Manitoba Hansard — 8 February 1990 (Sitting 121, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-121

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, February 8, 1990. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions , may I direct Honourable Members ' attention to the gallery, where we have from the Prince Edward School forty-five Grade 6 students. They are under the direction of Gerald Curle . This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld) . On behalf of all Honourable Members , I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Deer Lodge Hospital Extended Care Beds Mr.

Guizar Cheema (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, all Manitobans are shocked that the patients at the Concordia Hospital are forced to lie in the corridors because of overcrowd ing. When the Member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) was the Health Critic, on November 5 of 1987, and I quote, he said, for many people , especially the seniors, the winte r is the season where illness catches up. With them, Mr. Speaker, they will slip on an icy street . Will they be lying in a hospital corridor with broken hips? Now that the Minister of Health has been a Minister for 20 months, he has the power to rectify this situation .

Can he tell us and answer his own questions today? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker , I certainly can. I have said this time and time again to my honourable friend, and I simply indicate it bears repeating . On May 9 of 1988 , when I was sworn in as Minister of Health, we had no capital construction approvals made for the past eight months , because the budget was frozen on construction of personal care home beds and health care facilities .

We removed the freeze, and in the last two capital budgets we have committed to construction a program which will add nearly 300 personal care home beds to the system . In addition to that there are 88 beds ready for service at Deer Lodge hospital as a result of federal funding for the capital redevelopment of Deer Lodge Centre . Those issues have been addressed in a very serious way and we have the relief at hand for some of the difficulties currently being experienced at a number of hospitals in the Province of Manitoba. •

(1335) Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speake r, blaming the previous administration , the problem is not going to go away. 5113 For the last 20 months this problem has been occurring at all hospitals, not only the Misericordia, at Seven Oaks, Concordia , Victoria Hospitals. They are suffering because of one action, that this Minister does not act when he has the report. Can the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) tell us, he had just said that he had 88 beds at Deer Lodge hospital , when will he finally open those beds so that patients can go where they belong and where they should be, not in the corridors of the hospitals? Mr.

Orchard: Mr. Speaker, as soon as I receive the advice as to-and I have waited patiently for this the most appropriate use of those 88 beds at Deer Lodge hospital , because they are available for service, the budget is there and in place to staff and to have them available for patien t service. I realize my honourable friend, the Liberal Health Critic (Mr. Cheema), and his Leader would have us move patients in there , and then if it is inappropriate use of the beds move those same patients out along with the staff that is hired. I choose with patience to wait.

I would like to have had that report and the recommendations on the most appropriate use of those beds at Deer Lodge two or three months ago, because we have had the budget and we are ready to act upon the proper advice . Health Care Facilities Overcrowding Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, on April 22, 1985, this Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) raised the issue , the single issue in this House because there was one patient waiting at Misericordia Hospital. How many patients have to wait-30, 40, 50 or a loss of life before he acts? This is totally unacceptable.

He is not only wasting taxpayers' dollars, he is putting at risk the life of a number of patients . Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): I can understand the weak applause over there for that question because as the Health Critic for the Liberal Party , presumably speaking on behalf of his Party, he might want to clarify with his Leader whether in fact 40 percent of the people , according to his Leader, are inappropriately in personal care homes today and should be removed.

If we followed her policy , we would instantly be able to find a bed for every single person in an acute care hospital, including the corridors , but what would be do with those 40 percent Manitobans that she says do not need to be there and do not need the care they are receiving?

Thursday, February 8, 1990 Health Care Funding Mismanagement Mr. Guizar Cheema (Ki ldonan): Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the same Minister. Manitoba is spending $1. 5 billion, and that is about $1 ,500 per person in Manitoba. Twenty-five percent of the Winnipeg hospitals are occupied by the chronic care patients, and they do not belong there. That is a very costly and very inefficient way of providing health care. Can the Min ister of Health tell us today precisely how much he and his administration is wasting taxpayers' dollars? It is a complete mismanagement of very scarce tax dollars. Hon .

Donald Orchard (Mi n ister of Hea lt h): Mr. Speaker, the applause is getting weaker over there . Surely my honour able friend, the Liberal Health Critic and a physician practising medicine in this province, is not wanting to tell us that should those panelled patients in acute care beds for which provision has been made for at least a decade and beds have been used for that purp ose for at least a decade, is not suggesting that if you had those patients in pe rsonal care homes that the beds would be empty in those acute care hospitals, hence not incurring costs.

If my honourable friend believes that, then he is living in a never-never land. There is no money being wasted by having those patients in those hospitals. That is an appropriate place to have them in the interim peri od before placement in a personal care home. Does my honourable friend want to have them live on the streets? Out-Patient Services Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildona n): Mr. Speaker, to keep the patients waiting in corridors and in the emergency room is a very poor way of providing health care. It is very risky and very expensive.

Will the Minister of Health today outline his plans for out-patient surgical clinics which will provide quality care at low cost so that we can ease the shortage of these beds? Hon. Donald Orchard (Mi nist er of Health): I can understand the applause for that because obviously the Liberal Party is applauding the Capital Program wherein $18 million were committed for ambulatory care at the Health Sciences Centre, an initiative undertaken by this Govern ment to provide that very kind of service.

I appreciate the support for it from the Liberal back bench, who understand the direction of this Government on ambulatory care. In addition, a number of hospitals in this province, both in and outside of the City of Winnipeg, are daily taking on outpatient surgical procedures instead of committing the patient to in-hospital care. That has been very positive, and that is why today we are doing more procedures rather than less under the increased funding of this Government. * (1 340) Health Care Extended Care Bed Report Mr.

Guizar Cheema (Kildonan): Finally, for the Ministe r who only reads the headlines, last week he said that he did not read the report on extended care facilities. Can he tell us today whether he has read the report so that he can make at least one intelligent decision in this House? Hon. Donald Orchard (M in ister of Healt h): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why I am hoping the Steering Committee of the Health Advisory Network will provide to me, in the final version, an intelligent report.

I am not sure it was so intelligent that my honoura ble friends in the Liberal Party adopted an interim report without any considera tion of cost, by cutting out Concordia Hospital from construction. We certainly do not accept that interim report until we receive a final report to provide those kind of recommendations. My honoura ble fr iends, the Libera ls, might want to .i reconsider their wholesale acceptance of an interim 'll report without any analysis of cost benefit to the system. ***** Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Kildonan, on a point of order. Mr. Cheema: The Min iste r of Health (Mr.

Orchard) has put something on the record which is not right. We never said that Concordia- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Or der, please; order, please. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. The Honourable Member for Concordia. Health Care Facilities Overcrowding Mr. Gary Doer (l eader of the Second Opposition): I was in Ar borg and saw it on television, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Premier (Mr. Fi lmon). We have just received confirmation today, in answer to the Member for Kildonan (Mr. Cheema), from the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard). that he had hoped to receive this report two or three months ago in terms of the Health Advisory Task Force. Given the fact that the Minister took some seven months to establish that task force, he is now accepting the responsibility that we believe he has had all along for these hospital beds that are open, not being filled, and the hospital halls being full of patients. My question is to the Premier (Mr. Fi lmon). Has he met with the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)?

Has he reviewed the fact that we have a state of chaos and cr isis in our health care system now, where patients are in the hallways of Misericordia, Concordia? I was at the hospital of Concordia last week, there were patients again in the hallway. At the same time there 5114

Thursday, February 8, 1990 are 85 empty beds in Deer Lodge hospital. Has he met with his Minister of Health to go over that obvious void in our health care system? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I might indicate that there is ample evidence of the fact that people were on stretchers in hallways when the New Democrats were in Govern ment. For six and one- half years there were people backed up on stretchers in hallways. What did they do?

They froze the capital budget so that no beds could be constructed, no hospitals or personal care homes could be expanded, and nothing would be done about the situation for a peri od of at least eight months while they were in Govern ment. That kind of irresponsible action has led to the problems that we face today. There is no question that we have to overcome those problems. That is why we appointed the Health Care Advisory Networ k, Mr. Speaker.

That is why that network is coming up with a plan and a proposal to overcome the problems, those chaotic problems that were left to us as a result of six and one-half years of neglect by the New Democrats. Deer lodge Hospital Extended Care Beds Mr. Gary Doer (l eader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this situation with nurses today, last week and the week before. The people on the front lines of the health care system say the situation has continued to deteriorate.

There are task forces, there are committees, there are advisory councils, there is a so-called major group in terms of the health care system. The bottom line is, there are 85 empty beds. There are people with similar problems in hallways and observation rooms in hospitals. My question to the Premier is: will he now overr ule his Min iste r of Health (Mr. Orchard) and meet the immediate need of filling those beds at Deer Lodge hospital with the patients who are now in the hallways who need extended care? The beds are there, the facilities are built and the patients are in the hallways.

Will he overrule his Minister of Health and take some action? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, there are indeed problems in health care. There is indeed a major, major need to fulfil! the needs that grew as a result of the New Democrats' decision to freeze capital spending in health care. As a result, this administration this year has tabled what has been termed the most ambitious capital health care expenditure program in the province's history to address those problems that were created and left to back up and build up under the New Democrats.

That is the answer to the problem, to spend the money on capital works to fill the need that is there, and that is what we are doing. * (13 45) Mr. Doer: The Premier keeps mentioning the old first envelope, and of course in the first envelope there are 85 beds that are built, left to his Govern ment. 5115 My question to the Premier is: in light of the fact now that we have, for the first time ever, hallway nurses now assigned because of the numbers of people in the hallway, and it is much hig her than befor e, Mr.

Speaker- that is what the people on the front lines are saying-will he overrule his Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and take direct action now with our 85 empty beds that are built? Secondly, will he put members of the nurses' union on the Health Advisory Task Force? They are meeting with emerg ency nurses every day now, and they say the situation has deter iorated beyond belief and action is necessar y today, not when some subcommittee of a subcommittee of a major committee reports eventually to the Min iste r of Health. Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speaker, the Health Advisory Network is a broadly based -(interjection)-the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) continues to chirp away. If he wants to answer the question for his Leader, let him answer the question directly. Deer Lodge Hospital Extended Care Beds Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Thank you, I would ask the Premier again to do a number of things. One is to overrule his Health Min iste r (Mr. Orchard) and immediately move on the beds. The Health Min iste r took seven months to establish the Health Advisory Task Force.

While he fumbled around with this thing, the whole health care situation deteriorated. I would ask him to overrule his health care Minister. I would ask him in terms of opening those beds that are obviously needed-the patients are in the hall. Secondly, would he put a member of the nurses union on the Health Advisory Task Force? Thirdly, would he directly look at the Thompson situation, a situation which we tabled in this House in September? Again we have a situation where people in intensive care may be sent down to the City of Winnipeg.

