Manitoba Hansard — 12 December 1990 (Sitting 44, 35th Legislature, 1st Session)

35-1-44

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 First Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XXXIX No. 44 • 1 :30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 1990 ISSN 0542-5492 Printed by the Offlce of the Queens PrinltK, Province of /1,/1111/loba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Polltlcal Afflllatlon NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR,James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James , Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME , Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS,Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY,Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MclNTOSH, Linda MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack, Hon. PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROGAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY , Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LEIS , Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY.

Liberal NOP NOP Liberal Liberal NOP Liberal NOP PC PC PC PC NOP NOP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NOP NOP PC PC NOP Liberal PC NOP PC NOP Liberal NOP PC NOP PC NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP PC NOP PC PC PC PC NOP PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, December 12, 1990 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairman of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Mrs. Dacquay: I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Municipal Affairs. Mr.

Clerk (Wllllam Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs presents the following as their First Report. Your committee met on Tuesday, December 4 at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider matters relating to The Forks Renewal Corporation. Your committee also met on Tuesday, December 11, 1990, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider matters relating to North Portage Development Corporation. At the meeting on Tuesday, December 4, 1990, your committee elected Mrs. Dacquay as Chairperson. Mr. Cam Mclean, Chairperson of the Board of Directors; Mr.

Nick Diakiw, Chief Executive Officer; Mr. Al Baronas, Vice-President; Mr. Sid Kroeker, Site Archeologist; Ms. Anna Shymanski, Accountant and Mr. Randy Cameron, General Manager, The Forks Market provided such information as was requested by Members of the committee with respect to the business of The Forks Renewal Corporatoin. Dr. Arnold Naimark, Chairperson of the Board; Mr. Kent Smith, General Manager and Mr. Paul Webster, Chief Accountant provided such information as was requested by Members of the committee with respect to the business of North Portage Development Corporation.

Your committee reports that it has considered matters relating to The Forks Renewal Corporation and North Portage Development Corporation. All of which is respectfully submitted. Mrs. Dacquay: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD RCMP Services Premier's Position Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we raised questions about the Government's intent and contingencies dealing with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Since that time, Mr.

Speaker, many Manitobans have been calling us about their concern about the Government's plans and contingency plans for actually even looking at replacing the RCMP with a regional police force. Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Manitoba said it would only be feasible if they did it all across western Canada, notwithstanding the loss of that symbol and vision of our country. We have since been informed that the Premier of Saskatchewan says it is absolutely a no go. It is not even an option for the Province of Saskatchewan.

My question then to the Premier is: Will he now reverse his position and withdraw the option of having a western Canadian police force to replace the RCMP in Manitoba? *

(1335) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, what we are saying is that first and foremost our desire is to have Manitoba policed by the RCMP at a rate that is reasonable to us. As a result of continuous offloading that has occurred that goes back to the last contract under the Trudeau administration in which more of the burden of police cost was transferred over to Manitoba, now we have a second thrust and a continuation of that in which more of the

2948 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 burden of policing cost, some $9 million per year, is proposed to be transferred to Manitoba. We do not believe that is fair. We do not believe that is reasonable. We are saying to Ottawa that we are not prepared to accept it. Of course, when you are faced with a Minister who says, that is it, take it or leave it, and will not even negotiate, then we have to have an alternative, so we are exploring a reasonable alternative. That is precisely what is the responsibility of any good Government, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Doer: I would also note that even Premier Getty has stated that he is not looking at that situation, so it looks like the Premier is leading the charge in Ottawa by withdrawing their costs, even if the bad deal is accepted. Manitoba Representation Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question to the Premier is: If he has reached another roadblock with the federal Tories in Ottawa about the RCMP, Mr.

Speaker, has he, on behalf of the Premiers of the country which he chairs, initiated a representation to the Prime Minister to overrule the Tory Minister who is being intransigent about policing with the municipalities in Canada that rely on the RCMP? Has he led that charge or are we being quiet again? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): You know, I find it more than a little hypocritical of the Leader of the Opposition, who every time in this House says, what is your contingency plan for? What are you going to do if? What are you going to do if? Why have you not planned for? We are developing an alternative, Mr.

Speaker, so that we do not have to deal with only one side of the coin with a unilateral decision which the federal Government is in a position to make. The only way in which we can avoid a unilateral decision, one that we disagree with, being made on us is to have an alternative plan. That is all we are doing, reviewing whether or not there is a possibility of an alternative plan being put forward to try and back the federal Government off its intransigent position. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, if the Premier knows that the cost per capita in Quebec and Ontario -(interjection)- well, we did not sign the first deal in 1980. Sterling Lyon did and Pierre Elliott Trudeau did. Premier's Position Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question to the Premier is: Given the cost benefits, why would the Premier be proposing an option that would cost us more money? Why would he be proposing an alternative that will be less of a standard in service?

Instead of having a contingency plan in the back rooms, why is he not initiating a public fight with the Tory M.P.s in Manitoba and the Tory M.P.s in Ottawa-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, obviously we would not be proposing it if it costs more. So we have to examine it to see whether or not it would cost more or whether or not it is technically and economically feasible. That is what we are into. Judicial System Prosecution Delays Mr. Dave Chomlak (Klldonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice.

Earlier in this Session it was revealed in this House that because of c:>vercrowding and incompetence in the probation system, people on probation were not seeing probation officers. Now we tind that due to overcrowding, a major case, a cast~ costing tens of thousands of dollars, has been thrown out due to unreasonable delay by this Minister's department. What measures will he take to deal with the obvious problems in the department and to ensure that justice in this province is not taken anymore into the area of disrepute? The public has lost confidence in this system. Hon.

James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I do not think the Honourable Member has been following what has been going on here in Manitoba, and I do not think he has been following what has been going on in Ontario. The Honourable Member might do well to ask his Leader to ask Premier Rae to do something about the problems in Ontario where they faced the potential dismissal of some 50,000 to 80,000 cases, not just one, in Ontario. I bring to the attention of the Honourable Member a recent headline in the Ottawa Citizen which says, Ottawa lawyers, judges, envy Winnipeg's success.

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2949 The story goes on to say, Winnipeg, the name evokes envy among Ottawa's lawyers and judges. The prairie city is being compared with Ottawa to demonstrate how a city similar in size to the nation's capital can deliver justice much faster . The comparison is being made at the request of the Supreme Court of Canada. •

(1340) Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, a very effective case of deflection by the Minister. How many times do delegations have to come from cities like Lynn Lake, Portage la Prairie and other centres? How many women's groups have to come before this Minister before justice is properly distributed in this province? How many more human tragedies before this Minister acts? Mr. Mccrae: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member references a story on the front page of one of today's newspapers, and I would like to bring him up-to-date on that matter as well.

With respect to the specific matter to which he refers, each and every time the matter was set down for hearing, the Crown was ready to proceed with the hearing. The preliminary hearing was adjourned three times , once because of the sudden and unexpected death of one of the lawyers involved , and twice at the request of one of the other defence lawyers. The Crown never requested any change of date . The Honourable Member might want to talk to the trial lawyers' association, for example, if he wants to see something done about these things that happen.

Without the above mentioned events which were impossible to predict, there would not have been an unreasonable delay. Mr. Chomlak: The law in this country says there are only three causes of delay, the accused, the Crown and the system. The court found the system and the Crown were at fault. Mr. Speaker, will this Minister undertake to review this decision to ensure that we do not have a similar case in this province where the Charter is abused and the people of Manitoba again have to look to his ministry and his department and feel that justice is not being done? Mr. Mccrae: Mr.

Speaker, the delay occurred in this case because of an extremely admittedly unusual and unfortunate set of coincidences which all happened to the same case. This case is not a typical example of cases under our control. It is one case which is restricted to its own unique facts and may very fairly be expected not to happen again. It is an aberration. I remind the Honourable Member that through our backlog reduction program, in the summe r of 1989 we cleaned off a backlog-backlog cases numbering 20,000-between May and December of that year and have maintained very reasonable limits ever since that time.

We are talking about one case in this particular example. The Honourable Member might do well, if he is concerned about people's rights and so on, to make a representation to the people in Ontario where they do have the power to do something about something we have already done here in Manitoba . Remand Centre Construction Gasollne Seepage Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker , my question is for the Minister of the Environment. The Liberal Party has been asking this Government to take steps to prevent further gasoline leaks from underground storage tanks for more than a year now.

This Government has been unwilling to listen to our suggestions. Today we have learned that work was stopped last week at the site of this Government's new remand centre because of high levels of gasoline contamination In the ground from the provincial garage which once occupied the site. My question is for the Environment Minister. When was he informed about the gasoline contamination, and what is his department's assessment of the seepage?

In particular, has it seeped north under the federal revenue building, has it seeped west under the new law courts building, has it seeped south under the Woodsworth Building? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have not been informed of that situation, and I will ask for a report immediately. Remand Centre Construction Gasollne Seepage Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, this occurrence was noted at least a week ago, if not further back. My further question-and perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) knows more about this than the Minister of the Environment.

2950 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 Workers on the site have informed us that there is between 56 percent and 100 percent saturation rates in at least two places. Given the high level of contamination and the obvious potential danger from this situation, why has this Government not made those findings public, and have they in fact provided for the tight security which is obviously necessary? Hon. Albert Drledger (Minister of Government Services): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to indicate it is factual that there has been extensive gas seepage taking place there from the time that the tanks were removed a number of years ago. During the excavation that was taking place this was caught. It is being monitored by EMO people, by the people from Environment, and the situation is being-the reason why the project was stopped was because of the potential danger that was there. It is being monitored and controlled very closely. The seepage area will be excavated. It will be moved out of this city to allow it to be evaporated and then proper procedure will be followed. *

(1345) Mr. Edwards: Let me remind this Government of the laws by which they are bound, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister explain why the Minister of the Environment does not seem to know about this seepage when the law of this province states that the responsible authority, the owner of the property which is the province, is under an immediate obligation to Inform the Environment Department to clean up this spill site to the satisfaction of the environment officers of this province? Mr. Drledger: Mr.

