference, however, to the fact that we are deeply concerned
about this government's willingness and desire to protect the natural resources
in this province on Crown lands or in park lands or anywhere in this
province. We have consistently had
proven to us that they are not prepared, in our estimation, to give the due
regard for the protection of natural resources, whatever those may be, in this
province.
Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with the
protection of natural resources as it affects private lands and the purchase of
those lands, but we do want some commitment from this government to real
protection of our natural resources.
They just have not done it, whether it is logging in Nopiming Park,
which they overrode the Clean Environment Commission on, whether it is fast‑tracking
the hearings on the Assiniboine water diversion and not agreeing to do a common
sense thing like have a joint review panel.
* (1450)
You can go around this province and find
that, while the number of times sustainable development is mentioned, it is in
inverse proportion to the actual protection of the environment. The more it is
said, the less it is done apparently. We
are very concerned about that, and, of course, we will address that more
directly under the new parks act legislation.
I did want to put those comments on the
record in the context of this bill. I
do, of course, look forward to having this bill move to committee. We do not intend to have any other speakers
rise on this bill. It is a fairly simple
matter. It makes sense, and we will look
forward to more detailed discussion at the committee stage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Committee
Change
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows:
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 18‑The
Corporations Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 18, The
Corporations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les corporations, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? (agreed)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me pleasure to rise today on Bill 18, The Corporations Amendment Act, brought
forward by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh).
I have perused her comments and this bill
and again am prepared to have this bill move to committee.
Mr. Speaker, I do have some concerns on
the wording of the bill, and we will be discussing those at the committee
stage. But, to the extent that this bill's principle and purpose is to require
trust and loan corporations doing business in the province to register and
obtain a business authorization, of course, that appears to us to be a
reasonable move. We hope that this bill
will do away with some of the duplication of the regulatory activity that has
been a problem in the past.
Mr. Speaker, as the minister is aware, as
all members, I believe, are aware, at the present time, there are some
provinces that have adopted what is called the equals approach, and I am
somewhat familiar with that. I know the
minister spoke of it in her comments, which does result in duplication of
activity, in particular, with regard to the auditing function.
So, again, this bill is seeking, we
understand, to harmonize those processes with other jurisdictions, which we
endorse and look forward to further harmonization. This is another case, I think, of where,
because of our constitution in this country, we have a veritable patchwork
around the country of rules governing these types of institutions. We should work in the modern era, when goods
and companies are operating throughout the country on a regular basis‑‑we
should move to a harmonization nationally. It is important, and it is time for
us as a nation to do that. Of course, I have said that on many occasions and
with respect to many topical areas. This
is another one, where I think we need to move on a national basis to recognize
our unity as a nation and as an economic unit.
We need to have a consistency and a harmonization which has not been
there in the past.
That is not a self‑serving comment,
because the patchwork gives rise to a lot of work for lawyers. I am prepared to acknowledge that, as we have
different sets of rules in each province, it becomes more and more important to
have legal counsel around the country, in all the regions, experts in each
little province. So, as we move to the
national scene, it will become less and less important, one hopes, to have a
response to the patchwork nature of our laws.
I want to acknowledge that may not work to
the best interests of the legal profession, but I think it is important
nationally that we take down some of these differences between us, because the
truth is that, in the current situation, money, corporations, goods move
quickly, sometimes with the push of a computer button. They are moving across the nation, sometimes
across the world. We should do what we
can to facilitate the intertransfer of goods, services, and money in this
country. That would be an appropriate
way to go.
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of
the principle behind this legislation, and we will look forward at the
committee to some comment, perhaps the minister will have it at the time. Perhaps they will appear from the trust and
loan corporations; I am not sure what they think about this. I would like to hear from them as to whether
or not they are prepared to have any concern about this. It does seem reasonable on the surface, these
requirements, but we will withhold our specific comment on some of the
provisions until we have heard from them.
I assume that the minister has had some
significant consultation with them, prior to bringing forward this
legislation. So we do look forward to
hearing some of those comments and, again, a reserve on some of the details of this
bill for the committee stage. But I do
look forward to this moving to the committee, and, as with others that I have
spoken on this afternoon, we do not anticipate that there will be a need to
have other speakers from our caucus and that this bill might move to the
committee at the earliest opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
* * *
Mr. Speaker: There appears to be a willingness in the
House to revert to Bill 11. We
previously agreed to allow this matter to remain standing in the name of the
honourable member for
Bill 11‑The
Regional Waste Management Authorities,
The
Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
In attending municipal conventions, I know
that there is a lot of interest in some parts of the province towards moving
towards regional waste management, but when you move towards regional waste management,
some concerns also arise, Mr. Speaker.
As to some of the concerns that have arisen within my constituency and
my area of the province, they are concerned about if the government is pushing
in this direction to have regional waste management and regional management of
other things as well, but particularly with the regional wastes, are they going
to attach any money to it?
As you move to a regional waste management
facility, the municipalities in my constituency believe that this is going to
be much more expensive, distance‑wise, travel‑wise; also, just
managing of the whole site is going to cost a lot more. That is some of the concerns that they
have. They understand that this is
pushed by some of the municipalities to move in this direction, but they have
concerns. When the government
established
We have to take into consideration, Mr.
Speaker, that over the past few budgets by this government we have seen a
tremendous amount of offload in costs in roads and in other areas.
Municipalities have a shrinking population, and, certainly, actions that this
government is supporting relating to agriculture will not help the population
in rural
* (1500)
So, again, there is a smaller tax base to
pick up the costs of the waste management sites, to the municipal roads; in
fact, another cost that is being offloaded is the cost of calcium applications. Municipalities have, again, a cost passed on
to the taxpayers. So we have to be very
concerned as we move in the direction of regionalization of how municipalities
are going to deal with these additional costs.
I would hope that, when we get into discussing this bill, the minister
might be able to provide us with some information about how this is being dealt
with.
I think that we have to particularly look
at how we are going to deal with farm wastes.
We have
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading
of Bill 11, The Regional Waste Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les offices regionaux de
gestion des dechets, modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites des apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 22‑The
Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 23, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week
and Compensation Management Act; Loi sur la reduction de la semaine de travail
et la gestion des salaires dans le secteur public, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Stand?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Leave is denied.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak along with others of my colleagues in our party on this bill, Bill 22.
I want to start by recognizing and
acknowledging the fiscal reality of the modern age facing modern governments,
and the fiscal reality is that for some two decades now this province and many
others have been spending money they simply have not had and have not been
raising. They have been spending money
that they have been borrowing. Mr.
Speaker, that is not currently something that can be said on a partisan
basis. All parties have indulged in that
in various regions of the country at whatever level and whatever
jurisdiction. Spending has been done
based on what could be borrowed, not so much what could be raised to actually
cover the expense.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the theory
which became current some time ago, that one should spend more in bad times to
have the economy pick up and save it in good times, is that it has not worked
for one reason, and one reason alone, and that is that governments in good
times or bad simply could not stop spending. I believe that the reason for that
is simply that governments and the nature of the beast and the unwillingness of
governments to acknowledge that there was reality beyond the next election
date. The governments around this
country have consistently been unable to face the reality of their spending
restraints because they were worrying about the next election, not the next
generation. That has to end at some
point.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
The other reality was that in those years,
the '70s and '80s, the money was there to be borrowed, and that has something
to do with it too. The money was being
made available to governments in this country to borrow excessively, and so
they did. The temptation was there;
programs were started that should have been ended and they were not; and they
went and went and went. So I understand
and have sympathy with the arguments put forward by the Minister of Finance
that at some point we have to think about the next generation and we have to
wonder whether or not it is socially responsible to be fiscally irresponsible,
and it is not.
I think you can argue almost down the line
with many of the programs which we finance that it is important to have those
programs. There are always reasons to
have a lot of these programs, but the reality is that if we are spending money
today that we do not have and we are borrowing on the future, it may well be
that, in those future generations, those programs are needed even more and we
do not know that. All we know is that
somebody, sometime, is going to have to pay back the money that has been
borrowed and stop the deficit financing.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I am enough of a
realist and, interestingly enough, so are the New Democrats around this country
increasingly coming to the view that they cannot spend without limit. It is a great irony that Mr. Rae in
Today, more than ever then, more than
ever, governments are being called to answer for what, for their priorities
because, as money is tight and programs have to be cut, what the government has
to be more concerned about and more accountable for than ever before is how
they are spending those very limited dollars.
My view of the current government is that it knows that it has to save
money, but it does not know why, and it does not know what the need, what the
priorities demand in the current situation.
I believe that there is a social agenda
which is being worked out in the name of fiscal restraint, and the social
agenda is, in my view, that those who are paying the price these days for the
cuts are the least able to pay. It is
the sick and the poor and the young and the uneducated, the unable to defend
themselves, the disenfranchised in our society, who are paying the price for
the Tory fiscal agenda.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not the need to
show restraint and be creative that I have disagreement with; it is the way
that it has worked out in society by these governments. So I start with that framework for discussion
of this bill.
Mr. Acting Speaker, let me say that this
bill speaks to the need to control costs, and, to that extent, I am in
agreement with the need to control costs.
Of course, when one, as this bill does, looks toward the public sector,
I believe that most in the public sector‑‑and I certainly believe
that we must look to them in part, certainly not in whole, but in part, along
with the other sectors of society to deal with this problem, but we must do it
in a certain way that is fair and that is consistent with good faith in our
dealing with our civil servants. With
great regret, that is what is lacking in this bill. I want to just articulate briefly for the
minister why this bill is both unfair and, I believe, will be ultimately
ineffective.
Mr. Acting Speaker, as one who has
participated on a number of occasions in collective bargaining processes, I
believe that this bill adds to the death knell of collective bargaining in the
public sector in this province. It
cannot happen in an environment where one bargains and negotiates always in the
knowledge that at the end of day whatever is negotiated may not ultimately bind
one of the parties. You cannot negotiate
like that. It cannot be done with the
way that it is supposed to do, where the parties get together and negotiate and
put their demands on the table, and they both understand that there are certain
consequences which are going to flow from an inability to agree.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is wrong for this
government to have negotiated contracts, to have had their Crown corporations
and to have let the school boards negotiate contracts, let all of the
individuals, the organizations covered by this legislation negotiate contracts,
make agreements and then unilaterally, arbitrarily, later on, change them.