Will he take that action over and above his Minister of Health who is fumbling around in this portfolio? Hon. Donald Orchard (M inist er of Hea lth): Mr. Speaker, with all the respect I can muster for my honourable friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer), if my honoura ble friend wants to talk about fumbling in health care, he ought to have taken more time examining the record of the Govern ment he sat in. That was a fumbled record in health care that led us to challenges that not even the wisdom of the Liberal Party can solve.

My honourable friend has instant solutions today in Opp osition, but he was part of a Cabine t that delibera tely and maliciously fr oze the capital construction budget by denying access of Manitobans to new constructed beds, not only in acute care hospitals but indeed in the personal care home field. Mr. Speaker, in the last two capital budgets we have committed to the citizens of Manitoba the addition of near ly 300 personal care home beds for the service of

Thursday, February 8, 1990 Manitobans, in addition to those presently ready for service at Deer Lodge Centre. That will add considerably to the relief of the system- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Red River Community College Racism Complaint Mrs . Iva Yeo (St urgeon Cree k): Mr. Speak er, - (interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. Mrs. Yeo: As a result of the questions asked last week regarding allegations at Red River Community College, my office has been besieged with phone calls and letters expressing a variety of concerns.

These comments, ge nerated from the questions asked last week, demonstrate that the malaise at the Red Riv er Community College is even greater than we had anticipated. I know the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) has received copies of some of this correspondence. Has he instructed Members of his staff to evaluate and review all of the concerns that have been in front of him regarding Red River Community College? Hon. Len De rkach (M inist er of Educat ion and Training): Mr.

Speaker, any concern that comes to my attention regarding Red River Community College, or any of the community colleges, or indeed any of the areas that we have responsibility over, are investigated immediately as thoroughly as we possibly can. • (1 350) Governance Committee Mrs. Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): Will the Min ister of Education (Mr.

Derkach) tell the House that the advisory committee established to study governance of the Manitoba Community College, established on June 26, 19 89 and instructed to report in early fall, be involved with the reviewing not only of the formal complaint but also of the motivating factors behind the accusation? Hon. Le n Derkach (M inister of Education and Training): Mr. Sp ea ker, the college governance committee that was struck to look at the community college governance issue has nothing to do with compl aints that come in with regard to specific situations from any of the colleges.

That committee was struck to look at the best possible model that could be developed for college governance in this province. That was their mandate and they have reported to me as Min ister. Racism Complaint Procedure Mrs . Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): Is it not through the Civil Service Commission that the responsibility lies to investigate allegations against senior management? Is this going to be the commission that will ultimately be responsible to evaluate the formal complaint that was issued in December at Red River Community College? Hon . Len De rkach (Mi ni ster of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, I can assure the Member opposite that when a complaint is received by my office, that is certainly checked through the Civil Service Commission and through the system. Indeed, proper procedure is followed once those kinds of checks are in place. We proceed according to the rules and regulations that have been set down. Simplot Plant Competition Mr. Laurie Evans (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Ernst).

It relates today to the confirmation that finally Cargill and the Saskatchewan Government have finalized the agreement to build a fertilizer plant at Belle Plaine, Saskatchewan. Now that plant will have approximately five times the capacity of the Simplot plant in Brandon. Can the Minister indicate whether any impact studies have been done to determine how much of an impact this will have on the operation of Simplot when that plant at Belle Plaine comes into operation? Hon. Jim Ernst (Mi nist er of Indu stry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.

Speaker, the impact of a new plant in Saska tchewan jointly fu nded by Car gill and the Saskatchewan Government is indeed a serious matter. Simplot has recognized that for some time. We have had a number of ongoing discussions with Simplot over what impact that will have on their plant and what they need to do to become competitive in the situation that will exist once that new plant is completed. Production Statistics Mr. Laurie Evans (Fort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, the Simplot plant, depending on how you calculate it, has something like 435 people that are involved either directly in the plant or in the distribution and so on. Can the Min ister indicate what percentage of the production from Simplot actually is shipped into the western provinces at the present time? Hon. Jim Emst (Min ister of Trade, lm:lustry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I do not have the specific details of the individual question that the Member has asked.

However, I think he is quite correct in saying that there are about 200-plus employees working directly in the plant, and I believe another number, perhaps it is 200, operating in the shipping and transportation of the product to its various markets. Upgrading Mr. Laurie Evans (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, the Minister has confirmed that there has been some discussion going on with Simp lot. We have confirmed 5116

Thursday, February 8, 1990 this morning with the spokesperson from Simplot that it will be essential that there be at least upgrading of their fa cilities in order to permit them to remain competitive. It may be necessary to expand in order to be able to compete effectively with Cargill. Can the Min ister tell us how far the negotiations have gone? Has there been any date set as to when this improvement and up grading of that plant in Brandon will commence? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Trade, Industry and Tourism): Mr.

Speaker, I believe Simplot some time ago announced their intention to carry out an upgrade and modernization of their plant. I cannot, in front of the House, at this point outline sensitive negotiations that are going on with respect to Simplot, other than to say that we are in negotiations with them. Goods and Services Tax Ap plication � Mr. Jim Ma loway (Elm wood): Mr. Sp eak er, my question is to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). Yesterday the Min ister of Finance, in response to a question in this House, indicated that his staff were meeting with federal officials to discuss the collection of the GST.

Now Metropol Security, a national central alarm monitoring company, has been precollecting the 7 percent GST on contracts that expire in 1991 and for the portion of the contract that applies to 19 91. Why is the tax being collected before the Bill is passed in the House of Commons? Has the Finance Mini ster changed his mind about helping to collect the GST? * (13 55) Hon. Clayton Manness (M inister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, I had almost asked you to rule that question out of order because indeed I am not responsible for the GST and not responsible for the implementation � of that tax. • I too read with some interest today the

article in the paper. I too watched last night with some interest the coverage given to this issue. I will look into it to try and find out the legalities by which the federal Government seems to be providing to some business people the belief that they can apply that tax for 1991 at this point in time. Interest Payments Mr.

Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Since the tax will not be remitted to the Government until Janu ary of 19 91 and could add up to a large sum in some cases, what guarantees do individuals and small businesses have that the tax collected will be paid back with interest if the GST Bill does not pass, or has been delayed? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member's question is dealing with a hypothetical matter and, therefore, is out of order. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. 5117 Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr.

Speaker, with a question to the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme). Yesterday- ***** Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Thompson, on a point of order. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House leader): I believe the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) only asked two questions, and there was a fair amount of noise over there. I believe the Member for El mwood was trying to make out your ruling on his question and would still normally have one more supplementary. I would like to ask if there is leave on the part of the House to ask his third question. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr.

Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I had recognized the Honourable Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) for his two questions, and the Honourable Member for Elmwood did not respond for a third question. I did not see the Honourable Member stand. An Honourable Member: Yes, he did. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member- okay, we wm recognize the Honourable Member for Elmwood. Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I have to be careful not to listen to the Health Min ister, the advice that he gives me. Manitoba Collection Statistics Mr.

Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My final supplementary to the same Minister is, given that the Winnipeg Jets will be charging the GST on season's tickets which must be paid by August 1 of this year, the GST will apply to the 22 games in 19 91, how many Manitoba firms are already collecting the GST? POINT OF ORDER Hon. James Mccrae (Government House leader): I think the Honourable Member might have done well to listen to the Min ister of Health (Mr. Orchard).

The Honourable Member has to learn that some questions are beyond the administrative capacity of Min isters of this place, and he ought to put his questions to the appr opriate place. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Honourable Government House Leader. The Honourable Member is quite correct. The Honourable Member's question deals with a matter which is not within the responsibility

Thursday, February 8, 1990 of the Government and, therefore, is out of order. The Honourable Member, would you like to rephrase your question? The Honourable Mem ber for Elmwood. ***** Mr. Maloway: I will rephrase the question then. It was very clear that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) was able to answer questions yesterday that related to the GST, and they seemed to be very sensitive on the issue here trying to avoid the whole question. The fact of the matter is that we would like to know whether the Minister of Finance or his officials- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

The Honourable Government House Leader. POINT OF ORDER Hon. James Mccrae (Government House leader): Mr. Speaker, this Honourable Member has no interest in obeying the Rules of this House when it comes to putting questions. He has shown us throughout this Session that he has nothing but disdain for the Rules. I suggest he not be seen for any further questions. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Thompson, on the same point of order. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House leader): Mr.

Speake r, it is highly impr oper for a Mem ber, especially the Government House Leader, to rise on a point of order and make accusations which in and of themselves are unparliamentary. Not only would I ask you rule that point of order out of order, I would ask that the Government House Leader withdraw those unfair comments about the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the Honourable Member for Thompson, he does not have a point of order. On the point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader, he is quite correct. ***** Mr.

Speaker: The Honourable Member for Elmwood, would you kindly put your question now, please. Hon. Donald Orchard (Mi nister of Health): Come on, yo-yo. Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance, I- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. I would ask the Honourable Mini ster of Health (Mr. Orchard) to withdraw those remarks. The Honourable Minister is quite aware- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. He is quite aware that we refer to all Honourable Members as Honourable Members. The Honourable Minister of Health. Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the confusion over whether the Honourable Member should stand up or sit down and was bouncing up and down, I withdraw calling him yo-yo. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Honourable Mi nister of He alth. The Ho nourable Memb er for Elmwood. * (14 00) Joint Collection System Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood ): Mr. Sp eake r, my question was to the Min ister of Finance. I wanted to know whether he or his officials have worked out a plan with the federal Department of Finance to devise a method to collect the GST in this province, because it seems to me that we have a very confusing- Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. The Honourable Minister of Finance. Hon. Clayton Mann ess (Mi nister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the answer categorically is no. Standing Committees Forks Renewal Corporation Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme). At a meeting yesterday in front of Executive Policy Committee, representatives of The Forks Renewal Corporation told city politicians that they were out of money and that they were about to borrow $2.5 million.

This seems like an opportune time to invite the president and chief executive officer of The Forks Renewal Corporation to appear in front of a legislative committee of this House to talk about their future plans and their past activities. Will the Mini ster of Urban Affairs invite them? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Mi nister of Urban Affairs): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I do not have that authority. To the Member across the way, there was a meeting of the EPC to gather information. It was a very, very thorough type of meeting.

