Manitoba Committee Hansard — 24 October 1996 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 1, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-ir1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Industrial Relations Chairperson Mr. Mike Radcliffe Constituency of River Heights Vol. XLVI No. 1 - 7 p.m., Thursday, October 24, 1996

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Afriliation Name Constituenc)' &r4 ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, W'ariann� Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Ho-:. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUA Y, Louise, P.on. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, eon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Alben, Hon. Steinbach P.C. :.:>YCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon.

Charleswood P.C. ?.VANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. 3VANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P . - . •ILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAM�'ER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norben P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWA Y, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C.

McCRAE, James, Hon. Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Ponage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupensland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon.

Kirkfield Park P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Ross mere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Tunle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fon Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Thur sday, October 24, 1996 TIME- 7p.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights) VICE-CHAIRPERSON- Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina) ATTENDANCE - 11 - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Reimer, Toews, Hon. Mrs. Vodrey Mr. Ashton, Ms. Barrett, Messrs. Dyck, Laurendeau, Martindale, Radcliffe, Reid, Sveinson WITNESSES: Mr. AI Mackling, Private Citizen Mr. Dave Tesarski, Manitoba Counc:i of the Canadian Federation of Labour Mr. Chris Hicks, Souris Valley Teachers' Association Mr.

Randy Bjornson, Lakeshore Teachers' Association Mr. Ross Martin, Brandon & District Labour Council Mr. Keith Hillis, Private Cit:zen Mr. Bernard Christophe, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local832 Mr. Dave Martin, Manitota Building and Construction Trades Council Mr. Frank Thomas, Manitoba Building and Construction Trades Council Mr. Brian Timlick, Private Citizen Mr. Paul Moist, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Manitoba Mr. Sidney Green, Private Citizen Mr. Bob Stevens, Manitoba Restaurant and Foodservices Association Ms. Maureen Hancharyk, Manitoba Nurses' Union Mr.

Rob Hilliard, President, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Greg Patterson, Private Citizen Mr. William F. Gardner, Jr., Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce Mr. Dan Kelly, Canadian Federation of Independent Business Mr. Lance Norman, Manitoba Chamber of Commerce Ms. Diane Beresford, Manitoba Teachers' Society Mr. Alan Borger, Jr., Private Citizen Mr. Gerald Joyce, Private Citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mr. Chris Lorenc, Manitoba Heavy Construction Association Mr. Grant Nordman, Assiniboia Chamber of Commerce Mr.

Allan Finkel, Manitoba Fashion Institute MATTERS UNDER DIS.2JSSION: Bill 26-The Labour Relations Amendment Act *** Clerk Assistant (Ms. Patricia Chaychuk): Order, please. Will the Standing Committee on Industria� Relations please come to order. Before the committee can proceed this evening, it must elect t:. Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Marcel Lurendeau (St. Norbert): I would like to nominate Mr. Radcliffe, please. Cler k Assistant: Mr. Radcliffe has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, Mr. Radcliffe, you are elected Chair. Mr.

Chairperson: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Before the committee can proceed with the business before it, it must elect a new Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Laurendeau: I would like to nominate Mr. Dyck.

2 LEGISLA 7IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 1996 Mr. Chair person: Are there any further nominations? Seeing none, Mr. Dyck is elected as Vice-Chairperson. Ladies and gentlemen, this evening the committee will be considering B:ll 26, The Labour Relations Amendment Act. I will now read aloud the names of the persons who have preregistered �o speak to Bill 26.

They are as :bllows: 1) Betty Green, 2) Frank Thomas and Dave Martin, 3) Brian Tirnlick, 4) Paul Moist, 5) Sidney Green, 6) Bob Stevens, 7) Maureen Hancharyk, 8) Rob Hilliard, 9) AI Mackling, 1 0) Greg Patterson, 1 �) Dave Tesarski, 12) Candace Bishoff and William F.

Gardner Jr., 13) Dan Kelly, 14) Lance Norman , 15) Patrick Martin, 16) Ken Pearce, 17) Chris Hicks, 18) Robert Lindey, 19) Alan Borger, Jr., 20) Thomas Henderson, 21) Jim Silver, 22) Bernard Christophe, 23) Brian Hunt, 24) Peter Olfert, 25) Allan Finkel, 26) Albert Cerilli, 27) Randy Bjornson , 28) Deb Stewart, 29) Dan Lemieux, 30) Mario Javier, 31) A Spokesperson to be Named on behalf of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, Canada Safeway, 32) Grant Nordman, 33) Cy Gonick, 34) Yvonne Campbell, 35) Kenneth Emberley, 36) Gerald Joyce, 37) Darrell Rankin, 38) Kelly Logan, 39) Barny Haines, 40) Reg Cumming, 41) Peter Magda, 42) Heinrich Huber, 43) Edward Hiebert, 44) Ross Martin, 45) Caroline Stecher, 46) Allan Beach, 47) Iris Taylor, 48) Robert Ziegler, 49) Carolyn Ryan, 50) Mark Saban, 51) Victor Vrsnik, 52) Claudette Chudy, 53) Alex Puerto, 54) Ken Nickel, 55) Cindy Garofalo, 56) Jack Samyn.