Speaker, from the time that we found out that there was a problem, the proper steps were taken and Environment was informed. The people were there within a fractional period of time. The people from Environment were there. It has been looked after in the proper procedure of the province. Health Care System User Fees Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): I have a question for the Premier on our national health care system. First we had the western Premiers at Lloydminster instructing their Finance Ministers to look at disentanglement for medicare. Then we had the Couvelier report recommending provincial takeover.

Now we see the Quebec Government going the next step, instituting user fees in hospitals, and the Alberta Health Minister saying that this route may be con:~idered by her Government. I want to ask the Premier if he, as Premier of this province, and as chair of the Premiers' Council, will he support the federal Government in suspending payments under the Canada health care Act to any province opting out of our national system and implementing or considering user fees? Hon. Gary IFllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct any erroneous impressions that are left by the Member for St.

Johns who is wont to do that with her

preamble. The first error was that the western Premiers did not recommend the proposal that was put forward in the report that was filed by the western Finance Ministers. They said it was to be referred for further discussion. Number 2, we said very clearly that we disagreed with the comments of Mr. Couvelier. On the record I s;aid so, the Minister of Finance-let her not leave a1ny misapprehension on the report. Number 3, I have said publicly over and over again that we are C>pposed to the implementation of user fees in our health care system. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier is so taken up with misreading my comments that he has not answered the question. I want- Mr. Speaker·: Order, please; order, please. It is not a time for debate. Natlonal Agenda Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. Johns, kindly put her question, please. Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St.

Johns): I want to ask the Premier, since we now have this very serious situation with at least one province moving on user fees, will this Premier join with the federal Government in moving to suspend payments under the Canada Health Act to any province opting out of our national i~ystem and implementing user fees? Mr. Speake,r: Order, please. The Honourable Member's question is repeating a question which was previously asked and therefore out of order. The Honourable Member, kindly rephrase her question, please. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr.

Speaker, let me help out the Premier and table a report which will help put a clear position on record with respect to the impact

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2951 of federal withdrawal on our federal health care system, that paper just released by Judith Martin. Let me ask the Premier what steps he has taken to get user fees, disentanglement and a two-tier medicare system off the national agenda? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, they are off the national agenda. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I do not know how the Premier can say that given what is happening in Quebec and Alberta. •

(1350) Manitoba Nurses' Union Negotiations Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Let me just ask a question. I just want to ask the Premier about this Government's role in negotiations with the nurses of Manitoba. Will the Premier order his Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to put this Government's monetary offer on the table today rather than wait until the last minute? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable that the New Democratic Party wants to make light of a serious issue.

It is regrettable that they want to clown around in Question Period at a time when there are serious issues that have to be dealt with. The fact of the matter is the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) I think does a disservice to the nurses when he makes funny remarks like that, a humorous remark. The fact of the matter is that we do have a desire to resolve the issue with the nurses. Nobody in this province wants to have a conflict with respect to health care workers, and we are working very diligently to arrive at a solution, Mr. Speaker. Northern Tax Allowance Benefit Cutbacks Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As you know, there have been changes to the Northern Tax Allowance benefits, and it is affecting the North in a very negative way. Has he been contacted by the federal Minister of Finance concerning those changes? What is he prepared to do for those people of northern Manitoba whose benefits will be cut back in just over two years? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I respond to this question because a lot of work has been done by the residents of northern Manitoba in making presentation to the federal ministry of Finance as well as the Ministers of Finance. It would appear that the federal Government has listened to the people and has made some changes which are positive for the people of those northern communities. Benefit Cutbacks Review Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): The second question I have is for the same Minister of Finance.

Has the Minister reviewed those changes and the explanations as to why some communities will be cut off completely in three years, while others such as Flin Flon and The Pas will have benefits cut in half by 1994? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me respond that there has been a review by the Northern Affairs Ministers as it relates to those benefits. I do not have the specific reasons why the federal Governme nt did it, but the alternative would have been to have no tax breaks or no tax relief for those communities that have previously been identified as losing them.

They are getting some tax relief from the federal Government which I would expect most of those communities are at least grateful for, Mr. Speaker, maybe not as happy as they could have been with the total tax relief, but they are at least getting something that they did not have prior to the work done by the northern committee and the Governments involved. Mr. Lathlln: Mr. Speaker, northern Manitobans would have been happier if the tax allowance benefits would have been left intact. Goods and Services Tax Manitoba Hydro Bllllng Mr . Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): My final supplementary is to the Minister of Energy.

In view of the already high cost of living in the North, will the Minister review his policy of adding the GST to hydro bills, a charge that will cost many northern residents more than $100 in heating bills this winter already?

2952 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister responsible for The Manitoba Hydro Act): I remind the Member for The Pas that the Minister of Energy and Mines is not adding the GST to the hydro bills. The federal Government is adding that tax. If Manitoba Hydro were to deduct that amount from the hydro bills, it would cost every Manitoba Hydro consumer that amount. Manitoba Hydro runs a break-even balance sheet, and they cannot afford to take on the cost of the GST rather than pass it on to the consumer. *

(1355) Immigrant Physicians Internship Positions Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. During the election campaign the Premier made a commitment to encourage the immigration of skilled workers. Later he reaffirmed his position in this House. In Manitoba we have between 16 and 20 trained, skilled physicians from countries such as Poland, the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia and the Phillipines. Most of them have passed their qualifying exams. They are being denied the right of practise.

Can the Premier tell us why they are being denied the internship position which is compulsory before they can practise medicine in this country? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, without accepting the

preamble of the question from the Member for The Maples, I would be happy to look into the matter, because certainly we would not like to see an unreasonable or unfair denial of right to practise or be employed here in this province. If he can provide me with information, I will be happy to look into the matter. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to give the Premier the information. These physicians are in the area of general practice, urology, internal medicine and cardiology. Immigrant Physicians Internship Positions Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): My next question is for the Minister of Health.

Can the Minister of Health tell us, and justify in this House, why these people are not being allowed to have access to funding, which is about $700,000, which is being allowed for the Standing Committee on Medical Manpower for this similar reason? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend's premise and

preamble to the question is not accurate. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, this Minister is well aware of these people. He has repeatedly denied any answer during the Estimates process. I will ask 1the Premier then: Can he sit down with his Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and explain to him that the-how can he justify having a two-tier policy, two-system policy, one for the five specialized countries and one for the rest of the world?

How can you justify your policy of skilled immigration when you have these people who are already in this country, they are sweeping floors, they are working for hamburger stores, they are driving cabs, because your Minister Is incompetent and insensitive to the immigration approach? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, for three successive Estimate processes we have discussed this issue with my honourable friend.

For three successive Estimate processes my honourable friend has been given the clear and unequivocal answer to his question that the individuals he refers to, like other individuals who are trained in medicine, have access, especially in Manitoba, uniquely in Manitoba, to a one-year or a two-year residency program at the Faculty of Medicine, as required by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, in order to obtain their licence to practise medicine in Manitoba. Any allegation my honourable friend makes of discrimination or any other issue is simply not accurate. GA TT Negotiations Minister's Position Mr.

John Plohman (Dauphin): Following the failure, suspension, collapse or whatever term we might want to use of the GA TT talks last week, the nations around the world have an opportunity to reflect on the position that they took at the discussions with the view to finding some solutions rather than ranting and raving about putting restrictions and punishing the Europeans as Grant Devine has done in Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact, he is even quoted as saying in the Financial Post that he wants to see an end to the crap and

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2953 corruption----corruption, he used. This is the Premier of Saskatchewan going on in Europe. Rather than doing that, Mr. Speaker, what we should be dealing with here is reflecting on Canada's position in support of the U.S. in those talks.

In view of the fact that the Minister said that the issue of export subsidies was the primary concern to Canada's farmers which is essentially the American position, why did this Minister support the essentially American position, which included the 75 percent reduction in domestic subsidies, as well the tariffication of border measures and those issues as opposed to dealing with the issue of primary concern, which was export subsidies to Canadian farmers? •

(1400) Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the country of Canada could hold its head very high when it was over at the GATT talks, because the 10 provinces had gotten together even though we have regional differences and considerable differences in the kind of production we have in agriculture and different views as to whether there should be supply management or an open-market system. The 10 provinces got together and supported one policy, the Canadian policy, which deals with export subsidies, border access and internal support. It did not support the American position.

Our position was unique and it identified exactly the problem area, export subsidies. The Canadian position was 100 percent removal of export subsidies. The American position was 90. The Cairns Group of countries' position was about 85 percent to 80 percent. The internal support, Canada said 50 percent reduction. The Americans said 70. We are quite different. We are not supporting the American position.

In fact all the countries of the world rallied around the Canadian position that export subsidies are first and foremost, border access second and internal supports third and have to be dealt with in the negotiation process in GA TT. I will have to remind the Member that Canada uniquely put forth a very significant proposal that if every other country in the world followed, we would be in a good position today. Canada's Position Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr.

Speaker, given that the real issue of concern to Canadian farmers is the issue of dumping of products on the market below the cost of production, the need for an international floor price, given that an international floor price for wheat is what is needed by Canadian farmers and the end of export subsidies-- Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Mr.

Plohman: I ask this Minister to table the Canadian position that was taken at GA TT and Manitoba's response to that position so that all Manitoba farmers and the people in Manitoba will have access so they can study and look at that position and determine whether it was in their best interests. Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely incredible that the Member has finally become aware that the issue was export subsidies-finally become aware. Our position, the Manitoba position, the Canadian position, has been in the press, has been publicized all over Canada for many months.

I cannot understand why the Member cannot have read it somewhere. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, he has not tabled a position. I ask the Minister to do that. Mr.

Speaker, considering that an independent Canadian position is of primary importance to all Canadians, I would ask the Minister whether he would now support the position and advocate the position to the federal Government that the major points of Canada's platform at those discussions, if and when they resume, are that there should be tough anti-dumping laws, that there should be elimination of export subsidies, and there should be a minimum price of wheat established-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Findlay: Mr.

Speaker, that has been the position of Canada, that export subsidies represent dumping and we are opposed to them. That is the position of the Cairns Group of countries, some 14 countries. That is the position of all the underdeveloped countries. Around the world that is the position of every country outside of Europe. , That is exactly the issue that is on the table and exactly the issue that will be pushed and stressed between now, when these talks resume and when the talks are actually being held.