The reason for that is not so much that
one might not agree with their goals but the reason for that is plain and
simple‑‑they are incompetent.
They were unable in their planning, the lauded planning that we have
heard about for five years, the five‑year plans and the four‑year
plans, they were unable to get it together apparently, unable to get it
together to negotiate on this basis with these unions and with these employees.
* (1510)
If they had gone to the table with a
position of restraint, with a position which said we cannot spend X dollars but
in a co‑operative fashion we want to find ways to save money. Did they do that? No.
They went down the road. They
went through negotiations, contracts were signed, they apparently were not
happy with the result, even though the contracts were signed and they
unilaterally did an end run. It is the
end of collective bargaining in the public sector because how can there be
trust? How can you sit down for tough negotiations when you know that the
people on the other side are not trustworthy?
You cannot trust them. You cannot
even trust, not only their words, their signature. You cannot trust an agreement that they have
signed.
Mr. Acting Speaker, that is the ultimate,
in my view, immoral act by this government.
They are not prepared to stand by their word. They will change their mind any day, any month,
any year and they will decide, we know best and we will do whatever we
want. It does not matter what we said in
the past; it does not matter what we agreed to in the past. That is their attitude.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
It is one of arrogance, and it is a very,
very shortsighted approach. If they
truly had any ability to plan the finances of this government, they would not
have been in this position, they would have been able to negotiate based on
their current fiscal projections and negotiate in a way that they could be
fiscally responsible, but they have not done it because they are incompetent.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the fact is that the
result of this will be, they say, they throw out these figures, $15 million of
savings. They are going to save all this
money. They are on a road which is one
of division and one of dissension throughout the public service, whether it is
the hospitals or the schools, whether it is the civil service, morale is at an
all‑time low. The fact is that if you do not have the people on the front
line committed to the common goal, you are not going to succeed‑‑
An Honourable Member: Where was he on final offer?
Mr. Edwards: The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) says,
where was I on final offer. Where was he
on final offer selection? He was in
favour of getting rid of collective bargaining in that venue as well.
We stood at that time, we stand today, in
favour of free collective bargaining. It
has worked, and it will work. The hammer
for the unions that the NDP wanted and the hammer for the employer that the
government wanted both are wrong. It has
to work in an environment of equality.
It has to work in an environment of co‑operation and trust, and
trust is the key. There will be dissension, there will be problems, but trust between
the parties ultimately will see them through a difficult relationship. That is being sacrificed in this bill.
Mr. Acting Speaker, if you do not have the
health care workers and the nurses and the teachers on your side, do you think
ultimately you are going to win? Do you
think ultimately you are going to have those savings? Not on your life‑‑it will not
work. They have set up a relationship
that is one of friction between the parties every working day with the civil
servants of this province, with the employees of the Crown corporations and the
school boards.
They have created a relationship of
mistrust, and they have created a relationship which will mean that their
ultimate goal will be frustrated every day that those people work, and that is because
of the arrogant attitude of a government that believes they can rule by edict,
edict alone. They can let these lofty
pearls of wisdom flow down to the people below.
That is their attitude, and the result of that is going to be that they
do not achieve what they want to achieve.
But maybe what they really wanted to
achieve was a public relations hit.
Maybe that is what they really wanted to do, to work out their agenda by
taking another kick at the civil servants and the teachers in their particular‑‑the
people who they think voted for them last time and they think will vote for
them again‑‑this is a good place to start. They take a nice hard hit, and it makes a
nice press release.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, where does it leave
this province? It leaves this province,
at the end of the day and down the road, in a worse fiscal situation. It will leave this government and its
relationship with its civil servants permanently impaired. The fact is that if the government had gotten
it together to negotiate based on any ability to predict the financial reality
of this province, if they had negotiated in good faith and been able to predict
that financial scenario, they would not have been in this situation.
I suspect, Mr. Acting Speaker, that they
wanted to create this situation, that they did create it, and now they are
attempting for their political purposes to work it out on the backs of the many
thousands of people who serve this province. They were not straight with
them. They were not honest with them at
the time of negotiations, and now they are seeking by edict, in a very arrogant
way, consistent with past actions, but nonetheless in a very arrogant way, to
play public relations and politics with a relationship which was in existence
before they came to power and will have to somehow survive after they leave
power‑‑and the sooner the better.
Mr. Acting Speaker, they will not achieve
what they say they want to achieve, and I suspect that too is by design. What they really wanted to achieve was a
public relations exercise, trying to look fiscally responsible when in fact
what they have done in the long run is be fiscally irresponsible and create a
relationship which will, not only come back to haunt them, but future
governments, because the truth is that the relationship between the thousands
of civil servants, employees of Crown corporations and school boards, are now
in a position where they have no choice but not to trust their employer on anything. This government has created that.
I believe it is very, very short‑term
gain in the eyes of this government for very, very long‑term pain for the
taxpayers of this province. Thank you,
Mr. Acting Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
I state that because it is such a betrayal
of trust. I think, particularly, I find
it offensive because of the individual who introduced it. The honourable Finance minister and myself
have certainly had our disagreements in the past, but I believe that the
Finance minister, and I still believe that the Finance minister is a man of
honour and a man of integrity.
I do not find this piece of legislation to
be one that is filled, quite frankly, with either honour or integrity. I want to talk about why I feel that way
about this particular piece of legislation.
The government, whether it is Liberal,
Conservative or New Democratic Party, has a responsibility, a responsibility to
work with its employees in an open, honest and honourable manner. We have, in the
* (1520)
No one, I think, no matter what our
political affiliation, would deny them that choice or that opportunity. When individuals choose to become members of
labour unions, they also choose to participate in a process known as
bargaining, where management puts forward and represents their position and
labour puts forward and represents their position. They negotiate a settlement.
When that settlement cannot be adequately
negotiated, arbitrators are called in, sometimes strikes occur, but ultimately
the labour‑management balance is achieved. What we have done in this province,
unfortunately, is to start a process of negotiations which have nothing
whatsoever to do with labour‑management relations.
What this government has done, and to some
degree of consistency, unfortunately, is to say, we will enter into labour‑management
negotiations; we will sign contracts; we will give our word; we will state,
this is our bond. Then we will turn
around as a government, and say, sorry.
Our bond is of no value; our word is of no good, because we are going to
literally, and in fact, rip up the agreement.
We are going to do that by surreptitiously
rolling back wages through a piece of legislation which at no point in time has
ever gone through the labour‑management negotiated process. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
honestly believed that wages of civil servants were a serious issue and a
serious problem in the Province of Manitoba, then he should have had the
courage to negotiate a settlement that was much lower than the one that he negotiated,
but he and his Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission (Mr.
Praznik) went off and negotiated a 2 percent wage increase.
Nobody forced them to do that. Nobody held their nose down and forced them
to sign an agreement, but having signed that agreement, they then go back and
say, well, we have signed that, but meanwhile, of course, we are going to
impose something upon you which will literally not only nullify that agreement,
but in fact, put you back even further.
That does not smack of the kind of honesty and integrity that I have
come to expect from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
But there are other serious problems with
this particular piece of legislation.
What I know as a teacher, as someone who has worked within school
systems for a great many of years, is that teachers who work within an urban
division have far more potential to upgrade their skills and their educational
opportunities than do those who live in rural divisions.
By imposing a holiday time period on civil
servants, what this Minister of Finance has done is to encourage school
divisions to also remove in‑service days from their staff. In terms of the realities of
Those school divisions that have
surpluses, for the most part, are not cancelling in‑service days. Though coincidentally, the school divisions
that have the largest surpluses are urban school divisions. So their teachers are not losing their in‑service
days. Those teachers who will also have
the potential of going to University of Manitoba, going to University of
Winnipeg, going to the University of Brandon, in their home community to
further their understanding and knowledge, to upgrade their teaching skills,
they are the ones that are still going to have professional days.
The teachers whom I am coming across that
are not any longer going to have professional days are those teachers who,
unfortunately, are employed in the rural divisions. It is in the rural divisions where the
upgrading of the skills is the most difficult to acquire because they do not
have ready access to the
So what is going to happen is that the
skill level of the teachers living in urban divisions is unfortunately going to
grow in greater proportions to the skill level of those teachers living in
rural divisions. That will not bode well
for children who live in rural
You work within a very large school. What happens within that school‑‑and
if the member for
The teacher who teaches in a rural school
often find themselves teaching Grade 9 Science, Grade 10 Physics or Grade 11
Physics, Grade 11 Chemistry, Grade 11 Biology, Grade 12 Chemistry, Grade 12
Physics, Grade 12 Biology or a combination of all. That individual, in my opinion, is a much more
talented individual because that individual has skills which enable him or her
to teach a variety of sciences, but those kinds of skills acquisition are very
difficult to achieve.
It is very difficult for a teacher who is
teaching four or five or perhaps six sciences to find themselves able to
upgrade themselves so that they have up‑to‑date knowledge in all of
the sciences that they are teaching each and every year‑‑much
easier for the teacher teaching in an urban setting where perhaps they teach
only one or two courses per year.
That is why I am concerned for the rural
school divisions and for the rural teachers in those divisions because, if
their in‑service days are removed from them then they will have less
opportunity to upgrade those very necessary skills which they were doing
through in‑service days. So we are
going to develop an unfair balance in terms of what is potentially available to
an urban student vis‑a‑vis a rural student.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Rural students have always worked at a
disadvantage in our school systems. Any
educational materials will certainly verify that. They work at a disadvantage because they just
do not get the kind of specialization.
They cannot. It is not physically
possible for them to get that specialization.
They often, quite frankly, do not have access to university
libraries. They do not have access to
equipment that is only available sometimes to very large school divisions. Now they will be at a further disadvantage,
because they will not have the ability of their teachers to acquire the same
skills acquisition that will still remain available to those teachers teaching
within urban settings.