If there are any other persons in attendance who wish to speak to the bill and whose name does not appear on the list, please register with the Chamber Branch personnel at the far end of the room. Just as a reminder to those presenters wishing to hand out a written copy of their briefs to committee members, 15 copies are required. If assistance in making photocopies is required, please see the Chamber Branch personnel at the rear of the room or the Clerk Assistant. In terms of committee procedure for the consideration of this bill, do the committee wish to use time limits? Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): Mr.

Chairman, I move that the committee call all the names listed twice and after the second time the names be dropped from the list, and that there be I 0 minutes allocated per presenter and five minutes for questions and answers, and that the committee continue to sit until all presenters have been heard. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, this is an open- *

(1910) Mr . Chair person: Mr. Reid, I am sorry, I have to interrupt. I am obliged by the advice ' have received from the Clerk tonigh: that I read the motion to the committee and then open it for discussion. The motion before the committee at the present time is that the conunittee call all the names listec: twice and after the second time the name will be dropped from the list, and that there be a I 0 minute allocated per presenter and five minutes for questions and answers, and that the committee continue to sit until all presenters have been heard. All right, now I will open debate on the motion. Mr .

Reid: Mr. Chairperson, the number of presenters that we have shown here on the list today is not as extensive as we have seen on other pieces of legislation that have come before committee of the Legislature. I know there are a number of presenters here today that are in some way, perhaps have some time difficulties and would like to present early, and that we have in that case some out-of-town "Jresenters for which this committee would make allowances. But what I would suggest, Mr.

Chairperson, is that we have some flexibility in allowing presenters here, who I am sure can show good judgment in the presentations that they are willing to make, but we should not be restrictive for the individuals, to allow them in a free and open democratic process to express their viewpoints. After all, that is w'tat this committee is about, and I would hope that the committee members would recognize that.

With respect to the calling of the names twice, if I could suggest an amendment to the motion that has been put forward, perhaps members of this committee would acce pt the calling of the names three times instead of the two as the motion has indicated. But I would definitely prefer to see the calling of the names three times to ensure

October 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 members of the public have ample opportunity to come forward to this committee and present their viewpoints, but also to show some flexibility in allowing members of the public presenting to the committee the opportunity to state quite clearly their viewpoints and to allow members of this committee, quite frankly, the opportunity to ask questions of the presenters. In 10 minutes of presentation and five minutes of question and answer, it seems to me to be inadequate, considering the magnitude of the changes that the government is proposing in Bill 26. Mr.

Laurendeau: Question? Mr. Chairperson: The question has been called. The motion-[ interjection] Excuse me. Order, please. The motion before the committee tonight is that the committee call all the names listed twice, and after the second time the name will be dropperi off the list, and there will be I 0 minutes allocated per presenter and five minutes for questions ar.d answers, and that the commi ttee continue to sit until all presenters have been heard. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion? An Honourable Member: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the question?

An Honourable Member: Yea. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour? An Honourable Member: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those against? Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): What kind of a farce are we turning this committee into when we cannot even debate the time we are working? Mr. Chairperson: Order. I declare the motion passed. * * * Mr. Ashton: Now we are talking-now I have the ability to debate, I want to indicate that this is an absolute farce. We have had these motions brought forward every committee- Point of Order Mr. Cnai rperson: I am sorry.

Point of order, Mr. Laurendeau. Mr. Laurendeau: I think that we have made the decision that the question would be put, Mr. Chair. I think that the question passed, so I do not think the opportunity is here for this mem.:>er to debate at this time. An Honourable Member: No, let us not let anybody speak anything. ', Mr . Chairpe �son: Excuse me. There will be no comments from the audience. If there are any comments from the audience, I Will have the room cleared. Order. * * * Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Chairperson, you are going to have to throw the opposition members out of this room as well, because I have never seen a situation in which we have had such an abuse of the process here. I mean, this government has brought in motions, and we have at least been allowed to debate these time closure motions, but for the member on the government side to prevent the debate on the time motions to one speaker by moving that motion is absolutely incredible.

When we are dealing with a bill which deals with very much in a way the democratic process which is trying to deal in ways in which the government is attempting to instruct- Point of Or der Mr . Chair person: Excuse me. Point of order, Mr. Laurendeau. Do you have a point of order to Mr. Ashton's presentation? Mr. Laur endeau: Yes, I do have a point of order, Mr. Chairperson. The question has been put. We could

4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 1996 continue to debate this issue for three and four and five hours, but that would not accomplish what we are here for, and that is to hear the public presentations. I do believe that the motion has been put. The question has been won, so I would recommend that we move on. Mr. Chair person: The committee finds that you do have a point of order, and the committee will call the first presenter. * * * Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, on what basis is that a point of order? On what basis? We have not even dealt with other procedural matters such as how late we sit.

