Members of the Committee present:

Hon. Messrs. Downey, Gilleshammer, Toews

Messrs. Laurendeau, McAlpine, Maloway, Radcliffe, Reid, Robinson, Sveinson, Ms. Wowchuk

APPEARING:

Mr. Jack Penner, MLA for Emerson

WITNESSES:

Bill 50--The Remembrance Day Amendment Act

Ms. Brenda Stamm, Private Citizen

Mr. Kenneth Emberley, Private Citizen

Ms. Gail Anderson-Checkley, Private Citizen

Bill 73--The Construction Industry Wages Amendment Act

Mr. Kenneth Emberley, Private Citizen

Mr. Dave Tesarski, Manitoba Council of the Canadian Federation of Labour

Mr. Jack Cumming, Construction Association of Rural Manitoba, Inc.

Mr. Dave Martin, Manitoba Building and Construction Trades Council

Mr. Rob Hilliard, President, Manitoba Federation of Labour

Mr. Lance Norman, Manitoba Chamber of Commerce

Mr. Mike Evans, Private Citizen

Mr. Fred Wright, Private Citizen

Mr. Ed Gallos, President, Master Roofing Ltd.

Mr. Peter Wightman, Construction Labour Relations Association of Manitoba

Mr. David Harrison, Winnipeg Construction Association

Mr. Ted Cook, Winnipeg Construction Association

Mr. Chris Lorenc, Manitoba Heavy Construction Association

Mr. Joe Bova, Private Citizen

Mr. Terry Dauphinais, International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 102

Mr. Patrick Martin, Carpenters Union

MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION:

Bill 50--The Remembrance Day Amendment Act

Bill 73--The Construction Industry Wages Amendment Act

* (1840)

Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Will the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations please come to order. The business before the committee this evening is the consideration of Bill 50, The Remembrance Day Amendment Act; and Bill 73, The Construction Industry Wages Amendment Act.

Before continuing with consideration of these bills, there are certain matters regarding process to clarify at this point. For the committee and public's information, there are currently 15 persons registered to speak to both Bill 73, and two persons registered to speak to Bill 50. The lists of presenters should be before all committee members as well as posted at the back of the room. For the public's information, if there is anyone present this evening who wishes to appear before the committee on either of these bills and has not yet registered, you may register with the Chamber staff at the back of the room and your name will be added to the appropriate list.

For the committee's information, there are two persons registered to speak to Bill 73 who are from out of town. They are indicated as such by the asterisks after their name on the list. It has been a Manitoba practice to hear from the persons who are from out of town first as a matter of courtesy for the distance they have travelled. When we come to that act, is it the will of the committee to hear from those people first? [agreed]

After hearing the two out-of-towners on Bill 73--[interjection] Okay, when we come to Bill 73, after having heard the two out-of-towners, we will go forward to the top of that list and proceed sequentially on Bill 73, as they are listed.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Chairperson, I think we should be probably proceeding with Bill 50 first on presenters and then go to Bill 73.

Mr. Chairperson: Is that the will of the committee? [agreed] Does the committee wish to set a time limit on public presentations, and if so what does the committee wish to set?

Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Chairperson, we will go with 10 and five.

Mr. Chairperson: Ten minutes for the presentation from the presenter and five minutes for questions. [agreed]

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): You neglected to look at this side before we agreed to go to the 10 and five. I just wanted to add a few comments to indicate that while this committee and these bills, 50 and 73, that we have before us here this evening, and we do not have an extensive number of public presenters here, it would seem to me unreasonable to expect to limit those that may have travelled from out of town to the Legislature to speak. We would hope that there would be some consideration given for those that may have a few extra comments to add at the end of that time period to allow some ability for them to complete their comments and not adhere as strictly as we have in past, because I do not think that there is going to be that tight a pressure on time here this evening to give all the presenters the opportunity within a reasonable period to add their comments. I would not want to have that full restriction that we have applied in the past and have some leniency for that.

Mr. Chairperson: I should advise my colleagues that it has been my practice as Chair sitting on committees in the past that if we are approaching the 10-minute mark, I usually indicate that to the presenter, and then when the questions are commencing if the colleague from the table has presented their question before the expiry of the five minutes, I then allow the indulgence of the presenter to complete their answer in that sequence before I terminate, and I feel that that gives flexibility to the presenter. Is that the will of the committee? [agreed] Ten-minute presentation, five-minute questions.

Another matter to deal with is that of the people who are called to make their presentations who are not present in the room when their name is called. It has been a practice of the committee that in such a situation, the name is dropped to the bottom of the list. If a name is called a second time and the person is not present, the name is dropped off the list. Does the committee wish to follow this practice? [agreed]

We will now proceed to hear public presentations. As previously agreed, we will commence with Bill 50, The Remembrance Day Amendment Act. The first presenter is Brenda Stamm. Good evening, madam. Do you have any written copies of your brief to circulate?

Ms. Brenda Stamm (Private Citizen): No, I do not.

Mr. Chairperson: No problem. Welcome, and I would invite you to proceed.

Ms. Stamm: Thank you. Thank you for having me.

I am sincerely distressed by the possibility of any changes to The Remembrance Day Act. It is totally disrespectful to consider opening stores on Remembrance Day. Three of my grandparents were born in Russia. I thank God daily that they made it to Canada and I am free. I am very emotional on this topic, as you gathered. I also thank those soldiers who fought for a free Canada and, as far as that goes, for a free world.

Every time I go to my father-in-law's grave site I think of the four years he gave to his country. Every Remembrance Day and D-Day anniversary, I think of the uncle we lost on a beach in France. My father-in-law told stories of being fed bennies for three days before D-Day. They were on the boat knowing not where they were going. They just followed blind faithfully. He sat in a tank for four years; boiling hot in the day, but could not undress because you never knew when a hot piece of shrapnel was going to find its way into the tank and burn you.

These men dropped everything in their lives. They left their families, their farms, their jobs, maybe to die. Why? To ensure Canada stayed free. They loved their country. These men and women should be shown due respect. Is it too much to ask for one day a year to stop and think about what they did for us and in turn gave us? Not one man who fought in any war comes back the same. They gave so much and asked for so little. Respect--maybe if we all showed a little more of it, our youth of today would not be such a listless bunch. But that is another topic.

I really do not think that one morning a year, or politicians going to France every five years to commemorate D-Day, is enough show of respect. The few hours we spend remembering the veterans and their fallen comrades do not add up to the amount of time they spent overseas. Can you imagine waking up every day and wondering: Will I be wounded today? Will I be captured today? Will I die today?

What exactly is it that people need to buy? Stores are open up 355 days a year; is that not enough? Is another six hours of shopping going to make or break a store, or is this just a prelude to being open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year?

I would really like to see more input from normal citizens on this decision. I became aware of it only a month and a half ago. It has not been something highly publicized. I do not believe business lobby groups should be the only ones heard on this issue. I understand veterans probably were consulted, but I would assume their feeling was, hey, they are going to do it anyway, I might as well give them my two cents' worth and just hope for the best.

If a law like this passes when veterans are still alive, I shudder to think what will happen when they have all passed away.

In closing, I would ask you seriously reconsider passing this law. I feel it is being done behind my back. If stores are open this November 11, maybe shopping centres that are open could be picketed, and that might bring it to the public's attention. I know there are a lot of people out there who know nothing about these changes and do not agree with them when I have spoken to them.

What is it we say on Remembrance Day? Lest we forget. Let us make sure nobody does. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Stamm. Ms. Stamm, I believe some of my colleagues here may have a few questions if you could, we beg your indulgence.

Ms. Stamm: I am sorry. I am new at this.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Ms. Stamm, for coming out this evening to present on Bill 50, The Remembrance Day Amendment Act. You referenced several things in your comments that the government's move towards wide-open shopping in the afternoon of Remembrance Day, you say, is a prelude towards a further move to 24-hour shopping. I am not sure in fact who was even asking for these changes because there has been no reference why these changes have even come forward to the Manitoba Legislature for consideration. I agree with your comments that there is no need to have another shopping day as we have so many in the year already.

* (1850)

I want to ask you two questions. First, are you aware that there were changes that were brought forward by this government a couple of years back that will now allow for wide-open shopping on Thanksgiving, which was a day that had traditionally been set aside in the past? Can you please explain for the benefit of members of this committee whether or not you as a family person take the opportunity during that day to instruct the young people in your family on the values of Remembrance Day and what it means to your family and to our community?

Ms. Stamm: Firstly, Thanksgiving Day is a holiday, yes, and so are Victoria Day, Labour Day. Remembrance Day is special. People died for it, and, yes, I do instruct my children. We watched D-Day when people were alive. We would spend the day after D-Day with them asking questions about their experiences. They are well aware of what people have given.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Thank you very much, Ms. Stamm, for your presentation. I do not know whether you have had an opportunity to read the committee's report that was presented to me, but I might just indicate--and I know how strongly you feel about this particular day. I think all of us here as committee members feel very strongly about that day, as in fact do the members of that committee who made these recommendations.

Just very simply, for your information, the people who unanimously made these recommendations included Mr. Bill Neil, who is the past national president of the War Amps of Canada and chairman of the Joint Veterans Association; Mr. John Gillis, president of the Korea Veterans Association, Manitoba Branch; the Army, Navy and Air Force Veterans Association, Manitoba-Northwestern Ontario Command; and Mr. Dave Hillis, the command president, Manitoba-Northwestern Ontario Command of the Royal Canadian Legion; in addition, the two representatives from the Chambers of Commerce: the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, Candace Bishoff; and Jim Forestell of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, who is a retired lieutenant-colonel in our armed forces. As well, the Manitoba Federation of Labour agreed unanimously with these recommendations. I think that in reading their report there is a tremendous feeling for that day and a tremendous concern that that day not be lost.

As you well know, Manitoba is the only province that has that type of recognition, and for years there has been confusion as to what can be sold and what cannot be sold. So I think this was a very honest attempt by very well-meaning and caring individuals who in fact consulted with each of their respective bodies, including the legions across Manitoba. I think it was a difficult decision for them in many respects, and yet unanimously they, including the veterans, agreed with these proposals because of the desire to keep the day as a special day. I am just wondering, have you had a chance to read the report and some of the rationale?

