ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Teaching Profession

Collective Bargaining

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, the document released on collective bargaining for teachers last week certainly did not reflect the views expressed by the public at the public hearings that took place across the province. Subsequent to that release, a number of partners in education have been saying that the Conservative government has been going to a too far extreme in their proposals on collective bargaining. The public wants a partnership between teachers, between parents, between trustees. Even the Manitoba Association of School Trustees said it went further than they had considered and this will have a negative impact on the morale of teachers in our schoolrooms.

I would like to ask the Premier, why has the government chosen to ignore public views of partnership and why has it chosen this path of divisiveness, confrontation and conflict with teachers and trustees in our education system?

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I should indicate that I met with the Manitoba Association of School Trustees president last Friday. She indicated to me that they were extremely pleased that they finally were going to get some relief from the number of items that have been creeping into the bargaining process.

Indeed, she did indicate that while they did not get everything they had asked for, they did indeed get more than they had expected, because in the last 10 years no government has ever been willing to listen to them. So while they put forward this request on an almost annual basis, they have never had a positive response. When the member says that they got more than they expected, they did, but they did not get all that they asked.

I indicate, in terms of balance and fairness, we are indicating that we do believe we have something fair and balanced. If the teachers had permitted me to attend their convention on Friday as scheduled, I could have provided them with some of the details that would clear up some of the misunderstandings they have around things like items that never have been negotiated that will continue to be part of The Public Schools Act as before.

Mr. Doer: I am surprised the Minister of Education would make such critical comments of the previous Minister of Education, and the previous Minister of Education, and the other previous Minister of Education in her comments here in the House. They have been in office for the last eight of those 10 years. I guess taking shots at everybody is the style of the Minister of Education rather than solving problems and dealing in partnership with Manitobans.

It is crucial that we have an agreement on the collective bargaining process for teachers and trustees that has consensus between all the parties, the parents, the teachers and the trustees. It is crucial that we have the kind of balance and partnership that all Manitobans are desiring and recommending to this government.

I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), will he put this Tory steamroller on hold in terms of collective bargaining for teachers? Will he put this on hold and refer this matter back to the teachers, back to the trustees, back to the parental advisory committees that have been struck all across this province so that we can move into the 21st Century with partnership and consensus on collective bargaining, rather than on the Tory extreme collective bargaining agenda that we see from the Premier?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, in addressing the preamble, I will indicate that there has been a lot of consultation. The previous two Ministers of Education in this government had indicated--and in fact it was formally announced in January 1995 by my predecessor, Mr. Clayton Manness, since retired. At that time nearly two years ago, he formally announced that the collective bargaining process would be given some adjustment to reflect the 1994 resolution passed by the trustees in convention. A number of consultation processes have taken place since then, culminating now in the action that is soon to be taken.

Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the intent of the legislation. In addition to the confusion shown by members opposite, I also heard the previous MTS president on the air today very confused about what the legislation will do.

Madam Speaker, again I regret that the teachers chose not to have me come and explain the details, but given that they did not want to do that, we will move to have the details available with the distribution of the bill, which is currently being drafted. I think they will be very pleasantly surprised to find that they have been misinformed very substantially on a number of key items.

* (1400)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the present collective bargaining process has allowed the parties to negotiate nine divisional settlements of zero percent across the province. The minister is now substituting this extreme measure in collective bargaining that they did not campaign on in the last election campaign, and they are now proposing to take on many items that were formally negotiated and arbitrable under the collective bargaining process and ban that.

How can the government cut $43 million out of public education funding in three out of the last four years and cut and squeeze school divisions, forcing up to 200 or 300 layoffs in this school year alone, and then the government says it is fair, it is a fair collective bargaining process to ban layoffs as a arbitrable matter in the negotiation process. How can you cut money and ban, according to your own document, the ability to take layoff provisions to arbitration as would be fair in any other collective bargaining process?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, there were many substantive questions or series of questions posed by the Leader. I hope that I get to answer each of them so that it does not appear as if I am unwilling to answer them.