If the government is so desperate that it has to try and ram through this bill in this undemocratic process, you, Sir, and the rest of this committee are making a complete mockery. I have never see:t a committee so- Mr. Chair person: Thank you, Mr. As:tton, for your comments. Mr . Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I had the floor. I was interrupted by the member opposite. Mr. Chairperson: I do no� believe so. I think there was a point of on!er, and I ruled on the point of order, Mr. Ashton. Mr. Ashton: I am seeking to be recognized again, or are you going to prevent me from speaking one more time? Mr.

Chair person: The Chair will recognize you, Mr. Ashton. Mr . Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I want to raise a very serious question here about the way this committee is proceeding. I fmd it ironic that much of this legislation purports to deal with the democratic process involving the trade union movement.

I am wondering what kind of example this government with its majority in the committee and you, Sir, as Chair of this committee, are setting when we have such a bizarre twist in the process here where you, Sir, are ruling that I cannot even debate the process in which this committee proceeds and which governm ent members are bringing in motions and preventing debate on this after one speaker. Mr. Chairpersm, I think this government and this committee, the government majority on this committee, should be ashamed of itself. What kind of democratic process is this? Mr .

Chairperson: The next matter to put before the committee is, do we wish to hear from out-of-province and out-of-town presenters first? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, there are other questions that need to be decided as well, in particular, how late this committee is going. Now you applied, through this undemocratic process, a limit by which names are called twice. By the way, we have other committees in this sitting where you have to be called three times. We have sat, by the way, until two, three in the morning in a number of committees at various different times.

I am really concerned that we do not end up with the kind of farce we ended up with the last time ti-e government tried to bring in labour legislation when it ramm ed through the passage of the bill, people's names were called for the second time at four in the morning. I would like to see that we would have a reasonable time limit set so that that trick is not tried again. I would suggest that we sit no later than eleven o'clock, so that we do not have that kind of undemocratic tactic used by the government again. Mr . Chairperson: I am sorry, Mr.

Ashton, but the motion that I have in front of me reads ·hat the committee call all the names listed twice. After the second time the name will be dropped off Lte list and that there be l 0 minutes allocated per presenter and five minutes for questions and answers and that the committee continue to sit until all presenters have been heard. That was the motion that was put to the committee. Mr.

Ashton: And reference to time of which we adjourn is a separate matter, and I would suggest that we not go any later than eleven o'clock so that people do not have their names called at one or two or three or four in the morning as did happen, Mr. Chairperson, and that is most definitely a matter that should be dealt with. I mean, if you are going to limit the time and if you are going to end up with a situation where you are not going to allow us to debate it, the least you should do is make sure that you do not have the .. arce of having those names called at a very late hour in the morning.

October 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 *

(1920) Mr. Sveinson: Mr. Chairman, in the past meetings that we have held here in committee, the time as was mentioned earlier, Mr. Ashton, I believe said that government set this time. It was agreed by everybody. The other thing is- Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me, Mr. Sveinson. Mr. Laurendeau on a point of order. "loint of Order Mr . Laur em.eau: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson. If we are going to allow this debate to happen, could I please ask for leave for the debate to happen so that we are not b!'eaking the procedural rules of the House? Mr. Chairperson: All right, the leave is granted for the debate. Mr.

Laurendeau: No, you have to ask if there is leave. Mr. Chai rperson: Oh, I see. Is there leave for this debate to occur, excuse me? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Chairperson: Leave. All right, leave has been granted. Leave is requested and granted. [interjection] Excuse me. * * * Mr. Chairperson: I believe Mr. Sveinson has the floor. [interjection] An Honourable 1\Cember: Mr. Chairperson, that was a point of order. Mr. Chairperson: Do you have a point of order? Mr. Ashton: You are asking if leave was given.

I am wondering why the government member of the committee is now asking leave to allow his member to speak where he was not willing to give any kind of accommodation, any process that would have allowed me to speak to the main motion which is putting the closure in terms of the number of times people can present and the length of time. I am wondering why, Mr. Chairperson, that is the case because I wish to speak as a member of this com mittee on the original motion, and I was denied the opportunity to do that because of this member's action. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Laurendeau, on a point of order?

Mr. -;..aurendeau: Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me to tell the member the reason why I have asked for this leave is I can see that we are going nowhere. I do believe that there should be concise decorum within the Chamber and within the committee here as a whole, and I do see that you would have a very hard time of maintaining that decorum. So to see that we maintained decorum and maintained the stability of this committee, that is why I have asked for the leave ano ifleave would be granted I consider that the debate can carry on and the motion. Mr . Chairperson: Is there leave for this debate to continue?