Ms. Stamm: No, I have not. It is just my feeling if you give people a day off work and they can go shopping at one o'clock, they will sleep in until noon and they will not see Remembrance Day services on TV. It will not be a special day. I have been on committees too where I have had recommendations and had to agree with things that I have not agreed with for the benefit of overall. I do not think this is an overall benefit to the people of Manitoba, and I do not care if we are the only ones. I am proud of it.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Stamm. Mr. Reid, for one very brief question.

Mr. Reid: I think what the minister failed to reference for your benefit was that he had sent the request to the committee and asked for their recommendations on whatever changes they might contemplate making and, yes, there was--of my understanding--unanimous agreement on the provisions that were brought forward, some of which we would agree with, with respect to inclusion of peacekeepers and those who served in some of the other wars or conflicts around the world on behalf of the citizenry of our country. But I want to draw that to your attention and to tell you that I very much agree with your comments. I want to thank you very much for coming out here this evening in recognition of those who made the sacrifice, so that we can all be here this evening and all the other residents of our country as well.

Ms. Stamm: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Stamm. The next presenter on this bill is Ken Emberley. Mr. Emberley, are you in the assembly?

Mr. Kenneth Emberley (Private Citizen): I was just trying to help her out and explain to her maybe she is just the only one who happens to be right today.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Emberley, do you have written presentations for the committee?

Mr. Emberley: I have written here that I have four research papers that I want to comment from, and I will give you the research papers if I may after, Sir.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir. I would invite you then to proceed with your presentation.

Mr. Emberley: Remembrance Day was a grand thing. I was wounded fighting Hitler, and I have been fighting authoritarian and fascist forces ever since, even yesterday and the day before and the day before and last week and they show up in so many different ways. I think it is time to end celebrating the victory of World War II.

We have just a couple of little pieces of information. The hourly wage in Mexico in 1982 was $1.53 U.S. After the U.S. opened 75 factories in the Maquiladora area, the hourly wage in Mexico in 1991 is 60 cents U.S.--two-fifths of what it was 10, nine years ago.

The United States population that is covered by health insurance is 76 percent of the white people, 12 percent of black people and 9 percent of Hispanics. That means 24 percent of the white people are not covered, 88 percent of the blacks are not covered and 91 percent of the Hispanics are not covered. They spend far more than we do, and they do not have nearly the coverage, and that is because of the market system and all the giant number of profit-operated hospitals and the tens of thousands of doctor-operated clinics. And we are trying to make our whole system identical to the United States.

Only the U.S. spends less. Sweden spends 33.9 percent of its gross domestic product on social programs; Germany, 28 percent; France, 23 percent; United Kingdom, 20 percent; Canada, 18.8 percent. The U.S.A., the most uncivilized industrial nation, spends 14.8 percent. They have no national medicare insurance. They have no women's maternity leave. They have no universal daycare. That is just a glimpse, just a glimpse, just propaganda for the commercial market system, propaganda that you would not believe.

Starting in 1945, I am reading from the Alex Carey manuscript, the pressure to have shopping on Remembrance Day, now we are the only one left, is that not awful? Would it not be awful if we are the only ones left with democracy in the world? We were like that. Britain was like that in 1941, 1939, in Europe. They did not stop fighting. Why do not we do something to promote remembering the Remembrance Day?

I have never seen a veteran with his medals on down here in a public hearing. I belong to the Imperial Veterans, but they do not take a damn bit of interest in 90 percent of the social issues in the country. We have had a propaganda campaign since 1908 of unbelievable scope organized by the National Association of Manufacturers promoting business interests, that is why we have the right-wing agenda and we have deregulation and privatization.

In 1972, the 196 biggest corporations in the States were asked to form an association and help get a powerful right-wing government elected. They put Ronnie Reagan in power for two terms in 1980. Tom D'Aquino's Business Council on National Issues was created in 1976. The 150 biggest companies in Canada, mostly U.S. transnationals, own half of our nation's assets.

* (1900)

In just eight years their propaganda campaign was able to put Brian Mulroney in power for two years, and the year before that Trudeau appointed Donald Macdonald of Nelson Rockefeller's trilateral commission to do a commission study. When he was halfway through he jumped up on TV and said, hey, we are not finished yet, but we sure have to have free trade and sold our country in 1982, Pierre Trudeau did.

Now, I am giving you this little manuscript. I have given it to you four times in this Legislature before and distributed 180 copies of it in the last year. It tells you about the war of business, the giant massive propaganda war. In one small campaign, they had 400 full-page newspaper ads in 200 newspapers across the whole of the United States, just in one corner of one week's work of propaganda, to hate labour, hate social programs, hate community-developed privatized deregulation. I have that manuscript for you.

Here is a cute little story from the war on labour in the left. The United States standard of living between 1972 and '88 increased only 8 percent. That is one-quarter as much as it gained in West Germany, France, Italy, Britain and Canada, one-seventh as much as the gross domestic product increased in Japan.

In 1988, the U.S. standard of living was below West Germany's and scarcely ahead of any other countries. The United States is ninth in per capita gross national product, behind Austria, Switzerland, Netherlands, West Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Japan. The total U.S. assets, national assets rose from 31 to 36 trillion. That is five trillion between '85 and '87. In Japan they rose 24 trillion, five times as much because their businessmen care about their country. They run their countries efficiently and they pay fairer taxes, and they allow their workers to have social programs and democracy and their unions, and the workers work a hell of a lot better for their bosses in Japan and Germany than they do in our country. So we are adopting the United States system. We want to bring their violence in here, their poverty. It is going to be a grand time. So I say, let us just forget about this celebrating the victory of the Second World War.

I came back from Louisiana and Texas two years ago, the first time in my life I ever went down that far, had a lovely five-week holiday, came back a week early and will never go back. I just realized when I came back here, the same transnational corporations own the whole of my country that own their country. I am living in enemy-occupied territory, so why celebrate the victory of the Second World War? Let us cut out the whole crap and nonsense. I am just sick and tired of the whole business.

John Ralston Saul makes a little tiny comment here. The citizenry should be very careful of putting artificial limits on the government, which is the only force the citizens have in any country in the world to work for the citizens. There is no other legitimacy capable of being disinterested in the well-being of the nation maintenance. If the citizenry agreed to exclude themselves from controlling and having an active government, it will automatically go to the forces that have money and power, and you try and figure out who has all the money and power in this country, the transnational corporations and the rich and the filthy rich, and the reason they want to downpower government is so they will have more power.

Aside from that, things are going great folks. Have a nice evening. Here is a picture of the greatest man. This picture is entitled The Face of Friendship and Hope; it looks worse than John L. Lewis. The Face of Friendship and Hope, the United States ambassador to the United Nations just promoted to a general after he left Brazil after spending 20 years as a CIA agent organizing terrorism around the world. What a grand victory.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Emberley, for your presentation.

Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you might ask Mr. Emberley if he would be prepared at this time to make his presentation on Bill 73 right away; and if there would be leave of the committee, I think we might hear his 10-minute presentation on that bill right away if he is ready.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Emberley, Mr. Laurendeau notes that you are also registered as a presenter on Bill 73. As an accommodation to you, sir, would you be prepared to present at this time on Bill 73 before you retire?

Mr. Emberley: I would be very grateful for the opportunity, Sir, and appreciate your kindness and the committee's kindness.

Mr. Chairperson: Do we have leave of the committee to allow Mr. Emberley to proceed? [agreed] Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Emberley. I would then ask you to present on The Construction Industry Wages Amendment Act.

Mr. Emberley: It will take me just a minute or two.

Mr. Chairperson: Surely. Take your time, sir.

Mr. Emberley: Thank you for your patience.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Emberley.

Mr. Emberley: I have a little tiny gem. You see, I have been a student since I was 13 years old and kept scrapbooks on three wars; 1936 it was, the war in Abyssinia called Ethiopia, and George Bush just went back there three years ago because he got four giant oil leases. He went back to feed the hungry people and beat up on the local warlord that wanted to save some of the oil for Somalia. I have a document in here I am giving you.

It is very hard to be constructive and optimistic, but that is not my job. My job is to be skeptical, critical, kind, decent, honest, and offer some sort of an idea that might be some good. So I made a paper here called--I hope the censors are here. Most people have a fear. If you have ever talked to a woman about being raped, you will find a nervous woman. Have you ever talked to a man about being castrated? You will find a nervous man. Have you ever been administrated? A law making parents legally responsible for their children's acts, how horribly typical, how horribly unfair. How about a law of legal responsibility for important political appointees and higher administrators--

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Emberley, I do not want to curb your comments, sir. The second bill that you are registered to speak about in this room is The Construction Industry Wages Act.

Mr. Emberley: The Construction Industry Wages Act.

Mr. Chairperson: Yes.

Mr. Emberley: That is right, Sir.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much.

Mr. Emberley: --and the administration of the construction wages act. Now I humbly suggest that we have committees across the country like The Wages Act and like the blood commission, the aboriginal royal commission, the Somalian inquiry, the City of Winnipeg hundred-million dollar fiasco, and never once did anybody write up terms of reference for the job when the man was given the money and told to do the work. There was no job description. Personnel not doing their job even 20 or 30 percent adequately and no description to tell what they should have done. Jobs or no jobs, no job description ever written, supervisory committees' appointments to manage and no job description for them of what they were to manage and how they were to manage it.

In 30 years there has not been one legislature in Canada with the brains to notice or the desire to act. Absolutely no clear human rights for the public groups of ordinary citizens--aboriginal, blood transfusion victims, labourers--in The Construction Wages Act. No human rights activity.

* (1910)

The mothers and children in the Health Sciences Centre had no human rights. I know two midwives who went to the General Hospital with a woman with a little baby. The doctors sneered at the mother and the baby, and they sneered at the midwives and ran around in circles while the baby died. Then they put the mother and midwives on trial. Oh, I sat through it. Dr. Ursula Franklin [phonetic] said, I figured out the third day my baby was born that I needed a disaster avoidance strategy. Write that down: disaster avoidance strategy. There has never been one for hardly anything in this country.