2954 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 CKY Televlslon Strike Government Position Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks we have seen an amazing conversion on behalf of the Premier and the Members of this Government in regard to labour disputes. They are honouring the picket line at CKY-the same Premier who has crossed other picket lines in the past, the PWA picket line a number of years ago. What I would like to ask the Premier is: Is this the new policy of the provincial Government?

Will the provincial Government be respecting all strikes, all picket lines and not be associating itself with replacement workers as has been the case in terms of the CKY strike? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Member is referring to because I have not encountered a picket line with respect to the CKY strike. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, my question was in regard to the fact that the Government has been excluding replacement workers from its press conferences and has not been dealing with them which to my mind I thought was respecting the picket lines.

Government Advertising Withdrawal Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I will ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Government is doing that, will it also withdraw its advertising, advertising through other agencies such as the Lotteries Foundation, from CKY for the duration of the strike? Will It respectthat strike in that way as well? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): What we have said is that we will not do anything to prolong the strike, and we will not participate and take sides in the issue, Mr. Speaker.

We have said that all of the information available to other outlets including feeds for instance from Question Period continue to be available to CKY. We will be available for interviews by management or regular workers. That is all part of the process. We have said, by choice, that I for instance will not be interviewed on an individual basis by a replacement worker. Mr. Ashton: My question was in regard to the advertising. Anti-Scab Legislation Government Support Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): My final question is: Since the Government finally recognizes that such actions do involve interfering in the strike situations, will they now support anti-scab legislation that will prevent this type of situation developing by preventing employers from hiring strikebreakers during the duration of a strike, Mr. Speaker? Will they support that legislation and live up to their recent conversion in terms of this issue? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will not do what the, NOP does, and that is to interject themselves to take sides and to participate and inflame strik13s.

That is the kind of thing that we have seen time and time again. An Honourable Member: We support the FOS Bill. FOS, that tal<es away the inflaming. Mr. Fllmon: No, your own union people tell you that is an unwarranted intrusion into the free collective bargaining p:rocess. That is exactly what they have said many times. CUPE has said that, the nurses-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Wllnnlpeg Public Libraries Inner City Funding Ms. Becky Barrett (Welllngton): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation.

Three inner city branch libraries are in immediate danger of closing-the William, Brooklands and McPhillips branches. These libraries are particularly important to residents of the inner city because they lend books and provide other services free of charge to people who often cannot afford to pay for them. The Weston Community Residents Association has written to the Minister to ask that funding for these libraries be continued so that these services remain available to people in the inner city.

My question to the Minister is: Will she today guarantee funding, as has been done in the past, to ensure that the residents who utilize these libraries will still have, access to the books and services provided by these branches? Hon. Bonnlt1 Mltchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, we as the provincial Government fund 11 percent of the city's library budget, and we block fund the City of Winnipeg. It is up to the City of Winnipeg to make

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2955 the decisions on how to run their library system and their libraries. Ms. Barrett: Mr.

Speaker, now that the federal GST is about to be applied to books, making them even less affordable to low income people, will the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation tell this House how these people are going to access these books, and what kinds of actions they can take to stop the reduction in the number of libraries and ensure that residents will have access to public services Ii ke those provided by these three inner city libraries and like those provided to citizens in the suburban areas of the city? Mrs. Mltchelson: Mr.

Speaker, I indicated in my first answer that we block fund the City of Winnipeg. The City of Winnipeg and city councillors in Winnipeg have to make the decision on how they are going to best spend that money to serve all the citizens of the City of Winnipeg. If we made those decisions for City of Winnipeg councillors, we would not need a City Council. *

(1410) Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) announced a number of grants to fight illiteracy in response to the United Nations designation of 1990 as International Literacy Year. Will the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation tell this House why her department is seemingly not committed to the UN designation and instead deliberately, by not funding these libraries, by not giving extra money to the city, is placing the future of these libraries and services to inner city people in jeopardy? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mrs. Mltchelson: Mr.

Speaker, we provide 11 percent of the city's total overall library budget to fund all the library services that the City of Winnipeg wishes to provide. Liquor Import Fees Federal Consultatlons Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae). On December 5 this Minister held a news conference to announce that the Manitoba economy was to be revived with the increase of liquor import fees as of December 9. Now we learn the announcement was made before Canada Customs had been informed.

I ask this Minister: Did this Minister consult Ottawa as to this date that the increase was applied? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister involved in dialoguing with Ottawa with respect to this issue, certainly there have been major discussions betwe en the provincial Government and Ottawa regarding collection of Manitoba liquor charges on large importations at the Manitoba-U.S. border. During those discussions the province was assured that there would be no difficulty administrating Manitoba's new provision.

The province therefore proceeded with the necessary regulation and pronouncements. Unfortunately at the last minute, after the Manitoba announcement was made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae), the federal Government indicated that it had encountered a few technical problems which had to be overcome before collection of the new Manitoba charges could commence. Collectlon Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, when did this Minister request, what date did he request Canada Customs to impose the new charges? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Several weeks before the December 5 announcement.

Revenue Loss Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): As we understand that Canada Customs now is not collecting this tax until they get approval from headquarters, how much revenue have we lost this past week, and when will Customs have the approval to collect this tax? An Honourable Member: It is the revenue you are worried about, is it, Clif? I did not realize it was the revenue you were worried about. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, it is a great delight to see somebody from the Opposition bench even mention the word "revenue" and some concern around it. Mr.

Speaker, I am unable to answer the question as to the magnitude of foregone revenue at this point. Let me assure Members of the House that members of my staff were in Ottawa yesterday

2956 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 dialoguing on this specific problem. I would hope that there would be a full announcement in the very near future. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENTS Mr. James Carr {Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may have permission to make a non-political statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member have unanimous consent to make a non-political statement? (Agreed) Mr. Carr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As Members of the House will know, today is the first day and tonight the second night of the Festival of Lights, the celebration of Hanukkah. This is a very important time for members of the Jewish faith. It is a time when children gather, often around the hearth if you are lucky enough to have one. We eat traditional foods, we sing and we dance and we celebrate the whole concept of family. I do not think I could possibly be more eloquent about the religious significance of the holiday of Hanukkah than the inscription on the Menorah which is outside the rotunda of this building, and I would like to read it.

It says: The lights of the Hanukkah Menorah celebrate the rekindling of man's belief in God and his quest for religious freedom, the victory of faith over fear, of righteousness and justice over tyranny and oppression and of the triumph of light over darkness as realized in the story of the Miracle of Hanukkah and the wondrous cruse of oil which burned for eight days in the rededicated temple in Jerusalem in the year 3622 after creation. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my caucus and I am sure all Members of the House, we wish the Jewish community of Manitoba a Happy Hanukkah. Hon.

Bonnie Mltchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a non-political statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Minister have unanimous consent to make a non-political statement? (Agreed) Mrs. Mltchelson: Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my colleagues on the Government side of the House to wish the community once again a very happy festive season.

As all Members know, we started a tradition last year of having a multicultural tree in the rotunda of the Legislature, where those from all different ethnic background~; could bring ornaments that were of special significance to their communities to hang on the tree. I am very pleased that the Jewish community , although it does not believe in Christmas, has had the opportunity to place its Menorah in the rotunda of the Legislature, so that we can celebrate all different ethnic backgrounds and cultures and realize and recognize that we are equal partners in this Manitoba society. Thank you. Mr.

Doug Martindale {Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a non-political statement. Mr. Speaker·: Does the Honourable Member have unanimous consent to make a non-political statement? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our caucus, I would like to add our good wishes to those of the other two Parties, to all Members of the Jewish faith who are celebrating Hanukkah and wish, in the spirit of ecumenism, that all of them will have a happy Hanukkah. Thank you. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Glmll): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some changes to the committees.

I move, sec:onded by the Member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations be amended as follows: the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the Member for Portage La Prairie (Mr. Connery), the Member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) for the Member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst). I move, seconded by the Member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: the Member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery). Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I have committee instructions, but I will wait until later on today to refer certain Bills to Standing Committees.

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2957 Mr. Speaker, would you call the Bills in the following order, please: Bills 12, 25, 24, 26, and Bill 20. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS BILL 12- THE LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT Mr. Speaker : On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), Bill 12, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): This, Mr. Speaker, is not my first speech on the issue of final offer selection, and it will not be my last speech as well. I have spoken on this many times in this Legislature. I have dealt with this -(interjection)- well, for the Premier (Mr . Filmon), the problem is this Government just has not learned yet. We are going to keep on speaking on final offer selection until it gets it right.

The bottom line is, with this particular Bill, it has been in development for a number of years. I had the privilege of sitting, for example, in many caucus meetings and committee meetings with the late Mary Beth Dolin who was very much committed to bringing in final offer selection legislation and who, unfortunately, of course, passed away before she had that opportunity, but was a believer. The need for this type of legislation is in addition to our labour relations system in Manitoba to give an option to the type of things that have happened over the last number of years in terms of labour relations.

To give an option, Mr. Speaker, to the workers of this province. I watched it in its course internally and, of course, was very pleased when our previous New Democratic Party Government introduced final offer selection and had it passed by this Legislature. I spoke then, Mr. Speaker. I have spoken each and every time this Bill has been before us in terms of its current form and its previous forms by the provincial Government.

I will continue to speak on this particular Bill until the message finally gets through to the Conservatives and, yes, the Liberals as well, that this type of anti-labour, anti-worker action is just not acceptable in the Province of Manitoba, just absolutely not acceptable. Each and every time that I have participated in this debate, it has become clearer and clearer to me that this symbolizes many of the differences between our political Parties. It Is a symbol, if you like, of what the Parties are and what they stand for. Let us look at what this represents to the working people of this province.

We have the Conservative Government , the Government of the Day which is now once again seeking to repeal final offer selection. Why are they seeking to repeal final offer selection? Why are they seeking to repeal it? Let us look at why they are doing it. Is it because they feel it is not working? No, Mr. Speaker, they made the commitment to repeal it before they were elected. They made a commitment to the Chamber of Commerce. They did not want to be confused by the facts.