Some Honourftble Members: Leave. Mr. Cha:rperson: Leave. Leave has been agreed. All right now I believe Mr. Sveinson had the floor and the Chair recognizes Mr. Sveinson. Mr. Sveinson: Mr. Chairman, in all the committees that I have sat on here this session, it was indeed agreed by a[ members of the committee, both government and otherwise, that a time limit be set at 10 and five. The reasoning behind that was simply that we wanted to hear everybody. That has been stated over and over again at these different committees. This is nothing unusual, although we do see some grandstanding going on.

There is nothing unusual about this, and plain and simply, I ask that we proceed. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I would like to ask a question, I suppose of the mover o:..' the ori gina! motion, the part of the original motion that stated that all of the members of the public would be heard in this one sitting, when in the cases of the bills that are currently before us, before other committees dealing with the education system, they have gone till, well, fairly late, fairly early in the morning, but they have gone for two sessions, and in some cases it will go to three.

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT09A October 24, 1996 i am wondering what the rationale for the change in this particular committee is, why we cannot do it the way the other committees are doing it in this House this session. Is there something particular about this piece of �egislation that is leding towards this one set? Mr. Chair person: Mr. Ashton, I believe you have the floor next. Mr. Ashton: The member opposite should point to the fact that there had been motions moved and that we have opposed the motions. There was a motion moved iit one ofthe Education bills for the same thing.

Originally, by the way, they wanted to restrict time in that committee to l 0 minutes, period; we opposed that. In fact, I have sat here through pretty well every time that the government has brought in changes to labour legislation; unfortunately, it has been rather a large number of bills that seem to focus in on this area, and we have not had, on many occasions, any time limit whatsoever. I just looked at the bill. There are 13 pages in this bill. If you consider the number of clauses, it is about 45 seconds we are allowing to comment on each particular page of this particular bill.

I mean, I think it is absolutely bizarre that the government �ts to jam this through in l 0, 15 minutes. For the member to suggest it was agreed to, there was a vote, and we opposed those time limits, and we opposed the time limits that were applied in this case. I wonder why, Mr. Chairperson, I wonder if there is any coincidence that the one time the government has even allowed any real debate on this kind of tactic is on the labour bill.

Why is it that on other times we have debated it properly, formally, through our procedures, why is it that always when it comes to labour bills that this government tries this kind of antidemocratic, draconian tactic? I say, Mr. Chairperson, that the minimum that should be done, now that the motion has been rammed through, is there should be a reasonable time limit, because we are not prepared to have this bill rammed through at four in the morning as this government has done on past occasions with labour bills. Mr . Sveinson: Well, I would just like to answer the Floor Comment: Another woman.

Floor Comment: Oh, my; oh, my. Mr. Sveinson: Mr. Chairman, I apologize all over the place. Mr . Chairperson: The Chair will accept your apologies, Mr. Sveinson. Mr . Sveinson: At any iate, there is nothing unusual about either one of them. Ttank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr . Laurendeau: Mr. Chairman, I do understand the concerns that Wr. Ashton has about jamming the bill through. I do not lx:�ieve that we will.

As a matter of fact, I recommend that the committee not go clause by clause after we are finished the presentations until such time as we have had time to digest the information that we are going to receive tonight. Too often, we have not had that opportunity, and I think af.er we have heard the presentations we should have the proper opportunity to digest the information that has come forward. Mr.

Chaimtan, on the other point, when we say that we are going to hear all the presentations, the reason for that would be that at a number of the meetings now, the members have stated on and on and on that there has been no rhyme or reason to where we are heading. We would just like the public to be aware that we will continue to sit. It gives them the ability to sit for a while or go out and rest for a while and then come back. At least then we are not going to just push through and miss a bunch of names. It gives us that opportunity. I think it was a fair motion, and I agree with it wholeheartedly. Mr.

Sveinson: When you say that you are going to hear all the presenters, the people in fact then do know that they are going to be called in order and approximately when they should in fact be here. When you start in fact split�ing it up and running till, I have seen a number of them run till one, two, three in the morning, or indeed you look at setting a time, the fact of the matter is that people know when they are going to be called, and they can be here to make that presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. question that the lady on the other side asked, and indeed, Mr .

Reid: It is unfortunate the members on the there is nothing unusual about the time government side fail to recognize that members of the

October 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 public that are here to present on Bill 26 this evening have obligations to which l11ey have to be at tomorrow. They have jobs, hopefully, that they go to and that they want to be fresh to go to these jobs to do the services that are necessary for which they were hired. By your forcing them as government members to go and sit in a committee until the early morning hours will distract from the ability of them to perform their jobs the next day. What service are we doing that is going to help them perform those jobs?

I think we are doing a disservice to the public by sitting in this committee tiii the early morning hours, inconveniencing members of the public that are sitting here wanting to present. I do not see any reason why in all good conscience the members of the government side would not want to adjourn this committee at 11 p.m. and to come back at a reasonable hour on the next sitting day to allow the public the opportunity to come forward and make their presentations.