Did you know there was one of the banks that did not have a disaster avoidance strategy? There was a real estate company in the 1990 depression, and Dr. Ravi Batra wrote his book in 1987 and said the sixth depression in 240 years is coming; and in the last 15 years, all the lower class workers in Canada have had their wages lowered by 50 percent because they were never allowed to have cost-of-living increases.

From 1973 until 1992 the workers in Canada have subsidized industry by having much smaller wages than the workers had in western Europe and Japan because our bosses are more greedy and powerful and corrupt, and they have a government that works for the rich and the corporations and generally hates labour.

So this is a little tiny suggestion that I have for you that there should be an improvement in our administration. The other thing I ask you, there is not enough money for the construction wages labour board to give people adequate wages. There is not enough money in the economy. Nobody can figure out why. We have this terrible deficit.

I want to read you three sentences. Government, business, and consumer debt in the U.S. have shown a steady increase since the 1960s. The average annual increases every three years jumped from $65 billion a year for five years; $135 billion a year for five years; $193 billion a year for five years, and Ronnie Reagan put it up to $200 billion. Then Ronnie Reagan said, we should end the deficit. There are only five years since 1929 the United States did not have a deficit. This temporary aberration in the economy has to be cured by cutting all the social programs until all the social programs are cut, and then we can go back to having the debt.

Business debts are bigger than government debt. Nobody is worried about business debts being paid. I never heard a businessman ask a fellow with a credit card, pay off your consumer debts before you buy nothing more. But they want government cutdown because the government is the servant of the people in theory, and some of the legislation of the government is for the benefit of the people and the community and the environment and the nation. Businessmen want a free market, free of any obligation to pay decent wages, any obligation for the community, any obligation for the environment, any obligation for the survival of the nation economically. They only are concerned with personal profit and blind greed and power. Aside from that, things are going pretty good.

I beg of you, your Construction Wages Act, have public hearings and think about how you can improve it so there would be a larger number of unions in the construction industry. As soon as we start paying people increased wages--the lower classes always pay a large part of their income on wages, and that is the only place the government is going to get money to cut the debt, when we start getting the unemployed back and we need a 5 percent payroll tax on every computer and every Grow Bond. That money should go to credit unions and low-wage, lower income, lower class people to do community development work. Not a cent of that money must be allowed.

So I beg of you when you are doing your review of the Construction Wages Board, think about the working people. If you are thinking about the nation, you will want to get people back to work at decent wages because this depression will not end until the lower classes get higher wages. Read Dr. Ravi Batra's book. I am giving you an excerpt in here. This is the sixth depression in 240 years. Exactly every 30 years, capitalism falls flat on its face for eight years, and everybody suffers like hell, and the rich get richer and richer and richer all during the depression. They take their money out of circulation and put it into tax shelters, make none of it available to pay taxes, none of it available to invest for business. So I beg of you, I do not think it would be impertinent to say you people are not as good as you should be. No, I have to look in the mirror and say, you know, I have known for 30 years I am not as good as I should be, so do not be offended, and I told this to Ed Schreyer's dreadful gang and I told it to Howard Pawley's dreadful gang and now I am telling it to Gary Filmon's dreadful gang. You are not as good as you should be, none of us are.

I told Howard Pawley and I told Ed Schreyer that they should reduce confrontation and conflict and do something for the good of the country instead of their personal greed and their wealthy, influential business friends, or labour friends. So I humbly beg of you, this is research information for your benefit; it will explain to you the whole fraud. There is not a single word that a politican who has spoken about the debt and the deficit that is true, not a single word. I turn off--I have never heard more than five minutes of a politician's speech in the last eight years. As soon as I get five lies, I shut it off. Respectfully submitted.

Mr. Chairperson: And respectfully received, sir. I believe that some of my colleagues may have some questions if we could beg your indulgence, sir. Are there any questions from the committee of Mr. Emberley?

Mr. Toews: I do just want to thank you, Mr. Emberley, for coming out. I think your admonitions will be well received, and we will think about some of the things you have told us. Thank you very much.

Mr. Emberley: I hope you realize it was presented with respect.

Mr. Toews: I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir, very much for coming out tonight.

Mr. Emberley: And thank you for your courtesy in letting me do double duty.

Mr. Chairperson: The next presenter on Bill 50 is Gail Anderson-Checkley. She is an individual who has just walked in and registered. Good evening, Madam, and welcome. Do you have written presentations for the committee?

Ms. Gail Anderson-Checkley (Private Citizen): No, I do not. I am sorry.

Mr. Chairperson: No problem, I would invite you to proceed then with your oral presentation.

Ms. Anderson-Checkley: Thank you for having me here this evening. I was just walking by the Legislative Building on my way to take a look at the new bridge when I saw all the cars parked out in front of the Legislative Building, so I decided to come in and take a look and see what was on the bulletin boards outside the room, and my friend and I, who came with me here tonight, we had just heard the news on the radio station and the TV station about the Remembrance Day and that businesses want to be open on Monday, November 11.

I have been a Canadian as long as I can remember; I mean I was born here. When I went to school in Thunder Bay, Ontario, we were taught to respect November 11, not that I am saying that these businesses are not respecting that day. It is just that they want to make their profits and feed their families and pay their bills and their lights and stuff like that. On the other hand, I myself can think of a lot of things to do on Monday besides going shopping for a new pair of shoes or maybe some hardware at a Canadian Tire store.

* (1920)

I work for a community centre. When I say work, I mean volunteer and there--I am not sure, I tried to phone the centre to see if we are going to be open on Monday, but as far as I know the board, which I am part of, they will probably be closed. We serve a lot of children there and right now are dealing with a lot of different kinds of things, as you see on the news, with violence, with gang problems and so on. What we are looking at there is a lack of respect, and what we need to do today is to show the children that we have respect, we have respect for people and the people who have given their lives for us.

When I was in Grade 4 I stood in front of a classroom, and my class had been working on reciting a prayer--it was like a prayer--for about three weeks. We worked on the prayer, and it was a very long prayer for us because we were not concentrating on things like we are now today when we are adults, but today I stand here talking to you at the Legislative Building. Yesterday and when I was standing in that classroom when I was in Grade 4, I never thought that I would be standing here today in front of all these people, sitting here at this table and the people behind me, saying that I support Remembrance Day. I never thought that it would be part of my life to do this. The poem that I recited was In Flanders Fields. Today I can still remember that poem, and I remember all the Canadians that we had where they died.

Another for instance is the T. Eaton Company. There is a statue on the main floor and it commemorates--my English is not too good--all the people from the Eaton's company who died in the wars. That company has been here for many, many years, and they uphold their employees who fought in that war, so why would they stay open in their memory on that day?

I can think of a lot of other things that Winnipeggers and maybe Manitobans can be doing with their lives on that day. They can go to the Remembrance Day celebrations over here. We celebrate their lives. They were short lives, too. Many of them were 18 years old. Many of them did not even have a life. They gave up everything so we could live so I can be standing here today in front of you saying that, why do we need to be open on Monday, November 11, so people can go and buy some hardware?

Anyway that is all I have to say. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Anderson-Checkley.

Mr. Reid: Thank you very much for coming out this evening and making the presentation. I am glad you took the opportunity. It is unfortunate that this legislation has not received more publicity to allow members of the public to be fully aware of what changes are contemplated in this legislation and what effect it will have on our societies and our families.

Can you tell me, because you very obviously hold Remembrance Day as very near and dear to you, is it a day where members of your family would get together and talk about not only the family values but the meaning? Do you instruct the young people of your family on the importance of Remembrance Day?

Ms. Anderson-Checkley: Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Anderson-Checkly, I have to acknowledge each speaker before they speak because these proceedings are being transcribed. So there is a reporter in the back here and he has to flick on your mike to make it active, so that is why I have to address you and then you respond, if we can proceed that way.

Ms. Anderson-Checkley: Pardon me. Yes, I do instruct my children on Remembrance Day.

Mr. Reid: So then this is an important day for you and your family and that you very much want to retain the opportunity of having this day set aside to allow parents to be at home with their children so that they can pass on that knowledge, that information that we have gained for our generation, to the young people that follow us so that we are not doomed to repeat the same mistakes that have happened in the past, but also to remember the sacrifices that were made by those on behalf of us so that we can all be here today. Is that the way you want your community and your family to remember and to participate on Remembrance Day?

Ms. Anderson-Checkley: Yes, I would like to see Manitobans stay home with their families on that day and speak with their children about this day, what happened many, many years ago.

Mr. Toews: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am certain that you do feel very strongly about this day, as do members of this committee. I do not know if you had the opportunity to hear some of my comments to one of the earlier speakers in respect of the committee that in fact made the recommendation which included the representatives of the various legions. I think looking at the report would give some explanation as to why they agreed that some of these changes would be made.

I am just wondering whether you are, of course, aware now that stores are open on Remembrance Day, but in fact it is very confusing as to which stores can be open and which cannot and that also the proposal in this legislation allows employees the right to refuse work on Remembrance Day. Are you aware of that?

Ms. Anderson-Checkley: Yes, I am aware of that now.

Mr. Toews: Do you think that is a good idea that employees should have the right to refuse work on Remembrance Day without worrying about losing their jobs?

Ms. Anderson-Checkley: I think that all employees should have that right, and I do not think they should have to worry about losing their job on that day.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Thank you, Ms. Checkley, for coming out. You indicated that you only heard about this bill this evening on the radio and just by accident that you came here tonight, and we are very pleased that you came forward and put your presentation on record. There are also many, many employees that do not know about this legislation, and we feel that it should perhaps be put on hold for a year until everybody has a better understanding of what the government is proposing. But my question I wanted to ask you is, government goes to the community, the minister said they had a committee that looked at it, but on other legislation and other issues the government goes out and holds hearings and listens to the people and asks them for input

Do you think if the government went out and let them know about the changes that they were making to this legislation, other than having the committee, that more people would come forward, and do you think that would be a good idea for the government to delay this legislation for a year and give the public more chance to have input into it?