* (1530)
A third difficulty that I have with this
particular piece of legislation is the inability of the government even yet to
explain adequately what are emergency services.
The Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), for example, still
cannot adequately tell even his own Director, Keith Cooper, how the children
who were being inadequately serviced in the number of days they had prior to
this time will also now be even more inadequately serviced with 10 compulsory
days off. The number of hours available
in Child and Family Services is already not adequate enough to deal with the
children out there in our community.
I think it is quite clear that the Liberal
caucus, the NDP caucus, the Tory caucus will function quite nicely with 10 days
off in the summertime or seven days off in the summer and three at
Christmas. There is no question about
that.
What my concern is are for those essential
services where, because we have also chosen to cut back right straight across
the board, that those services will not get delivered. If those services do not get delivered then
there will be children out there who will indeed be hurting.
That is unfortunately the problem with
this legislation. It was not
specifically targeted enough to in fact make it possible for those who will
suffer no real and genuine ill effect of this legislation and others who
will. That is the fundamental inadequacy
of this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have three concerns. One is with the genuine damage that has been
done as a result of this legislation with respect to the relationship between
labour and management, because I think that what has now happened as a result
of this legislation is that you now have a union movement that was, let us be
honest, never very happy about a Conservative government, now having moved to
the stage where they simply have no trust element left at all. That cannot be healthy for the society in
which we live. That is a problem that
this government has brought upon itself and a problem whose legacy they will
have to live with.
I have been on the record over and over
again, saying some of the tactics of some people have affronted me. I have found, for example, and have said it
publicly, that picketing in front of the Premier's home of any group within our
society is wrong. It should not be
done. That kind of invasion is wrong.
This kind of bill just sets up, I think,
that kind of confrontational situation over and over and over again. It will not just work to the detriment of
this party, and I mean by that the Conservative Party and this Conservative government. It will work to the detriment of every
government that comes into power afterwards, because it will have set this
regime, except perhaps for the NDP, that there will always be a distrust of
government, whether it is Conservative or whether it is Liberal, that they will
believe the only government that can adequately represent their interests will
be the New Democratic Party. Quite
frankly, I do not think they represent their interests at all.
One only has to look at the kind of
settlements that they made with the nurses.
Far more generous settlements were made with the nurses with the
government of the day than were made by the previous government, even when
their revenues were far higher. There is
a distrust out there because of what this government has done in terms of
labour‑management negotiations. I think it is a backward step.
I also think it is very unfair and
unbalanced, because it affects people very differently depending on where they
live. I used the reference of teachers,
but they are just simply an example and one that I know first‑hand from
my own experience.
Thirdly, I am concerned about the service
cuts, service cuts which again have not been balanced, service cuts which will
obviously impact much more severely on those who work in areas like Child and Family
Services than those who work in caucus offices or ministerial offices or even
those who work within this building.
There is an unfairness that has been
caused by this particular piece of legislation, and I think, quite frankly, the
government should reconsider it. I think
they should redraft it. I think they can
meet their objectives in different means, and they could do that with more
honesty and more integrity. I thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker,
I am moved to make a few comments, having listened with some attention to the
comments just made by the member for River Heights, the former Leader of the
Liberal Party. She continues to make
contributions to this Chamber that one ought to listen to, but missing from
those comments is what troubles me.
I do not, for one moment, want to take
these few words of mine out of context that I have any less concern for the
concerns that the member expresses eloquently about her concern and continuing
concern for children. She has stated,
Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly, that in her moving back to the back bench,
my caucus is nervous about it. They have
elevated that to a term called the upper benches, but I do not think that she
feels offended if I refer to her as a backbencher. She has stated that her particular emphasis
in her remaining time in this Chamber will be, as she has demonstrated again
today, concern for the children of
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, what concerns me
is, and what ought to start dawning on members of opposition, that the core
issue is what kind of care, if any, there will be available in our social
services if we do not come to grips with fiscal problems facing, not just this
province, but our country. Certainly, we
see it every day with our sister provinces throughout the length and breadth of
this land. I suppose that is the message
that certainly the New Democrats should start to hear and I hope the Liberal
Party starts to hear, because in a democracy it is important to have
responsible opposition.
It is not good enough to say at the
national or federal level, as her Leader is prepared to say, that he will do
away with the GST. He will abrogate
trade agreements. He will do all these
kinds of things. That is really the old
style of politics. They know that there
are people who do not like the GST. They
know that there are people who are concerned about the disruptive impacts of a
changing world that compels us to enter into new trading relations with our
partners, so important for a country like
But they do not answer the question. They do not answer the issue with how that
one super problem exists about how we maintain the means and how we maintain
the fiscal integrity, how we maintain the economy of this nation to ensure that
those very services that the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) with my
full support and understanding expresses, or the member for The Maples (Mr.
Cheema) expresses, about his continuing concern about our ability for providing
a first‑rate health care system. Unless that is meshed in with the
overriding issue facing this nation, facing this province, then we are losing,
then we are missing the point.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I am
prepared to concede that, as ever, particularly when government takes a broad
stroke, generalization and move that there are specific issues that perhaps are
impacted in a way less fairly than ought to be.
So I think the point of the opposition ought to be in discussing this
bill is to be challenging individual ministries such as mine, I have a
problem. My department's focus, my
department's demand for services are at their highest level during this very
period where we are asking the civil service to take one day off. I have a problem on weekends at
* (1540)
But it is my responsibility then as
minister to challenge my chief administrators, my deputy ministers, my staff,
my directors, to so organize their time load.
I am satisfied, having discussed this issue with Treasury Board and with
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), who is essentially the mover of this
bill, that can be done.
I would like to think‑‑and I
would like to challenge those who are involved in this particular instance; I
am referring again to the comments of the member for River Heights (Mrs.
Carstairs)‑‑that within child care, understanding that there is
going to be somewhere out of the system one day less attention, but the
challenge surely is that we apply our brains, our resources, our efforts and
our determination to nonetheless not impact on the level of service that, in
this particular case, is directed towards the children of Manitoba, those
children most vulnerable, those children in need.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from
members opposite. Rather than a parading of the kind of really old‑style
politics in the case of, particularly, the NDP who feel compelled to stand up
with their union buddies, in this case the MGEU, to defend whatever turf it is
that they are defending, surely they should distance themselves for even just a
brief moment during the discourse on this bill to at least acknowledge, to at
least recognize that if the level of services that all of us‑‑we
may differ as to the emphasis; we may differ as to the priorities placed, but
there is a consensus in this House, and indeed in the province, there is a
consensus in Canada that we have a need to employ our best abilities to ensure
that those important social programs that uniquely identify us as Canadians, as
Manitobans, can in fact have a long‑term future, can in fact be financed
with the appropriate resources in a way that secures their long‑term
future, but only if we as a province, only if we as a nation maintain our
capacity to produce the necessary wealth to do just that.
So there is an opportunity here, Mr.
Speaker, for members of the opposition not just to play the partisan game,
because the Liberal Party, honourable members from the official opposition,
want to play the game that this government is being selective into who we want
to carry out some kind of vendetta against: teachers, organized labour,
unions. That, of course, is patent
nonsense. I mean no government in its‑‑you
know, credit us with some decorum of common sense. There simply is no reason for us to do that.
It has not been said in the last little
while. I know it was said very clearly
by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), by the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) at
the time we indicated we were doing this.
We are doing this only because we do not want to do what Bob Rae is doing‑‑laying
off thousands of civil servants. We do not want to close down entire
services. That is why we are doing
this. We are trying to be moderates in
this whole business. That is why we are
doing this.
I know that statement, those announcements
were made some months ago when the decision was made, but let it be repeated
now again. Let us not now just fall into
the trap of mouthing kind of traditional partisan positions that we hear, or at
least let us hear suggestions, let us hear directions.
I would ask the member for River Heights
(Mrs. Carstairs) to specifically direct her comments to the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) or to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) or
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) as to how, in her opinion, we could provide the best
possible services to the matters of her concern, the children of Manitoba, the
vulnerable children is a matter of concern, under these circumstances, but let
us accept, Mr. Speaker, why this is necessary.
Let us accept why this on balance is an innovative way of dealing with
the issue, and one, by the way, that has since been copied by most other
jurisdictions. Most other jurisdictions
have looked to our leadership in this area and have in fact introduced similar
measures.
There would be a greater benefit, quite
frankly, to honourable members opposite if they really revisited and chose to
think about this a little harder and if they chose to question individual
senior administrators of departments, deputy ministers and directors, as to how
this was going to impact on the services that they are concerned about and then
show some consensus and show some unanimity and support this bill at third
reading. Thank you.
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this
bill also and put a few comments from a different perspective. I think it is very important when we talk
about the public service in terms of how we view people when they are serving
us and themselves and the public and the taxpayer as a whole and how we can
achieve that perspective in a very organized fashion and in a very up‑front
fashion and make sure that everyone is involved in the process and they feel
comfortable and not do something which is going to be backtracking, go back and
forth, and try to say something and then change your mind.
We understand the financial realities, and
I think our party has taken a very responsible position on many issues. We feel very strongly on this bill that we
have to be more open as the member for
Mr. Speaker, as you know, it is going to
be my last session, and that is not a secret, and I want to put some very
positive things from a point of view of many people who have supported me and
how I can make them feel comfortable to take a more active role in the
political process but also taking into account everything that is happening in
this province and in this House. I would ask you if I diverge too much from the
main point, please forgive me briefly and I will come back again.
It has been five years for me as a member
of this Assembly. As a new Canadian and coming from a community which had
really not much going for them in 1984 and '85 and '86 and '87‑‑when
I ran in 1988, I ran, of course, on the platform of my party and on the basic
principle but, at the same time, to get to know what is happening and also try
to contribute. I think one way was to
make sure that I brought a different perspective and something to proudly
educate myself as well as educate all the members of this House and the media,
to some extent, to make sure they understand the other views of other individuals
who are also contributing in a major way.