We do not want, I believe, hopefully, that the government members would want this as well, to inconvenience the public but to recognize that they too in their lives have commitments. With that, Mr. Chairperson, I would move that this committee not sit past 11 p.m. this evening. Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by Mr. Reid that this committee not sit past eleven o'clock in the evening tonight. Is there a call for the-were there questions? * (1 930) Ms. Bar rett : I would like to discuss the motion. We have been discussing this evening about people having to stay here until early morning hours.

I just did an analysis, and if people take 15 minutes there will be 14 hours of presenters, and 7:30-somebody help me here-is well into the middle of tomorrow morning. Now, that is not under anybody's, the most broadly defined concept of public consultations or public hearings. That is unheard of, and it is something that has not been done in any of the sessions of this Legislature this session on any of the other bills.

Where they have had 60, 70, 80 presenters listed, they have gone till early in the morning, sometimes two o'clock with ;eave, but they have not continued straight through until-what?-it would be 9:30 tomorrow morning. This is unconscionable, and it is being done solely because this is a piece of labour legislation. That is the only reason for this abrogation of natural justice happening. Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Ur ban Affairs): I was just going to say that one of the things that we have as an advantage as parliamentarians is debate in the House. These people have come here to make presentations.

We are taking away from their time for presentations, and I think we owe a right to the people who have come here to make presentations and we should start with the presenters. They are here to make presentations, and we are arguing amongst ourselves. They have come to make presentations. Let us hear the presenters. [interjection] Mr . Chair person: Mr. Ashton. Mr. Ashton has the floor. Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Yes, I have the floor, and I find it absolutely amazing that a government men1ber, after just putting in time limits and refusing to support our motion for reasonable adjournm ent time, would say that what they are doing is for the benefit dr the public. Give me a break. You are not showing any courtesy to members of the public. I want to suggest that the committee members rethink at least these reasonable time limits. We often assess a reasonable hour, eleven o'clock. I just do not understand where this push is coming to get this bill ran1med through in one night. We are prepared to come back.

We have done it on other bills, and I would suggest the government back off. We will agree to some reasonable times to get adjourned tonight and we will come back. In fact, as opposition House leader, I can indicate right now we are prepared to come back whenever it takes. How about next Tuesday? We have available committee time. Let us at least get a reasonable time slot here. I regret doing this, because I do not know why this bill should be any different from the others. Every other bill where we have had a significant number of presenters, where we need the extra time, we find the extra time.

Why is it when it comes to a labour bill 11at we have to be ran1ming this particular bill throug!1? I would plead with the government, perhaps to the Minister of Labour here, because unfortunately the government House leader is not here. Can we at least not get some agreen1ent on the reasonable adjournm ent time? I do not think anybody in their right mind thinks there is

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 1996 anything democratic about a process that would ram this through in one night, and we would finish at nine o'clock in the morning. I do not think that is democratic. Can we at least get agreement on the eleven o'clock adjour nment time? I can give a commitment right now that we can come back at a reasonable hour, Mr. Chairperson, and then we can get to hear the members of the public. But, you know, I am not prepared to allow this committee to be twned into a farce and unless we get some reasonable time adjournm ents, this committee will be a farce. Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chair, I am prepared to set a time limit at which time we will reconsider as to whether or not we should procee d. I am very concern ed. I am here to listen to the public. I propose that perltaps we could sit until one or two o'clock as has been the practice on almost every other case, every other conunittee. There . is nothing exceptional about that. We will sit and then we can reconsider at that time whether or not we want to proceed further. I think there is some merit to reconsidering this question without C:etermining definitively when we should end.

I am very concerned that we are not hearing from the members of the public. That is why I am here and tltat is why I am prepared to sit until two and then reconsider the issue of how far we should go. Mr . Laurendeau: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that aid. I think that has come a long way to help us out in making a decision. We have always been able to listen. Mr. Chairperson, I would also like to recommend, along with the minister, that we agr�e that we not go clause by clause, if we do finish the bill.

Hopefully, we can get agreement on that at the same time, because I would not want it to be seen, as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has said, that we were ramming the bill through . So I would ask for agreement on not going clause by clause just in case we did get through all the representation by then. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I am surprised that once again the member for St. Norbert would be trying to say how generous he is. When we have 56 presentations, you normally do not deal with clause by clause on the same day. That is standard practice.

It is not exactly being very generous when what we are concerned about here is that the whole thing might be rammed through in one day. To the minister, I would suggest that the reasonable time would be eleven o'clock to assess. That is often the situation. This is not a normal practice to finish this number of presentations in one night. I would suggest we assess at 11 . The usual exception of going past eleven o'clock is to accomm odate the public when people cannot come back, and I would suggest that practice be followed. We do that with out-of-town presenters and people who cannot come back at other hearings.