Ms. Anderson-Checkley: Yes, I think it would be a good idea for the Legislative Building to put this bill off for a year so other people can have a chance to speak to the bill. You are right when you said that I had just heard about it on the news tonight. I have not had much time to prepare for this talk. I just threw together some notes at the back of the room and just came up here. It has taken me a lot of courage to be able to speak to you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, madam. We certainly appreciate and are aware of the courage it takes to present almost off the cuff in front of the public, and we thank you very, very much for coming forward tonight. That would conclude the time we have available, and we will call now for the next speaker. Thank you.

This would conclude all the registered speakers to The Remembrance Day Amendment Act. There being no further individuals who are coming forward to speak on The Remembrance Day Amendment Act, I will close public representations on Bill 50.

The next matter before the committee is consideration of Bill 73, The Construction Industry Wages Amendment Act. As previously agreed, we had undertaken to hear the out-of-town presenters first. The first out-of-town presenter who has registered is Dave Tesarski. Good evening, Mr. Tesarski. You have written presentations. The Clerk will circulate those. Thank you very much, sir. While your material is being circulated I would invite you to proceed.

* (1930)

Mr. Dave Tesarski (Manitoba Council of the Canadian Federation of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. The mandate of the Manitoba Council of the Canadian Federation of Labour is to proactively represent our member organizations in a nonpartisan manner to promote labour issues to government, business and workers in our community. In keeping with that statement, the Manitoba Council is also committed to strengthening our economy by supporting long-term growth and development for all of Manitoba. This, however, can only be accomplished with a fair and equitable legislation. Legislation in Manitoba's construction industry has evolved over 75 years to a point where today most facets of wages, hours and working conditions are regulated. There is a general and widespread agreement that the act has made an important contribution to the construction industry by being a catalyst for harmonious labour-management relations.

Government, business and labour must remember The Construction Industry Wages Act serves a dual purpose. One, it provides fair wages and working conditions to employees in the construction industry; and two, it provides fair tendering legislation for employers, which ensures that all employers are tendering projects on the same basis for hours of work and wages.

The act encourages union and nonunion employers to train workers and expand the number of skilled construction workers in Manitoba. However, as times change, the act must also change. Specific changes to the act must occur; however, the act as a whole must be retained. We believe government, business and labour are all committed to supporting long-term growth and development in the construction industry and strengthening the economy of Manitoba.

When change is introduced to a long, existing act it must be done in such a manner that would be beneficial to all. Consideration must be given to the past performance of the act and how proposed amendments may affect the act. Going with some of the amendments that have been proposed on Bill 73, exclusion of house building sector, the act in its current form sets out minimum wage rates and hours of work for journeypersons, helpers and labourers engaged in the house building sector. In a market that is predominately subcontractor based, the act contributes by way of attracting entry level workers and maintaining a pool of skilled workers to an industry that provides a fair wage and a fair standard of living.

Deregulation will lower wages, resulting in little or no incentive for the industry to attract and maintain a skilled labour force. Deregulation will encourage workers to deal in cash or barter, subsequently to avoid paying tax, WCB premiums and other benefits to make up the shortfall in earnings. The only area of the economy that will thrive will be the underground economy. In 1995, it was estimated that the underground economy took an estimated $60 billion out of government coffers, and deregulation of this sector will only add to it.

Exclusion of maintenance, repair and redecoration: Maintenance, repair and redecoration is an important part of the major construction and is often a part of the original building contract. Usually there are maintenance contracts on major buildings and maintenance services as a significant consideration in the case of periodic shutdowns of major complexes. For example, a renovation at a department store usually entails tear-down and installation of walls, plumbing, electrical, et cetera, to complete the project, yet the main structure remains virtually untouched.

To do these projects safely in a cost-effective manner and according to building codes, well-trained, skilled craftspeople are required. If you refer to the second-last page of the document that was handed out and focus on the language inserted, in the underlined and italicized: Upon the request of the minister the Manitoba council has met numerous times with the minister and his staff to work out suitable language to include maintenance and repair, and we offer this language to you.

Facts to be considered by board recommending wage levels: Setting criteria to raise wage levels when the economy is flourishing, and freeze or lower wage levels when the economy is stagnant or in a decline would be devastating to the entire industry and the Manitoba economy as a whole. Lowering wages does not and will not foster capital investment for construction projects. It would create a constantly unstable environment, deterring job entry and eventually reducing the skilled-labour pool that is so crucial to the industry to be competitive. The board must be comprised of construction industry representatives and not public interest. These representatives carry the knowledge and experience of the industry to determine wage levels. Construction minimum wage levels must be maintained to secure a skilled labour pool and provide an incentive for job entry into the industry.

Here are two amendments that we, the Manitoba Council of the Canadian Federation of Labour, are introducing. Definition of a journeyperson. It has come to the attention of the Manitoba Council of the CFL that the CIWA does not have a clear and concise definition of a journeyperson. Please refer to the last page of the document that I handed out to the committee. We are proposing that the following amendment to the current journeyperson definition:

The journeyperson means a person who: (a) holds a trades certificate of proficiency or licence from a recognized authority, either the Manitoba government or a trade union education and training program, or (b) performs and is assigned by their employer to duties assigned to journeypersons in an apprenticeable trade or to duties normally assigned to journeypersons who are not registered in apprenticeable trades but have trade regulations that are defined.

We also introduce a second definition which Mr. Terry Dauphinais, as business manager of the Elevator Constructors, will have included in his presentation, and it reads: Journeyperson means a person who has attained a level of skill to address all areas of their particular trade under an apprenticeship, carry a licence after completing the work requirements to qualify as indicated by the licencing authority, or attain the standards that are accepted and known to be high skill level for a trade that is not apprenticeable.

We also call for better enforcement of the CIWA. It has come to the attention of the Manitoba Council of the Canadian Federation of Labour that the CIWA is not effectively enforced by the Employment Standards Branch. The Employment Standards Branch is supposed to fully enforce the CIWA in the nonunion sector, and quite frankly this is not happening. Many of our affiliates have from time to time assisted nonunion workers in filing complaints against their employer about noncompliance to the CIWA. Many of the complaints are about not receiving overtime pay, holiday pay, minimum rate pay, employer ratio requirements, et cetera. In our experience with these complaints, the Employments Standards Branch either drags its feet or does nothing to settle the complaint. We have spoken to a number of nonunion contractors who have written letters to the Employment Standards Branch requesting that the CIWA be vigorously enforced. They, as well as the labour movement, have constantly requested the CIWA have some teeth, prosecutions, a level playing field for fair and honest competition is what is required in the province. Contractors must completely be familiar with different building codes and the Revenue Canada taxation system to stay in business. These are far more complex than the CIWA.

The CIWA is not in any way difficult or complex to administer. Some unscrupulous employers violate the CIWA knowing full well no action will be taken against them. Employees have indicated they are reluctant to file complaints against their employer in the fear that they will lose their job.

No employee should be intimidated to a point of losing their job just because they are exercising their rights by law. It is crucial that the employee filing the complaint remain anonymous. Employees must be comfortable when filing a complaint and this must be accomplished by a neutral third party. The union sector must be given the power and the authority to police and file complaints on behalf of the nonunion employees. By this means effective policing and enforcement of the CIWA can be accomplished. The council recommends the CIWA to be fully enforced and effectively by the Employment Standards Branch and the union sector. We recommend that all complaints be acted upon in an expedited manner. We also recommend that fines be enforced and implemented at 10 times the current rate. The CIWA would then read: an employer who fails or neglects to comply with any provision of the act or regulations is guilty of an offence. On summary conviction, where the employer as an individual, the employer is liable for a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both. Where an employer is a corporation, liability is a fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000.

In my closing remarks, the CIWA must from time to time be updated to reflect the changes in the industry. However these changes must reflect what is best for the industry as a whole. These changes much ensure a level playing field is maintained at all times. Furthermore, the CIWA is not by any means complex or difficult to administer. The act is actually quite the opposite. The biggest problem with the act is the inability of the Employment Standards Branch of Manitoba to effectively enforce the regulations set out in the act. Thank you.

* (1940)

Mr. Toews: Thank you very much, Mr. Tesarski, for your comments. I appreciate the input of the Canadian Federation of Labour in working together with my department in preparing certain suggestions. I do have one concern. You raised many issues, but I do have one specific concern, and that is your federation's opposition to the exclusion of the house-building sector.

As you may well know yourself, essentially the employee-employer relationship in that entire sector has disappeared. In fact, most of the work, if not all of it, is being done by subtrades rather than in an employer-employee relationship. This has all occurred under the present law, and certainly it is my hope that by excluding the house-building sector from the act, we can once again begin to build on employee-employer relationships so that new people, young people can come into the trade, learn skills from skilled tradesmen so that they are not simply ignored, and they receive the training that is necessary. What are your comments on that?

Mr. Tesarski: Well, I think there are three comments I would like to make on that. First off, I guess if it was enforced in the last part of my presentation, that may have not happened. The second part of it is, if it is deregulated to a point where it is, a lot of those employees are not paying or, if they are subcontractors, they are not paying WCB, they are not paying taxes, they are going with cash and everything else. That is a problem that has to be addressed. The other part of it is, the wages there have been driven down so low. What is the incentive for somebody to go into that sector? There are three issues that have to looked at at that point.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Tesarski, for your presentation. You referenced several areas that I would like to have the opportunity to ask questions, but no, due to the time limits of this committee, I will not have the chance. So I will try and zero in on some of the areas.

In this Bill 73, the minister is proposing to, at his will or at the will of the government, determine when and if the wages board will meet and that through this bill the minister is proposing to supplant, to some degree, the efforts or the ability of those wages boards to hear certain issues and make recommendations to the government.

Do you think that it is advisable for this government to have through this bill the ability to appoint an advisory committee with no guarantee of industry reps, both business and labour, to meet only if and when the minister determines? Do you think that that is a fair way for the government to treat both yourself, as an employee representative, and the business representatives?

Mr. Tesarski: No, the best way for the single Wages Advisory Board to meet is, first off, it has to be comprised of labour representatives and employer industry representatives. They have to meet on a regular basis. Our economy is changing very quickly, rapidly and, for us to keep up with that, regular meetings have to be called.