I would like this time though to invite the Member maybe to participate on April 17 at the open meetings. They have carried these meetings annually. I wish him to attend that meeting and maybe he could ask his questions at that particular meeting on April 17. Mr. James Carr (f ort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, The Forks Renewal Corporation has signed a letter of intent with the developer to convert a heritage building into a hotel. Will the Min ister of Urban Affairs tell us what provisions have been made to provide parking for the residents or tenants or guests of the 80-room hotel? 5118

Thursday, February 8, 1990 Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as the Member should be quite aware, it is a letter of intent only. The Forks is carrying out the mandate which was set aside to them, and he knows very well of this particular project. As a matter of fact, I think I have some correspondence from the individual in regard to projects pertaining to those types of buildings. So they are within their mandate. I will get that information for the Member in regard to where that particular parking lot will be. There are many parking facilities around the project.

I will make sure I get that site for him on the ongoing results of that particular project. Mr. Carr: I thank the Mini ster for his answer. Place Promenade Vacancy Rate Mr. James Carr (F ort Rouge): I have one final supplemen tary question. Yesterday we asked the Minister a number of questions about the vacancy rate of Place Promenade. Can the Minister table in the House today any information which contradicts that information in a sworn affidavit that we presented yesterday? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Mi nister of Urban Affairs): First of all, as the Member knows, the shareholders met over the weekend.

I think the main concern was to protect the public interest and that money made to date. Mr. Speaker, not to have acted over the weekend would probably have meant a public auction. That would have triggered off many, many millions of public monies going down the drain. To the Member across the way, we have called in the Auditor to thoroughly investigate whatever has gone on at North of Portage. I am sure the Member from across the way will fully co-operate with the interview I know he either has had or will have with the Auditor. He can bring those questions forward then.

Trapping Industry Forest Fire Compensation Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): My question is for the Minister responsible for the Disaster Assistance Board. The Min ister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) on Tuesday, in answer to questions on trappers' compensation, said that the damaged equipment in cabins is already replaced for those trappers affected by the forest fire last summer. In view of the statement today by MKO that not one nickel has been paid out, would the Mini ster now tell us why he put out a news release in November claiming $1. 7 million had gone out? Hon.

Albert Driedger (M inister of Gov ernm ent Services): Mr. Speaker, let me first of all indicate my appreciation to the staff of the Manitoba Disaster Assistance Boards in the expeditious way in which they have dealt with the unfortunate situation in the North. They have made great efforts to try and deal with the situation. We are basically looking at compensation in three factors. One was the equipment, which is being paid out at the present time; the rebuilding of the trappers' cabins; and the compensation for clearing of trails is something we are developing right now.

We have an understanding with the trappers, and we have had many compliments in terms of the way it has been dealt to date. Forest Fires Public Inquiry Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): My supplementary question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. In a news release, the Government has scheduled meetings in various communities to meet with 60 community councils and organizations in 10 days.

Would the Minister tell us why he has scheduled less than four hours for Oxford House, Cross Lake, Norway House and God's Narrows to review the forest fire that caused the evacu ation of those communities and millions of dollars that were spent? I believe the Min ister indicated that we spent over $60 million. I believe the communities want to have a full consultation on those causes. Hon. Harry Enns (Mini ster of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and check with staff. If indeed additional time is required, I am sure that is possible.

I would assume the times allotted for the meetings are reasonably flexible. Public Inquiry Boycott Mr. Elija h Harper (Rup ertsl and): I have a supp lementary to the same Minister. The communities have expected the full inquiry into the forest fires, and they are being allocated in 10 days to have a full conduct of those inquiries. Will the Minister now cancel those meetings in light of the boycott that MKO is having with those meetings and launch a full-scale inquiry into the forest fires last summer as promised and also funding for programs and also for bands to investigate models for community based- Mr.

Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The question has been put. Hon. Harry Enns (Mini ster of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, in response to the Honourable Member, the simple answer is, no. What we are doing, because we are concerned that despite the fact that we, I believe, came through the fire situation reasonably well, we want to learn, and we want to talk to people who experienced the fires. I believe that we are keeping a commitment that we made to a number of individuals and communities during the course of the fires, that we would find time to sit down and meet with them, talk to their officials.

That is precisely what we are doing. It is not a situation of launching any inquiry into anything. 5119

Thursday, February 8, 1990 Library Closures Government Position Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkst er): ... from this Government's first throne speech, and it goes, my Government will take action on the pressing problem of illiteracy. A task force will be established to develop long-range strategies to address illiteracy needs of Mani tobans. Mr. Speaker, talk is very cheap. While the city is looking at closing two inner city libraries- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Kindly put your question now, please. Mr.

Lamoureux: My question is, the city is closing two city libraries and this Government has been completely silent on the issue. If the Government is serious about fighting- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Member for lnkster put his question now, please. Mr. Lamoureux: My qu estion is: why is the Government not sending a strong message to the City of Winnipeg if they are serious about fighting illiteracy in the Province of Manitoba? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The Honourable Min ister. Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Mini ster of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, we as a Government have a definite commi tment to impr oving literacy throughout the Province of Manitoba. The people within the City of Winnip eg have elected a City Council to represent their interests, their needs, and to set the budgets and the priorities for the City of Winnipeg. We contribute in a very positive way to libraries within the City of Winnipeg. The City Council has to make that decision on what their priorities are. * (1410 ) Library Closures Government Position Mr.

Speaker: The Honourable Member for lnkster, with a supplementary question. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr. Speaker, I asked the Min ister of Education (Mr. Derkach) a question regarding Educ ation. He does not want to be responsible. I asked a question about libraries, closing down libraries. This Minister does not want to be responsible- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Member for lnkster, with his supplementary question. Kindly put it now, please, because the time is scarce. Mr. Lamoureux: The Premier (Mr.

Filmon) wants the answer to this question, so I will direct the question to the Premier. Can the Premier tell us today what Min isters are going to be responsible for the departments that they represent? I ask a question regarding illiteracy- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The question has been put. Hon. Gary Filmon (P remi er): Mr. Speak er, this Government has made a firm commitment to stamping out illiteracy in our society in Mani toba. This Government established a task force on illiteracy that gave us a numb er of ini tiatives that we are implementing.

We fund the library system of the City of Winni peg through grants from Culture, Heritage and Recreation. We encourage the City of Winnipeg to work with us co-operatively, but all our best efforts are su bverted by all of those Liberal members of City Council who insist on making decisions to close libraries at a time when literacy is important. Why does- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Member for lnkster has time for a very short question. The Honourable Member for lnkster. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I have talked to Ernie Gilroy.

Ernie Gilroy wants those libraries to remain open. The question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon)- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Member for lnkster, with his question. illlr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want the library open. The Conservatives obviously do not want the libraries open. My question to the Premier is: does this Government support the closing of inner city libraries, yes or no? Mr. Filmon: Now we see the Liberal understanding of responsible Government.

Here is a city councillor, chairman of a standing committee of City Council, who is making the decision to close the councils and he says, I am powerless to do anything about it. He says, Kevin, come and help me, Kevin, I cannot do a thing about it. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. I would like to advise all Honourable Members that our viewing public is watching and that I have said in the past, decorum is of great importance.-(interjection)- Order, please.

Time for Oral Questions has expired. 5120

Thursday, February 8, 1990 ORDERS Of THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS Hon . James McCrae (Government House lea der): Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the Bills in the following order: Bill 31, and if Bill 31 should be passed today, Bills 35, 19, 84, 70, 47 to 52 inclusive, 57, 59 and 60.- (interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Thompson. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House le ader): I have a question for the House Leader on House business relating to- Mr. Speaker: Relating to committees, the Honourable Member for Thompson. Mr.

Ashton: We currently have at least 11 Bills which have been passed through second reading, including � Bills 42, 63, 64, 71, 73, 74, 77, 81, 82, 83 and 89. Cu rrently only three of those Bills are before a committee which has not been scheduled for another hearing. What I would like to ask the Government House Leader (Mr . Mc crae) is, if he intends to call the committees. We understand the presentations on 63 and 64 might take a day of committee hearings. That would probably move us into consideration clause by clause.

I would also like to ask whether the Government has considered, as we indicated earlier, calling 19, 35 and 84 today so we can get those Bills, which we have agreed to pass, before committee this afternoon. Mr. Mccrae: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, if Bill 31 is dealt with expeditiously this afternoon-as I understand it the Honourable Member's colleagues might spend up to an hour or so on the three Bills the Honourable Member is asking for. If Bill 31 is dealt with expeditiously, we will have time available for those other Bills. With regard to the committees, Mr. Speaker, if the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) would ask the Honourable Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) � to control himself during committee, we might make I' some progress. ***** Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, this is on a point of order. The Government House Leader just made accusations, once again, involving the Member for El mwood (Mr. Maloway), which are highly impr oper and are unparliamentary. Currently, what is happening at committee is that there are 18 members of the public who have yet to make presentations on Bills 63 and 64. I do not think it is appropriate for this Mi nister to make imputations of motive against the Member for Elmwood.

I think what he is doing when he does that is he insults members of the public who want to make presentations on- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. On the point of order raised, the Honourable Member is aware that it is a dispute over the facts and is not a point of order. 5121 DEBATE ON SECOND REA DINGS Bill NO. 31- TH E LABOUR RELATIONS AM ENDMENT ACT Mr. Sp eaker: On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Min ister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), Bill No. 31, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail. The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this Bill. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The House has made a decision yesterday that the Honourable Member for Rupertsland has lost his right to speak on second reading on Bill No. 31. POINT Of ORDER Mr. Harper: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland, on a point of order. Mr. Harper: Mr.

Speaker, I have been here long enough to realize that I may be given the opportunity to speak if it is the will of the House. I realize that I adjourned debate yesterday, but they do not realize- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. On the point of order raised by the Honour able Memb er for Rupertsland, does the House wish to reverse its previous decision that it made yesterday to allow the Honourable Member to speak today? ***** Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House le ader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Thompson, on a point of order. Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Speaker, the House made a decision yesterday, and we contested that decision. We are not saying that decision would not rest. We are asking for a sense of fairness here. All we are asking for is leave from Members of the Legislature to allow the Member for Rupertsland- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. I have asked the House whether or not there was leave. There has not been leave granted.

Thursday, February 8, 1990 ***** Ms . Maureen Hemphill (Logan): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate dealing with the repeal of a very progressive piece of labour legislation. I must say that we all regret the inability of my colleague to have an opportunity to speak on such an important issue. As he said, it could have done with good will and leave of the House.

We are very disappointed that they did not respect the fact that he represents a northern constituency and that he was there doing his job and that he would have liked to have had the opportunity to speak on this important Bill. Mr. Speaker, as I said, this Bill is dealing with a very progressive and important piece of legislation, one that is a part of a number of labour legislative Acts that have been passed that have given Man itobans some of the most progressive- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Member for Logan has the floor.