They made a commitment to repeal it out of an ideological commitment to the Chamber of Commerce, out of an ideological position on labour relations issues that does not want working people to have access to this type of legislation. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) *

(1420) They would rather see lengthy strikes. They would rather see controversy in our workplace. They would rather see the kind of adversarial relationship we have in labour relations in Manitoba. That is where the Conservatives are coming from. In my comments today, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will prove that by looking at the question as to whether it is working or not. I will demonstrate that it is indeed working. It is indeed working and does not deserve to be repealed by this Conservative Government. That is the Conservatives. What about the Liberals?

Their rhetoric is a little bit different in dealing with -(interjection)- yes, indeed, what about the Liberals? What about the Liberals? Their position is expressed differently in terms of rhetoric. The former Liberal Labour Critic, the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) -(interjection)-where is he now indeed? The Member for St. James expressed his opposition to final offer selection earlier this Session by expressing to the House his feeling that it was an unbalanced and unnecessary piece of legislation. He tried to justify this by saying that he wished a consensus-oriented, co-operative

2958 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 approach to labour relations, something he said the other two Parties did not support. Madam Deputy Speaker, different rhetoric, but what is their bottom line position? What is the bottom line position of the Liberal Party? What was the position of the Liberal Party last time and the time before, and the time before that? When push came to shove, were they on the side of the working people of this province? No, they stood shoulder to shoulder with the Conservative Party in seeking to repeal final offer selection.

They stood with the same type of rhetoric that the Conservatives had used, that they had expressed to the Chamber of Commerce. They stood with them and said they would repeal final offer selection. Let us not forget what happened in the last Session of the Legislature. The Liberals in true fashion did change their position somewhat. Did they change their bottom line position, Madam Deputy Speaker? No, they did not change their bottom-line position. They still, with an amendment they introduced, sought to repeal final offer selection, although a few months later than the Conservatives would have.

We all know what happened subsequently, the Conservatives could not live with that amendment by the Liberals and voted to defeat their own bill as amended, which led to final offer selection continuing in this province, but the bottom line was the same. The bottom line with the Liberal Party once again, when it counted, when they had the numbers in this House to provide a majority, to save final offer selection, they did not, Madam Deputy Speaker, use the power of numbers to vote down the Conservative minority Government. Instead they played around with their position but stuck to the bottom line.

If there is any doubt as to where the Liberal Party stands, just look at their comments in this debate, whether it be the comments of the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), the comments of.the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), the comments of the new Liberal Labour Critic, who seems to be following in the footsteps of the previous Liberal Labour Critic, and said quite clearly, and I quote from November 16, 1990: "I want to just start by saying that we support the repeal of final offer selection." That is the position of the Liberal Party. Madam Deputy Speaker, they say right on.

They have not learned a lesson, they have not listened to the working people of Manitoba. They are standing together with their other colleagues in the other old-line party in the Conservative Party in an anti-labour, an anti-worker position. -(interjection)- Well, the Liberals are chirping from their seats that they do not have to listen. Indeed they did not listen to the many workers who came before the committee last time, the more than 120 people who registered before the committee.

Shop floor workers who came in and spoke from the heart from their own personal experience and urged and pleaded with the LibE1rals. They pleaded with the Liberals to listen, to fight to save final offer selection, but it was not the Liberals who saved final offer selection, it was only the New Democratic Party with 12 Members that saved final offer selection from the claws of the Liberals and Conservatives. Well, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Since we have last met to discuss this in the previous Session, we had even more experience with final offer selection.

What I want to do is spend just a few moments in terms of dealing with that because I think it is important to deal with any suggestion, whether it be by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) or the Liberal Labour Critic that this legislation is not working. I note for the information of Members and for the public that most of the debate on the part of the Liberals and Conservatives has not dealt with the experience with final offer selection. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals cling to the statements they keep bringing before the House. Even the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) just a few minutes ago brought before this House some suggestion that labour itself was divided on the issue that many of the unions opposed final offer selection. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that was the case. There were unions that expressed concern about final offer selection prior to its implementation, but the hearings last time we dealt with this matter earlier this year in the last Session, categorically proved that the bottom line was that the labour movement was united in saying, keep final offer selection.

The Canadian Federation of Labour, the UFCW, a number of people came forward and said they were opposed to final offer selection before it was introduced, or had significant concerns, but having seen it in practice they had changed their mind

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2959 based on the evidence, and they supported final offer selection and did not want it repealed. So let them not cling to that suggestion. As I said they do not take the time to deal with the experience with final offer selection because the fact is that final offer selection is doing exactly what the proponents of final offer selection said it would do. The recent experience, and here I am taking information that is up to date as of November of this year, shows that there have been 99 applications. Well, let us just look at the experience.

What was predicted would happen with the final offer selection? The proponents, the New Democratic Party Government said that, with the number of applications you will be dealing with, the vast majority would not go to the final stage, because final offer selection Is fundamentally different from conventional arbitration. It leads to negotiations. It does not chill the negotiating process as does arbitration. What it does is it gives an incentive on the parties to settle. What has the experience been? How many of the 99 applications have gone through to the final offer selector stage? How many? Seven.

Well, let us deal with whether it is a biased piece of legislation. Has there been a bias in the settlements? Has there been a bias, Madam Deputy Speaker? Out of those seven, four have gone in favour of the employees and three have gone in favour of the employers. There is no bias. It could have been a four/three split the other way, but consistently, when there have been selector decisions, it has been proven that there is no inherent bias in the selector process. Now let us deal with those seven. Let us deal with the 12 where a selector was appointed at the time.

Let us deal with the total of 7 4 that reached an agreement without going the full length of the procedure, and deal with another argument put forth by the proponents of final offer selection, of which I indeed was one and continue to be, and that is that it would help prevent strikes by providing an option to strike. It does not take away the right to strike, it provides another option. Well, I would refer Members of this House to the lengthy presentations in committee last Session, of shop floor workers, of people who negotiate on a regular basis on behalf of their unions.

There were numerous presenters who said in the case of their particular bargaining unit, if it had not been for final offer selection it is very likely there would have been a strike. In other words, final offer selection provided an alternative that helped prevent strikes. *

(1430) There will be some who perhaps do not understand the attitude of working people In terms of strikes. I know many in this House certainly do not. I do not know how many Members of this Legislature have ever been on strike, or taken the time to go to picket lines and talk to people who are on strike. It is a decision that no one takes lightly, and I know the Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) received criticism today for visiting the picket line at a strike that is currently ongoing, the CKY strike.

I was there as well and I make no bones about it, because I have not only visited picket lines, I have walked picket lines as well. It was not an experience that I gave a great deal of significance to until I reached this Legislature. I had worked at lnco in Thompson, I went through the 1976 strike. I was on strike during the election in 1981, was elected in the middle of the strike.

But it was not until I sat in that committee and listened to other people who had been through it that I realized that I had not forgotten, and that many other people had not forgotten what it is like to have to walk a picket line for a decent living, a fair settlement; what it is like in the case of the current strike with CKY to see replacement workers going through the picket lines on a daily basis taking away the jobs of the workers Involved, taking away the jobs. No one who has been through that experience takes it lightly.

What people said in committee, people who had been through those types of situations such as in the Superstore strike, went through that situation said, if there is an option, please let us have that option. Let us have it available to us. They said, do not take away the right to strike, but provide it as an alternative, as an option, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to raise that because the bottom line is that working people do not want strikes unless they absolutely have to end up in a strike situation.

That is why there was such support in the committee from unions and from grass-roots people, from shop floor people, saying, please give this Bill a chance. The Liberals thought they had listened, but they did not get the message. The message was clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, the message from those people in the committee was to save final offer selection, but the Liberals in their flat-footed way of

2960 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 trying to, find a middle ground, did nothing to shift their basic position. They played around with the Bill. They played around with it, and they ended up in the situation where they satisfied no one, where they essentially did not abandon their bottom-line opposition to what we had said in terms of final offer selection. They did not listen truthfully to the people who came before that committee.

They stuck to their previously determined course of action, and it was only through some tactical maneuvers on behalf of the working people that we, the New Democratic Party, brought in that we were able to save it. As I was saying, final offer selection works. It worksl It was brought in as an experiment. Indeed, it was new, innovative, and it was brought in with a sunset clause, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the Conservatives or the Liberals cannot allow It to live out its full course, because it Is working. It is not creating disruptions in the workplace.

It is providing an option, an alternative to strikes. It is working, Madam Deputy Speaker. So I wanted to deal with that because the mlsperception that the Conservatives and Liberals have been trying to put forward but have not really had the courage to debate at any length in this debate is that somehow it is not working. It is working. To quote the Member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), it is working, why fix it? The bottom line is the figures show it works. The information shows it works. The Member for Swan River knows that, every Member of our caucus knows that. When are the Conservatives going to listen?

When are the Liberals going to listen? Let us not forget what is happening now. The Liberals have let it be known to the press-they are trying to say they changed, they are moving to the left. The only way they are moving to the left is they were over on this side of the benches, they moved a little bit further to the left because they are no longer the official Opposition but ideologically they are the same old, tired Liberal Party. They have not moved to the left. When it came to the minimum wage increase recently, what did the Conservatives do? Six percent, 2 percent a year after three years. How did we do?

We increased minimum wages by 33 percent over six years, more than 5 percent. That is the NDP record. What did the Liberals say? Two Members of the Liberal Party said that was adequate. They said 30 cents is enough; they said 2 percent a year is adequate for minimum wage earners, the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) and the Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock). Is that moving to the left? Is that recogniz.ing what is happening, the reality of the situation out there, Madam Deputy Speaker?

No it is not; it shows, once again, the Liberals have not learned on issues such as the minimum wage, and final offer selection, where do they stand on final offer selectic,n, have they come back in and said they have changed, they have learned, they are moving to thEJ left, they are going to listen and work on behalf of the working people? Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

I would remind all Honourable Members that the Member for Thompson has the floor and I would appreciate the co-operation of the other Members in remaining in their seats or carrying on private conversations either in the loge area or outside the Chamber. Mr.Ashton : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I realize there is some sensitivity on this, particularly on behalf of the Liberals, because where do they stand on final offer selection, have they changed?

Have they c:ome in and said, well, that was a different Liberal Party, this is a new Liberal Party, we no longer stand by what we said a year ago, we have changEtd our opinion and God knows, the Liberal Party has had a history of changing its mind, of not knowing its position on issues, but was there any ambiguity on this? Did they come in and say, we no longer are going to make campaign commitments, but only are interested in the Chamber of Commerce, that only reflect their position on issues such as final offer selection?