Those individuals are all part of these Crown corporations, the
hospitals, personal care homes and all the service sectors in this province.
Mr. Speaker, I must tell you I have been
very fortunate in this House to make sure those views are well
represented. It is not from what I have
done, but I think from a point of view of the governing party, from both
opposition parties, and especially from my previous Leader from
It is not very easy when outsiders say,
well, the MLAs are overpaid or they do not work or they are unethical or they
are dishonest. That simply is not
true. We are all here to do a very
important job. I do not think that
anyone in this House is not honest to themselves because otherwise they would
not be here. It is a very difficult
job. People have to understand in all
those corporations and the public at large that we also are going through the
same structural problems they are facing.
Mr. Speaker, take an MLA's job, from his
or her personal point of view, and how much time it takes to come to this House
and how much time it takes for each and every MLA to develop their own
viewpoint and try to work within their own party's ideology or still try to
represent all. I think that is a very tough
task, and most people outside this House do not understand that part. They think we come here, we come in the
morning and we have a coffee party, and at 1:30 we have a Question Period, and
then we leave. That simply is not
true. I wanted to put that on the record
because I have seen it. Some individuals
in this House work 18 hours a day. Some
ministers work 12 hours a day.
* (1550)
People outside this House criticize‑‑and
some of them are part of all these corporations, and they are much better paid
than any one of us in this House‑‑the quality of work we do, the
responsibility we have, because, for them, if they are not performing well,
they are going to be fired. If we are
not doing well, we are doing a total injustice to somebody who is not here. I think they have given us fear, so we are
doing our job from that point of view.
That is a very, very difficult job.
Others have to understand that we perform
that role. If we have to sacrifice‑‑as
we have said, we are all doing it‑‑then we should not be punished
for serving in this community, in this House.
If you want the best people who are not going to be financially worried,
who are not going to be worried for other things, then you must do what is
right. I think we have to stop
apologizing for our salaries outside this House.
Mr. Speaker, nobody feels sympathy for
anybody who is not confident in and among themselves. I do not think we have to feel that way. I think we should be very strong up‑front
and say that we do our job. We are also
sharing the pain; we are also taking cuts, but let us take it in a broader
perspective. I think it is about time,
because I have seen it. I have been
carrying two full‑time jobs. It
has been very tough‑‑18 hours a day or 20 hours a day‑‑very,
very tough, but I did not shun from my responsibilities. It was not easy.
But, Mr. Speaker, somebody has to tell
outside this House that when these kind of bills come, they have a broader
view. We have to be very, very open‑minded
and think what is right for this province in the long run. Whether we have to bring them in first, then
afterwards, that is a political process.
The ministers and the government can do it.
But I think what I wanted to say, because
it is going to be my last session, is that it is very important that we should
not be afraid of saying what is right.
We should be working for everyone, and we should be respecting ourselves
because, as I said, nobody else is going to do it. When we see, on the platform, every other
person who is a professional, they feel good about themselves, whether they are
physicians, or they are lawyers, or they are chief executive officers of
hospitals or major corporations, but politicians, when we are outside, we just
shy away from‑‑you know, we are not going to talk about anything
because we are politicians. I think that
is wrong.
We should be up‑front there. We should be very strong. We should not be afraid of doing things that
are right for this province. Mr.
Speaker, in keeping with the spirit of this bill, I think we should always think
from that point of view and not worry about the polls, what they are going to
say tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, because people will only appreciate if
you are telling them the truth. It will
take time, but truth will sink in, and it is already sinking in, in many areas
of the government.
Right now, people expect from us, not what
we are opposing, but what we are going to do in the long run. It will be my observation, and I think a
helpful observation for this government, any of these things, when they are
bringing, it is good to get everybody involved because, when you explain to
them, half the problem is resolved. They
understand; they are part of us, too.
They are trying to be helpful.
But, Mr. Speaker, it has been a very
interesting five years. I think, in my way, I have contributed whatever I
could. For family circumstances, we all
have to make choices. Choices are
sometimes very tough and sometimes very painful. I think, in the long run, I have to feel
morally responsible to my family, and circumstances are very tough, so I have
to make certain choices. But not that I will be going away from my
responsibility‑‑I am not going to be‑‑I will be still
involved in this part of my life, which is equally important, working as a
physician.
But, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am
grateful to all the members in this House.
I have learned from them, because we learn from each other. If we keep our minds open, I think we are
better persons then. I think I have gone
through that process, and we mature. But
the process and maturing, I will go back again to the same bill. The process has to mature, if we get
everybody involved. I think people will
feel much more comfortable. They will
feel happier, and the process will change, because it is not the 1960s. It is the 1990s, and the world is changing.
If we are going to be very strict, we are
not going to be open. We are going to
have to compete against the world which is becoming very, very aggressive
financially, in which all the barriers are coming down. If we think that we can live in this province
and be in an isolated area, I think we are fooling ourselves. It has to go beyond our boundaries in terms
of taking all the advantages of what we have here, taking into account each and
every person, and making sure their abilities are well represented in this
House, or in any way we can in terms of, not only they have to come here, but
they can play a role outside this House also.
Mr. Speaker, I must say to you that some
of my own misconceptions have gone away.
I think that is very helpful because that is part of a job because,
whenever we come here, the way we deal with each other reflects on all of us
and we not only bring confidence here, we take that confidence from here and
take it outside. That confidence really
helps others. I think that is very, very
positive. We do not realize that we do
that job. So nobody should be ashamed of working in this House and saying they
are doing a good job and they are trying their best. So let us stop apologizing for our salaries.
I have enjoyed in this House a
relationship which has crossed all political boundaries. I personally believe that we have to have a
practical approach. The political
ideology is no more acceptable which is totally irrational; it is not
acceptable to any parties that I have known.
The people of this province will only accept who are practical, who are
realistic and who are true to themselves.
I think in that way we are going into that path and in some areas the
government is moving into that direction.
Mr. Speaker, it is all related to this
bill because it is all the public perception what we create. In 1992, when the Health Action Plan was
released in this House, we had the easy way out. We could have simply stood up
and said, everything is nonsense. Let us kill the plan, but our party and my
previous boss and my present chief, we thought, we are going to change the
perception, we are going to take a challenge, politically risky, but that
process has to change. After almost one
year, we are very satisfied with that role we have played.
Our polling has not gone down. Our perception as politicians has gone
up. I think that is why it is so
important. As I said to the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) privately as well as here, do not be afraid of a
change. There are only a few who will
resist that change, only for a short while.
When they know everybody is in the winning lane, they will come to the
winning lane. Every province in this
country is following the same action plan.
I think that says that things have to be changed.
* (1600)
So we have to play a role as public
servants, and I think the role is very crucial.
The other part which I must say, as a new Canadian, the role was, as I
said from the beginning, a little bit different. The question was always in my mind that we
always talk about rights. This is my
right. This is my right. Where is the responsibility?
I think in our own ways, I am not saying I
am the only one who is doing it, everyone is doing it, but I thought this was
probably a more approachable area that I could bring some of the ideas and have
some of the responsibilities that I can give back to this nation and this
province because, Mr. Speaker, what we have here, we do not realize because we
have not seen the other part of the world.
I will give you an example. Somebody has to wait for two hours in the
emergency room, and we bring the issue.
There are five billion people in this world who have no medical coverage‑‑five
billion people who have no accessibility as we have it.
So I think we have to be a little bit more
open and say how we are going to continue to have that kind of accessibility
but take some responsibility and not derail the process, because ultimately if
we do that it is not going to be helpful; it is going to be very, very negative
because of what has been happening today.
This government is not going to benefit
from the political advantage of the Health Action Plan, they are not, because
good effects are going to show up in four years time. At that time, you may or may not be the
government.
An Honourable Member: We will be here in government.
Mr. Cheema: It could be, but I am saying it is risky.
But when you take a risk, as I said, if
you have the courage of your convictions, as Mrs. Carstairs told me in 1988,
then we will succeed. I think that is a
very positive attitude to keep in life, because that is, again, in keeping with
whatever we do in this House.
Mr. Speaker, in the 10 years I have been
in this province, I came on the 27th of June in 1983, I have been practising
for 10 years. I have met thousands of
patients and their families. What I have learned from them, one thing, is they
feel very strongly about this province and the quality of life. But they feel somewhat threatened, because we
always hear the negative things not the positive things, because people have
fed them, to some extent, only on the negative ideas or negative things in
life, but not the positive attitude.
If we can take the positive attitude, I think
we can win on that. We can win as a
province, as a people, as a community, as a nation. I think those things have to continue. I wish that we would be more broad‑minded,
and we have more free votes on some of the issues. We have more representation of what my
constituents are saying.
I mean, how do we know, how can I tell you
when my constituents, more than 80 percent favour the Health Action Plan? How can I oppose them? Am I representing their views or my own
views? Those are some of the examples,
we have to be somewhat more open and continue on a reform in many ways.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I think it
is very important for me to thank each and every member in this House for their
co‑operation, for their support and for their willingness to not only
understand me, but for giving me encouragement for what I can contribute. I think in that way we have helped each other
to become better human beings, decent human beings. I think, then, we are serving not only our
families, and I consider families by the communities, because that is a
continuous process. I think we are
helping the province.
Mr. Speaker, if, at any time, knowingly or
unknowingly, I have said something which has caused anybody personal harm, I
feel sorry for that, but when we are in this House, in the heat of the
environment things can happen. I must
say that I have enjoyed my relationship with Mr. Orchard, the Minister of
Health. We have developed a mutual
respect, but by developing that respect we have not only helped each other to
understand what is important, but we are helping others to understand. I am very hopeful that will continue with my
caucus because it is very important for me to see some of the changes, some of
the things I stand for personally, equality of rights, the equal access to
health care, and Mr. Speaker, on the whole a government that will have a
practical approach, a decent heart but not work for short‑term gain. Thank you.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, as I begin my remarks, I would certainly
be remiss if I did not pay tribute to the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema),
the previous member for Kildonan. I
think it is the ultimate luxury in politics to be making the kind of decision
that I know certainly the member for
I do not in any way want to pre‑empt
obviously his right, I think, to make that statement himself, but predicating
my comments on the fact that certainly, as the member has indicated, his last
session in this House. Whether indeed he
has another opportunity to participate in debate, I think I speak for all
members of the House in saying that we will be losing not only a member of the
Legislature who has contributed a lot to this House, but since the member for
The Maples has already indicated he will be moving to British Columbia, we will
also be losing a respected physician and a valued citizen.