I am having great difficu lty in hearing the remarks of the Honourable Member for Logan. The Honourable Member for Logan. Ms. Hemphill: Mr. Speaker, I could not even hear myself think. Thank you very much. Mr.

Speaker, this Bill deals with a piece of legislation that has added to many of the cornerstones and pillars of labour legislation that have been brought forward in this province, that are giving us some of the I think best labour legislation, most pr ogressive labour legislation and the best labour legislative environment in our country, I think recognized by all people, that Manitoba enjoys some of the best labour relations environment in the whole country. That is not by accident.

That is because we have worked over a long period of time to bring together both labour and management to find ways to deal in a very constructive and positive manner with a very difficult job of resolving labour disputes and dealing with the very sensitive negotiations. (Mr. Neil Gaudry, Acting Sp eaker, in the Chair) Over the years we have developed a number of tools to help both labour and management that have led toward the very good climate that we enjoy. There are a number of tools that we have to assist with difficu lt negotiations.

We have collective bargaining, we have mediation, conciliation, arbitration, strikes and lockouts. All of those are tools we that presently enjoy. We know that it is the wish of everybody in this Chamber and everybody involved in negotiations to not have to move toward the extreme positions of resolving these issues through strikes and lockouts unless is absolutely necessary. Those tools are there if needed. Nobody wants to use them unless they absolutely have to, They are costly, they can cause difficu lties, and if you can resolve these issues with a constructive resolution we want to do that.

FOS, final offer selection, is just another tool. It is just another choice. It gives them a choice to work out these differences or get agreement without having to resort to strikes and lockouts. In fact this Bill as it exists now even allows them to get resolution of the negotiations after they have called a strike. There is no point in time when this cannot be used to bring the two parties together to get constructive, co-operative resolution, even if they are in the middle of a strike. It is not a perfect solution and it is not the only solution, but it is one solution. It has worked in other jurisdictions.

This is something that has been tried, even before we have had our last two years of personal direct experience in Manitoba. It has worked in other jurisdictions and it is working here. We believe that as we get more and more experience and people become more aware of the benefits of it that it will be used more and more to the benefit and the advantage that has been ga in ed from those settlements and agreements that have been successfully and co-operatively completed because they used the tool of final offer selection and did not have to go to either arbitration or strike or a lockout.

It is disappointing to see this Gove rnment's unwillingness to look at the facts you know and to look at the experience of the last two years. If they do not want to accept what has happened in other jurisdictions then they say they are not sure that will apply to Manitoba. They do not have to do that anymore, because we have a year and a half, a little more experience and many, many cases that have been brought forward and successfully resolved under final offer selection. * (1 420) Why will they not look at that experience when they are dealing with their position on this Bill?

Why do they not look at the success stories? Why do they not look at the individual cases? This seems to be one of those cases when they have an election promise that they feel bound to deliver on even in the face of information and statistics that demonstrates that it is not a good thing to do, that this Bill should be left, that this Bill is working and that letting it finish the period of time until it reaches the sunset clause that was built in for very good reason, that is to make sure the legislation would work, why they do not allow that to continue is really very, very difficult lo understand.

It looks very much like an ideological position where they are to their rhetoric and their position and most of all sticking to inaccurate assumptions that they have about offer selection, they before it was brought they had it in and have when have not changed their minds how they about final offer selection even though there is now a lot ol statistics and information that should be causing them to think twice before they make the decision to repeal this Bill. We believe that if they looked at that, at what really is happening, not what they are afraid is going to 5122

Thursday, February 8, 1990 happen, but what really is happening, if they looked at the statistics and information, I believe they would not be able to make the decision to repeal this piece of legislation. It is helping resolve differences, it is improving the reasonableness of the positions that are being put on the table by both sides and therefore making it possible to achieve a co-operative resolution. It is helping avoid strikes and lockouts.

In the face of that information, and I will be pointing out the very specific statistical information that, although all Members of the Government are not in here to get the bene fit of hearing these statistics and this information, I hope that they are going to really take this seriously and that they will read it and consider it. I am not sure they have seen this information. I am not sure they have been told what the statistics are telling us because I think if they had they would have a very difficult time continuing with the decision to repeal.

One of the statistics of course that is the most interesting to us looking at the issue of how well is final offer selection working, and is there any noticeable effect of the final offer selection option to negotiated settlements in the year and a half since it has been in place, the answer is a resounding yes. If we look at the annual work stoppages in Manitoba from 1973 to 1989 and you go back for a period of 17 years and you start with 19 73, you will see that the number of person days lost in 1973 to work stoppages in Manitoba was 12 2, 160 person days lost in 19 73. That is a lot of person days lost. (Mr.

Speaker in the Chair) If you look at other years as we go down, if you look at 1974 it was 143,000; 1975 it was 161 ,000. In 1981 it was 18 5,000. If we go on now to 19 87, we find that the number of person days lost were 76,268. In the year 19 88, there were 54, 17 8. The final offer selection was brought in, in 19 88, and we had some experience. We had a partial year to reap some of the benefits of this piece of legislation. There was a drop from 76,000 to 54,000 in that period of time, just having final offer selection in for a portion of the year. Mr.

Speaker, if we look at 19 89, which gives us statistics which is the first full year when final offer selection was in operation, the results are so staggering that one wonders if the Government, Members opposite, have heard this information. We have dropped, the number of person days lost, from 54, 178 to 2, 15 6. I mean, that is a staggering difference. In other words, in 1989 the number of person days lost was only just a little over 2,000 compared to many other years when the person days lost were in the hundreds of thousands.

It is a drop of 96 percent in the one year which is the first full year of our experience when final offer selection was in place. There were only seven work stoppages in that period of time. That is a figure that the Government should be paying a lot of attention to, because I think never before and certainly not in the last 17 years, in the history of Manitoba perhaps, has there been a figure like this 2, 15 6 person days lost that is in existence one and a half years after final offer selection has been an option for people to choose. If we look, Mr.

Speaker, at the person days lost to work stoppages by province in the same period of time from January to May 19 89, you will see that Manitoba is doing far better than every other province except Prince Edward Island which does not have very many person days lost because they have no employment. If you look at Newfoundland, they have 212, 000 person days lost; Nova Scotia, 8,000; New Brunswick, 14 ,000; Queb ec, 293 ,000; Ontario, 365,0 00; Saska tchewan, 10 ,000; Alberta, 40,000; British Columbia, 15 0,000; and the figure for Manitoba during this period of time is 700.

Seven hundred person days lost in Manitoba during this period of time when final offer selection is one of the tools that is allowing people to move toward a co-operative resolution and avoiding them being forced into settling their grievances through strikes and lockouts, and is clearly indicating that final offer selection is being used, that final offer selection is an option that many groups are choosing, and that it is working very, very well.

To demonstrate how well it is working, I want to point out a study that was made by Hugh Grant, of the Economics Department of the Un iversity of Winnip eg, who studied final offer selection when it had been in place for 20 months. I want to relate the experience after the 20-month period and then to look at the changing experience at the end of January 1990. During this period of time there were 42 applications requesting a vote of the union membership, and 36 of these 42 applications occurred during the first window. That is, 30 to 60 days prior to the expiration of a collective agreement.

Of the six applications made with a strike in progress, four have been made by employers. I think that is a very important point and I am going to repeat it, of the six applications made when a strike was in progress, four have been made by employers. I think there is a fair amount of information that demonstrates this is working, not just for unions, but this is working for employers too. It is not just the unions that win these agreements when they have to go to a final settlement, but the employers are also winning.

It is something that is not just working for one side and is not tipping the balance of power, but something that is working collectively for the system where both sides benefit and both sides may win the award in a particular time. * (14 30) One of the other really important things to realize with this experience of final offer selection activity is that a lot of the settlements are taking place after they have applied for final offer selection and prior to the ruling, sometimes even prior to the vote.

In this case, out of the 42 applications, 10 negotiated settlements were reached prior to a vote even being conducted by the labour board. Twenty-four of the 29 instances, where the membership opted to use FOS, they got settlements prior to the selector rendering a decision. It appears that just the act of applying for final offer selection has an effect on the bargaining process, has 5123

Thursday, February 8, 1990 an effect on how they bargain, has an effect on what they put on the table and the reasonableness of what they are putting on the table, and clearly has an effect on their ability to reach a resolution themselves. Even though they have applied for final offer selection they continue to negotiate, and may negotiate right up to and even in the middle of a strike, so that there is never a time when the opportunity is ruled out or never a time when it is not possible for them to get a co operative, joint agreement during this process which we think is a very, very valuable point.

In only five cases, was the complete FOS procedure utilized. You have 42 applications and 24 of them were successfully resolved before they even went to a vote, and only five out of those 29 cases required going to the selector completing his decision between the two options on the table. So I think it is very, very important to see the value of the process itself and the attitude by those who are bargaining at the bargaining table once they have applied for final offer selection. The studies, and looking at the specific cases, seem to be clearly showing that they app roached the bargaining in a very serious way.

They put information on the table that is backed up by statistics and information. They do not take the extreme positions that they may take outside of final offer selection, because they know that their last option may be the one that the selector has to give consideration to. They want it to be a fair offer that is on the table so when they are judging between the two of them they have a chance of winning the case. In the five selector awards today , it is also interesting to see that three were in favour of the union's final offer and two in favour of the employers.

So the fear mongering and the worry that this was going to be just for unions-and this was a tool that had the balance of power going on the one side and that the employer or the management were going to be at a distinct disadvantage-has not proven to be the case. Out of the five cases, three were in favour of the union's final offer and two in favour of the employers. It is really interesting to look at the issues in dispute and to look at the reason that these selectors gave for giving the awards either to the union or to the employer.

I am going to read into the record a few of these examples so that the Government and the people in the Chamber can see that they are very, very fair and reasonable. One of the cases where the employer won was with DOM Group, and it was over severance pay. This dispute cantered on one of the last two Dominion grocery stores in operation, the Dominion gr ocery store in Kildonan Place, which would be financially disastrous for Dom Group to close during a long-term lease running to 2010. The employer offered a 5 percent wage increase and severance pay of 10 weeks.

The union submitted seven proposals including a succession clause in the case of the sale of store, enha nced bene fits, 20 weeks severance pay , a retroactive 65 cents increase and a further 65 cents increase or roughly a 10 percent wage increase. In this case, the wage issue was secondary to the severance issue since both parties believed that the sale of the store was going to take place in the near future. Freedman went for the employer's claim.