Have they said, we have learned, we learned the lesson of the election on September 11 ; have they learned the lesson? What a lesson indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think they have to really look at what happened, to search their Houis, to ask why they were knocked from 21 seats down to 7, why in areas where there are so many working people, whether it be the north end, in particular, of Winnipeg, or the core area, or in rural areas where, indeed, there are many people who watch the positions of Parties and the issues affecting working people? They have to ask themselves a question, why did that happen?

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2961 I want to say to them there is a very clear reason. The bottom line is when it came to the choice between the Conservatives, the traditional Party of big business, the Liberals who talk one way in between elections and another way after elections, who are still as much a pro-big business Party as the Conservatives , who receive more of their funding from big business than even the Conservatives do.

That may be amazing to people in this Legislature, but they receive more money from corporations in the percent of their income than any Party in this Legislature. Which Party do they select in those seats, Madam Deputy Speaker? They selected the only Party that has consistently spoken for working people, whether in Government or in Opposition, the New Democratic Party. Well, where do we go from here? Where do we go from here, Madam Deputy Speaker? We have tried desperately to get the Conservatives and the Liberals to listen, and they will not.

I want to indicate what our goal has been right from the start, and I consider it to be a very noble goal, and that is to buy as much time for final offer selection as possible. That was our agenda when we lost the election in 1988 with 12 Members, 12 against what I have described as the gang of 45, the Conservative-Liberal alliance in this House on issues such as final offer selection. We fought in the first Session, we fought in the second Session.

I remember standing here in this place in January of this year and saying we will be here in January and we will be here in February, March, April and as long as It would take, and we you know we lived up to that commitment. We stood firm and we used our tactical ability, as an Opposition Party with only 12 Members, to stall it to the point now where final offer selection has had the opportunity to prove itself for nearly three years. With the election of September 11 , we recognize the different reality. This Conservative Government now has the majority, the technical majority.

It can ram through legislation and mark my word, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is going to have to if we get any indication more of what their agenda is likely to be over the next number of years. They are going to be ramming through legislation in this Legislature through closure and whatever tactics they can and we recognize that, but we stood firm and we said to this Government that we would be here as long as it would take in this Session.

We would delay the passage as long as possible of this Bill and the repeal and that is why we have currently now the Government committing itself not to repeal this legislation until March 31 . I want to say to the Liberals, if it had been up to them, final offer selection would be dead as of December 31, and I want to show them the significance of having the repeal on March 31 . Madam Deputy Speaker, not only will contracts that expire up to March 31 be eligible, but any contracts will be eligible for final offer selection under the first opportunity prior to a central strike situation. •

(1440) So March 31 is not three months, it is actually five months worth of contracts that are going to be affected, five months. How many contracts? Madam Deputy Speaker, 210 contracts, out of actually the number in that year. That is the majority. That five months gives them that ability to use final offer selection. How many workers? It is literally thousands of workers. It is in the tens of thousands. Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Liberals had their way, final offer selection would die on December 31 . Because the New Democratic Party has stuck to its guns, it will at least survive until March 31 .

For the Liberal Party, If they think this issue is over, and for the Conservative Party, I want to indicate that it does not matter what the Government says about when they will agree to repeal this legislation, our position will be clear. We will oppose any repeal of final offer selection. We will oppose it now, and we will fight to reinstate final offer selection in the future. Final offer selection will not die through the passage through this Legislature of any Bill such as Bill 12. It will not die, it will continue. I pleaded with them not to kill it.

We have worked hard to postpone the date of execution and we have done it successfully. I turn to the Liberals and I turn to the Conservatives and I say, if there was ever a good time to repeal final offer selection, and I do not feel there ever would be, do they really believe that early next year is a good time?

Do they really believe that with January 1 saying the imposition of the GST on this country and the fundamental change that is going to bring in terms of economic circumstances and the fundamental impact that is going to have on labour relations, do they feel this is a good time to be getting rid of final offer selection? When we are looking at some very serious potential labour disputes, even the

2962 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 Government knows there could be some serious disputes . There can be some very serious disputes. Do they feel this is the time to be taking away this option to strikes? Is this a good time? I say, clearly, I say it three times, because the Member for Portage (Mr. Connery) is not listening, and I know I could say it a hundred times and he still will not learn, but the bottom line is this is not the time to be repealing final offer selection.

In 1991, with the GST, the recession and the tough situation labour relations, it is not the time to be deleting this from our labour relations Act. Well, if the Conservatives and Liberals have not shown any willingness to learn yet, we are going to give them one more opportunity. One more chance not to be repealing final offer selection legislation that Is working at this time. We are going to give them one more chance. I hope they will listen. I particularly turn to the Liberals.

I am turning to my left physically, politically I am turning to my right, Madam Deputy Speaker, but to the Liberals, you have one chance here, you have one chance. Are you going to join with us to seek some further delay offinal offer selection? Are you going to join with us? Are you going to show any kind of understanding of the issues affecting working people, or are you going to stand with the Conservatives to ram through this particular Bill? Which way will you stand?

I want to explain to Members a motion that I am going to be moving that gives to the Liberals who may not have been through this before, and to the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), now is the time to stand in your place and support a very good motion. In parliamentary tradition it is the six-month hoist. By way of explanation to the Liberals, this is a great way for the Liberals who like to bend and twist and turn and try and shift their positions, and we have seen them do that before on other issues. You do not have to throw away what you have said previously.

You do not have to change your rhetoric on final offer selection. You can support this amendment, this resolution I will be bringing in and give final offer selection six more months before we proceed with the debate any further. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) It will give you a chance to see what will happen as of January 1 with the GST and with labour relations in this province. It will give you the chance to listen one more time to the working people of this province who sent you such a clear message on September 11, a message you obviously have not received.

It will give you one more chance, and I know when I talk to the- An Honourable Member: Oh, they got the message. Mr. Ashton: The Member is quite right, they got the message politically, but they have not got the message in terms of their thinking on issues. It has not changed their positions one bit. I look at the Conservatives, and I know that they are not going to listen. There may be some who deep down have some idea that what they are doing is wrong.

There may be some who are maybe even a bit nervous about making such a fundamental change in our legislation at such a time, but I know their positio,, and they have been very clear. They were clear tc,the Chamber of Commerce. They have been clear in this Legislature. They have been clear that no matter whether final offer selection works or not they do not support it for ideological reasons. I respect that. I do not expect them to support this motion. The Liberals, the so-called middle of the roaders. The ones always looking for something a little bit different. This is different.

This gives you a way of not changin!1 your position on final offer selection if you do not really want to. It buys more time. It allows you to go down the middle. It allows you to say whatever yc:1u want to people on one side or the other. You can try once again to be on both sides of the fence. It did not work last time. I do not think it will work thi13 time, but if you really want to get on both sides of the fence, I think you can do this. I think you can do it with this resolution. It is a chance to prove us wrong. It is a challenge indeed.

It Is a challenge to the Liberal Party from the New Democratic Party to put substance to their words about concerns about working people. I warn you, your votes will be recorded. I warn you that the same Members who took the message in the provincial election to people across this province-the Liberals do not stand for working people-will take the message out again if you vote against this particular resolution, so I ask you to think about it. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Concordia (Mr.

Doer), that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "THAT' by substituting the following:

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2963 Bill 12, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, be not now read, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It has been moved by the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), seconded by the Honourable Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "THAT" and by substituting the following: Bill 12, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, be not now read, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? Some Honourable Members: Nay. Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. All those in favour of the amendment to the motion-- Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the motion. *

(1450) Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. It was a debatable motion, but I have already called for the question on the amendment. -(interjection)- Order, please; order, please. All those in favour of the amendment to the motion will please say aye. Some Honourable Members: Aye. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. *

(1500) Mr. Speaker: Call in the Members. The question before the House is on the proposed amendment of the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), seconded by the Honourable Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after "THAT" and by substituting the following: "Bill 12, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, be not now read but that it be read a second time this day six months hence." A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Ashton, Barrett, Carilli, Chomiak , Dewar, Doer, Evans (Interlake), Evans (Brandon East), Friesen, Hickes, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid, Santos, Storie, Wasylycia-Leis, Wowchuk.

NAYS Carr, Carstairs, Connery, Cummings, Dacquay, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, Manness, Mccrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Neufeld, Orchard, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey. Mr. Clerk (Wllllam Remnant): Yeas 19, Nays 31. Mr. Speaker: I declare the amendment to the motion lost. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I am speaking on the Main Motion, Mr. Speaker. We now see the Party of innovation of the two old-line Parties at the back, Mr. Speaker, they are here before us.

We see the Party of the '90s that wants to attempt new things and experiment on behalf of the people of Manitoba, and we see the old-line Parties before us. We have witnessed again today, in a very tangible way, the Party of the people of the Province of Manitoba versus the Party of the chambers of commerce, the Liberals and the Conservatives of this province, Mr. Speaker. We have seen the Party demonstrated by the vote today that is really concerned about the recession and really concerned about the savagery that recession will have on working people.

We have witnessed today the Party that cares about people directly affected by the recession, Mr. Speaker, and the Party that gives lip service to the communities and families and are willing to stand up for those people who need all the protection they can get, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have seen demonstrated again in this Chamber today, with the old-line Parties. Now, Mr. Speaker, what did the motion we just proposed propose in terms of the Province of Manitoba? What we said is abandon your old lines, abandon you old positions, abandon your old Party positions with the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce

2964 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 and the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and look at the devastating effect of the recession, particularly in the first six months of 1991. We know that the GST will put untold hardship onto people in this province. We know that the Tory high interest rates are putting untold burden on families. We know that there are 7,000 more unemployed people in this province than there was a month ago.

We know that the lower portion of our society is getting clobbered by federal Tories, and the Liberals had a chance to join with us to give a little measure of comfort with another umbrella against the economy with another tool at their disposal called final offer selection to protect themselves, their families and their communities from the savagery of this recession. I was very disappointed that we again had an opportunity to go in a non-partisan way to throw behind our former Party affiliations, in terms of the effect of the economy on people, and say, yes, let us let this thing go on another six months.