I get really concerned when I hear one, two o'clock. We have seen other committees in this session where, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) was saying, the goal lines keep being moved forward. What we want to make sure, I would suggest to the minister, is we assess at 11 and that we ensure that no names are called past eleven o'clock. I do not know if members of this committee are aware, but a lot of the people here who are making presentations are working people who have to work tomorro w. I �o not think it is reasonable to expect people to stay here until one, two, three, four or five in the morning.

I suggest, Mr. Chairperson, the reasonable thing to do is to pass this motion. If the minister wants to amend it to allow for accommodation of those who cannot come back at another time, we are prepared to sit later to accommodate members of the public, but we are not prepared to sit and be part of a committee that is aimed at trying to ram this through in one night. I would suggest to the minister the way to ensure that happens is for everyone to support this particular motion. Mr . Sveinson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if the motion is on the floor, if in fact that is to reassess at two o'clock.

There is no motion yet? Mr. Chairperson: The Chair will read the motion. The motion by Mr. Reid is that the committee not sit past eleven o'clock. That is the motion i>efore the floor. There has been a suggestion from the minister of an alternative. Mr. Ashton: I will try once again, and I would suggest perhaps if we could amend the motion to state we assess at II and that no names be called after that point in time.

October 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF IViANITOBA 9 There are a Jot of people here. If they cannot come back, we will be here next week. We are prepared to sit here next week. We are prepared to sit here as long as it takes. I think it is reasonable to say that we go no later than eleven o'clock unless it accommodates-[ interjection] Yes, no names, I am talking about names being dropped off the list past that point i:.1 time. So we get to eleven o'clock and then we ask i.:� there are members of the public who have not been heard who cannot come back at another time who would like to present, and deal with that.

Then we will sit as late as it takes to deal with that. I think that is a reasonable compromise, Mr. Chairperson, and I would su�gest that would allow us as a committee to ensure we do ::orne back next time if there are still people wishing to _Jresent. I would suggest to you, Sir, that we will be here for probably at least three committee hearings just given the number of presenters. I do not know why the government is trying to ram this through in one nigh�. It just does not make sense. Mr. Chairperson: Members of the committee, there is a motion on the floor from Mr.

Reid that the committee not sit- An Honourable Member: Are we not debating that yet? it (1 940) Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. There is a motion originally from Mr. Reid thlt the committee not sit past eleven o'clock. There has been an amendment or a suggestion from Mr. Ashton that the committee assess its position at eleven o'clock and agree not to call names after the eleven o'clock hour. Is there agreement to amend Mr. Reid's motion? T.1e new motion would be that the committee assess at e�even o'clock its position for termin ation and that there will not be any names called after eleven o'clock.

Have I interpreted your motion correctly, your suggestion correctly, Mr. Ashton? Mr . Ashton: Assess at eleven o'clock and not call names after that time, and we will see if there are people who cannot come back at the next committee hearing, and we will try and accommodc..te them at that time. So we are prepared to sit pasa: eleven o'clock only if requested to do so. Our point here is, I do not think it is reasonable to sit here one, two, three, this open-ended thing. People in the public need to know how long they need to stay here. They have other obligations; they need to have some sort of accommodation.

I think it is a reasonable compromise. We do not like the time limits but I think this is a reasonable compromise, and I think if we can get some agreement on this we can move into the presentations. Mr . Chairpersoo:-.: All right. What is the will of the committee? Mr . Sveinson: I think there could be agreement to reassess ing at eleven o'clock, but that is it. We will reassess it at eleven o'clock. Mr. Cha:rperson: All right. '.be r�ponse, Mr. Ashton, I believe is to reassess our position at eleven o'clock. Is the committee in accord with that? Mr.

Ashton: I feel like I am in a collective bargaining session, and I am wondering if we can get a mediator in, Mr. Chairpers� n. Mr. Chair pe��on: We will consult t'te Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews). Mr. Ashton: Expedited arbitration. Mr. Chairperson, we have a motion, and I think we can treat what I have suggested as ·an amendment to the motion. I suggest we have a vote on it. I also say to the members of the committee, and I do not say �s very lightly, but if they do attempt to ram this through tonight, we will not be part of it.

If they attempt to run this through one, two, three, four in the morning, I can say right now that we will not be part of that if we have to leave this committee. And I have never done that in the time I have !>een an MLA. We will. But I want to put the government on record. They may have a majority in this committee but there is a democratic process. We do have <..t least some fairness left in this province, and I really think they should understand that. Here I am try�ng to move what I consider to be a compromise resolution.

I would suggest if they were to support that we would then be able to have a more reasonable debate in this committee. I really say to the government members here, they may have the majority on this committee, but they should be

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 1996 very careful with that power. They should not be trying to ram through this legislation in one night. We w!ll not be a part of that, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Sveinson: First of all, it is absolutely ludicrous for anybody at this table to think that this is being ramm ed through tonight, beca·Jse it is not. Absolutely ludicrous. The other thing is quite simply, what, and with all the talking that was happening there, I would like to know what now is being presented? Mr . Chair person: The amendment presented by Mr. Ashton to Mr.