Mr. Reid: Okay, I appreciate those comments. You also mentioned in your presentation that there was difficulty with enforcement of the current act and that you have recommended that there be an increase in the sanctions or the fines that would be levied for those that would break The Construction Industry Wages Act. Can you relate for us some of your experiences that you may have with respect to lack of enforcement of the current act, and do you see that via this new bill, Bill 73, that we have before us, that there will be any changes in the enforcement provisions?

Mr. Tesarski: There will not be any changes to the enforcement. As for an example, I guess I can use one of my unions that are affiliated to the Manitoba Council, and they brought to my attention that there was one worker that had a complaint but he was scared to take it to the Employment Standards. The union took it on behalf of them, had a meeting with them and, as of yet, that was six months ago, nothing has happened with that.

Mr. Reid: So then we have a serious enforcement problem in the province and steps need to be taken through Employment Standards. You have also mentioned the possibility, because the government, through this bill, is removing several sectors, including house building and in-house maintenance. I take it through your presentation here today that you are recommending that the government look very seriously at amending the legislation to allow for the house-building sector and the in-house maintenance provisions to be retained in the act versus what they are planning here, to eliminate them. Am I quoting you accurately?

Mr. Tesarski: That is correct. That would be maintenance, repair and redecoration.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir, very much for your presentation this evening. That concludes the time available. The next out-of-town presenter that I would call is Mr. Jack Cumming. Good evening, Mr. Cumming. You have some presentations for us?

Mr. Jack Cumming (Construction Association of Rural Manitoba Inc.): I do.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. The Clerk will circulate. While your papers are being circulated, sir, I would invite you to proceed.

Mr. Cumming: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this Standing Committee. I am the general manager of the Construction Association of Rural Manitoba, an organization that represents approximately 200 companies, located throughout rural Manitoba, and engaged in all sectors of the construction industry.

Our members are typically small to medium-sized, nonunion companies that establish long-term relationships with their employees. These relationships are fostered by employers' commitment to provide full-time or near full-time employment, year after year; and by employees' consideration of a number of factors when deciding to live and work in rural Manitoba: availability of work, standard of living, enjoyment of rural lifestyle, employer loyalty, just to name a few.

To achieve these comparably high levels of employment, our employers--to use an analogy that suits our agriculture-based economy--have become the mixed farmers of the construction industry. We include in our numbers general contractors who may concentrate on private-sector commercial building and renovation, but who may also build custom homes; painting contractors who bid on publicly tendered projects but who depend upon maintenance and redecoration of commercial buildings to fill out their year's work; trade contractors, such as electrical, plumbing, and air conditioning companies that work on these commercial and institutional projects, but who supplement this construction work with maintenance contracts with business and public facilities, entities that are perhaps not large enough, nor have they seen the need, to employ a skilled in-house staff. These same trade contractors may also serve the housing sector.

These employers accomplish this mixed bag of work with staff members who have gained wide-ranging experience working with one company, and who enjoy a good standard of living provided by wage rates set by The Construction Industry Wages Act.

Of course, one thing remains constant regardless of the type of work the employer pursues; that is the need to compete for the work. Our employers rely upon a productive workforce to do things as economically as possible. Their workers understand that they must do their job well, and within the allotted time frame. In return, they will be paid at a certain level. The Construction Industry Wages Act sets that bar. That is, until now.

Please understand the consequences we foresee with the exclusion of the house building sector and of maintenance, redecoration and repair. Our companies and their long-term employees will not be able to compete for a portion of the work they have come to rely upon: general contractors who will not be able to build homes; electricians and plumbers who will be restricted to projects that fall within the purview of the Wages Act; and painters who will only compete for redecoration and maintenance work if they indeed lower the bar.

Accordingly, we remain opposed to the exclusion of the house building sector, and we remain opposed to the exclusion of maintenance, redecoration and repair.

While understanding the position taken by Crown corporations and municipalities regarding their need to exclude employees who normally perform other tasks, but occasionally do maintenance work, we hope that regulations will impede companies that would rush to create in-house staffs, albeit on a temporary basis, to accomplish renovation work that would normally be tendered out to the construction industry.

* (1950)

We applaud the decision to retain separate wage boards. Our earlier description of the rural sector should reinforce our contention that separate boards are needed to address different realities. But that is not to say that the rural and urban sectors cannot agree. On most issues that this amendment process has raised, we concur with our urban peers. For instance, it is important that our employer associations be involved in the selection of board appointees from amongst currently active employers, of course. In the case of the rural board, employer representatives should be selected from the rural sector. In the same vein, it is only hoped that employee appointees will be representative of the vast majority of workers--permanently based in rural Manitoba and currently active with a nonunion employer.

On other issues such as flexibility in hours of work to reflect seasonality and to deflect permanent harm from inclement weather, and the inappropriateness of third-party interventions, to name just two, the associations have reached consensus. But, apparently, such is not the case regarding major building project legislation. We agreed, or so we thought, that the major building project portion of the legislation should be repealed. Apparently, the Winnipeg Construction Association has attached clarification of the Winnipeg boundary to any such discussion. According to subsection 20(1) of the proposed Bill 73, these items will be addressed by way of regulations.

It remains our contention that major building project portion of the act should be repealed. According to subsection 11(1) of Bill 73, factors to be considered by the wages boards include, I quote: "providing for fairness in the tendering process for construction projects." We would point out that a very uneven playing field can result when (a) a project requires Winnipeg rates under the major building project clauses, and (b) a union offers to a prime contractor a financial incentive--some would call it a kickback--to use union trades.

Obviously a nonunion trade contractor would be hard pressed to compete in that situation. But apart from this apparently legal practice and the unfairness it creates, what is achieved by the arbitrary imposition of higher rates on projects over 50,000 square feet? Perhaps the design and construction of 49,900-square-foot projects.

Finally, I would like to mention some potential consequences for some of the changes recommended here. Another factor to be considered by the boards, the needs related to the entry into and the development and availability of a skilled and productive workforce needs to be considered before major portions of work are exempted from the act.

There are two other characteristics that we share with the WCA and their comment to the industry, whether it be rural or urban. Our skilled workforce is aging. Our ability to attract young people, given the high-tech options and the propensity for their school advisors to point them in another direction, will likely not meet our needs. Many of our trades, and I will use the example of painting, have not been able to attract apprentices. All things considered, what will a young person's reaction be when offered a four-year apprenticeship that will result in certification and the chance to earn the provincial minimum wage. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Cumming.

Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Cummings, I never heard about this kickback scheme. Could you explain this to me a little bit more so I could try to get my--

Mr. Cumming: It has been quite a while since I heard about it. I would only say to you, I am not really fully cognizant of it, but I do know that on March 2, 1992, at The Construction Industry Wages Act review committee hearings in Brandon, Manitoba, Patrick Martin from the Carpenters Union explained it in great detail. I understand he is going to talk tonight, so perhaps he could answer that question.

Mr. Laurendeau: Good. I will be listening for it. Thank you.

Mr. Reid: Thank you for coming out this evening to make your presentation. I note your comments with respect to keeping the house building sector as part of the act and also keeping maintenance, redecoration and repairs part of the act as well.

I want to ask you, sir, because the government is proposing to make some changes with respect to the advisory board. I note you referenced it in your presentation. Has there been a problem that you are aware of that the government would need to replace the three wages advisory boards that are currently in place in the province with the advisory board that the minister is proposing? Do you see a need to have such a change put in place, where you would have an appointed board instead of having the industry representatives sit in and advise government on what changes, if any, are needed?

Mr. Cumming: I was of the opinion that this advisory board that the ministers had proposed is something in addition to the wages boards. As far as I know, there would still be the three wages boards, heavy, rural and City of Winnipeg.

Mr. Toews: Just in point of clarification, that is in fact the case, that the three separate boards would continue, and that there would be an advisory board made up of members of the public. Until this time, nobody from the public, that is people without a vested interest, be they unions or people working directly in the construction industry such as employers, have been able to make representations, nor has there been access by the minister to that public interest. Do you think it is good that people, not just unions or employers, should be the ones determining or recommending what wage level it should be, and perhaps people such as consumers should also have a say, because what is recommended ultimately affects the prices that they pay for things like houses.

Mr. Cumming: I guess the tendency that people in my position and the people that I see in the room, both in management and even the labour people, have had a tendency to think that this whole thing can be looked after by the people who are in the industry. I still think that the best thing we could have happen--and it was made in a recommendation at the end of my presentation four years ago--I think that labour and management and government people need to sit down and talk about a great variety of issues. That discussion has happened. In our case, we appeared before the minister or the deputy minister. I know that the WCA does. I am sure that Pat Martin does on occasion. But none of us all get together to talk about this.

As far as the involvement of consumers, the only thing that I would like to say about that it is that it would give people, particularly I am talking about out in the country, the opportunity to indicate to those involved what they would do with their money, if in fact we had pursued what was recommended four years ago when we were going to have the rural wages pegged at 85 percent of the union rates in Winnipeg.

I would have loved to have consumers, who are agriculturally oriented, come to a meeting and indicate what they would do with their money if they were told by a contractor in Swan River or Brandon or Upper Rubber Boot, for that matter, that their project was going to cost them 40 percent more money. I would have loved to have had those people be able to come to a committee.

I guess there is some use for what I think the people within the industry should be able to sit down and talk about this.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir. That concludes the time allotted for your representation. Thank you very much.

Mr. Cumming: Thanks very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir. We will now go to the head of the list. The first presenters registered are Frank Thomas and Dave Martin.

Good evening, sir. I see you have some copies of your presentation, I would ask the Clerk to circulate.

You are Mr. Martin, is that correct, sir?

* (2000)

Mr. Dave Martin (Manitoba Building and Construction Trades Council): Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for Mr. Thomas's absence. He is enjoying a vacation in England, I believe it is, at this time. He regrets not being able to be here.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I would now ask you to proceed with your oral presentation.

Mr. Martin: On behalf of the Manitoba and Building Construction Trades Council which includes 16 affiliated craft trade unions which are actively involved in the Manitoba construction industry. Additionally, they represent all crafts that work in the industry. The Manitoba Building and Construction Trades Council, through its affiliates, represents approximately 5,000 construction workers in the province of Manitoba.