He accepted the employer's claim that it was losing money, $200,000 per quarter since 19 86, and that the union had accepted wage concessions of $3 an hour over the last five years. That was evidence of the union's weak bargaining position and that an arbitrative settlement should reflect this reality. Does that sound like it is biased on the side of the union? Does that sound like that decision was unfair to that emp loyer? That was a very reasonable, very fair decision, and it was on behalf of the employer. Now, if you look at one where the union won, Vista Park Lodge is a very good example.

They were bargaining. All issues were resolved except the type of pension plan to be employed. Chapman ended up opting for the union's desire for a well established Canadian commercial workers industry pension plan rather than the employer's yet established money purchase pension plan. So that was a case where the union won, because Chapman said the plan that was in place, that was already demonstrated to be successfully working, was one they should be able to opt for other than one that did not even exist. There is another example where the employer won. It was the Town of St.

Clements' IUOE , where the issue was paid vacations and all issues were resolved except for vacation with pay. He found in favour of the employer once again, arguing that the union requested shorter qualifying periods and more generous benefits well in excess of pr evai ling standards in surrounding jurisdictions. Does that sound like it was just biased on the side of the union or that when the decision was made fair consideration was not given to the position of the employer? Of course not. It shows that final offer selection is working and it is working for both parties.

The party that wins is going to be determined by the reasonableness and the fairness of the position that is put on the table and that is up for consideration. That is why final offer selection is actually influencing the reasonableness of both parties at the table, because they know they are going to be judged by the offer that is on the table. They want to be seen to be reasonable and fair. They want their position to have a fair chance to win. They do not want to lose everything by being forced into arbitration. So this is really working.

While at this point he said it was impossible to draw any definitive conclusions and that inferences could be made, particularly in light of the issues raised during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations during the legislation's introduction, he was looking at what was said about what was going to happen with final offer selection and said, we have some experience that suggests to us that it is not happening. First of all it was flexible in permitting ongoing negotiations and most of the applications for majoring the first window.

That suggests that they are applying for final offer selection as an additional option in the event of a breakdown in negotiations. So they 5124

Thursday, February 8, 1990 are applying early in case negotiations breaks down so they have another option and another tool to try and get a co-operative agreement prior to going on to the other extreme options that face them. Now, even where the dispute was finally decided by the selector we have said that even where it goes to the selector-and that was just in five cases where they did not resolve it themselves-it is clear that the number of issues are reduced significantly.

Even out of the 72 cases to date only five of them have been determined by a selector and 49 have resolved themselves totally successfully by themselves. Where they have gone to the selector there have been fewer issues that required resolution. So the number of outstanding issues has been reduced significantly even in those cases that go on to be determined by the selector. It was also interesting to see that the employer that appealed for FOS was in four of the six instances where an application was made with a strike in progress.

That means when there was a strike in progress, four out of six times it was the employer that appealed for FOS as a resolution to the difficulties they were having, and as an option, and as a way out of getting out of the strike. It was the employers, not the union. So this is working once again for all sides. Both can app ly, both are winning.

It is just as often the employer that is wanting to use FOS where a strike is in progress and it clearly is not unbalancing or causing an imbalance to the existing balance that we have enjoyed for a number of years in Manitoba between labour and management that gives us such a positive labour relations environment that we enjoy here in Manitoba. The other interesting thing is that one of the things that concerned people about FOS was the possibility that things that had been given, large benefits, may be lost going through the FOS procedure. It is clear, for instance, in the decision rendered in the DOM Group.

It reinforces the fact that the arbitrated settlement reflects rather than pre-empts the relative bargaining power of the two parties. It is interesting that Martin Freedman cited Joseph M. Weiler in making his decision. He said about interest arbitration awards that they should as far as possible duplicate the results of free collective bargaining. An arbitrator should award something similar to what the parties would likely have agreed to in the normal bargaining context where work stoppages are available weapons to relieve a bargaining impasse.

So they have said there that the decisions that are made should be those that would have been made had they continued the bargaining themselves, and should be reflective of agreements that would have been reached had they made the arbitration or the decision themselves and not had somebody outside doing it. So I think it is clear that concern that was raised has not turned out to be the case. Since the union in this case-and they are so worried about the unions benefitting overly from this-had been forced to accept wage concessions of over $3 per hour in two previous agreements.

They argued with the selector that the selector should restore a sense of equity. In other words, that he should be giving them more money because they had received a small amount in the two previous collective agreements. For the selector, the wage roll backs were prima facie evidence of the weak bargaining position of the union. He decided that his decision should correspond to the results, which collective bargaining would have been expected to generate once again accepting the employer's argument that he was not to act as a labour relation Santa Claus, they found in favour of the employer's final offer.

Does that sound like a biased and unfair system to employers, or one that is biased on the side of the unions? It does not, and it is not Finally, he indicated that FOS, although it was argued that it would, does not interfere with the collective bargaining process and has not led to any unreasonable wage gains. This is a very important fac tor-in at least one instance, and it only needs one to make it valuable, it proved beneficial to a small bargaining unit facing an employer attempting to break the union.

Now in a case like that, if this small bargaining unit has an attempt by the employer to break their union and this is a tool that they can use-then this is a tool that they should continue to have the right to use, Mr. Speaker. * (14 40) I just want to quickly touch on the new statistics. I just want to touch on the statistics now up until Janua ry 30. I will just summarize them very quickly, because I think the point has already been made in the previous study. In 19 72, there were 72 applications, still only five selector decisions out of the 72; three in favour of the union and two in favour of the employer.

The important figure is that now there are 49 cases where they reached an agreement before either the vote or before the selector made his decision. Although 49 of them applied for final offer selection, during the process they came to an agreement themselves and did not have to get to the point where the selector ruled. In other words, it is clear that final offer selection encourages the collective bargaining process and does not impede it. It lets them get an agreement in place that they both are in agreement with.

At no stage in this process are they precluded from coming to an agreement, even when they have a strike in process. The suggestion that this is not democratic does not really fly. The unions can app ly, the companies can apply, members can reject a union application and they have. Members have rejected a union application and they have also rejected an employee application. It shows that really there is I think a lot of fairness on both sides.

When you look at the reasons the Government is giving for wanting to repeal this legislation, and it was in a news release with the then Labour Minister, Ed Connery, he was talking about that they had considered various options and that they had decided this was the best way to restore fairness to the collective bargaining process. These are the concerns that they have. 5125

Thursday, February 8, 1990 It says it is an all or nothing proposition that creates a winner and a loser. The studies that have taken place show that it does not create winners and losers. Somebody wins and somebody loses, but it is both sides that sometimes win and lose. It will eliminate unnecessary interference with the process of free collective bargaining. This is not interfering with free collective bargaining; it is enhancing it. That is very clear. It helps to avoid creating any divisions between the union and its membership.

In all, out of 29 cases I think in all but two cases the membership endorsed the request by the union for final offer selection. They may decide not to, but almost overwhelmingly they agree. The membership agrees with the union that they want to use final offer selection. It is not causing divisions between the union and its membership. To the last point, the role of Government is to make sure there is fairness and balance in the rules set out for the labour relations community. All we are asking is that they allow this as an option to be chosen when it is seen to be appropriate.

Of all the bargaining contracts that were bargained in that year-and-a-half period, only 72 chose to use final offer selection, but those 72 that chose it found that it was a very successful option. The bulk of them found, 49 out of the 72, they were able to get a resolution themselves. It clearly I think is helping the process. The mere fact that they have time lines in the bargaining, the people at the bargaining table say, has a serious effect on how they approach the bargaining.

The fact that they are going to be measured on the last offer that is on the table means that they are not going to the extremes and taking the extreme positions that they do when they are not in final offer selection. It is a tool that many want to use. One of the groups that want to use this is the Manitoba Me dical Associa tion, who wrote to the Government and indicated their very deep concern when they found out that they were planning to repeal this Bill.

They have said that they considered the arguments in the news release as a support of Bill No. 31 , and they can only conclude the Gover nment has not adequately considered what is in the public interest. They say that the suggestion that it is an all-or-nothing proposition that creates a winner and a loser, their question to the Government is, what do they think strikes do? Bitter strikes create winners and losers. Worst of all, it is the public who loses the most.

Moreover, bitter strikes breed hostility as well as animosity between the parties and destroys relationship as well as mutual commitment to civilized negotiation. One of the other pieces of information that came out in studying the present cases is to show that even although one side wins and one side loses, there is not animosity either at the time of negotiations or for future relationship and activities between the union and the employer when they go through the final offer selection process.

There is no indication at all that going through the process of final offer selection breeds hostility or animosity and destroys relationships. The opposite is true. The opposite seems to suggest that it increases their ability to collectively and jointly resolve their difficulties. Can Mr. Speaker tell me how much time I have? Mr. Speaker: About five minutes. Ms. Hemphill: Five. Okay. Mr. Speaker, actually I wish I had more time to talk about the benefits of this Bill because the criticisms that have been undertaken are clearly being shown not to be the reality. In another study by Mr. S.A.

Bellam written up in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal, he came up with four conclusions. These were: the pressure to appear reasonable in the eyes of the selection officer had a big effect on how they negotiated. They wanted to appear to be rea sonable. Both sides said they were strongly motivated to settle the agreement themselves because of personal satisfaction and to avoid the complete loss of arbitration. The time frames set out in advance prevented a stalemate. Both parties felt the necessity to justify their position with concrete financial data instead of just taking extreme positions and posturing.

A lot of the concerns that were raised before we had this personal experience have now been demonstrated not to be accurate. Mr. Speaker, final offer selection is working. Manitoba has by far the lowest number of days lost to work stoppages of any province except Prince Edward Island. Manitoba has reduced its own number of days lost by 94 percent from 54,000 to 2,000 in the first full year of operation of final offer selection. It is working because employers and employees are winning.

It is working because it clearly provides another option for negotiations prior to utilizing the extreme strike and lockout option. It encourages and facilitates settlements because the final offer that is put on the table, both sides want to put a reasonable position for the selector to judge. Even if they do not get an agreement it is clear that they are narrowing the number of issues that have to be considered. Even when there is not agreement, the final offer selection process is very helpful.

Most agreements, and this is the most important point I think, are concluded prior to the vote or the selector's decision. Forty-nine out of 72 make the decision themselves with no outside interference. It is working because the employers appealed for FOS in four out of the six instances where the application was made with a strike in progress. It is working because it helps small bargaining units facing an employer who is attempting to break the union and it is working because it has not lead to unreasonable wage gains. Mr.