I certainly feel that I speak for everyone
in saying that
I want to address Bill 22 in light of even
some of the themes that the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) talked about
because I do believe that in debates in this House it is incumbent upon us,
particularly in dealing with significant issues of the day, to reflect on
principles, to reflect on the impact that a particular bill may be having in
terms of further developments in this province, and to reflect on the long‑term
perspective for this province and the long‑term perspective for this
country.
I want to basically start by looking at
what we are debating in terms of Bill 22, the principle we are dealing with,
because I feel it is a fundamental principle.
The bill is very clear, and without
quoting it from any specific section, I just want to give members of this House
an indication of exactly what this bill deals with, the principle of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this bill prevails over every
other act and every regulation, collective agreement, employment contract or
arrangement, arbitral or other award or decision and every obligation, right,
claim, agreement or arrangement of any kind.
This bill prevails over everything else,
not just other legislation brought in by this House but over every collective
agreement, employment contract or arrangement, arbitral or other award or
decision, every obligation, right, claim, agreement, arrangement of any kind as
prescribed by this particular bill.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): It is a powerful
bill.
Mr. Ashton: The Minister of Finance says it is a powerful
bill. Mr. Speaker, what this bill does in this House is go further than any
other government has gone in the history of Manitoba, even accounting for the
one‑year freeze that took place on salaries two years ago. It goes above and beyond every other
government action in the history of this Legislature.
I want to focus on the impact on
collective bargaining, because it is something that I know members opposite
treat rather lightly. I appreciate the
comments from the member for
* (1610)
Well, Mr. Speaker, collective bargaining
in many ways has been the leading edge of progress in our society. One only has to look at the history of
collective action in labour relations to look at what are the origins of our
labour relations system. The bottom line is that the ability to organize
collectively has been fundamental to the advancement, the benefits and the
quality of life for working people. In
fact, not only that, but achievements in collective bargaining in many ways
prefaced legislation that has moved that to society as a whole.
For example, Mr. Speaker, much of our
current labour legislation that recognizes the rights of workers to organize
has arisen out of strikes of labour action, of collective bargaining. Medical insurance and union contracts
preceded national medicare. In fact,
many union contracts currently have superior insurance to medicare
coverage. Pensions were one of the major
first achievements in terms of collective bargaining, pensions. Once again, this prefaced the eventual
introduction of national pensions in this province.
Safeguards against discrimination have
existed in collective agreements for many years and prefaced the introduction
of human rights legislation in many provinces.
Protection of the health and safety of workers has been in collective
agreements and has preceded the introduction of legislated changes that have
brought in guaranteed protection for workers.
So when we are talking about collective
bargaining, we are talking about the very cutting edge of progress for working
people, the very cutting edge. The
ability to collective bargain is fundamental to the achievement of all those
items I have just listed and will be fundamental to the achievement of those
items in the future.
What is the fundamental relationship
involved with collective bargaining? It
involves, Mr. Speaker, each side trying to convince the other of the validity
of its stand. Yes, it involves pressures
and whatever mechanisms people can use to do that. It involves those pressures. There is a prescribed legal framework. There are some exceptions to situations in
which certain sanctions cannot be used.
There are those who have the right to strike, those who do not have the
right to strike. There are processes put in place to deal with breakdowns in
collective bargaining and negotiations.
We have seen them in terms of mediation, arbitration, in terms of final
offer selection, for example, that existed in this province for a number of
years.
We have an established framework in this
country based on a number of principles, the Rand formula, which not only
recognizes the right to organize collectively but also the right to organize
and represent and have the resources that all elected bodies require to be able
to do that. So it is a very elaborate
framework, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am so concerned about the provisions
of this bill.
Indeed, it is a powerful bill, as the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is saying.
Let us put it in context here because reference is often made in this
House to the changing world, the global economy. I want to put in context the history of
labour relations in this country, the background of collective bargaining, to
point out the fallacy of any government that attempts to take away the right to
collective bargaining in such a fundamental way as does this bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is no accident that
Quite frankly, she should become agitated
in terms of statistics that show we have the second highest rate of days lost
to strikes and lockouts in the world. (interjection) The minister says, because
we have some of those militant unions.
The minister shows an abysmal lack of knowledge of what is happening in
labour relations in other countries. If
she knew what is happening in those other countries, she would recognize that
the problem we have in our society in terms of labour relations is in terms of
our adversarial system.
Point of
Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the
procedure is‑‑
Mr. Speaker: On a point of order?
Mrs. McIntosh: Well, it is a question for clarification. The member opposite invited me to stand now
and put my comments on the record, which I presume means he is ready to finish
speaking and give me the floor so that I can speak about my in‑depth
intimate knowledge of the unions that he thinks I do not know anything
about. Do I ask him to sit down now or
what?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I had recognized the honourable minister
asking whether or not the honourable Madam Minister was up on a point of order.
he
honourable member for Thompson indeed does have the floor at this point in
time. If the honourable member finishes
his remarks in his allocated time, honourable Madam Minister will probably
still have an opportunity.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: We have been debating this bill for several
months, and I think it shows a high level of discourtesy on behalf of the
member to expect that when she decides to speak she can get up when everyone
else is speaking, Mr. Speaker, and they will sit down. The minister, if she wishes to participate in
debate, will have the same opportunity that I have had by waiting, listening to
the other speakers and participating in a debate at that point in time. Once again, the minister did not listen. The minister is very good at not listening
because I said that the comparison I made is to the international system of
labour relations, the fact that we had the second highest rate of days lost
because of strikes and lockouts. We do
not have the highest level of labour organization in the western world.
Nor, Mr. Speaker, do we have the most
militant unions. There are many
countries that have a very strong history in terms of labour militancy. What we have is, we have a system which is
adversarial in nature and which results in the kind of situation I saw this
morning with a number of my colleagues at Northern Blower where they had been
on strike for one year because of the ability of the employer to hire
replacement workers and continue to operate the plant‑‑something
that would not happen in Ontario or British Columbia or in Quebec, where
legislation is in place to prevent that‑‑a strike that would not
have happened if this government had not removed final offer selection. What happens is, we end up in the situation
where we have unfettered ability on the behalf of some unscrupulous employers
to attempt to break unions, to attempt to keep people out on a picket line for
a year.
In many other countries, there would never
have been a one‑year strike. It
would have been resolved within a matter of weeks, if not days, and that is my
point. When we talk about the global
economy we look at the labour relations.
One of the fundamental areas that we are weak in this country is in
terms of our adversarial system of labour relations in which we are one of the
few countries, outside of the United States, that still sees a significant
number of strikes and lockouts that take place over no other issue, Mr.
Speaker, than the ability of the employees to organize collectively.
We still, in this country, have so‑called
consultants provide seminars to some of those unscrupulous business people, and
I separate that from the vast majority of people in the business community who
do accept labour unions, but we have seminars that take place on how to keep
out a union, how to break a union. That is not in keeping with what is
happening in other countries.
In many other countries, there is a long
history of respect between management and labour in terms of labour
relations. When there are difficulties,
they are resolved through mechanisms that do not lead in terms of lengthy
lockouts and lengthy strikes. Our competitors, Mr. Speaker, have a far better
record in terms of labour relations than we do.
So I get back to the reason why. Is it because we have a high level of union
militancy as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh)
referred to? It is not. It is not because we have a large level of
unionization. It is because of the
adversarial system that is in place and it is an adversarial system that is
typified in this particular case by this particular bill and the actions of
this government in a fundamental attack on collective bargaining.
* (1620)
I want to transpose this, Mr.
Speaker. I want to transpose this with
what other countries are doing. It is no
accident. We have the enviable record of
having some of the most significant number of violations of the provisions of
the International Labour Organization, the ILO.
Canadian provinces have been cited repeatedly for fundamentally
violating the ILO provisions and various different international
agreements. We have one of the worst
records in that regard.
I do not know why it has not dawned on
some members opposite that there is a problem here and it is fundamentally because
of the adversarial system and the lack of trust and the lack of co‑operation
that has been developing in this country.
One can point fingers as does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs or other Conservative members, but let us start with a recognition of
the problem and the fact that we should not have the second worst record in
terms of days lost, as I said before, in terms of strikes and lockouts in the
world. That is hampering our efficiency,
those days lost in and of themselves. It
is hampering our competitiveness, and the bitterness that is in place hampers
that competitiveness.
The Northern Blower picket line today,
when that labour dispute is settled, there is going to be lingering bitterness
in the workplace that is most definitely going to hamper the productivity in
the workforce. Anyone can see that, and
that is the kind of situation we see developing all so often.
So what is the government doing when it
does this? What the government does when
it brings in this bill, as draconian as it is, is it violates that balance that
is so fundamental to the collective bargaining process. It violates it. It says in this bill that those in a
management position can essentially dictate contract provisions. It gives the ability to any public‑sector,
broadly defined, employer to violate any provision of any collective agreement
that is in place. It allows anyone in
that broad public sector to be able to say, yes, six months ago, a year ago, a
year and a half ago, yesterday, we signed an agreement, but we now have the
legislative right to change all that, to basically reduce salaries, in this
particular case, by providing mandatory unpaid days of leave, a reduction in
salary by any other name.
Mr. Speaker, what the government does not
understand, and what other governments who do this as well do not understand,
is how much that poisons the labour relations climate, how much that destroys
the labour relations climate in this province.