We submit the following concerns regarding specific sections of Bill 73 to the committee. With respect, we are submitting some of the sections or amendments to Bill 73 that we feel have major significance to us, and not necessarily all of the changes.

With regard to paragraph 2.1(b) the repealing of definition of "Greater Winnipeg." The present definition has been in the legislation for many years. In 1953 the Winnipeg zone was redefined as greater Winnipeg, the area within a 30 mile radius of the point of intersection of the street on the corner of Osborne and Broadway, generally speaking. This definition has provided a fair demarcation between the Winnipeg construction industrial economy and the rural economy and is an appropriate buffer zone acceptable to the construction industry.

Construction workers residing within this 30-mile radius must be considered part of the greater Winnipeg construction economy. It would be unfair if this region became a low construction wage area, while many construction workers, resident in the area, travel to Winnipeg daily to benefit from the Winnipeg's minimum construction wage rates.

The existing demarcation line at the 30-mile radius location causes less wage contortions. Repealing the 30-mile radius would remove the town of Selkirk from the greater Winnipeg area of region. Construction minimum wage rates for Winnipeg and Selkirk have been on par for many years. To avoid labour cost disparity, the present greater Winnipeg area definition, which includes the 30-mile radius zone, should not be repealed. The proposed amendment, specifically Section 3(e) of the amendment references the house building sector, which is now proposed to be excluded from the act and regulation. Therefore, residents and purchasers within the 30-mile zone, which will include Winnipeg, will have the opportunity for house building to function in a market where the construction minimum wage level is unregulated. This could result in labour unit costs in this sector to be driven down by the bidding process, where the lowest bidder prevails.

On the other hand, industrial, commercial, and institutional projects should continue to be regulated by the act. By not amending the 30-mile zone, construction workers wage rates will be protected in the ICI sector.

With regard to the section industrial, commercial, and institutional sector, this section is proposed to be included within the act, although the words have been amended from the current definition contained within the Manitoba regulation 194/91. The amending of the paragraph by not including maintenance, redecoration, renovation, demolition, remodelling or repair, causes serious concerns for skilled crafts people and the construction industry.

The act, by its title and intent, is to set minimum prevailing wage rates and hours of work for workers in the construction industry. By excluding maintenance, redecoration, renovation, demolition, remodelling or repair, a large percentage of construction work will not have a minimum wage protection for the construction tradesmen. The new minimum wage rate will be the minimum wage. I believe it is $5.75 an hour. Wage rates in these sectors will be driven downward by the lowest bid tender process. This excluded sector potentially represents more than 40 percent of the industry, depending on contract interpretation. Skilled tradesmen, because of lower wage levels, will seek work in other industries or sectors. New workers will not be attracted to enter a trade in the construction industry. Many projects falling into renovation, remodelling or repair work in the industrial, institutional, and commercial plants, can be very large in scope and dollar value, resulting in many thousands of hours of work.

Renovation, remodelling or repair work that will be affected by such a proposed amendment would include: built-up roof replacements or roof repairs on industrial or commercial buildings; renovations that could include rewiring and upgrading of an electrical system in a plant or building; renovations that could include installation of a new sprinkler system in a plant or building; maintenance redecoration in modern office towers where suspended ceiling, lighting upgrading, interior partitions, re-layout, changing the interior form without any structural alteration or structural remodelling; repairs or maintenance of elevator and escalator systems in large buildings; repairs that occurred at the Grand Rapids Hydro Station when the head cover blew required two years of work costing several million dollars; repairs to Headingley Jail following the riot that could eventually cost $10 million; shutdown for maintenance and repairs of major industrial plants that can occur for periods of a few days to two weeks or more, and on a major shutdown can require from 100 to 200 tradesmen.

This list could go on, but these projects require skilled craftspeople to ensure safe installation and repair of equipment and the safety of plants, buildings and the public. Setting out these exclusions will create a plethora of interpretation problems on whether specific construction is governed by the minimum wage schedules or not for virtually every type of project. It is our view that the provisions of exclusions within the scope of the amendment will not contribute to a simple interpretation of the act and, therefore, will not contribute to a more effective enforcement of the act. The construction definition should include what the industry is all about.

We submit that in addition to structural- or architectural-related work the definition must include engineering mechanical or engineering electrical alterations or the remodelling of the building or structure, or repair, or renovations to the floor or roof area surfaces on major buildings and must include engineering mechanical or engineering electrical repair, alterations, retrofit, renovation of equipment, machinery, fixtures, and components that were originally assembled or installed under the application of the act to ensure wage protection when this work is contracted by owners of plants and buildings.

The definition of the construction industry in other provinces such as Saskatchewan includes words such as reconstructing, altering, remodelling, repairing, revamping, renovating, maintaining and decorating. In the province of Alberta, it includes alteration, decoration and restoration. In the province of British Columbia, it includes renovation and repair. In Ontario the definition of a construction work includes erection, repair, remodelling, decoration or alteration.

Including renovation, repair, alterations and general major contracted maintenance is essential for the Manitoba definition. The federal government's guide and interpretation for temporary entry into Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement sets out who may not enter Canada to do work. Entry is not granted to persons doing hands-on building and construction work. The federal government's definition for building and construction work includes installing, maintaining and repairing machinery, equipment or structures within a building.

We have encountered many situations where we have had to seek the invoking of this section to protect Manitoba tradesmen's jobs from being performed by U.S. workers on a number of job sites. All this work must be kept within the definition to protect Manitoba construction jobs. Manitoba's definition should not be out of step with the federal NAFTA definitions. The federal government has tried to protect construction jobs. The Manitoba government should also try to protect Manitoba construction jobs.

Under Section 11 the amendment is deleting the reference to the prevailing rate. The very purpose of The Construction Industry Wages Act should reflect the market value of the craft labour that requires the determination of the prevailing rate, which should continue to be a factor to be considered by the boards. Prevailing rate in The Construction Industry Wages Act has far more merit than the new terms competitive position or fairness in the tendering position.

* (2010)

In the U.S., construction workers have benefited from the Davis-Bacon Act, which recognizes the local area prevailing wage rates and working conditions on large government construction projects. This act maintains that local prevailing wage rates, to prevent out-of-state contractors using the competitive bidding process from driving down construction wage rates. Similarly, The Construction Industry Wages Act should prevent the driving down of local construction wage rates by contractors taking advantage of workers from high unemployment regions, which could include our own.

In the U.S., where prevailing wage laws have been repealed, recent economic studies have shown that there has been a distinct decline in skilled craftspeople in the industry and the training of apprentices. Additionally, a lack of prevailing wage rates has led to increased injury rates. Lower construction rates have led to a loss of government tax revenues and purchasing power in the local economy.

Studies have shown that lowering construction wages has actually resulted in increased construction costs by attracting a lesser skilled workforce and a lower quality contractor. This adds up to cost overruns, higher accident rates, resulting in higher overall construction costs.

Construction maintenance, redecoration, renovation, remodelling and repair work must continue to be covered by a fair minimum wage based on prevailing wage rates if this act is to continue to have value for Manitoba construction workers and the industry.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Any questions from the committee? Mr. Reid.

Mr. Reid: Thank you very much for your presentation this evening. It is quite an involved document, and I will read through your presentation. Can you tell me, because you have referenced here this evening your concerns about the government's move to remove the house building sector and the major maintenance and renovation, redecorating portions from the legislation: Do you have experience, or have you experienced, problems with the enforcement of the current act itself? Do you have any experience that perhaps you can share with committee members with respect to the unlevel playing field that may exist that would disadvantage some construction companies from bidding on contracts, that perhaps maybe those that are bidding on some companies may be unscrupulous, may be using sub trades, defined as independent contractors? Do you have any experience in that regard that would show that our Manitoba companies are being disadvantaged by such a practice?

Mr. Martin: You asked a complicated question and fairly lengthy, and you lost me halfway through it. However, I think I know where you are going. I think the previous speakers have talked to this issue about the fairness of The Construction Industry Wages Act. I think historically and--I apologize, I do not have my partner, Mr. Thomas, with me, who is a historian and has been with us for a long time, to answer some of these questions. Historically, there has been some semblance of fair enforcement in prior years in regard to The Construction Industry Wages Act, and it has been relatively effective.

It seems in recent years, however, that either the contractors, and I am talking about contractors who are trying to subvert this act, have gotten more creative or hired better lawyers, but they have found ways around it. Some of the previous speakers have tried to address some of those issues in respect to definitions of journeymen, for example, and who is included and who is excluded from the act. It has resulted in everybody trying to find innovative ways to circumvent this act rather than live up to the intent of this act.

I would like to say on behalf of the organized contractors in particular, and seemingly even the nonunion sector from rural Manitoba, there are many good contractors out there that are prepared to work with a fair, prevailing wage rate, and fair definition of tradesmen. I think it behooves this government to try to create an act and create a condition that continues to deliver fair wages for construction workers in this province.

I think the previous speaker, a nonunion contractor, I apologize, I cannot remember his name, made reference to the type of worker that enjoyed work in the nonunion sector from the Brandon area from rural Manitoba. I can recently tell you a story of a meeting we have had with a large American general contractor, KTI Fish Limited, which is presently building a Simplot project in Brandon, a 250 million man-hour project. Their comments to us in the building trades complimented the level of skills and the abilities of the Manitoba construction worker, that they have already appreciated.

I think part and parcel of that level of ability and craftsmanship within those construction workers can be attributed to fair wages. They were comparing it to the type if construction worker that they experience in the U.S., who is predominantly a traveller, predominantly hooks up his tools and his half-ton truck, and a temporary trailer, and travels from job to job, totally uncharacteristic of our family man-type of skilled craftsmen that we enjoy here in Manitoba. I think part of the reason that we attract that kind of person to this industry is because we have a fair construction wage for craftsmen. That fair wage benefits the industry and benefits the community.

A question was answered earlier, if I could, about whether or not the purchasers or the community should be involved in the construction wage rate. I have to support the previous speaker's comments, that the construction industry should speak for construction workers. I do not think--I could be wrong here--but I am not sure if the community gets involved in setting pork prices or wheat prices, or the price of eggs, and so forth.