Speaker, I want to appeal to the Government first of all to make a very responsible decision and not repeal this legislation, but leave it for the period of time until the sunset clause rides out at which time we will be able to clearly demonstrate its value. In the absence of that I ask the Liberals to reconsider their position in light of all the information that demonstrates that this is an option that should be available to people who are negotiating contracts. If they care about the workers, if they care about good, 5126

Thursday, February 8, 1990 healthy negotiating processes, if they care about trying to have options to avoid strikes and lockouts, they will support us in saying no to the Government's intention to repeal this legislation. Mr. Jay Cowan (Churchill): I move, seconded by the Member for Thompson, that debate be adjourned. * (14 50) Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan), seconded by the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that debate be adjourned. Agreed? No? No agreement. The Honourable Member for Thompson. ***** Mr.

Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House leader): Mr. Speaker, was there a recorded voice vote on that, because if there is I- Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the Nays have it. The Honourable Member for Thompson. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I would call for Yeas and Nays. Mr. Speaker: Call in the Members. Order, please. The question before the House, on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr.

Cowan), that debate be adjourned on the motion for second reading of Bill No. 31. All those in favour of the motion will please rise. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEA S Ashton, Cowan, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Harapiak, Harper, Hemphill, Maloway, Storie, Wasylycia Leis. NAYS Angus, Burrell, Carr, Cheema, Chornopyski, Connery, Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger (E merson), Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Evans (Fort Garry), Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Hammond, Helw er, Kozak, Lamoureux, Mccrae, Mi tchelson, Neuf eld, Oleson, Orchard, Pankratz, Patterson, Penner, Praznik, Yeo. Mr.

Clerk {William Remnant): Yeas, 10; Nays, 31. Mr. Speaker: The motion has been defeated. 5127 ***** Mr. Cowan: Mr. Speaker, as I have informed you previous to my entering into the debate, I have my Leader's designation for unlimited time on this Bill. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. POINT OF ORDER Hon. James Mccrae (Government House leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe if you consider the matter you would probably agree with me that the designation about which the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr.

Cowan) speaks is a designation that needs to be made before the Leader of the Party speaks. I see you shaking your head, Mr. Speaker, but I think that the Rules and the precedence and the way we do things have it that a Party Leader having spoken cannot then designate somebody else to speak for an unlimited time. In any event, I think it should be recognized just what it is that Honourable Members in the New Democratic Party are attempting to do, and that is to create obstruction in this House. It makes it very difficult for the business of the people of Manitoba properly to be done -(interjection)- Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader, our Rule "33.

(2) The Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opp osition or a leader of a recognized opposition party may each designate one member to speak in a debate for such time as he desires and that member may speak in that debate for such period as he desires if (

a) the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opp osition or the leader of the recognized opposition party or that member on his behalf has given prior notice of the designation to the Speaker;" which I have received, "and (

b) the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the recognized opposition party on whose behalf that member is to speak, whoever has given the notice, has not previously spoken in the debate for more than 40 minutes; . . .. " The Honourable Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) has not spoken for more than 40 minu tes. The Honourable Member for Concordia spoke on second reading of this Bill for 39 minutes. On November 1 he spoke for 30 minutes and on November 2 he spoke for nine minutes. Therefore, he has not spoken for 40 minutes.

Thursday, February 8, 1990 ***** Mr. Cowan: Mr. Speaker, how many different ways will the Conservatives now, with their Liberal friends, try to silence the Opposition in this House when they attempt to speak for working people in this province? We have heard a litany of compla ints from the Government House Leader (Mr .

McCrae) with respect to what he calls obstructionism in this House, over the past few days, when all it is that we have tried to do is put on the record in this Legislature, as we are elected to do, the facts and the figures about final offer selection and other issues of importance to Manitobans to ensure that the debate that takes place, is an enlightened and an informed debate.

I find it somewhat surprising that my Conservative friends to the left have so eagerly joined hands with my Li beral friends to the right to deny elected representatives of this Legislature their opportunity to speak to Bills of importance to the people of this province. I have, Mr.

Speaker, entered into this debate because I believe final offer selection is a unique labour relations tool which will encourage labour peace in this province, which will provide for a fairer balance of power in this province, and which will ensure that both employers and employees are able to satisfactorily resolve their contractual disputes without having to resort to strikes and circu mstances where it can be avoided.

That is not to say that strikes will be outlawed or even banished or even foregone because of final offer selection, but it is to say that this legislation, which was passed by the New Democratic Party so many years ago, does provide another opportunity for the peaceful resolution of contractual disputes, labour management disputes, before a strike must be resorted to. (Mr. Neil Gaudry, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Mr. Acting Speaker, before going into the detail on final offer selection, I want to tell you that we have heard a lot over the years in this Chamber about final offer selection.

I expect that we will hear a lot more over the next few days on final offer selection, and I want to tell you the primary reason that I feel it is necessary to seek unlimited time in this debate. I do so because I believe there are facts and figu res that need yet to be put on the table and reinforced. I believe that the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) does not understand final offer selection. I believe that the Minister of Labour does not understand what it has done for this province.

I believe that the Min ister of Labour has not been as accurate as she should have been in her analysis and in her statistical review of what has happened in this province under final offer selection. I believe that because of the Minister of Labour's ignorance the working people in this province are going to be done a disservice at the hands of a combined Party of Liberals and Conservatives, and big business in Manitoba, as they repeal final offer selection. We will not let it happen. Mr.

Acting Speaker, they may have numbers on their side temporarily, but they do not have facts and figures on their side with respect to final offer selection. The truth will be out throughout this debate. There will be a time when I sit down, having concluded my remarks, perhaps not today, in days to come, but I can tell you that when I sit down at the conclusion of this portion of debate it will not be the end of the fight by the New Democratic Party with respect to saving final offer selection.

I can tell you that the public will line up to come into the committee to carry on the battle for truth, to carry on the battle for information, to carry on the task of educating the Conservatives and their Liberal friends as to what it is they are doing when they repeal final offer selection. * (15 00) Mr. Acting Speaker, when I said earlier that I believe that the Min ister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) was incorrect in her an alysis and was acting out of ignorance, I did not stand alone in those comments. I want to read into the record an excerpt from a news release today from the Manitoba Federation of Labour.

I ask the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) to listen carefully, because he is operating again out of ignorance and under an assumption that the Manitoba Federation of Labour does not support final offer selection. Let me quote into the record just a part of what Su san Ha rt-Kulbaba had to say, president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, today in her press conference. I will be quoting the rest of it into the record at a later time, but I think it is important to start off my comments to tell you why I believe it is necessary for a fairly lengthy debate. Ms. Hart-Kulbaba said, and I quote, I would urge Mrs.

Hammond to educate herself about final offer selection and the positive impact it has had on the labour relations climate in Manitoba. It works and it works well. It is not only I and my colleagues who believe that the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) is acting out of ignorance and needs some education with respect to the matter, but it is the strongest labour body in the Province of Manitoba. They want to see the Minister of Labour educated because they believe she is acting out of ignorance, she does not know the facts and her analysis is wrong, as do we.

I am not certain that I will be able to convince her of that throughout my remarks, but I am going to spend a fair amount of my time addressing the issues that she has brought forward and the analysis that she has brought forward. I think I may well spend a bit more time addressing the ignorance of the Liberal Party with respect to this particular issue and the way in which they have approached final offer selection.

As my Leader just said from his seat, it is too bad that we have to do that and indeed it is too bad that we have to take the time of this Legislature to try to undo some of the misinformation that they are propagating through their speeches, to try to take the time to ensure that the debate is informed and knowledgeable about this particular issue and to try to convince them that final offer selection, as the president of the Ma nitoba Federation of Labour has said, is working well in the Province of Manitoba. As sad as that is, we will undertake to do so. 5128

Thursday, February 8, 1990 I will be addressing later on in my comments the remarks of the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) directly, and I will be addressing some of the remarks of the present Min ister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) and the previous Min ister of Labour when he brought forward a Bill to repeal final offer selection in the last Session. Just as the Conservatives and the Liberals combined failed to repeal final offer selection last Session, they will fail to repeal final offer selection this Session. Take our word on it.

It is not all that often that an issue so clearly delineates the different approaches of the political Parties in this Chamber as has happened with respect to final offer selection.- (interjection)- We ll, as the Mem ber for Concordia (Mr. Doer) says, one group thinks to the future and two groups think to the past. I believe that the Liberals and Conservatives, back together in blissful harmony, are the two that cast back their thoughts on the good old days. As a matter of fact, I think that the perception of the good old days may differ somewhat.

I think the perception of the Conservatives with respect to the good old days is when there were no unions whatsoever, when there was no labour movement whatsoever, when business had an unfettered hand over the marketplace, over the workplace, and were able to do entirely what they wanted to do, when they wanted to do it and how they wanted to do it, without the nasty business of having to negotiate with labour with respect to safety and health, with respect to fair wages for a fai r days work, with respect to all the types of progressive programs that have come throughout the history of the labour movement to the unions, to the workplaces and finally into Chambers such as this at both the provincial and federal level and into legislation.

That is how far back they think when they sit back in their chairs, put their feet up on their desks and think of the good old days. I do not think the Liberals are quite so antiquated. I do not think that they have come far enough yet with respect to understanding the positive role that labour unions play in our marketplace, in the economy, in the province, in the country, accepting that there has to be a fairer balance of power if they are to continue to play that role and to build upon the very impressive progress that has been made throughout the years.

A lot has been done through labour, work ing with progressive groups to make this world a better place to live and to work and to raise a family. Much more needs yet to be done. Final offer selection, while in essence by comparison a relatively minor innovation or improvement in the labour relations field, has become a symbolic battle in this province.

The symbolism is one of a group of politicians: the New Democratic Party who think to the future, who wish to see a fairer, more balanced labour relations climate in this province, and a coalition, a tripartite coalition of business, because while they sit not in this Chamber, their voice is heard in this Chamber through the mouth of the Minister of Labour (Mr s. Hammond) and the mouth of the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards).

Big business speaks out in many different ways throughout our society, but it speaks no more clearly than it speaks into a microphone standing in front of 5129 the Minister of Labour for the Conservative Party, or the Labour Critic or the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) for the Liberal Party. That coalition of those three, big business, Liberals and Conservatives, have banded together to try to take away from working people a new innovative approach that is providing !or a fairer workplace, fairer contractual agreements, and a fairer system of resolving disputes. The Member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton), the Labour Critic says, why? I sense it is a rhetorical question, because we know why. We know why it is they want to see this particular legislation repealed. It was interesting because when we were havi ng a little discussion before the vote the Member for Fort Garry (Mr. Laurie Evans) said from his seat to one of my colleagues, you will never get business in here with this type of legislation. I think I am paraphrasing him correctly. It is not an exact quote. He shakes his head, yes. As the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) says, this legislation is already available to professors.