I should say, Madam Speaker, at the beginning, that yes, there are this year nine settlements that appear to be coming in at zero for the first year, not taking into account the annual incremental cost, which is substantial to divisions. I might indicate that since 1986 school divisions have been trying to get a zero. So it has taken 10 years under the current system for a board to be able to treat--nine divisions agreeing to that as the first year of some multiyear settlements, not accounting for the increased cost of increments, which is substantial as I indicate.

We did campaign on this, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to correct the member, but as I indicated, it was January 1995 that the previous minister indicated there would be changes and substantial review of collective bargaining in Manitoba. As I recall, that was prior to the election and it was the subject of some discussion during the election, so the member is wrong there.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, the member perhaps is not familiar with The Public Schools Act and that is why he does not understand recommendation 6(a) in the committee report which indicates a list of items that are shown as non-negotiable. It is very important that the member understands that those are items that are currently non-negotiable or have components of them that are non-negotiable in The Public Schools Act. There is no change there. They have non-negotiable components in them right now.

Teaching Profession

Collective Bargaining

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, we have a government in Manitoba which is deliberately driving inequality across the province, whether it is in ministerial or Crown corporation wages, in government grants, in contracts, in increases to private schools. There is one world for the friends of the government and there is another world for the rest of us.

It is very difficult to explain--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley, to pose her question now.

Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is very difficult to explain to a generation which has grown up in a more balanced and equal Manitoba that cuts to education are cuts to welfare that are being done by a government which deliberately chooses to widen the gap in our society.

I want to ask the Minister of Education to explain how her proposals to use local economies as a major criterion for determining teachers' salaries will maintain equality in education across Manitoba.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, in response to the preamble, yes, there is a world for the friend of government. The friend of government, for us, is the general public of Manitoba, the people of Manitoba--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education, to complete her response.

Mrs. McIntosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The public and the people of Manitoba is the one special-interest group that has been too long ignored by governments in this province. It is a special-interest group that we intend to listen to, and the people of Manitoba elect school trustees to decide the schooling that they want. Those school trustees speak for the people and we are for the people. We know that in terms of equality, in terms of ability to pay there are ways of setting criteria for ability to pay, such as those defined in the final offer selection legislation that the people across there love so much. Final offer selection had ability to pay written right in it, and they wanted that, they wanted that for everybody. So I do not see why they would not want it for the people of Manitoba.

We have equalization abilities in our funding formulas; we also have definitions that can surround ability to pay that will build in protection for employee groups and make it clear what terms of reference can be considered, not mandated but considered.

Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us what the impact of her proposals will be in Winnipeg where the income disparities range, for example, from an average household income in my riding of $19,000 to an average household income in the minister's riding of $43,000?

Will the minister tell us, is it her intention to promote teachers' salary differences across the city in the same ratio?

Mrs. McIntosh: No, Madam Speaker, there will be criteria laid down that will offset the member's concerns. The member should know that the ability-to-pay criteria outlined--say, for example, in final offer selection--had the fairness that they thought existed. There are ways to determine fairness, and we will do that.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, could the minister confirm that on page 10 of the Render-Dyck report it says wages for comparable employees in the division are going to be one of the factors in developing teachers' salaries? Will she tell us what the impact of that will be in rural Manitoba where, for example, in Swan River the household income is $20,000, in the Minister of Highways' (Mr. Findlay) it is $50,000? Is it her intention to return to the 1930s?

Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Speaker, the member seems to already have a definition of ability to pay in her mind that does not sound much like the definition of ability to pay that we will end up with.

The Render-Dyck report has indicated that we should have school boards at least able to have their ability to pay considered in front of an arbitrator. We agree with that. The how-to we will spell out in legislation. The final definition of ability to pay, I think the member will find quite to her liking and so I would encourage her to be part of the discussion when it comes and look forward to her assistance in defining ability to pay in a fair and just manner. We have accepted that ability to pay is more than just an unlimited right to raise taxes and there will be many components to that. The teachers themselves had a definition for ability to pay that they found acceptable and that is being taken into consideration as well.

Labour Relations Act

Amendments

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, on April 15 of this year the Minister of Labour informed the Manitoba Federation of Labour that he would provide an opportunity for labour to view the draft labour relations amendment prior to the tabling of the legislation. The minister then cancelled two subsequent meetings stating that the legislation was not ready.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour to inform working Manitobans how it is that his legislation briefing note on The Labour Relations Amendment Act changes was given to the media business reporter when the minister informed labour representatives that the information was not ready.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, if the member will check his calendar, on that date he was in Estimates with me, and the MFL had a meeting to discuss with me proposals to amend The Labour Relations Act. My deputy minister indicated to them that he would be prepared to discuss those amendments with him and they refused to attend.