Let us have a little protection for people. Let us bring it back in the spring next year and let us have the toughest months of this recession have a little protection for people. Once again, we see that there is only one Party of innovations. Let me talk about that, Mr. Speaker, because final offer selection is an experiment. It is an innovation. -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker, if anyone wants to look at success and failure, I am willing to put this to an independent arbitrator and set aside this Bill until that arbitrator rules. Let us set it aside to Wally Fox-Decent. An Honourable Member: He is busy right now.

Mr. Doer: Yes, he is busy, Mr. Speaker. We are willing to even let him evaluate the success and failure. We are so confident in the bottom-line numbers of the successes over the 36 months, we were still very confident of the success of this Bill to allow its repeal to be subject to the evaluation of a truly independent body, but nobody would allow that to happen. They had to repeal it first, or get rid of it first, because they know that it has been a success. Mr. Speaker, the best evidence of that has been the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) own budget document.

The Minister of Finance in his budget document brags about the labour-management relations in the Province of Manitoba. He even goes so far as to take credit for 1989 in his own budget. Now what is the coincidence of 19897 It is one of the first years of final offer selection operating in labour-management relations in Manitoba. I am goin1~ to tell every Tory and every Liberal one fact of life, and I will defy anyone to disagree with this.

I unfortunately believe, and we believe in our Party, that labour-management relations have been stabilized, strikes and lockouts have been stabilized, by this Bill, and 1989 is the set of figures that the Minister of Finance tabled in this Chamber, 1990, will even be lower. The Minif1ter of Labour (Mr. Praznik) knows this even though he is participating as an employer in the largest, longest strike in the province with the casino workers. Ironically, 1990 will have lower days lost to strike and lockouts probably than 1989. Mr.

Speaker, let us make a prediction in 1991, because 1991 is the year that the Tories and the Liberals will repeal final offer selection using their majority, th,:1 tyranny of the majority to withdraw these rights for working people. An Honourable Member: What was it when you were In the majority? Mr. Doer: Well, we had a gang of 12 that stopped this tyranny of majorities for two years, Mr. Speaker, but unfortunately-and I dedicate- An Honourable Member: Fortunately you were in Government for six years. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.

Downey) has to heckle because he knows the facts do not substantiate the case of the Government. He has to heckle because he has no legitimate argument against the necessity for keeping final offer selection, because the Minister of Northern Affairs, the Deputy Premier, the person at the right-hand side of the Premier (Mr. Filmon), on a daily basi!3, the Leader of his group in the Tory Caucus, in the Tory Government, knows well that 1991 unfortunately will have more days lost to strikes and lockouts than 1990 and 1989. Mr. Speaker, you will be accountable.

The ladies and gentlemen on the Conservative and Liberal side will be accountable for untold loss of production, untold loss of income, untold loss of purchasing power, untold loss in our economy because you do not believe in innovation. You believe in going back to the old ways. The old ways were only confrontation and fighting through strikes and lockouts; that was the only way to resolve our differences.

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2965 Mr. Speaker, the economy is changing. I want to remind Members of this Chamber that the economy in Canada, North America and the western world is changing. It is going from an industrial society to a communication society. It is moving from a manufacturing society to a service society, in fact a lot more quickly than Members on this side would have ever allowed to happen with the loss of 12,000 manufacturing jobs in Manitoba in the last 12 months, and the increase in service jobs of 9,000. •

(1510) We have satellite dishes, we have communication devices, we have on-line computers, we have different types of equipment and different types of work forces. That begs the question, do we want to innovate and experiment, or do we want to stay with the tried and true methods that worked 1 00 years ago? That is the question. So what is wrong with a five-year innovation? This Bill was intended to be repealed automatically with a sunset clause in 1993, January. I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, this Bill has had a long enough time to be fully appreciated by all Members of management and labour and society.

So what is wrong with innovation? What is wrong with experiments? Why did the Progressive Conservatives have to be 99 percent conservative and zero percent progressive? There have been no innovations in the world from the Liberal Party. That is why they went back to the past with Jean Chretien. That is why they continue to go back to the past, back to the Mure. They should be in a Michael J. Fox movie, Mr. Speaker, not representing people in this Chamber. Now, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with innovation? What is wrong with something that works?

Days lost to strikes and lockouts have gone down since this Bill has been introduced, so why is the Government repealing it? How far in bed is this Government with the Chamber of Commerce of Manitoba? How far -(interjection)- it is a question. I am not making a statement. I am just asking this question because I raised that because both the Conservative Leader (Mr. Filmon) and the Liberal Leader (Mrs. Carstairs), did they make the promise to-- Mr. Speaker, both the two Leaders in the 1988 election made two promises to the Chambers of Commerce.

One, they are going to repeal the health and post-secondary tax in three years. In fact, I think the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the then Leader of the Opposition said he would do it in four years, and the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs), said, no, that is not good enough, we will get rid of that tax in three years, Filmon is flip-flopping, we will get rid of the health and post-secondary tax in three years, because we are more right-wing than you. We can give corporations tax breaks faster than the Tories. We will do it in one less year.

That is the promise that was made at the Chamber of Commerce in 1988, March of 1988, by both the Member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) and the Member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon). Interesting coincidence of seats is it not, that they were making those promises at the Chamber of Commerce and they vote the same way on a very, very- Mr. Speaker, then they made a second promise with the same group at the Chamber of Commerce, the same promise to a special interest group who coincidentally funds their Parties at 58 percent for the Conservatives and 70 percent for the Liberals, in terms of the contributions.

We only got 9 percent. Coincidentally, I know that is not tied to this Bill at all. They made the second promise to repeal final offer selection at those two Chamber of Commerce dinners . Mr. Speaker, those are the two promises. Now what did they do in the two promises? Well, on the first one they have removed some of the taxes from corporations, but, of course, they could not keep the promise. You did not have to be a rocket scientist to figure outthey did not have the $200 million to move. They did not keep their promise, they will not keep it in the next budget. They will not keep it in the budget after that.

They will not keep it after the budget after that. They will not do it. An Honourable Member: Do not test us. Mr. Doer: Well, I will test you, Mr. Speaker, I will test you because you know what, it is your fourth budget this spring and that is the fourth year. That will be the end of your promise, because you will not get rid of $195 million in revenue. -(interjection)- lt is okay, Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Labour-I wonder if he was up in Dauphin, maybe that can account for a couple of extra hundred votes in the last election . Every time he went door to door John got a bigger plurality. Mr.

Speaker, the second promise was to get rid of final offer selection. Well, the NOP has fought that

2966 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 off for three years and we have fought it off for three years to show, to get those numbers in 1989 and 1990, to demonstrate the Tory-Liberal policies of labour-management relations will cost us production, will cost us misery and will cost us lost productivity and will cost our economy the opportunities that we need, and those are bottom lines. Let us get away from the rhetoric, let us just look at the bottom line.

There are statistics that companies and foreign countries use to evaluate a stable labour management relationship, and I can tell you what they are. It is days lost to strike and lockout, and it is numbers not just kept in Manitoba; it is numbers collected and maintained in Geneva by the ILO and used by corporations and countries right across the trading world. You are going to go down in those numbers, Mr. Speaker. You are going down as you vote, and go down with this Bill. You are going down-- An Honourable Member: We will take our chances. Mr. Doer: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I do not worry about you people, you 30 people taking your chances. I worry about the 600,000 families, the one million people. They do not like gambling with Tories taking chances. That is what bothers me. Mr. Speaker, is this just a labour-management issue? I wish some of the other Members were here today because some of them walked around in this Chamber with feminist buttons on their lapels the other day. I will not mention any names, but people were walking around with feminist buttons on and there is more to that issue, I would suggest, than just wearing a button on a day that is important.

There is pay equity in the private sector for women who make 68 cents on the dollar for men. That is a feminist issue; that is a feminist issue 365 days of the year, not just one day of the year. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the women's coalitions of Manitoba, over 30 women's organizations have asked this Legislature to keep final offer selection. They have asked us not to repeal final offer selection. The women's organizations of this province have evaluated final offer selection and they have-well, the Member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) says not all of them. You are right.

The Junior League did not take a position. The Junior League of Manitoba did not take a position, but it did not vote for the Government either. The Junior League abstained, even the Junior League abstained from taking a position. Thirty ou1t of 36 women's organizations took a position to support the maintenance of final offer selection, and only six organizations did not vote for it; they abstained. Not one organization, not one women's organization, not one organization representing women in this provinc&-and who are those organizations?

The YWCA, the Women's Coalition of Manitoba, the Equal Rights Coalition, there are women's shelter organizations, a number of other women's groups all across this province. The Indigenous Women--the Minister responsible for Native Affairs (Mr. Downey)-the aboriginal Indigenous Women's organization of Manitoba does not support the position this Minister is taking. They take the position, women's organizations take the position the New Democratic Party is taking. So it is nice to wear feminist buttons in this Chamber when you vote against women's organizations' recommendations.

It is nice, you know, every time, a certain day, to take a position, but when we look at women's poverty, when we look at the fact that they make 68 cents on the dollar to men, when we look at the reasons for the poverty in terms of collective bargaining, when we look at the fact that women are ghettoed in the service sector and many of them are not represented by unions, Mr. Speaker, then there is a lot more to wearing a button. We believe it Is fighting for women in the service sector 365 days of the year---365 days of the year. *

(1520) Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, this is an innovation and an experiment and what is the alternative experiment or innovation for the Conservative Party? What are they doing for the large number of people in the service sector or the communica tions sector where the old ways of dealing with things that work quite well and are still working quite well today, which we supported?What is the alternative? What is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) doing about it? What innovation is he bringing forward in this Chamber as an alternative to the innovation we brought forward? Has he got a better idea?

Has he got another innovation? Is he going to put his head in the sand and pretend that the society is not changing, the economy is not changing? Or is he under control like his predecessor and his

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2967 predecessor before him of the old-line promise to the old-line Chamber of Commerce by the old-line Parties? Because I think innovation is a fair challenge to this Government. If you have a better innovation, if you have a better idea, if you have a better way of keeping the days to strike and lockout, if you have a better way of keeping the strikes and lockout days down, bring it forward. You are bringing in something that will have the strikes and lockout days go up. You know that. Well, we will have a way to evaluate that, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister shakes his head, but he knows I am right. I hope he is right; I hope I am wrong. I will stand up a year from now and apologize; I will publicly apologize if the days lost to strike and lockout in '91 are less then -(interjection) Do not qualify it. Do not start qualifying it. We do not treat private sector workers differently than public sector workers. That is the difference again. We do not have to pass resolutions at our convention beating up nurses. That is the difference between us and the Tory Party. You go ahead. You beat up the nurses.