I will talk a bit about how it has worked. It is not available to working people in this province, to the secretaries of those professors at the universities. I think what he misses when he makes a statement like that, and it is a rather simplistic statement that would be easy to believe unless challenged, is the fact that the labour relations climate in this province under this legislation, because of this legislation in a small way, not a large way but in a small way, is better than it is in any other province in this country.

I can tell him that one of the things that big business think about when they think about locating or relocating is the labour relations climate in the area in which they are going to start up their business.

If they look at Manitoba and if they saw in Manitoba that we had the worst record of strikes and lockouts due to days lost, if we had the worst record of labour disputes, that would bear far more heavily on their decision as to whether or not to relocate in this province than would final offer selection or all the progressive legislation that has been brought forward under a New Democratic Party Government in this province. Believe me, almost all the progressive legislation in the past number of years has been brought forward under a New Democratic Party. * (1510 ) To carry the Member for Fort Garry's (Mr.

Laurie Evans) argument a bit further, because if that is the way he thinks and if he is speaking for the Liberals, we have gained some insight into why it is they are so vehemently supporting the Conservatives in taking away the rights of working people and employers in this province with respect to final offer selection. They are doing so because they believe that we as a society must kowtow to business in order to entice them into our province by ensuring that workers do not have the rights that they should have and if that is the case, what next?

Does he feel perhaps, as the Conservatives felt, that the Workplace Safety and Health regulations with respect to cancer-ca using agents was too harsh? Does he feel-well, he shakes his head, no,

Thursday, February 8, 1990 he does not feel that way, but then comes in the inconsistency in his argument because business says that it is difficult to operate under those sorts of conditions. Why else would the Conservatives, who are the best friends of big business, repeal the regulations, change the regulation?

Where does he draw the line with respect to giving in to big business at the expense of working people because when final offer selection is repealed, if it is repealed, what will have happened is we will have collectively given in to big business at the expense of working people, and more so, more importantly at the expense of the province generally. Mr. Acting Speaker, before going into some of the specifics of the arguments of the different Members who have spoken on this I want to speak a bit about the process that has unfolded over the last couple of days.

I think what is worse than the Liberals' agreement and joining with the Conservatives to repeal final offer selection is the way that the two of them have extended that harmonious relationship to deny Members in this House their right to speak.

Let me note from the beginning, I am not reflecting on any ruling nor any vote that has been taken in this House, but merely going over, for the benefit of those who may have missed what has happened over the last couple of days, the way in which events have transpired and why I believe that not only is it wrong in this particular instance but it has set a dangerous precedent which will come to haunt the Liberals and will come to haunt the Conservatives because what they have done together is deny an indiv idual, specifically in this instance, the Member for Rupertsland (Mr.

Harper) the right to speak on a Bill. ***** The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): The Honourable Member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux), on a point of order. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkst er): Mr. Acting Speaker, on a point of order. The Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) acknowledged himself that he was not here yesterday. He will find that if he checks and maybe asks around from some of his colleagues, the official Opposition did not deny leave for the Member for Ruper tsland (Mr . Ha rper). I understand you need unanimous consent. It was the Conservatives that had denied leave.

We just voted that they should be debating on the issue of the ruling of the Chair. It is different, a big difference. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): The Honourable Member for lnkster does not have a point of order. ***** The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): On a new point of order, the Honourable Member for Thompson. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposi tion House Leader): Mr. Acting Spe aker, we have had these kinds of points of order before. I would suggest to the Member for lnkster (Mr.

Lamoureux) that if he has any comments he wishes to make in regard to what has transpired, that he have the courage to stand up and debate the Bill which he has not chosen to do in the entire time this is here, and not interfere with the speech of the Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan). So I would ask you, Mr. Acting Speaker, to not only rule that it was not in order but warn Members against what I consider a very frivolous point of order. If the Member for lnkster wants to talk on this Bill, let him have the guts to stand up and debate it. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Gaudry): The Honourable Member for Thompson does not have a point of order. ***** Mr. Cowan: Mr. Acting Speaker, I know that the Liberals are sensitive. I understand why they are sensitive. I read back to them, not from the written word in front of me, but from memory, what the Member for St. James said at the conclusion of his remarks when he spoke to this Bill not that long ago, and that was he encouraged and said that the Liberals wanted "speedy passage" of this Bill through this House.

Now speedy passage is certainly something that they may want, but I do not believe that they have to take that desire to the extreme of denying Members the right to speak in this House, nor to the extreme of voting against Members of this House when they asked for this debate to be adjourned after a Member has already spoken. Speedy passage, in their mind, has turned into railroading this Bill along with the Conservatives through this House because they do not want to hear the facts. They do not want to know what is happening; they do not want to be informed.

They do not want us to have the opportunity to challenge their remarks to, I believe, show them where they are wrong. In doing so they have shown, not only do they have a closed mind themselves and they do not want to learn, but they want to slam shut the minds of the public of Manitoba because they do not want them to hear what happens in this House when this issue is debated in the normal practice. It is very unusual, very unusual for leave to be denied a Member of this House to have a Bill stand in his or her name when another Member has agreed to speak at that time.

Let me tell you what happened as a result of that action of which they were a part. Let me tell you what happened. The Member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) has been put in a dilemma that none of us should have to go through, especially those who represent areas outside of this city, because there is now a fear that if you were not here on every single day of the Session that you will lose your opportunity to express yourself in a manner which is helpful to the legislative process. You have denied the Member for Rupertsland the right to put his comments on the record with respect to final offer selection.

He is the only Member of the New Democratic Party who will not have had the opportunity on second reading to put his words on the record, because the Conservatives and the Liberals denied him the right to do so. What does that tell me? 5130

Thursday, February 8, 1990 That tells me firstly that the Liberals do not have an understanding of the rural needs of constituents and the northern needs of constituents by those who are elected in constituencies outside of this province. I do not doubt -(interjection)-I am sorry, Mr. Acting Speaker, if the Member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has something to say, I would be glad to allow him the floor on a point of order.-(interjection)- Now the Member for Transcona (Mr. Kozak) says heckling is part of the tradition of the House.

So is allowing a Bill to stand when someone else wants to speak on it a part of the tradition of the House. Which traditions are you going to support? Which traditions are you not going to support? Are you going to support the ones that allow your Member to interrupt another speaker, or are you going to support the ones that deny the rights of individuals in this House an opportunity to speak? -(interjection)- * (1 520) The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): Order, please. Mr. Cowan: There goes the Member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux) again with respect to interrupting speeches. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I have heckled from time to time, but I have also had the courage to take to my feet when requested to do so to put on the record those comments. I believe those comments are important to part of the process. If I can get them on the record in any way possible, I will do so. I believe we have a right to be heard. As we speak, Mr. Acting Speaker, an event transpires around us. The Deputy Leader has taken aside the Whip. It is a matter of whether the Leader is whipping the Whip or the Whip is whipping the Leader. He is a Deputy Leader. It seems to me that the Whip has won the tug of war.

However, it will remain to be seen. Mr. Acting Speaker, as Members who represent areas outside of the city in the province, we have a dilemma � from time to time. We are asked by our constituents " to travel into the constituency -(interjection)-I am sorry, perhaps the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) would like to make a point? Well it shows that the- ***** The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gaudry): The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs, on a point of order. Hon .

James Downey (Mini ster of Northern and Native Affairs): On a point of order, the question was one of relevancy for the Bill which is before this House. Mr. Cowan: I think the question is a matter of relevancy. The relevant factor is whether or not we have an opportunity to speak to the Bills.

The way in which a Bill progresses through this House tells us a lot about the agenda, not only of the Party that brought the Bill forward because they outline their philosophy, but also the agenda of the different Parties in how they respond to the Bill. 5131 If a Party stands up and says we want speedy passage of a Bill, it tells us that they are in favour of that Bill and they are not interested in debate. If a Party stands up and says, we deny the right of an individual to speak, as did the Conservatives by not granting leave, it tells me that they do not want to hear the facts about that Bill.

That is a relevant factor in my mind. If the combined Liberals and Conservatives vote together to deny the traditional opportunity of Members to adjourn debate on a Bill, then that tells me that neither one of them want to learn or want to at least hear the facts or want to consider what is being said to determine if in fact it is not valid.

Let me tell you what happens, however, when ii become s necessary for a Memb er who has a constituency outside of this city to choose between sitting in his or her seat all day long every day of the Session or talking to their constituents, as I had indicated before I was interrupted. We are called from time to time to speak to our constituents. We all have recognized that that is a very important function of Members of this House whether they reside in a constituency within the city or outside the city. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Acting Speaker, when we had a debate ab out the Ele ctoral Boundaries Commission, we all agreed that a great disservice was being done to Northerners because they were removing one of the northern seats, and that meant that four ML As would have to do the work where five ML As had done the work before. The reason that it was a disservice to constituents was because it reduced the opportunity for those ML As to meet with their constituents in the constituents' home communities. We agreed that was a disservice and should not be the case.

Yet, the other day, when we had an opportunity to put those fine sentiments into some action, The Conservatives denied leave to allow a Member who was meeting with his constituents outside of this House the opportunity to be away from this House in order to do so on the basis that if he was they would not allow him to speak when he returned. It was not as if we were asking for an adjournment of the debate and have no speakers. We were prepared to put speakers forward, but they said no. Business would have gone on. There would have been no loss of time. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Acting Speaker, there would have been less of a loss of House time had they done that than what actually transpired. If they want to talk about obstructionism, it is not obstructionism that is slowing down this House, it is incompetence.

It is not obstructionism that is slowing down this House, it is a Government that does not know how to manage the business of this Legislature in such a way as to allow for the traditional methods of debate to take place so that we can conclude the business of this House in the way in which the business of this House has been concluded ever since I have been a Member of it, and I am certain far previous to that. Wh al happ ened yesterday was unusual. What happened today was unusual, but not only that it was

Thursday, February 8, 1990 wrong. So now I have to think, Mr. Acting Speaker, as an MLA who represents a northern area, and I was in my constituency yesterday as well, it could have just as easily been me had I taken the adjournment. I have to think, how can I best serve my constituents now? They want me to be in the constituency for certain functions, and at the same time I have to be here because a Conservative Government is going to take away my right to speak if I am not sitting in my seat at the time they choose to call a particular Bill without consultation and without notice.

Now how is that going to affect the ability of ML As and elected officials to represent areas outside of the province? Oh, I heard all the fine sentiments with respect to the elimination of the Churchill constituency and other constituencies in the province. I listened carefu lly, and you know, Mr. Acting Speaker, I believed them. I believed them until yesterday, and yesterday I learned differently.