* (1410)

Mr. Reid: Can the Minister of Labour indicate specifically, who is requesting the amendments to The Labour Relations Act in the province of Manitoba? Who in labour is requesting it, and how many? Who in the business community, and how many?

Mr. Toews: The member for Thompson has a comment. Well, maybe you could stand up and say it, please?

Point of Order

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, I just want to indicate that what I was saying, from my seat to the minister, was that in Thompson he called the current Labour Relations Act a balanced piece of legislation. In fact, he told that to the Rotary Club. Perhaps he would like to put that on the record again and explain why he has changed his labour legislation to attack workers.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I just wanted the House to know that the opposition House leader has now set a new all-time record for points of order in a session.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, the honourable member indeed does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Labour, to complete his response.

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, but in fact the question is a very good one, even if it is not in order. I in fact have said that the act does have a balance between employers and unions.

The problem with the act is that there is no balance between unions and their accountability to workers, and that is what these amendments are all about. That is where there needs to be a measure of balance. For the past year, I have been speaking with absolutely anyone who wants to speak about The Labour Relations Act, and those amendments are in fact a reflection of much of those discussions with unions, with employees and with employers.

Mr. Reid: No answer on the specifics of the question, Madam Speaker, and in the Estimates we were finished prior to the minister's meeting time, I would like to inform him of that--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Transcona, this is not a time for debate. The honourable member was recognized for a final supplementary question.

Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Labour explain why he has included amendments to The Labour Relations Act for this province which were specifically rejected by the Labour Management Review commission in this province? Why has he included suggestions that he put to the commission that were rejected by them in the legislation that he has brought forward?

Mr. Toews: There is no one group in this province which has total knowledge about what is correct for our Labour Relations Act. In government, we listen to all groups. We take into account very seriously what that Labour Management Review Committee has said. We have taken that into account and we have drafted our bill accordingly. That bill will be presented to this House, and I will be prepared to debate each and every section as to why it is important to give workers democratic rights in this province.

Headingley Correctional Institution

Early Releases

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

Right after the Headingley riot, the minister wanted Manitobans to think she was in control and now she wants us to think that she is not, that she knew nothing about the early releases and temporary passes of inmates, for example, and did not ask.

My question for the minister: Would she now tell us, in addition to the 63 inmates let out on temporary absences following the riot--and indeed I think that number the minister now says is higher--would she tell us how many were also released not just temporarily but released outright?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, there is no question that this time period has been an extremely difficult one for the Corrections division of the Department of Justice, which has, I believe, tried very hard to bring forward information in a timely way in as accurate a way as possible. I have been very carefully trying to bring forward that information as it comes to me to update it as it has been updated, to correct it if in fact there were corrections to be made. That has been the way that I have dealt with all of the information.

As the member knows, there was the Headingley riot. The first important issue there was the public safety, including that of the guards. Then the next issue that I dealt with immediately and stand by is that we did call an independent review. That is the way the situation has been taken control of in the interests of public safety.

Madam Speaker, the members across the way have asked me for specific numbers. I am currently in the Estimates of the Department of Justice and will attempt to provide those numbers as we get to the Corrections line.

Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, who could not give that one-word answer to that question, tell us now, one month after the riot, why she herself cannot tell Manitobans, for example, the number of pedophiles released, the number of rapists, when their sentences were to end, how many refused programming, what supervision is in place, when the victims were told of each release? Important questions, Madam Speaker, Manitobans deserve answers to from the person accountable to them.

Mrs. Vodrey: I have endeavoured to give information on an almost daily basis in regard to questions which have been asked about the profile of certain inmates, individuals who have been released on temporary absences or who now may have reached the end of their sentence. These appear to be very simple questions but they are very simple questions with very complex answers. They are in fact extremely complex answers which require a great deal of detail, and we are gathering information always in response to questions. I have been delivering that as quickly as I can and in as timely a fashion as I can.