Our contractors are fair employers, and they have a good grasp of the industry, both locally, nationally, and internationally in some cases. So, when they sit down and establish fair wages for construction workers, they know what they are talking about.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, sir. That concludes the time allotted for the questions on the presentation this evening. Thank you very much for coming before us.

Mr. Martin: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: The next presenter is Mr. Rob Hilliard. Mr. Hilliard. Good evening, sir.

Mr. Rob Hilliard (President, Manitoba Federation of Labour): Good evening.

Mr. Chairperson: I see you have some presentations for us; the Clerk will circulate. While that is going on, I would ask you, sir, to commence your proceeding.

Mr. Hilliard: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The Manitoba Federation of Labour directly represents the interests of workers in a number of building trades by virtue of affiliation with the MFL and the Canadian Labour Congress. Part of our responsibility is to speak out on their behalf when they feel that government is taking action that will negatively affect them. Such is the case with Bill 73, The Construction Industry Wages Amendment Act.

It is our belief that one of the unique characteristics of Manitoba is the humane protections it has put in place for construction workers in recognition of the challenges that face them. For more than 80 years, Manitoba's Construction Industry Wages Act has helped ensure that the men and women employed in the building trades have fair wages and reasonable working conditions. It has offset the transient nature of construction work, and the fact that construction is, in many cases, a seasonal career.

The act has established a minimum wage scale that in normal times is regularly reviewed and compared with wage levels established throughout collective bargaining. The act recognizes the fact that the vast majority of the building trades are populated by skilled workers, who spend many years in apprenticeship training, in order to become qualified and licensed. The act also defines the work that is covered by it. It sets geographic boundaries for its jurisdiction to ensure that workers covered by it are not penalized for working on projects in rural and remote areas.

For the most part, The Construction Industry Wages Act has served Manitoba well. It has brought fair wages to building trades workers. It has brought stability to careers that are made seasonal by our climate. It has ensured there is a stable supply of skilled construction workers. It has created a less complicated, competitive tendering system, by avoiding subsistence level wage strategies and rewarding expert management and sound business practices. When this system has broken down, it has been because government has delayed the regular review of the minimum wage scale, allowing too large a gap to develop between it and the wages that unionized contractors and the workers have found to be fair. In fact, Bill 73 proposes to exacerbate this problem by amending the act to provide for reviews "from time to time," rather than on an annual basis.

* (2020)

The provisions contained in Bill 73 will undo 80 years of sensible legislation. If enacted, Bill 73 will lead to lower minimum wages being paid to nonunion construction workers, and eventually unionized workers as well. Bill 73 will promote the low-wage strategy that has become characteristic of the industrial strategy adopted by many governments in Canada, including Manitoba.

On the issue of redefining the definition of "Greater Winnipeg," Bill 73 proposes to delete the reference in the act to the 30-mile radius from the corner of Broadway and Osborne. The definition of "Greater Winnipeg" will now be dealt with by regulation, a process that allows the government of the day to change definitions without public debate. There has already been some indication that this government wishes to reduce the size of this definition of Winnipeg, for the purposes of this act, to the Perimeter Highway. If this in fact is done, it will promote urban sprawl in the capital region. For example, a carpenter's wages will drop from $21.62 an hour to $11.55 by working on a major project just outside the Perimeter Highway. A shift of this magnitude will undo the very thing the 30-mile radius was meant to address: rapid industrial sprawl just outside the Winnipeg city limits. This, in turn, will serve to undermine the corporate tax base of the city of Winnipeg, without lowering its infrastructure and service costs. Indeed, it will put pressure on the city to attract industrial development through further cuts to corporate taxes, and increases for individual property taxes in order to compete with the lower construction cost factor on the other side of the Perimeter Highway.

This bill directs The Construction Industry Wages Act review board to consider the competitive position of the construction industry in Manitoba, in relation to the construction in other provinces and jurisdictions, rather than the term "prevailing wage." If this consideration becomes a major factor in the board's review of construction industry minimum wages in Manitoba, it has the potential of plunging building trades workers, both nonunion and union alike, in a race for the bottom with other provinces and jurisdictions such as those in the United States. It adds to the list of things that corporations can blackmail Manitoba into agreeing to in order to attract new business.

In some areas, governments have signed away business and property tax entitlement, promised to build extensive infrastructure at public expense, and even added grants to the offer. Workers' wages should not be on this block as well.

Bill 73 intends to exclude residential construction from the provisions of the act. This measure will substantially lower the income levels of building trades workers employed in this sector. If the intended impact is to consequently lower the cost of housing, then it is imprecise. Time and time again, Canadians have been promised savings through a variety of schemes that inevitably fail to materialize. If making the cost of housing affordable is the government's intention, then take action that will have that effect. Action such as promoting a full employment policy and a fair wage structure, not only in the construction industry, but as a general economic strategy, so that the consumers, most of whom are working people, can afford to buy houses.

As the government is well aware, there can be no assurance that reduced labour costs in residential home construction will be passed on to the consumer in the form of lower prices. All that Bill 73 assures is that these workers will see their wages decrease substantially. Some believe that, as a result, there will be more individuals entering the underground economy in an effort to protect living standards by avoiding taxes. The Canadian Home Builders' Association reports that in 1992 home construction in the underground economy in Canada was estimated to be valued at about $8 billion. In any event, Manitoba housing in general, and Winnipeg's in particular, has traditionally been more affordable in comparison with other provinces, even though workers have had the protection and benefits of The Construction Industry Wages Act.

Our affiliates assure us that very often maintenance and repair on a major construction project can be a substantial project in and of itself. For example, a major building is constructed under the provisions of the act, and then an accident two years later requires that its roof be replaced. Under the provisions of the bill it appears that the roof would be built by workers paid at the rate set by the act; then, conceivably, the very same workers would carry out the same work as part of the repairs at a substantially lower rate of pay. There is no provision in Bill 73 to escape this paradox.

Similarly, it appears that workers employed to repair highways and other infrastructure may not be covered by the minimum wage scale. These are major projects, and the workers that carry them out deserve to be paid a fair wage that is consistent with the wages paid for new construction.

Section 20(1) of Bill 73 empowers the government to make regulations that, among other things, allows it to make regulations under (e) exempting any Crown agency, or any class of employers or class of employees, from the application of this Act or any provision of a regulation under this act.

We are not sure how to take this. Is this the trap door that allows the government to override the provisions of the act if a Crown corporation decides to commence a construction project? If government wants to build a new freeway or a bridge, can it pass a regulation exempting government contractors and employees from the act? If the government decided to make Manitoba home for a new agricultural business, can a regulation be passed by cabinet, without reference to the Legislature for debate and a vote, exempting agricultural businesses and construction employees from the act?

In summation, the Manitoba Federation of Labour urges the government to make amendments to this bill that address the concerns raised by this brief and others who have presented before us. We urge you to make amendments to maintain and improve the fairness of wages paid in the construction industry in Manitoba. Our province and its workers must not be part of the international economic race to the bottom.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Hilliard. Are there any questions of the presenter?

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Hilliard, for your presentation. I apologize to the previous presenter for my long and convoluted question that led him to have some difficulties.

I want to ask you, Mr. Hilliard, because you referenced in your presentation here this evening that you expect that, as a result of the shift or the elimination of the "Greater Winnipeg" definition that is currently in the act to that which would indicate the Perimeter Highway as being the defining boundary, that will add to industrial sprawl. What would that mean, Mr. Hilliard, for the working people of the city of Winnipeg and the surrounding communities, not just on the wages' side? What effect do you see it having on the availability of job opportunities?

Mr. Hilliard: It appears to us that there is an economic incentive to promote more building outside the Perimeter Highway, as a result of a definition like that, rather than inside. What would then happen is that contractors taking advantage of that economic incentive would conduct their projects outside or build their projects outside the Perimeter Highway, and workers who live inside the city and have to live with a city of Winnipeg cost of living would be forced to get their work outside the Perimeter Highway at a reduced wage. That would result in several things. First of all, workers would have to travel outside the Perimeter to get work; they would also be working at a lower wage in a higher cost-of-living zone. Frankly, we are concerned about what it might do to the city of Winnipeg itself in terms of sprawl and in terms of providing economic incentive for development outside of the city.

Mr. Reid: Do you also see, Mr. Hilliard, in addition to the rapid industrial sprawl that you indicate in your presentation here--I take it you mean the loss of revenue to the City of Winnipeg as a result of projects that may move outside of the boundaries that the minister is proposing here. Do you also see the possibility that perhaps people that are employed in the construction industry that may be currently living within the city of Winnipeg jurisdiction would also move outside or away from the city more closely related to the work area in which they may find their employment?

Mr. Hilliard: That is certainly a possibility. It is difficult to predict how all workers will wind up reacting to all of this, but, frankly, one of the previous speakers mentioned in the United States where there is a lower skill level and a much more transient workforce, we fear that ultimately this is where these kinds of amendments will lead, and that people who are resident in the city of Winnipeg, rather than chase those jobs, will eventually look for other kinds of careers, and there will be a different kind of workforce in that industry as a result.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir, very much for you presentation this evening. That appears to be the extent of the questions, and we appreciate you coming forward, sir.

The next presenter this evening is Mr. Lance Norman. Is Mr. Norman in the assembly? Good evening, Mr. Norman.

Mr. Lance Norman (Manitoba Chamber of Commerce): Good evening.

Mr. Chairperson: Have you got a written presentation for us this evening, sir?

Mr. Norman: I do not.

Mr. Chairperson: All right, then I would invite you to proceed with your oral presentation. Thank you very much.

Mr. Norman: Good evening, members of this committee.

The Manitoba Chamber of Commerce is now in its 65th year. It is the provincial organization for 63 Chambers of Commerce as well as over 275 leading corporate members in this community and therefore represents some 7,500 businesses in the public policy debates. The Manitoba Chamber of Commerce believes in the importance of the competitive enterprise system and believes that the competitive enterprise system has provided us with the standard of living that we enjoy today.