I learned that for expediency's sake and in order to pr otect themselves from their own mismanagement and incompetence, the Conservatives indeed were prepared to limit our ability to speak in this House just because, only because, the only reason was being in our constituencies to meet with our constituents. I look directly at the Min ister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) when I make these comments, because the Minister of Northern Affairs should know better. I do not know who did not grant leave yesterday, but certainly the Min ister of Northern Affairs was a part of the caucus that did not grant leave.

That much I do know. He should know what it is like for northern commu nities to try to maintain contact and communication with their constituents.-(interjection)- Well, now the Mini ster of Northern Affairs is pointing his finger at the Liberal Opposition. I can tell him that finger points both ways and sort of joins together, and they clasp hands, and they seek to limit the debate, because that is what happened today and that is what happened yesterday. It is not a matter of finger pointing; they are in this together. They have got their hands in each other's pockets on this one, Mr. Acting Speaker.

They have colluded together to stop debate in this House to bring it to an unnecessarily early conclusion, because they do not like what they are hearing. They want to ramrod, railroad through their legislation. What is going to happen now in the future? The Min ister of Northern Affairs (Mr . Downey) knows, because he has to quite often leave this Chamber, and leave the Legislature in order to meet with his broader constituency, which is the communities under Northern Affairs jurisdiction.

When he does so, and he asks for a pair, we so grant the pair, because we believe it is important for him to be able to speak to Northerners in their communities, rather than force Northerners to come here to speak to them in his office. We believe that and he believes that because he requests the pair to do so.

If he did not think it was a legitimate function of his office and a legitimate role for him to play as a legislator, he would not request pair to do so. * (15 30) Why is it so convenient for him to leave and know that the business of the House will proceed in a fashion that it has always proceeded, and it is not convenient for the Member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) to leave? What is it that they have against the Member for Rupertsland? What is it they want him not to say in this House, or what is it they want him not to say in his constituency, because that is the dilemma that they have put him in.

The Member for Rupertsland (Mr. Ha rper) says from his seat that he lost his right to speak yesterday. He also says that the tragedy of the history of his people is that they have lost rights before, but the fact is that this loss of this right will not go unnoticed. The loss of this right will not go unnoticed in the constituency. The loss of this right will not go unnoticed in the labour movement, in the progressive movements across this province.

The loss of this right will not pass by silently in the night as if it had never happened, because it is a right that is fundamental to us as legislators and it is one that we must strive to protect each and every day that we are here, in each and every speech that we make, with each and every breath that we draw, and it is one that we will. I am, quite frankly, not surprised that the Liberals do not understand the demands of rural Members, because outside of one, they have none. I would hope that at least they would listen.

I hope they would at least understand that we have to treat the northern parts and the rural parts of this province somewhat differently because of distance and isolation. I am not surprised, and I am not shocked that they voted with the Conservatives to railroad the Bill through, but I am disappointed, not the first time that I have been disappointed by Liberals, nor the last time certainly. Each time it happens it is a significant event nonetheless. Let me talk about some of the things that the Liberal Critic, the Member for St. Johns, put on the record during his speech-St. James, excuse me.

My apologies to the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis). I want to go through 11 points that he made during his speech, and over the course of my contribution to this debate I will be addressing each of those 11 points in minute detail. However, for the time being I would like to just outline then, to give a context as to why I think it is necessary that this debate not only be directed at the Min ister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), who is acting out of ignorance, bu·t also be directed equally so at the Liberal Opposition. What the Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) said in the first point, and I am quoting as best I can from his comments, was that final offer selection is, and I quote, an unwarranted intrusion into the labour relations environment. Now I leave that on the record. We will come back to it. The second point he says in defence of their hands with the Conservatives to repeal offer selection and to take away rights of working people is that, and I quote again, one side has a gun which is loaded; the other side does not have a loaded gun, it has no bullet. Mr.

Acting Speaker, that gives you some insight into how he perceives labour relations negotiations- 5132

,· Thursday, February 8, 1990 gunfight at OK Corral , let us each take our guns out and shoot at each other. That is hardly a very progressive analysis of labour relations . It certainly is not in keeping with the trends in labour relations across the country and in other countr ies, but it is illustrative of how when they think back to the good old days , while they may not think back as far as the Conservatives, who would only in fact want one side to have a gun fully loaded , they think that it is still a gunfight, it is still a confrontation, it is still a battle.

It need not be, although there are time s when it does in fact become a battle , and those are important times for the labour movement generally and important times for individual unions and individual employers , because there are certain rights which must be gained by fighting for them. There are certain rights which must be fought for strongly. There are certain rights that must be gained through confrontation but that does not apply to every contract, and that does not apply to every set of negotiations, and that does not apply to every labour relations dispute .

When that fight must be taken on, even with final offer selection in place there is that opportunity, and believe me there have been fights since final offer selection has been in place in the Province of Manitoba, and there will be more fights . This legislation does nothing to take away from the right or the responsibility or the ability of parties to fight the good fight when it must be fought. To say that every question must be dealt with on a confrontational basis is wrong and it denies the reality of the workplace . As the Member for The Pas (Mr.

Harapiak) says , it is a complete misunderstanding of what is happening out there in the workplaces and at the negotiating table . What else did the Member for St. James say? I quote the Member again . The Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) says that final offer selection subverts the underlying principle behind our labour relations system as it stands today. That is, it says no, the Parties do not know what is best for the workplace .

A third person , someone who may have no knowledge of the workplace both from the the employee's side or the management's side, is the perso n best able to decide how this workplace is run . Well that betrays not only a total lack of understanding of what actually happens in the workplace in contract negotiations, but it is as if he has not read final offer selection . He does not know final offer select ion and the process that is incorporated in the legislation because it is the Parties that put forward the proposals .

It is the Parties that say what they think is best for the workplace, and it is the arbitrator that must choose one or the other , not as in the case of arbitration otherwise, where the arbitrator can mix and match and can shake his or her own package without regard to what actually happens in the workplace or even without regard to the propos als that are put forward . That is not the case at all.

In fact, what happens in final offer selection is that it is the employer or the employees who decide and not the arbitrator , and yet I bet if you tested him on how he feels about arbitration, he would th ink that it can play a useful role in the labour relations climate. Yet, to take his own argument and to throw it back at him, he would be proven wrong with respect to how an agreement under final offer selection is shaped. I will come back to that in more detail as well.

He also says, point No. 4, that the majority of unions that presented at the committee told the Government not to go ahead with final offer selection . He said that and that is a quote. I want to read to him the first couple of comments from the committee hearing by Mr. Wilf Hudson , who was then president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour when final offer selection was being debated , and I want to read them int o the record because I think they are important from the context of the comments that the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) made. *

(1540) This is the Standing Committee on discussing final offer selection when it was first introduced after having been passed through second reading in this Legislature by the New Democratic Party Government . Mr. Hudson says: "Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to introduce the people who are here with us tonight from the labour movement, from the Manitoba Federation of Labour . " The vice-president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, John E. Pullen is here . The treasurer of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, Dennis Atkinson is here.

Also , we have Peter Olfert , the president of the Manitoba Government Employees' Association; Al Cerilli of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway and Transport and General Workers, the regional vice-president; Wayne Cutting from the United Steelworkers of America, vice president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour; Bob Imrie , from the United Steelworkers from Flin Flon, also vice-president of the Manitoba Federation of Labour; Horst Sommerfeld , from the United Steelworkers Southeast Manitoba, Labour Council ; more steelworke rs, but also as the Member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) says, representing the Labour Council ; also Bernard Christophe , the president of the Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Loca l 832; Bruce Prozyk, from the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union; and Sandy Trowski from the International Association of Machinists . Also, we have Barrie Farrow, from the Canadian Autoworkers; and Bruno Zimmer, the presiden t of Local 111 of the United Food and Commercial Workers. Bill Haiko, another .. .

"he says at that time there would have been another vice president of the Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers , but he was away at an international convention.

So in introducing those Members, he has introduced probably the representatives of the largest component and cross-sections of labour organizations in the Province of Manitoba, labou r organizations that are local, labour organizations that are national, labour organizations that are international, labour organiz ations that in this province have a proud history of fighting not only for their own members to improve working conditions for unionists, but also fighting for the general population; labour organizations that have 5133

Thursday, February 8, 1990 involved themselves in the battles of the day, which have brought about a progressive social movement in this province that has seen change take place, that has helped make our workplac es safer, helped make our workplaces healthier, helped make our workplaces more fair, helped make the system more equitable and have extended beyond the workplace to help make our society a better society for those who need and those who want, and those who must look to society for help and, at the same time, a society that rewards people in a fair way for a fair day's work.

Those labour organ izations have throughout the history of the province played a significant role in helping shape labour legislation, in responding to labour legis lation that was brought forward, in fighting the good fight when the fights must be fought and in trying to maintain a stable labour relat ions climate because they know that is in the best interests of their members as well as in the best interests of the society as a whole because trade unionists are not just trade unionists alone . They are the people we are sent here to represent. They are individuals who live in their communities .

They are individuals who work in their communities . They are ind ivi duals who provide a productive role in shaping their communities . They are the volunteers for the different organizations. They exhibit their desire for a better world not only in their workplace but throughout society as a whole. Now the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) has also said in his speech that we all want to see a strong MFL . Those are his comments . We all want to see a strong Manitoba Federation of Labour .

I take from those comments that he supports the Manitoba Federation of Labour, because if he did not , why would he want to see them strengthened? Why would he want to see them by implication grow? Why would he want to see them more powerful if he di d not support their very basic tenets in the way in which they seek to protect workers rights in this province? Well if he wants a stronger Manitoba Federation of Labour then he should not fight the Manitoba Federation of Labour by using false assumptions such as has been done in speech. He should not try to-well I am sorry, I am not going to imply motives .

He should not whether - no, I am not even going to say that. Even if it was done out of ignorance, he has a responsibility not to misrepresent their position and not to misrepresent the position of unions in this province . When he says that the majority of unions represented at the committee told the Government not to go ahead with final offer selection, that is indeed a misrepresentation. What did Mr. Will Hudson say in his comments before the Standing Committee of the Legislature when that Bill was being discussed?

He went through the introductions, and I am reading directly from the transcript of that day: "First of all, we congratulate the Government of Manitoba " -and as an aside, Mr. Acting Speaker , it was an NOP Government at the time- "for the innovative spirit which underlies the introduction of Bill 61 . It is a time when new solutions must be found to old problems and old remedies must be applied in new and creative ways ." Mr. Will Hudson was not opposed to final offer selection, nor were the vice-presidents of

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-121
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 121.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1e718cf3181cd0d0cde8b9518375fa2275dce960

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