I heard some comments before from members of the House talking about
other jurisdictions. Well, there are
jurisdictions that have reached negotiated settlements and are living with
those collective agreements. I know in
the case of
If anyone on the other side feels that
anything that is happening in Ontario changes my view and the view of our
caucus, they are dead wrong, because I can say that what Ontario is doing, if
they legislate anything to my mind that violates the collective bargaining
process, they are just as wrong as any other government using the power of
government to roll back collectively negotiated settlements. Whatever any other province does or does not
do is their business. I did not vote for
the governments in any of those areas. I
did not vote for this government either, but I certainly participated in the
election.
Mr. Speaker, we have a tradition in this
province of tough bargaining, and I found it rather interesting listening to
the member for
When NDP governments are in place, they
negotiate on behalf of the citizens of this province, and those who are
representing the bargaining units negotiate on behalf of their members. That is what the process is about. The end result is a result of that process.
In this case there is no process. There is no real process. Any negotiations
that take place under this bill take place after this bill is a fait
accompli. They put a gun to the
employees' heads, and they say, you now have a chance to negotiate. That is not negotiations. That is not collective bargaining. That is not bargaining. What that is is intimidation tactics. What it is is draconian politics. What it is is power politics that says, in
this particular case, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and this government
and the Premier (Mr. Filmon), since they did not like what happened in the
bargaining process, now change the rules.
It says that, when they sign on behalf of the government, their word
does not mean anything. It does not mean
anything‑‑the word of the Premier, the word of the Minister of
Finance and the word of any other of those ministers.
Mr. Speaker, put yourself in the position
of an individual citizen. Can you
imagine someone signing a contract and then having the ability through
legislation to say, yes, I signed the contract, but so what? It does not apply anymore. There would be a howl, probably even from
members opposite. Can you imagine
that? What would happen to our legal
system, to our property system, our commercial system, if someone could
basically, through legislation, wipe out a contract, a contract to purchase
land, a contract to purchase a car, a contract of any kind? That is what this bill does. It wipes out every single contract, every
single employment agreement, every single collective agreement prescribed in
this bill for 100,000 Manitobans. It is
not okay for individual citizens to do that.
It is not okay for unions to do that, but it is okay for the government
to do that.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what have we come to in
this province, in this country of ours when we have sunk to this level at a
time when internationally people are looking to co‑operation? The bottom line is that we have to wonder why
are we moving in the opposite direction in this country?
If we are going to move ahead, we need
real co‑operation between businesses.
We need an understanding of the ground rules. We can argue that and certainly we disagree
with the position of the Conservatives and the Liberals on many labour
issues. We disagreed on final offer
selection. We disagreed on The Labour
Relations Act amendments they brought in.
We have disagreed with what they have done in terms of Workers
Compensation. Those are the ground rules,
but how long do you think that we can continue in the international environment
to talk about co‑operation, as is every other government of every other
industrialized country in this world, and at the same time be not only not
practising what we preach but to be fundamentally destroying any relation
between labour and between management. That is the fundamental issue‑‑
An Honourable Member: Are you for it or against it?
Mr. Ashton: The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)
has said, are we for or against it? He
knows what our position is on Bill 22.
We oppose every section in this bill other than the section dealing with
MLAs' salaries. We have stated that
right from the start. We oppose this
bill because it fundamentally violates the principles of collective bargaining.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
fact the Liberals are opposed on this particular bill. I must say it is a new experience for me to
see the new Liberal Leader speaking out about his concern about what is essentially
an attack on labour. I say this advisedly, because I have some difficulty with
the kind of positions the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) has taken, a
member I know who has crossed picket lines, crossed the picket line, in the
city, of Trailmobile. That is not taking
a balanced position on labour issues.
I do not even know if there are that many
Conservative members who would necessarily cross picket lines, but let not the
Liberal Party now pretend that it is a newfound friend of labour. It is not a newfound friend of labour. It is now opportune for political reasons to
oppose this bill, but they have no principled argument, or at least I believe
the Liberal Leader (Mr. Edwards) has no principled argument, on this particular
bill. I believe it is a political
argument.
* (1630)
So then, Mr. Speaker, I ask members
opposite where this ends up. We are now
dealing with 100,000 Manitobans in the public sector who can, through the
passage of this legislation, have their entire collective agreement, basically,
within the provisions of this bill, negated.
Do we stop at the public sector?
Are we next going to look at the private sector? Talk about everybody sharing the pain, we
have often pointed out to the fact that some well‑connected Conservative
supporters are not exactly feeling that much pain right now.
But are we going to now have a‑‑
An Honourable Member: . . . going broke.
Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) talks about going broke. (interjection)
Well, like the government, says the
Minister of Finance. I find that an
interesting comment because I do not think the government would default on
mortgage payments. I think the
government operates on a different principle in terms of that, Mr. Speaker.
I think even the Minister of Finance is
not suggesting we run the government like some of the Conservative business
friends are doing currently. You know,
the Minister of Finance knows full well of what I speak.
If we are going to talk about fairness in
society, I ask the Minister of Finance:
Is it fair to roll back the salary of someone earning $19,000 by 3.8
percent through this provision? Is that fair?
An Honourable Member: What is fair?
Mr. Ashton: Well, the Minister of Finance asks: What is fair? I think it is an interesting
point for debate. This government treats
someone making $90,000 a year the same way it treats someone making $20,000 a
year when there is a major difference between the ability of someone making
$90,000 a year to absorb a 3.8 percent rollback as compared to a single mother
with two kids, and I am talking with direct experience. I am talking to people in that situation,
making $19,000 a year.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
There is no interest in terms of fairness
within the bill. Let us look also at the fact that this bill deals with a range
of possible days off. We see some school
divisions, as was pointed out by the member for
There is no fairness in that. It all depends on the politics in the school
division. I commend those school
divisions that have resisted the pressures from this government to violate
provisions of their collective agreements.
I commend those school divisions.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill is
inherently unfair because it does not treat even all public‑sector
Manitobans fairly. You know, there are
differing concerns within the public sector.
I know I have talked to many Crown corporation employees who have said
that MTS, Hydro and many of the Crown corporations which are currently either
profitable or at least in a break‑even position‑‑I look at
Manitoba Hydro which is doing quite well because of the NSP power sale and the
completion of Limestone. They have no relation on the deficit whatsoever. There is no impact on the deficit in terms of
this particular bill.
They have had their salaries frozen; now
they are having it rolled back 3.8 percent.
It does not make a one‑cent difference on the deficit.
An Honourable Member: They are part of the family.
Mr. Ashton: Well, they say they are part of the
family. As I said before, the only
family the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is picking on here is the public
sector. We are seeing many people in
this society that seem to be outside of the family, many of the people closely
connected to the Conservative Party, who seem to go on receiving increased
benefits, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I really question the fairness. We note that insurance agents were not
affected by this particular bill, in terms of Autopac, by direct decision of
the
The minister knows that this is a
draconian and rather arbitrary bill that is aimed at attempting to deal with
the deficit problem that the government currently has with what has been by, I
think, probably the more objective observers in this House‑‑a
former Conservative member described as an $862‑million deficit. The minister can juggle the books all he
wants. It is of a significant
magnitude. It is the highest we have had
in this province.
An Honourable
Member: No, it is 562, and you
had two higher.
Mr. Ashton: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the $300‑million
man, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), can juggle the books all he
wants. He knows there is a serious
deficit situation.
The point is that what is happening now is
there are people who are being impacted by this bill who have no impact on the
deficit to state a purpose of dealing with this. There are many other people now who are being
impacted when I do not believe in any way, shape or form, they are part of the
deficit problem in this province.
If one looks at the history in terms of
settlements of collective agreements in the public sector, Madam Deputy
Speaker, one will find that indeed public sector employees have had concession
agreements in a number of years in the last decade, the last 15 years. The minister knows that. I do not know if he would describe the most
recent contract as a concession contract; I know the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) knows what the government did in terms of negotiating that agreement.
Essentially what happened‑‑
An Honourable Member: Peter Olfert said no.
Mr. Ashton: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government
said no. The government signed its name and then it said, oh, well, that was
then; this is now. We are bringing in a
bill. Our signature means nothing.
An Honourable Member: . . . like to do the same thing Decter did.
Mr. Ashton: The minister says, we could have done this, we
could have done that, and they continue to cut civil service positions. They continue to reduce the number of
employees in all areas, including the full‑time and casual and
seasonal. They are continuing at this
point in time. We just see announcements
now within that broad public sector again in terms of hospital care. LPNs are now out on the street. There is no trade‑off. Once again, if
they had bargained in good faith, this government might have tried to negotiate
some trade‑offs in terms of job security, in terms of that as for
concessions that the government wished in terms of salaries.
Did they do that? They made absolutely no attempt. In fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), I think, showed the degree
to which they had no intention. They
called in the president of the MGEU.
They met with the president of the MGEU, who indicated he was going to
be talking to his membership, and then the Minister of Labour phones‑‑I
think it was around midnight that he was able to reach the president of the
MGEU, who was travelling in The Pas, to let him know there was a going to be a
press release coming out‑‑
An Honourable Member: So was I travelling.
Mr. Ashton: So was he travelling, Madam Deputy
Speaker. That really makes me feel a lot
better, because he phones the president of the MGEU in The Pas and says, there
is a press release coming out, and we are going to roll back wages by 3.8
percent. So much for negotiations.
I mean, Madam Deputy Speaker, this
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and this Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik)
could not negotiate their way out of a paper bag. The reason they are in this situation now is
because they negotiated an agreement.
They did not like the agreement, and now they are saying we bring in
Bill 22 and heads I win; tails you lose.
That is their philosophy of collective bargaining: heads I win; tails you lose. They are incompetent negotiators.
I know the Minister of Finance on many
occasions says he is not an expert on labour relations. Indeed, he proves it on a daily basis.
This government is one of the most
incompetent governments in negotiating anything, whether it be federal‑provincial
agreements or collective agreements. The
only difference, Madam Deputy Speaker, when it is dealing with the federal
government is it cannot negotiate what it cannot get at the bargaining table in
terms of northern development agreements, in terms of core area agreements, and
many areas where they have lost out, in terms of ERDAs. They can do it with the public employees, and
I really find it interesting that members opposite basically do not understand
the fact they have not even tried to bargain collectively in this particular
case
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair).