We will stand with the nurses for fair wages and working conditions. That is what we will do. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) We will not stand at our convention and dump all over the nurses of this province. Big brave Tories, right? They cannot stand up to Brian Mulroney for RCMP. They cannot stand up to Brian Mulroney on the CBC. They cannot stand up for medicare, but when it comes to nurses, oh, they are a real tough group of people. Oh, we are really going to show them there, Mr. Acting Speaker. -(interjection)- That is right.

When it comes to dealing-Well I do not blame you for being sensitive. I would not be very proud of that resolution with the nurses either. When it comes to dealing with casino workers, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is going to shut them down. When it comes to dealing with Brian Mulroney, he will not even pick up the phone. Real tough Government, right? Some Honourable Members: Oh, ohl The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order please; order please. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Acting Speaker, it is always nice to engage in a little bit of an ideological and philosophical debate with the Members opposite and we enjoy that, but as I say -(interjection)- Well, that is right. That is why I suggest to the Member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) and all Members if you have read the budget, your own budget, you will see in the appendix a number for 1989 of days lost from strike and lockout. It is a number by the way that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Ernst) takes to every country when he is talking about investment in Manitoba.

An Honourable Member: He even told the Pope, I am told. He even brought it up there in the audience he had. Mr. Doer: Listen, as a former resident or participant of St. Paul's, I will not touch the statement from my colleague. As a person who was taught by the Jesuits for a few years, I do not dare say anything in the opposite. Even the Pope, Mr. Acting Speaker, came to the shores of this country, calling on Canada to support the ILO resolution for fairer labour relations. Even the Pope would believe in innovation. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr.

Ernst) goes across the world talking-- An Honourable Member: Tourism. Mr. Doer: Tourism, well, whatever it is. I should not say Tourism because the way Tourism is going down in this province, Mr. Acting Speaker, you do not want to be responsible for Tourism with the shoddy record that has happened lately. -(interjection)- Well, it is a little, old technique I learned from the former Member of Interlake, Billy Uruski. We know that the Conservatives are ideologically bent on removing this clause.

So then we go to the Liberals who do not have any ideology, and we ask the Liberals, who have had no beliefs at all, have no idea where they are going to go from one day to the next, to please read the Government's own budget. Please look at the facts. We know the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) was out on a limb last year, Mr. Acting Speaker. We know the Member for St. James was out there talking like-I mean I remember the Minister of Labour being quiet in the cross-examination of witnesses before final offer selection and the Member for St.

James was cross-examining line workers as if they were hostile witnesses. He took line workers from all across this province and treated it in a way that I have never seen in a public debate, in a public hearing. He was

2968 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 badgering them. He was harassing them. He was trying to intimidate them in a committee, Mr. Acting Speaker, something that most Members of this Legislature do not do. At the same time that was happening, the former Member for St. Vital was out meeting with the labour groups trying to cut a deal, Mr. Acting Speaker, out going to them saying, we are really pro-labour too, and he was saying, I can deliver this Liberal Caucus. H you do not criticize us too much, I can get the Liberals to change their minds. So here is the Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) out there talking, you know, harassing and haranguing workers and there-part of the Liberal Caucus had a saw and was just sawing away while the Member for St. James was way out there on the branch. Mr. Acting Speaker, we thought this time around, they do not have that going on. They do not have, you know we do not have any two little groups going off In different directions again so -(interjection) Well, I do not want to say that because it is unparliamentary, but we thought today that we gave the Liberals a perfect way out of their dilemma. They do not have any ideology. They do not have any belief.

They do not know where they stand and we thought we gave them a good opportunity today. At least stand up for those people in the recession, a six-month hoist, get us past the GST. They say they care about the GST. Get us past the recession. Get us past the savagery of the high interest rates. Get us past the savagery of the dollar. Get us past the 7,000 people who were unemploymed last month compared to a month before. Get us past that period of time so at least when they do repeal it with the Tories, we can have hopefully the economy a little bit back on its feet.

But the Liberals voted with their ideological cousins, the Conservative Party, Mr. Acting Speaker, just the same way they promised to the Chamber of Commerce to give tax breaks to corporations over three years. They are front and centre with the corporate branch, right with the Tories again with the hoist. So this is a sad time for New Democrats because we have fought for three years to keep this Bill and we have shown that it works. We have shown that this Bill works and for that our caucus is very proud because when we go into the next provincial election, whenever that will be- An Honourable Member: Oh, 1999.

Mr. Doer: De> not be so sure, Mr. Acting Speaker. When we go to the next provincial election, we will know how well the Tory-Liberal labour relations envi ronment worked and how well the New Democratic environment worked. We will know how well the people's agenda worked and we will know how well the Liberal-Tory corporate agenda worked. We will be able to propose a people's labour management relations Act and we will let the Tories sit with the <:orporate labour relations Act. That I pledge you, Mr. Acting Speaker. Thank you very much. •

(1530) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): The Honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) to close debate. Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr. Acting Speaker, I must admit to this House I quite enjoyed the speeches of the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) this afternoon in this Chamber. It is always nice to hear windy rhetoric bounce around from corner to corner.

I say that because time and time again when we in this House, in this Party and the Liberal Party, members of the public listen to debate and arguments made by the New Democratic Party, they tend to couch their arguments over and over again in the people's agenda, or on the people's agenda and that they are working for working families and they couch their policies and their claims over and over again in those terms, trying, I think and I would submit to this House, to fool the people of Manitoba because time and time again what we see is the people's agenda in terms of the people of this province, they are not on that agenda.

We have seen it time and time again when they are in power; that the greatest problem facing this province today is the $500 million deficits they ran year after yeEtr while in power. Mr. Acting Speaker, one of my first experiences in politics was sitting in that loge as Premier of the Youth Parliament between a Howard Pawley and a newly elected Member for Morris in 1981, the days before I had decided to become a Conservative, the days when I was still trying to make up my mind as to where I wanted to go to politically.

I remember my MLA, Howard Pawley, and the Member for Morris, discussing the province, the Member for Selkirk, the Premier, the newly elected

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2969 Premier, talking about the need for Governments to spend in times of recession, which we were in, to stimulate the economy. The Member for Selkirk acknowledged when times were good that was the time to pull some money out, to put it away, but did that happen? Did that happen when our economy took a run? Not at all. The spending spree continued until today, which is 10 years ago today, this province was paying $59 million, $60 million a year in interest. We are now paying $550 million a year in interest, like a cancer growing in our provincial budget.

Who suffers, but the people of Manitoba. Who suffers? The very people ultimately that Party says it represents. Mr. Acting Speaker, one day very soon Members opposite will have to come to grips with that problem. I am sure when they do, that their rhetoric will change greatly, when they realize the true problems facing the people of this province. We have listened in the course of this debate to comment after comment by Members of the New Democratic Party that FOS works; that it is the great miracle to labour relations in this province. They point to statistics, they point to the cases.

I dealt with those in my speech. They quite frankly say very little. The vast majority of the cases where applications were made with FOS-two observations. One was they were made long before in the first window before a contract had even expired, before serious bargaining had even begun. In some cases -(interjection)- and the Member says, prevention, another tool, but not one that necessarily had any effect. Mr. Acting Speaker, when you look at the result, those cases, the vast majority were settled before a selector either heard a case or made a decision.

Members say it worked, and they point to our labour relations climate, yes, it is a good one. It was a good one before FOS, generally speaking. It was a good one during, and it will continue to be a good one. It will continue to be a good one. Mr. Acting Speaker, I just would like to refer to Members opposite, to within the Department of Labour, the Conciliation and Mediation Branch without FOS has had an 85 percent success rate in settling disputes that it has been invited to become involved in. It does it without FOS. Mr.

Acting Speaker, so many of the cases or the examples of potential cases where FOS would be used have not materialized in reality, 70 percent of the applications coming from the two unions that demanded the legislation, most of those applications becoming even before the serious bargaining had begun. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) What does it mean? It does not mean very much at all, quite frankly. It does not mean much at all.

It certainly, to any strong analysis of those numbers, says very clearly, there is no conclusion that can be drawn, because the one thing none of us can do in this House is get into those negotiators' minds and know what happened and what made those negotiations come to conclusion. We can all have our suspicions one way or another, but we cannot truly know what happened in those situations. Now, Mr. Speaker, I listen to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) talk about principle, and how his party is principled. Well, what happened to his Party?

What happened to their principles on the issue of free collective bargaining? I listen to current Members of the New Democratic Party take this position, make speeches day after day in this House, and I suspect because it has been a Party position it became one to solve a problem in their relationship with the labour movement of the day when they were in Government. Now they defend it, of course, and one can appreciate the partisan concerns that are involved in it. What happened to free collective bargaining? Mr.

Speaker, anyone who says it is strengthened by this, certainly indicates that they do not know a lot about collective bargaining. In closing debate today I would like to go back to some first principles, and I know there are many former Members of the New Democratic Party, either deceased or pushed out of that Party over the years, who these Members may dismiss as old fashioned, as out of sync with the modern New Democratic Party. *

(1540) I want to go back to Russ Paulley just for a moment, because he said something to the 1976, I believe, Manitoba Federation of Labour and I would like to quote him again because I think it is important to realize where we are coming from on this, an important principle. Mr. Paulley said, and I quote: Our present Labour Relations Act-referring to the pre-FOS Act-is very largely founded on the principle that the parties themselves by their own efforts, actions and sense of responsibility should resolve their differences themselves. Perhaps some

2970 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 of you in the union movement disagree. I sympathize with a union which finds it lacks the strength to compel an employer to agree to its preferred terms of settlement, but there are great dangers in expecting legislation and Governments to deliver the goods. For one thing, Governments change.