Mr. Mackintosh: One month later, does the minister, who has a wilful lack of consistent answers for Manitobans--in fact, she admits now she does not even have questions for her own department. It is called wilful blindness.

Does the minister have any policy or administrative direction or control over her department, or is she just her department's PR officer?

Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, I have two answers to the question of the member opposite. First of all, in speaking of wilful blindness, there was no such wilful and deliberate blindness as that of the member for St. Johns on the day of the riot when he met with the RCMP in my office and was advised to not comment while the time period of negotiations was taking place and the member opposite wilfully decided to ignore that information and act in his own political grandstanding. Secondly, the member opposite--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1420)

Point of Order

Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, would you request the minister to refrain from petty, personal issues which are not truthful? I have risen on a point of order already. She talks about rigorous confinement, will she rigorously confine herself to the truth and reality?

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order.

* * *

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete her response.

Mrs. Vodrey: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Then, as I have prefaced all of my answers, our decisions were taken in the interests of public safety, unlike the member opposite who on Friday admitted to the media that, no, he had not bothered to report to the police two inmates who had been released because he just did not have time. He had time to call a press conference. He had time to huff and puff about all his other issues, but in the interests of public safety, he has not taken any steps in that regard. In fact, he has acted against that.

Crown Corporations

Privatization

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

We in the Liberal Party are quite concerned in terms of the way in which this government is looking at privatization of Crown corporations. We see the value and recognize the value of our Crown corporations--MTS in terms of the communication network, Hydro in terms of the cheapest power in Canada being provided to Manitobans, MPIC in terms of affordable insurance for all.

My question specific to the Premier is, can the Premier give us assurances that MPIC and Manitoba Hydro are not going to reach the same fate as MTS?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will just simply say to the member opposite, as I have said to others who have asked that question, we have no plans to proceed with the privatization at the present time.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, can the Premier tell us why it is we should believe the Premier on MPIC and Manitoba Hydro, given what happened with MTS?

Mr. Filmon: Well, Madam Speaker, the member opposite wants to play politics with this. It is his party that privatized the Canadian National Railway and then he says that he is the great saviour of Crown corporations. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would request that the Premier be somewhat relevant to the question that was posed and give a straightforward answer as to why we should believe him now, given what happened with MTS.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to complete his response.

Mr. Filmon: I know the member for Inkster has some credibility problems when, on the one hand, he advocates having three casinos, adding two more casinos, and then he tells us that there is too much gambling in the province. Then he says he is the friend of Crown corporations when his party has privatized the Canadian National Railway. He has credibility problems. The fact of the matter is we will continue to act in the best interests of the people of Manitoba in all that we do.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, lessons of credibility are something this Premier needs more than anyone else inside this Chamber.

Can the Premier give us assurances that public hearings will be held before any decisions regarding MPIC and Manitoba Hydro, any future decisions on these two Crown corporations, will the Premier give us the assurance to public hearings?

Mr. Filmon: Those corporations do public consultations on a regular basis. Their management comes before committees of the Legislature on an annual basis at least. We continue to provide for as much open dialogue as possible on issues that face Manitobans. I would say this, it is very easy for members opposite to always be opposed to everything, but we in government have to make decisions in the best interests of the people of Manitoba and take responsibility for those decisions. We will continue to do that.

Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

Privatization

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I would like to address, as follow-up, these questions to the Minister responsible for MPIC.

Since the establishment of Autopac in 1971--and I am pleased to say I had some part in bringing Autopac into this--since then Manitobans have experienced about the lowest auto insurance rates in Canada while obtaining comprehensive protection from financial losses resulting from vehicle accidents. The Insurance Bureau of Canada has now approached this government with a proposal to take over the physical damage side of auto insurance, leaving MPI with the bodily injury portion.

My question to the minister is--specifically the Premier may say there are no plans--but I want to ask the minister: Are there any studies going on of the possibility of shutting down Autopac in whole or in part, and, specifically, will he advise the people of Manitoba whether he will be having future meetings with the Insurance Bureau to explore this possibility in future?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): There are no studies underway, and I intend to keep the door of my office open to anyone who wants to speak to me.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Has the minister seen any of the results of an opinion survey on Autopac, apparently being conducted by the Insurance Bureau of Canada, and will he share these results with this Assembly?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of, nor have I seen that study. Certainly, if they share it with me, I would be more than glad to share it with anyone else who is interested and will accept it on that basis. But I want to also point out that the corporation has been doing a lot of work itself in terms of reviewing with the public, both by request and by public forum, so that it can improve the service and make sure that its rates are appropriate and the services it provides are appropriate.