Reid's motion is that the committee assess its position at eleven o'clock this evening as to how much later it will sit and that no new names will be called after eleven o'clock this evening. That is the essence of the motion brought by Mr. Ashton. Mr. Sveinson: Mr. Chairman, I call the question. Mr. Chair person: The question has been called firstly on Mr. Ashton's amendment. Voice Vote Mr. Chair person: All those in favour of the amendment, say yea. It will be a voice vote. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: All those against. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chair person: The Nays have it.

Formal vote Mr. Sveinson: I call the question. Mr. Chairperson: The question has been called. The question before the committee now is shall the committee sit-Mr. Reid moves that the committee shall not sit past eleven o'clock this evening. The question has been called. Voice Vote Mr . Chairperson: All these in favour of the motion, please indicate yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: Please indicate against, by saying nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Formal Vote Mr. Ashton: I request a count-out vote again.

A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 3, Nays 6. Mr. Chair person: The motion is therefore defeated. Mr. Sveinson: I would li<e to suggest and look for agree ment that we reassess ti.1e time that we are going to sit till at eleven o'clock. Mr . Laurendeau: Can we recess for five minutes please, Mr. Chairman, so we can have a discussion? Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to Mr. Ashton: I would request a recorded vote. recess for five minutes? The committee shall so recess.

A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as The committee recessed at 7:46p. m. follows: Yeas 3, Nays 6. Mr. Chairperson: The amendment is defeated. We are now back on discussing Mr. Reid's motion. After Recess * * * The committee resumed at 8:00 p.m.

October 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 Mr. Chairperson: The committee will come to order. Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. It seems that we have some understanding with respect to the way that this committee will operate. At least I hope we have some understanding of how this will proceed. Therefore, I would move that this committee sit until midnight with no futher names callec. after 12 midnight except those wishing to voluntarily present. Mr. Chairperson: The motion that has been put by Mr.

Reid is that the committee sit until 12 midnight with no further names called after 12 midnight except those wishing to voluntarily present-! presume you are saying, sir? Mr. Reid: That is right. Mr. Chairperson: Voluntarily present. [interjection] Mr. Sveinson: Mr. Chairman, the member's motion is close to what mine reads. Mine would have read: we reassess the time this committee will sit �o at 12, and then nobody drops off the list after midnight. Mr. Chairperson: The motion I have read that is before after. Does the committee wish to vote on this motion? Does the committee wish any further discussion?

The question has been put. Committee members, we have a motion before the committee. The motion before the committee is that the committee sit till 12 midnight with no further names called after 12 midnight except those wishing volunta;ily to present. The question has been called. All those in favour of calling the question? Some :Ionourable Members: Yea. Voice Vote Mr. �Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chair person: All those against the motion. \ Some Honour able Members: Nay. Mr.

Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it. the committee, is there any further discussion to the Formal Vote committ ee? There has been a suggestion to change the motion. What is the will of the committee? Does the Mr. Ashton: I would request a counted vote. committee wish to accept the alternative wording? Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I am getting more and more confused here. I did not notice the intent being any different. We have a motion on the floor. Let us deal with the motion.

You know, I think that the key thing we are saying here from our side, we are willing to sit here to accommodate members of the public but not to accommodate the government. I think by having some reasonable limit, at twelve o'clock-! would have preferred 11-but twelve o'clock being a compromise and then only sitting where people cannot return. I think that is a reasonable compromise, and I do not see why we should not do anything other than adopt this and move on. Mr. Chairperson: What is the will of the committee?

The motion that is before the committee is twelve o'clock mi dnight, except those wishing to voluntarily present A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 3, Nays 6. Mr. Chairperson: The motion is defeated. Mr. Ashton: Well, we are sort of back to square one. think it is time for that mediator I talked about before. want to say, Mr. Chairperson, I am just wondering why the government has to differ. We said eleven o'clock, firm time. We moved to twelve o'clc-:;k. We said we will sit later if members of the public want to come back.

I hear the government saying they wutt to sit till one, two in the morning. I do not think that is reasonable. I think in the other committees, quite frankly, Mr. Chairperson, the general process has been very clear. If it is to accommodate somebody who is here from Brandon or Thompson or

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 1996 someone who cannot come back at another meeting, I am prepared to sit here, but I am not prepared to sit here and see our committee be a tool ofthe government. I mean, we are prepared to come back. In fact, I will say on the record we will com'! back Tuesday evening; Tuesday evening we will sit. We can start at seven o'clock. We can start at six o'clock. Six o'clock might be even better. We do not have other committees scheduled at this time.