For another, the kind of legislation having any real effect would substitute state controls for free collective bargaining, lead to the abolition or reduction of important freedoms in our society and introduce a regimented system of wages, prices, profits, and investment decisions. Finally, and I continue to quote the Honourable Russ Paulley, it would detract from the strength of the labour movement, the last thing I imagine the labour movement would want. Where are those principles today on free collective bargaining? -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker, the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) says no one is imposing.

Many times during the course of this debate Members opposite used as their defence of FOS the standard line that it prevents strike. I apologize for being a heckler. It is not my nature. I would ask them from this seat: Why would they not want equal compulsion for both employers and employees in the use of FOS if their objective is to prevent strike? You know what? That question has never been answered in the debate. In fact most Members thoroughly ignored my comments, and they have because quite frankly what they say when you take out what they want, is they want the cake and eat it too.

You want a strike, but if it is not the right decision to strike, if it turns out to be a mistake, you want a means to get out of it, but we do not want the employer to have the same means to prevent a strike. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment Members of the Liberal Party. I would like to compliment today my colleague, the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

When I listen to Members opposite in their debates, when I listen to their comments time and time again on other issues affecting working people and working families in Manitoba, what I see over and over again is a Party that refuses to recognize that we as legislators have a rule to maintain even balance, to not be the voice of specific interest groups in society, but to balance. When you go back to fundamental principle and you come back to free collective bargaining, FOS does not protect that principle of free collective bargaining.

I think it is important in our society when there are so many changes affecting our economy and people working in it, that free collective bargaining be protected as a fundamental principle. I do not think any Member opposite really, when they think about it, would like to get into a system where we are having forced settlement , and that is, in essence, what a selec·tion is. It is not even an arbitration. I feel very strongly on the principles that this Government has followed through on repealing this Bill. I think, Mr.

Speaker, it is the right thing to do, and one does not solve some of the problems that have been brought out. I acknowledge there are some problems there with simple fixes, and that is what this was when it was introduced in its day. Mr. Speaker, we have been through this debate many times. Tonight we will commence committee hearings , I would suspect. This issue has been before this Chamber many times, and I would just like one final time to put on this record that Members of this side of the House fully respect the position that Members of the New Democratic Party have taken.

We recognize that when they went to the polls in 1988 and 1986 and 1990, as part of their package of campaign commitments to the people of this province, the maintenance of FOS was one of those principles. For them today to vote to repeal FOS would be a betrayal of their electors, and I fully recognize that. Conversely , they should also respect the fact that Members of this Party went to the polls in 1986 and 1988 and 1990. We went to the people of Manitoba with the repeal of this particular measure as part of our package of policies and issue.

The people of Manitoba, despite whatever we say in this Chamber in this debate, despite whatever is said in the committee tonight, have decided on this issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is Bill 12, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? No, no. All those in favour please say aye. All those opposed will please say nay. In my opinion, the Ayes have it. Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Call in the Members. *

(1600) Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 12, The Labour Relations

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2971 Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Carr, Carstairs, Connery, Cummings, Dacquay, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay , Gau dry, Gil lesha mmer , Helwer, Lamou reux, Laurendeau, Manness, McAlp ine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Neufeld, Orchard, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey. NAYS Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Interlake), Evans (Brandon East), Friesen, Hickes, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman , Reid, Santos, Storie, Wasylycia-Leis, Wowchuk. Mr.

Clerk (Wllllam Remnant): Yeas 32, Nays 18. Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried. BILL 25-THE OMBUDSMAN AMENDMENT ACT Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme), Bill 25, The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur !'Ombudsman, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is quite simple. It is to allow the City of Winnipeg to purchase the services of the provincial Ombudsman. In principle, we are in favour of the City of Winnipeg moving as quickly as possible toward ombudsman services. This is a result of the Cherniack report which was instituted by our Government and which heard from many people across the city of Winnipeg and which heard many briefs in support of the City of Winnipeg's ombudsman Act.

Subsequently, the City of Winnipeg Act has been amended and by November, that is last month, the city was supposed to have put in place the principles of an ombudsman Act. .The ombudsman movement, Mr. Speaker, derives from Swedish practice and principles, and it enables citizens to have recourse and redress to some of the difficulties and obstacles that they encounter in the expanding bureaucracies of the 20th Cen tury.

It is at the civic level where bureauc racies are perhaps having the largest impact upon the lives of our fellow citizens, in housing, in welfare, in transit, in education, in gas, garbage facilities. These are the issues w hich concern people everyday and where they encounter extensive and growing bureaucracies. There is a need, Mr. Speaker, obviously for ombudsman services responsible for civic issues. I think the need is going to grow. As we look at the increase and the gap between rich and poor across this country, I think we are going to find the need for ombudsmen, the need for redress.

The need for assistance for people who have to deal with these kind of bureaucracies is going to increase dramatically. I just came, Mr. Speaker, from a meeting at St. Matthews Church where the workers there were telling us of the difficulties they have in feeding the people of that neighbourhood. They are equipped to feed on their own initiative 60 odd people a week, and they are finding that everyday there are 10 more people coming to their door who they cannot feed. That is just in one small community of the inner city of Winnipeg.

If you speak to the people at the food banks across the city and particularly at Christmastime when people are more willing to make known their needs, I think you will find that the gap between rich and poor or the increasing poverty in our city is becoming much, much more evident. •

(1610) The charitable clothing banks are growing. They are becoming, in fact, a feature of the seasonal life of Winnipeg. It is something which unfortunately people are growing accustomed to. This poverty, Mr. Speaker, results in violence. If you talk to teachers in the schools of Winnipeg as I did last week, you will find that teachers who have been teaching in inner city schools for the last 10 or 15 years are seeing a growing increase in the violence towards children.

Teachers speak of seeing the marks, the hands, the imprints of adults upon children, the result, I would submit, of the growing poverty and the taking out of people's frustrations and anger, not upon the bureaucrats, not upon the Government, but upon the helpless and particularly the children.

2972 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1990 The minimum wage, Mr. Speaker, has remained unchanged for many years. The social assistance rates have remained at very low levels. Mothers, as we saw in the newspapers a couple of weeks ago and in the various media reports upon poverty in the city of Winnipeg, are being forced to choose between feeding themselves or feeding their family, a choice that no one should have to make. Those people who are handicapped by race, by physical disability, are finding it even more difficult in the city of Winnipeg.

These are the people who are often the least equipped to find the extra resources, the extra energy, and in many cases, the courage to fight the bureaucrats, to get for themselves the assurance of justice that some of us take for granted. As we look at the Core Area Initiative, Mr. Speaker, we see that Winnipeg will, indeed, be a "Bleak House" over the next few years. The federal Government is walking away from the Core Area Agreement. It is difficult to see what role the province is going to play in this, sympathetic as we assume that they are.

The city may be willing, but how many dollars is it going to have to put into the kinds of programs that have supported core area people for the last few years and which have enabled some of them to break out of the systemic elements of poverty that they have faced? It is these people, Mr. Speaker, those people who have lost hope, who have no future opportunities, who will be affected and who will turn to ombudsmen for redress and for some assistance in making known their grievances. We agree that the need is there for an ombudsman in the City of Winnipeg. There is no doubt of that.

The city itself estimated in Its brief that several thousand submissions would be made during the first year of the City of Winnipeg's ombudsman presence. I think that is a conservative estimate. It was made at a time when perhaps the issues of poverty were not changing so dramatically as they are today. They estimated that many of these, 300 to 400, would result in written submissions to the ombudsman. That too indicates that there is, in the city's mind, a substantial need for an ombudsman.

I think if this Conservative Government proceeds with its election pledge to reduce the number of city councillors to 15, giving them larger constituencies than we have as MLAs, that too will result in an increasing number of constituent calls and an increase in the need for city councillors to act as ombudsmen themselves, as they have in the past. They are not going to be able to handle that load. Many of them cannot handle the load that they have now at certain times of the year. It is extremely difficult.

I think the impact upon a new ombudsman is going to be doubly felt if the Conservatives proceed with that reduction in the number of city councillors. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, does give the City of Winnipeg tha choice. In introducing the Bill, the Minister made a number of points which we may well see may be evaluated, and we may be able to agree with those in the end. The Minister suggested that it will be cheaper for the City of Winnipeg to have access to a provincial Ombudsman. Indeed, that may be the case in the beginning, that is quite possible.

Certainly, the case that he made for avoiding the duplication of forms, the duplication of systems, h; something that we would look favourably upon. More particularly, I think the fact that the provincial Ombudsman does provide bilingual services is something which is very much needed at City Hall. The opportunity to have access immediately to a bilingual ombudsman I think is one of the things that we can say in favour of this opportunity for the City of Winnipeg.

We would be willing to review these at the end of a number of years, to see if this is indeed the right way for the City of Winnipeg and the province to g10. There an3 other advantages I think, which perhaps the Minister-some of which he mentioned, some of which he did not. I think there is a perception on some people's part, in the City of Winnipeg, that an ombudsman who is more distant from the city, not appointed by the city, may be the right choice.

That in municipal Government, relationships perhaps are too close, have been very close for a long period of time, and that a more distant ombudsman may be the right way to go in the beginning. It is also true, as the Minister said when he introduced this Bill, that it will involve the administration of The Freedom of Information Act. The province has been garnering some experience in this area, and that experience might be useful to draw upon. The Minister also suggested that a centralized service would be important and would make the

December 12, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2973 ombudsman service immediately visible. I think that is something we would want to consider. In the initial period of this opportunity, that may be one of the effects that could be immediately useful to the citizens of Winnipeg. I think although we support the principle of an ombudsman for the City of Winnipeg, and we are anxious to make these services available as quickly as possible, we should pause for some other considerations. It will undoubtedly create a larger bureaucracy at the provincial level.

An ombudsman service is one of those where one would want to limit that kind of unnecessary expansion. When you go to an ombudsman what you are looking for is quick, easy, direct access. The very kinds of things which you might feel you have been denied before. Immediacy of a smaller bureaucracy is one advantage that the city might have looked at when it suggested that it be allowed to access the provincial Ombudsman. That is something you might want to balance with the immediate provision of French language services, and the cheaper availability of services and institutions right at the beginning of this pr

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-1-44
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 1st hansardpdf 44.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	114df617e3dd39af7062a5670f437568efbe5ec4

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