Mr. Leonard Evans: Will the Minister responsible for MPIC confirm that the total or partial privatization or indeed shutdown, if you will, of Autopac will ultimately lead to much higher auto insurance rates for Manitobans with less financial security for those involved in vehicle accidents?

* (1430)

Mr. Cummings: Of course I cannot confirm that because, as I indicated, there have not been any studies that have been done in that respect, but there is a significant body of information which is available which I am sure the member is as cognizant of as I am, that Manitoba Public Insurance rates, automobile insurance rates today are very competitive and the coverage is significantly generous in relationship to all other plans in this country, and that, it seems to me, provides a fair body of support for the process that we have in place today.

Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation

Annual Report Release

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I have a question to the Minister responsible for MPIC.

Given that the minister has changed the MPIC year end from October 31, 1995, to February 29, '96, inventing a new 16-month year, I would like to ask the minister, can the minister confirm that damaging negative financial information was hidden from the public through the election period and remains hidden concerning the extent of losses at the MPIC? I would like to know when the minister will make the annual report public.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, Manitoba Public Insurance publishes a quarterly report which I presume the member has either ignored, misread or does not understand, because we have made every attempt to make sure that information is available to the public and available as completely as possible on a quarterly basis. I am really baffled by the approach that he is taking to this question. If there is a concern, I would be more than pleased to address it.

Financial Status

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, the minister is obviously unaware that his corporation has changed their accounting year, and in fact they have not come out with a quarterly report since last October.

I would like to ask the minister, can the minister confirm that this report when it does come out will show losses as high as $60 million? Can he confirm that?

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, the 16-month report of the corporation has been one that has been flagged as a format that the corporation was going to enter into for about, I believe, the last year and a half since it has been made publicly known that that was the direction the corporation is going.

I will not confirm any numbers that the member is throwing about, but it should be no surprise to anyone, considering that during I believe it was the month of January, we indicated publicly, and there was a fair bit of discussion in the media, that the Manitoba Public Insurance was recording record daily losses, record weekly losses and record monthly claims in terms of total numbers of accidents. But I can also confirm that in the insurance business those numbers rise and fall, and in fact interim numbers, indications towards the beginning of the last couple of months, are very favourable.

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, can the minister confirm then that the $60 million in losses would be made up of $13 million in claims over the winter related to weather and another $47 million related to the tort claims from over two years ago, well before the election? Since this government seems to think that it provides competent management, I would like the minister to confirm, ask him whether he would confirm, that this so-called competent management has put the MPIC in the worst financial position that it has ever been in its 25-year history?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, it took the member three questions to get to where I now realize the assumption that he is beginning to make, and those assumptions are, I presume, around the basis of whether or not the monies set aside for tort claims prior to a personal injury protection program being put in place, whether or not those reserves were adequate or whether or not they needed to be adjusted. Certainly those are historical reserves that are adjusted on a regular basis on a review of actuary and adjusted so that there is an accurate and adequate amount on reserve.

Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, a new question to the same minister is this: I would like to ask the minister, given that his report that came out last year, five days after the election, indicated that $29 million would be needed to fund these tort claims that occurred, the last of which occurred well over a year and three months before the election, he confirmed that he would need $29 million and now I would like him to confirm that he needs an extra $47 million. Now why would it take him over two years and three months to come up with those conclusions?

Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, I hate to disappoint the member, but probably some of those claims go back a lot further than he thinks. The fact is that the history of the settling of the tort claims goes well beyond the year and a half or the two years that he refers to and he knows full well that that is the case.

The fact is that these numbers are reviewed regularly in front of the Public Utilities Board. There should not be any surprises as to the amount. Annually, we review them regularly. The internal and external actuaries review these figures, and certainly it will only be a few days and I am sure the corporation will be prepared to table its report.

Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.