An Honourable Member: Yes, we did.
Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Speaker, they bargained
collectively, signed an agreement, they broke it. (interjection)
I find it interesting that the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik) is so vocal now. We
have not heard him in the debate yet, and I look forward to hearing from the
Minister of Labour and other Conservative members, because I really look
forward to their comments in terms of rationalizing this particular‑‑this
is the easy move. This is the easy thing
to do.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, I
look forward to his comments on the record.
I look forward to his comments on the record because I look forward to
the Minister of Labour indicating to me how this is the new direction, the new
age in terms of labour relations in this country.
* (1640)
Is this the route to go? Is the way to be internationally
competitive? Are we going to turn our
backs on what is happening in other countries where business and labour are
working together? Are we going to
continue to have the second worst record in terms of labour relations in the
entire world, second to
I look forward to their comments on this
because this is what I find interesting.
This bill is a major direction in terms of labour relations in this
province, but the government members once again are silent on this particular
bill, and they talk about having‑‑and I like the words of the
member for The Maples, (Mr. Cheema) about the long‑term perspective; I
ask the members opposite, where is the long‑term perspective?‑‑and
continue to have the big‑stick theory of labour relations in this
province.
You know the government that goes in and
signs the agreements has the big stick here to be able to take back whatever it
could not negotiate at the table from the public sector workers, from the
single parents with two children, earning $19,000 a year. I have talked to many people in that
situation, people with families earning $28,000 a year, this is a farm income
earner. Is that really the way to go, Mr. Speaker?
Do they think they are going to have
trust? Do they think they are going to be
competitive, Mr. Speaker? Are we going
to have more co‑operation in the workplace when the labour movement is
fighting for its very existence in many areas today, and when, in this case,
the public sector unions, who are to my mind the fundamental partners in terms
of dealing with the challenges we face, when this government, instead of
dealing fairly with government employees, brings in Bill 22, brings in an
American consultant for $3.9 million to bring in a plan for health care?
An Honourable Member: Plus $800,000.
Mr. Ashton: Plus $800,000 expenses. I do not know if the Minister of Labour is
aware, but a lot of people in the health care system do not take this
government seriously. They sit there, say: you cut back my wages, but you have $3.9
million for an American consultant. They
have told me, Mr. Speaker, when is this minister and this government going to
ask the people who know how to really reform the health care system? That is the front‑line people in the
health‑care system, and that includes the employees, includes the
patients, and includes the doctors.
You know, the member for The Maples
talked, I think, well, in terms of health care reform, but the government is
not listening, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that these are the real issues.
For that reason, I want to make it very
clear that our position on this bill is, we are opposed to every single
provision in this bill that violates the principle of collective
bargaining. I have an amendment which I
will read, Mr. Speaker, in just a few minutes, to make it very clear on the
record that we oppose the provisions of this bill that are in absolute
contravention to every principle of collective bargaining.
In that sense, Mr. Speaker, the only
provisions we can and will support are those that were decided upon in this
House in terms of MLAs' salaries. I want
to make it very clear that our position on this particular bill, and I know
certainly my own position on this particular bill applies to any other similar
piece of legislation. And whatever
province and whatever government brings it in, our position is consistent that
we in
I move, seconded by the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie),
THAT the motion be amended by deleting all
of the words after the word "that" in the first line thereof and
substituting the following therefor:
Bill 22 be not now read a second time
because, while this House does not oppose the intent of the bill to limit MLAs'
remuneration, constituency allowance and cost of living benefits for 1993‑94,
we disagree in principle with other provisions of this bill which are
fundamentally at odds with long‑established concepts of and respect for
free collective bargaining in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson has moved
a reasoned amendment to Bill 22.
Because in the practices of this House, we
have not had the opportunity‑‑and I believe the last time I did see
such a thing in the Hansards was 1979‑1980, so it has been about 13 years
since we have had anything to do with this.
I want to take this under advisement. I am going to recess the House for five
minutes. I believe there are three rulings
from past Speakers that I want to look at.
According to this clock, I will be back at‑‑
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Just on a matter of
House procedure, I am wondering if we might wish to waive private members'
hour, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour? (agreed)
I will be back here at five o'clock. The bells will not ring, but I will be back
in the Chair at five o'clock. I thank
all honourable members.
The House recessed
at 4:47 p.m.
After
Recess
The House
resumed at 5 p.m.
Speaker's
Ruling
Mr. Speaker: The amendment moved by the honourable member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is a reasoned amendment, one of the types of
amendment which may be moved during a second reading debate, and I have
reviewed it and have examined previous
The honourable member's amendment opposes
certain provisions of the bill, but does not oppose others. Beauchesne's Citation 670.(1) indicates that
a reasoned amendment "must be declaratory of some principle adverse to, or
differing from, the principles, policy or provisions of the bill." Citation 670.(3) states that such an
amendment "may not approve the principle of a bill and at the same time
enunciate a declaration of policy."
Speaker Jerome of the Canadian House of
Commons, in ruling an amendment of this type out of order in 1975, stated that
the amendment is a statement of opposition to some parts of the bill rather
than an expression of a principle. Even
if the amendment could be held to express some principle, it is clearly opposed
to some and not all provisions of the bill, but the precedents imply that such
an amendment should oppose all the principles or provisions of the bill.
Because the
In referring to less frequently consulted
Canadian and British authorities, I note all agree that the exclusive purpose
of a reasoned amendment is to set out the reasons for opposing second reading
of a particular bill. In my opinion, the
honourable member's amendment does not comply with the authorities referenced
and therefore I must rule it out of order.
Mr. Ashton: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been
challenged. All those who sustain the
Chair, say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members, please.
The question before the House is: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?
* (1720)
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness,
McAlpine, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Praznik, Reimer,
Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar,
Doer, Edwards, Evans (Interlake), Evans (Brandon East), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray,
Hickes, Lamoureux, Maloway, Martindale, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 27, Nays 23.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on Bill
22. The members opposite have put out
the challenge, one could say, to have someone from this side of the House speak
to it. I would like to welcome the
opportunity to speak to it this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, in listening to comments of
members opposite, I find it very interesting the arguments they put
forward. I will say this: Many of the arguments that they do advance
with respect to this particular piece of legislation are ones that, of course,
should come up. They are issues that
should be raised about collective bargaining, about the way in which
relationships between government as employer and their employees should be
handled. I appreciate those
arguments. I appreciate the arguments
made in this House about free collective bargaining. Certainly, there are valid
arguments to be made.
Mr. Speaker, there is also another side of
the coin to this issue. I fully
appreciate that members opposite have chosen to stand on the other side of that
coin, and I take it members of the Liberal Party as well.
These are very difficult and unique times. We have to face that reality. It is fundamental that we face that reality
because there is a lot at stake for the people of the
I am 32 years old. Many of the decisions that were made that
have left this province and this country in probably the worst fiscal situation
in decades, if not in this century, were made by people who were in power or
made decisions when I was not even of voting age, yet today coming into
government, we face those difficulties.
It is a time when those of us, all of us
who draw our salaries and our pay cheques from the public sector, from the
taxpayers of this province have to recognize the difficult situation in which
two decades of excessive borrowing and spending have left this country.
I know many have difficulty with that, and
that is true. Many in the public sector, many in this House have difficulty
with that with respect to their own salaries and benefit packages, but the reality
of these times demands we work that through and come to the conclusion that I
think every government in
Mr. Speaker, the member for
I refer the member for Concordia (Mr.
Doer) to this bill that was introduced by his brothers and sisters in the New
Democratic Party in
Why would a New Democratic Party
government in
They say it is wrong, but why would Bob
Rae, why would 70 New Democrats in the Ontario Legislature break faith with
everything they have stood for if it was not for the greater good of the people
of
I would like to say to the members
opposite, they talk about the contract and the collective agreement. We, as an employer, have the right under our
collective agreement to lay off, to terminate the employment of our employees. The options that we faced were very
simple. We could roll back wages,
legislatively. We could negotiate and
our union refused to consider that option.
We could lay off over 500 additional people in the public service or we
could lay everyone off including us, in essence, for 10 days. Those were the four options‑‑(interjection)
The member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray)
talks about volunteers. We called for
volunteers. We got a pool of 400
volunteers which we used to minimize the layoffs that we had to make due to
structural change. I am proud of that record.
Members do not mention the Queen's Printer office, but a perfect example, 49
positions we eliminated, and as of a couple of weeks ago, all but eight had
been found alternative employment within government or had chosen to retire.
* (1730)
Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard to
maintain our employment level, but we had the option of laying off over 500
additional people, and this government chose a method that would keep them
working, delivering services in this province, when their own union had abandoned
them‑‑when their own union had abandoned, they could care
less. Virtually, every call we had in
this office from Manitoba Government Employees' Union members was with respect
to how the 10 days would come off their pay cheque. Would their benefits be
protected during that period?
Mr. Olfert and the MGEU, not a union
selected by its employees, one imposed on them by this Legislature, chose to
ignore their own members, would not come to the table, said, we do not care,
you look after them. Well, we looked
after them. We made sure that they were employed. We made sure that their benefits were
protected in this period. We made sure
that it was spread over their pay cheques to minimize the impact on those
people. Did Mr. Olfert care? Not at all, Mr. Speaker, not at all.
Every member on this side of the House can
vote for this bill with pride because we have kept over 500 people and their
families employed that members opposite are saying to us, lay off, let them go,
put them onto the street. That is what
this bill is about. That is what it is
about. Members of the Liberal Party
should be absolutely ashamed of getting into bed with that crowd to put 500
people out onto the street.
Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you, talk
about negotiations, this government has agreements in many of our Crown
corporations with many very responsible labour organizations. I think of the Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, for example, at Hydro and Telephones; the Manitoba Nurses'
Mr. Doer's friends in the MGEU, the member
for Concordia's friends, do not want to do that. They do not want to represent their
members. They are waiting for the day
that their brother Mr. Doer becomes Premier, if that should ever happen, and
they can cut a sweet deal and have all the taps flow for them, not to the best
interests of the people of
Mr. Speaker, everyone across the way has
some magic answer. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talks about
negotiation, but we have more agreements with the unions representing public
employees than they have in
I just want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, with
one thought to the members opposite. If
their solutions to all these problems were right, why could Bob Rae not get it
in
Mr. Speaker, the people of
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): This government has
never been able to negotiate with business, the federal government, and their
own employees on any given issue.