With respect to this particular bill, Chamber of Commerce policy dates back to 1990-1991, and while that objective at that time--I apologize. In 1984, amendments were made to The Construction Industry Wages Act which converted the long-standing and generally accepted law into a state-imposed wage system on all employees and employers in the construction industry, and while the objectives of those amendments were laudable, that is, maintaining a skilled workforce in Manitoba, it has divided the industry. I think that that has been demonstrated tonight and will continue to be demonstrated tonight and must represent the furthest swing of the pendulum of government intervention into this industry.

* (2030)

It is fair to say that, no matter what the government legislates in this area, it is going to be proved to be unfair to someone somewhere. So, while endorsing these changes is an important first step, the preferable course of action endorsed by the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce would be to eventually eliminate the legislation altogether so as to permit employers and employees or their respective voluntarily chosen bargaining representative on their behalf to negotiate their own wages and terms and conditions of employment rather than have these rates imposed on them by law. Essentially, the market will determine the price and quality of construction projects, and the supply and demand of skilled workers will determine those wages.

As I had indicated earlier, I do not have a written submission. Policy dates back to 1990-91 at the annual meeting and has been consistently endorsed by the board of directors since that date. Those would be my comments.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir, very much. Are there any questions of this presenter?

Mr. Reid: Thank you for your presentation this evening. You referenced that you would like to see, I believe if I recall correctly, the elimination of The Construction Industry Wages Act. Is that correct?

Mr. Norman: That is correct.

Mr. Reid: Then I am confused here. I have got other presenters here that represent the construction industry, and I have read the documents that came from the Labour Management Review Committee that indicate that they are supportive of the act and that they want to retain The Construction Industry Wages Act. So can you explain to me how it is that members that you say you that are representing here this evening want to retain the act and that you say that you here as a representative of those same businesses want to eliminate the act? How do you balance that out?

Mr. Norman: I certainly am not here speaking on behalf of any one particular industry; I am speaking on behalf of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce. Manitoba Chamber of Commerce policy is not always unanimous. This policy of elimination of the act is current policy for the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce and is the Chamber of Commerce's response to the problems encountered in the division of the industry as a result of legislation in this area.

Mr. Toews: Thank you very much for your comments. Now you and I might disagree on the necessity of the act, but in one respect, assuming that we retain the act as the government has proposed, we are also suggesting that, in addition to the existing wage boards, not only industry representatives, be they unions, employers or others involved in the industry, but the minister receive some advice in respect of wage levels from the public generally, because they in fact are the consumers.

Do you have any instructions or any comments to make in that respect as to whether involving the public in this discussion would be advisable as well?

Mr. Norman: Yes, certainly. With respect, as I had indicated earlier, Manitoba Chamber policy in this regard is that these changes, and the one to which you made reference, are an important first step in changing this industry so that it is really the marketplace that determines the wages and that is free collective bargaining that prevails. So, in answer to your question, yes, we certainly do endorse the changes that you have put forward, but it is our preference that down the road that further action in this area be looked at.

Mr. Toews: Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Any further questions? There appearing no further questions of this presenter, I thank you very much, Mr. Norman, for your presentation this evening.

The next individual who is registered to speak is Patrick Martin. Is Mr. Martin in the assembly? Mr. Martin. As previously agreed, Mr. Martin is not available. He will go to the foot of the list, and his name will be called once more before the termination.

The next individual is Mike Evans. Mr. Evans, good evening, sir.

Mr. Mike Evans (Private Citizen): Good evening.

Mr. Chairperson: Do you have a written presentation for the committee this evening, sir?

Mr. Evans: No, Mr. Chairman, I just have some comments.

Mr. Chairperson: Fine, thank you, sir. I would invite you then, sir, to proceed with your oral presentation.

Mr. Evans: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, although I understand I may speak for up to 10 minutes, my comments will be quite brief because my point is very simple.

I am involved in the construction industry in Manitoba both from my day-to-day business activities as well as my involvement with the Winnipeg Construction Association. However, I am here to speak to you tonight from my perspective as any other taxpayer in this province, and that alone.

My feelings about this particular piece of legislation are not based on the business side of construction but rather on more of a general principle of basic human rights. I believe that the government of Manitoba should not be amending The Construction Industry Wages Act. They should be repealing it in its entirety. Why is our government in the construction industry? Why are tax dollars being wasted in this intrusive manner? How many civil servants are you and I paying for that are trying to enforce this piece of legislation that has been described as the most abused law next to jaywalking?

The basic problem with The Construction Industry Wages Act is that it is fundamentally wrong. It is fundamentally wrong because it removes a basic human right. It does not allow an employee and an employer to negotiate a wages and benefits package. It does not allow me the freedom to approach you and say, hello, Mr. Smith, my name is Michael Evans. I am a carpenter. I have got 17 years of experience in commercial construction and I would like to work for you for $18 an hour, and after I have worked for you for a couple of months and I have shown you how hard a worker I am, I would expect a raise to $18.50, but only if you are satisfied with my work.

Why do we want to remove competition and initiative from our construction workforce? I strongly believe that a person should be allowed to market their services for whatever rate of pay they want or can get. Let us look at this legislation from a totally other perspective. Why does the government not set the wages in more industries? Why is the government not spending our scarce fiscal resources to legislate the wages of all the chefs in the province? We are putting our stomachs in their hands. Yes, let us set up a bureaucracy to ensure that all the cooks in Manitoba get paid the same.

How about the fishing industry? Let us crack down on those guys, and once we are done there we can get into setting wages for the truck drivers, the accountants, gardeners, meter readers. How about the scientists? Let us get those guys. Who knows how far we can take this thing? Think of all the secretaries, inspectors and managers we can hire. Think of all the office space we will need and the cars and the expense accounts, oh boy.

Why is our government in the construction industry setting wages? I would never argue about the involvement of government in the construction industry from the perspective of protecting the safety of workers and the public, both from the workplace health and safety point of view and building codes enforcement. Government must be involved in these areas, but that is where it should end.

* (2040)

Why are we spending money on a piece of legislation that many other provinces do not have? It is because it is wrong and it is not needed. It was, of course, no surprise to hear the comments of certain union representations that have been made so far this evening. I do not blame them for trying to maintain the status quo. The experience with the setting of wages over the years has been based solely on the rates negotiated by the building trades. I would say that is a fact. The reality is that there are thousands of other workers in this province who may wish for the basic freedom to negotiate the terms of their employment with their employer.

I think that to sum up I would like to use the words of Mr. Rob Hilliard, who was already up here this evening, and to make sure I do not misquote him, I actually have an audio presentation that I brought along to liven up the evening. In July Mr. Hilliard was on CJOB Radio, and he most eloquently said exactly what I have been trying to say this evening, and I could not agree more with these words.

Now, I want to make sure that I am totally fair to Mr. Hilliard. He did not know that I was going to pull out that tape. At the time the context of the question he was answering was obviously with respect to wages. He prefaced that comment by saying that it is important for government to set a basic minimum wage. But, as he said, wages are an issue between the employer and the employee. Let us be fair, realistic, and quit wasting money. Get out of setting wages in the construction industry. Thank you for your kind attention.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir, very much for your presentation. Are there any questions?

Mr. Toews: As you know, Mr. Evans, I do appreciate your presentation, and I appreciate the fact that you are voicing the concerns in industry to some extent. There are also competing factors in the industry that we have to take into account, and we feel what we are doing is balanced. I will have to take issue with Mr. Hilliard, and I will have to say that in some cases governments will have to regulate wages to a modest extent. Clearly, in this context, there is a long, historical involvement. One just cannot knock the props out from under an act and expect a construction industry to proceed overnight without an act. Do you not foresee some damage to our industry if we just took away that act, Mr. Evans?

Mr. Evans: Yes, I do. I think that it does not change the point that I believe it is wrong, and perhaps there is a process that should be looked at to wean us off of this act.

Mr. Reid: Well, the first thing, Mr. Chairperson, I would like to raise a point of order. I am not sure that, while I respect the rights of the public that come out and make representation here, I do not think it is within the rules of our Legislature to allow for members of the public to come forward with prerecorded messages to be put onto the public record. I ask, Sir, that you rule on the admissibility of such presentation, and that, if you find that it is contrary to the rules of this Legislature, that particular piece of the presentation be struck from the record and to let, if the presenter so chooses, that person go to some other public venue to use that particular type of activity. But I do have a question for the presenter as well.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Perhaps we could just finish off on the point of order and then go back to the running time on the questioning.

Mr. Toews: Just on the same point of order, Mr. Chairperson. It appears to me to be somewhat hypocritical that we accept written briefs from someone, which is a form of representation, and yet we do not--the member indicates that we should not hear anything from the audio. It is, I think, an indication perhaps of the member's reluctance to see that Canada in the 20th Century has moved beyond simply written words and is now getting into audio, and even computers are actually being used in this province. I am thinking, if that is a rule, that has got to be really silly and perhaps an indication of where the member is coming from.

Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order. I do think that was a lot more honest representation of what that person said than what the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) did when he quoted what our minister said in the House, and he was supposedly directly quoting from Hansard, but he managed to skip a few words that the minister stated. So I think that was a much fairer representation of what Mr. Hilliard actually had to say. He was not putting words in his mouth. So I think that should not be struck from the record

Mr. Reid: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairperson. Just this past week members of the Legislative Assembly were admonished by the Speaker of the House for bringing forward information in the House that she deemed to be out of order, and that I believe that, in keeping with that same ruling by the Speaker, you should, Sir, find that this type of presentation, while it is not part of the written presentation that comes before us, should be struck from the record because it is a paraphrasing, I believe, of words that are attributed to another individual for which there is no way for me to ascertain whether or not they are indeed the words that were said by that particular individual to which they were attributed.

Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): On the same point of order. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a ruling as we have a number of other speakers. We all did hear it; let us move on.

Mr. Chairperson: I am advised that leave of the committee is required if there is audio-visual presentations being made to committee, and, therefore, I would ask, what is the will of committee?

Some Honourable Member: Leave.

Some Honourable Members: No.

Mr. Chairperson: All right. Leave is denied.