They are absolutely incompetent, starting
with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness); starting with the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey); starting with the Premier (Mr. Filmon); starting with the
Minister of Industry, Trade, and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson); and finishing off
with the incompetent Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). They have failed, they have failed, they have
failed, and they have failed again.
Well, Mr. Speaker‑‑(interjection)
Well, they do not want to hear this.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Doer: Well, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)
negotiated such a good deal with GRIP, where the federal government offloaded
$50 million on the province. No wonder
we are in trouble right now, Mr. Speaker.
Where do I sign, says the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay). Where do I
sign? I will sign anything,
Charlie. I will sign anything you want,
Brian. I will sign anywhere; it is only
$50 million. Who cares? I am a Tory, I am incompetent, I cannot
negotiate.
We have the leadership position from the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). Remember the negotiations he conducted with
Repap Corporation? How many hundred‑thousands
of hectares of land do you want, Mr. Repap?
Oh, you are going to create 500 jobs and create a billion dollars of
investment, where do I sign? Where do I
sign? Oh, I am going to draw a line in
the sand. (interjection)
Well, the minister says, stick to the
topic. I am going to draw a line in the
sand, I will not cross that line. We
will need to renegotiate another deal to get our money back and our woodland
back, or we are going to take drastic action, and that will be in June, and
then in September, and then in October. What is it now? It is June again. Are you going to draw another line in the
sand tomorrow, the next day? This is the
kind of negotiated deal the Tories had.
What about the negotiations‑‑(interjection)
Let me finish. What about the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey)? He was the one responsible for negotiating
Conawapa. They talk about the
First of all, it was going to create how
many billions‑‑12 billion jobs, $15‑billion worth of
investment.
Point of Order
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am
enjoying the Leader's rhetorical flourish, I really am, but we are discussing
Bill 22.
I know the member is angry because of the
pounding delivered by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). I would ask him to, if he is going to give us
a pounding, try to deal with the bill.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I believe the
honourable Leader of the Opposition is dealing with Bill 22, The Public Sector
Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act. I believe the honourable
member was talking about negotiations.
* * *
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the ability
of a government to negotiate and the inability to achieve any kind of
agreement. It is germane to Bill
22. That is why I am speaking to it.
On Conawapa we had a situation where the
government was negotiating with another government, the
* (1740)
Well, do you have a thousand‑megawatt
sale right now? Do you have anything
left? You have as much left with
Conawapa as you got with Repap. You got
nothing‑‑zero.
Mr. Speaker, the government of the day
proposes to have a $300‑million penalty for the
Look at the Premier, Mr. Speaker. He was the one that said, all I have to do is
pick up the phone with Brian Mulroney and we will negotiate all these federal‑provincial
agreements, $250‑million worth of ERDA agreements‑‑nowhere,
Mr. Speaker. The Core Area Agreement, a
hundred‑million‑dollar agreement.
I had the privilege of negotiating the
last Core Area Agreement with Jake Epp and Bill Norrie. Mr. Speaker, these people for three years
cannot negotiate one Core Area Agreement. How can the NDP negotiate with the
Tories and the Tories fail with the Tories?
Another example of where the Tories cannot negotiate.
Let me give you the fourth example. These are the bright forecasters of the
economy: the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), the Premier (Mr. Filmon), great
forecasters of the economy. They sit
down with their own employees a year and a half ago and they negotiated a 3
percent agreement and COLA this year, right?
Let them not stand up and act like great negotiators. They negotiated with their own employees a
settlement that was twice the rate of inflation last October. Now, that is the most incompetent negotiation
that I have ever seen, absolutely incompetent. (interjection)
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me finish. If the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) would
like to be quiet for a minute, we could perhaps get on in this.
Mr. Speaker, the Tories in
The Minister of Labour had to recommend
it. What you are proposing in this bill,
you know what you are saying in this bill?
You are saying, I am so incompetent, I negotiated a bad agreement that I
have to legislate away what I signed off.
The whole cabinet is saying, we are
collectively incompetent, because we negotiated a settlement with our own
employees twice the rate of inflation and now this bill is only damage control.
This is not bargaining, this is public relations damage control. You know
why? Because anybody that knows anything
about negotiations knows that the base is where the long‑term savings are
introduced, and the base is where the long‑term costs are introduced.
If you do not deal with the base, and the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) knows this, if you have too high a wage
package, presumably, if you cannot deal with the base, then all you are doing
is dealing with short‑term gimmicks.
Mr. Speaker, this is clearly the case here,
because this government is not dealing with the problems as they are proposing.
There are alternatives. The
An Honourable Member: What did Clyde Wells do?
Mr. Doer: Clyde Wells, McKenna, a number of provinces have
negotiated and taken the easy way out like the
Mr. Speaker, look at the Winnipeg School
Division, I know the members do not want to hear about positive‑‑the
Winnipeg School Division just negotiated‑‑because they really did
believe in job security‑‑a two year, zero percent settlement in
exchange for no layoffs and no contracting out.
Again, a way of dealing with the economy in a way that makes sense for
jobs and makes sense for people's securities.
Mr. Speaker, there are examples right in
our own community of successful partnership.
Let the government not suggest with this gimmicky legislation that they
are, in fact, saving jobs. I just met
with people working in the Children's Dental Program. They all have pink slips.
I just met with specialists dealing with
ear and eye, and child psychologists in rural
We know that this government, when it
talks about job security, is being very, very dishonest with the people. They have laid off vital social services, New
Careers staff being laid off, ACCESS people being laid off, Indian/Metis
Friendship staff being laid off. The
Anti‑Poverty Organization is being closed down.
There are alternatives. We have suggested all along, let us look at
the money you give to corporate grants.
Let us look at the corporate training versus New Careers. We have suggested ideas in tough times to try
to deal with the challenges. They are
tough, especially when you run a deficit as high as $862 million.
The challenges are very, very difficult
for all of us. We do not want to inherit
a situation when we are elected, Mr. Speaker, that Grant Devine left to Roy
Romanow. We would like this government
to get some sense of revenues and job security and keep people in this province,
but let the government not forget that there are layoffs and massive amounts of
layoffs in vital services. Many of them,
we would suggest to members opposite, are not cost‑effective. Has the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
tabled in this House the response on dealing with the Children's Dental
Program? Has he tabled the fact that it
is going to cost $22 million to save $11 million back in this House?
An Honourable Member: You cannot debate the bill, can you?
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I am debating the bill. I am debating the incompetence of the
Minister of Finance when it comes to negotiating with your own employees, when
it comes to negotiating with Repap, when it comes to negotiating with Wang
computers, when it comes to negotiating with Arni Thorsteinson, when it comes
to‑‑(interjection) I will be off topic if I talk about the
Immigrant Investor Fund, so I will not do that.
Mr. Speaker‑‑(interjection) If
the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) is so confident, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will
be going and seeking a writ on Tuesday.
We will wait and see.
Mr. Speaker, I am just saying that this
bill is a real camouflage for the fact that this government cannot forecast,
cannot deal fairly with the challenges that we do have and has a total
inability to negotiate. They negotiated
an agreement. How can you possibly
defend recommending something in cabinet one day and cabinet approving it, and
three or four months later coming back with a piece of legislation? The Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), all he
is doing‑‑he was the one who was the head of the negotiations‑‑by
this piece of legislation is admitting that he is a total and utter
incompetent. That is what he is doing,
because he is covering up in legislation what he agreed to in a collective
bargaining agreement.
Mr. Speaker, we do believe that it is
absolutely essential for MLAs and members of this Legislature to take the
reductions as proposed in this bill, because it would not be fair when the
government uses its majority to pass this bill to have MLAs excluded. We believe‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Leader of the
Opposition would submit to a question?
* (1750)
Mr. Doer: When the Deputy Premier starts answering for
his own incompetence, then we would love to answer questions, Mr. Speaker. The man who cost us a thousand megawatts.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take a long
time speaking on this bill, but I want to say that collective bargaining is
tougher. It was tougher in
Whether it is dealing with private sector
or whether it is dealing with the federal government or whether it is‑‑(interjection)
What I have suggested, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) may have
missed it, that the government should have taken their time. They should have met over a long period of
time. They had negotiated‑‑let
me finish, Mr. Speaker‑‑an agreement with their own employees which
included a rate double the inflation and a cost of living the next year.
Instead of laying off 500 people including
dental nurses, including child psychologists, including hearing specialists, et
cetera, they should have sat down and taken their time with their own employees
and tried to renegotiate the high wage increase they negotiated last year and
job security which is obviously the most pre‑eminent concern for
employees this year. There was room to
negotiate if you were willing to negotiate.
This government is incompetent in
negotiations with the private sector. It
is incompetent with the federal government, even the Tory government, in terms
of negotiations. They are incompetent
with other provinces, and this bill just shows their incompetence with their
own employees.
Mr. Speaker, free collective bargaining is
worth fighting for. It is worth trying;
it is worth attempting. The government
is just papering over their own incompetence with this bill today. Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation
Management Act; Loi sur la reduction de la semaine de travail et la gestion des
salaires dans le secteur public. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members, please.
The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation
Management Act; Loi sur la reduction de la semaine de travail et la gestion des
salaires dans le secteur public.
A STANDING
VOTE was taken, the result
being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness,
McAlpine, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Praznik, Reimer,
Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cheema, Chomiak, Cerilli, Dewar,
Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray,
Hickes, Lamoureux, Maloway, Martindale, Reid,
Mr. Clerk: Yeas 27, Nays 23.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
* (1800)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, before you adjourn the House, I
would like to announce that this bill will be referred to the Standing Committee
on Economic Development to sit tomorrow night at 7 p.m. in Room 255.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for the information.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).