I would suggest, and perhaps government members may wish to reconsider, I think midnight with the ability for people to go later than that. By the way, there were quite a few out-of-town presenters on the list, and I know there is at least one individual who has indicated to me that he cannot come back next time, early next week. I just do not see what the problem is here. Can we not perhaps reconsider that motion, or perhaps if they want to reword it. Perhaps they will feel more comfortable if they move it, Mr.

Chairperson, and it is a government motion, but whatever it takes, let us get a reasonable time limit and let us get on with the presentations. Mr. Sveinson: It seems there are many that would ·ike to speak on forever. Mr. Chairman, I move we reassess the time this committee will sit to at 12 a.R:., and nobody drops off the list after midnight. Is that clear? Nobody drops off the list a.ler midnight. Mr. Ashton: I am beginning to feel a little bit paranoid. I think our motion was trying to say the same thing.

If the government wants to have their own motion and move it and they feel more comfortable with that, we will support it so long as names do not drop off after midnight. Mr . Chair person: All right. The motion before the committee is that we reassess the time this committee will sit to at twelve o'clock and that nobody drops off the list after midnight. Agreed? Is it the wiH of the committee that this is agreeable? [agreed] Members of the committee, docs the committee wish to hear firstly from out-of-province and out-of-town presenters?

Mr. ! ... shton: Yes, I indicated I know there is one person who has identified, and there may be others who may not be able to come back because of other obligations. I suggest we woult' consider out-of-town and those who cannot come back at another time. Mr. Chair person: What is the will of the committee? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Chairperson: Agreed and so ordered. Perhaps you could i<!entify these individuals, Mr. Ashton. Mr. Ashton: I would suggest they just identify with the table staff at the back. Mr.

Chairperson: Ladies and gentlemen in the audience, if there are a number of individuals who cannot return after this evening, will you please identify yourselves with the table staff, and we will make accommodation. It will be the table staff at the rear of the room, if you can identify yourselves, and we will accommodate you after the out-of-towners. Just one further point, ladies and gentlemen, just to let the conunittee members know, we have received a written submis sion from Chris Lorenc on behalf of Manitoba Heavy Construction Association. :Dis brief has been placed on the committee table for presenters.

Is there agreement for the submission to appear in Hansard? I do not knoY' wha: the cause is. All I am a�vised is that he has presented a written submission. An Honourable Member: Because he has to work tomorrow. Mr . Chairperson: Mr. Reid is speculating, but it remains speculation. What is the will of committee? Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. C'tairman, 1 would so move that we enter it in Hansard. Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed? Mr . Ashton: I would suggest that we, as a rule, if people have \\rittcn presentations, en•er those in Hansard as well. * (20 10)

October 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 Mr . Chair person: Is it agreed that all written submissions will be entered in Hansard? [agreed] We will now proceed with the presentations. The first person that the Chair will call is a spokesperson to be named representing the Canadian Council of Grocery Distri butors - Canada Safeway. This is an out-of province person identified on our list. Is there such a person in the a·.1dience tonight? There is no response from the audience. All right. This person then will go to the foot of the list, whoever he may be, or she. [interjection] Yes, I caught it.

The first person appearing on the list who is from out of town is an individual by the name of AI Mackling. Is Mr. Mackling in the audience? Mr. Mackling, would you please proceed. Mr. AI Macklbg (Private Citizen): Mr. Chairman, it is a delight to appear at this side of the legislative table and to participate in what is truly one of tl:e best features of our parliamentary system, where committees of the Legislature hear suomissions of the people of the province.

It is disheartening to have sat for an hour and listened to what is clearly an attempt by the current government to push through legislation w_lich is totally unwarranted, unjustified and very undemocratic. The process this committee has exhibited, including members of the government, has demonstrated their concept of democracy. It is very one-sided. This legislation, for example, gives the government the authority, the minister, to submit a final submission of an employer to the workers if he thinks that that is desirable. Well, Mr.

Chairman, I think that if you are going to have legislation like that then the people of Manitoba who are the employers of the health care workers in this province should have the right to make a decision in respect to privatizing health care in this province. How would the M�nister of Labour (Mr. Toews) like that kind of situation? Because, Mr.

Chairman, neither the Minister of Labour nor his cabinet colleagues are the employers of the public workers in this province; they are merely our agents, our bargaining agents, if you will, from time to time, in respect to the terms of employment of health workers in this province, including all those who work in care homes that were going to be privatized. We as a people have a right to make that decision.

If you are going to say, to ensure democracy you are going to have the final submission, the final offer, decided by the employer, by the owners of the business, then we want to have that say, you will have to live with that kind of system. Well, Mr. Toews-I should say the honourable minister, but hearing some of the discussion around this table about the lady across there, sort of thing, the members do not have the decency and the integrity of the Legislature in addressing members.

I wo:�ld address the Minister of Labour by his personal name, but I have nothing but disappointment in the manner of his treatment of this legislation, because he is responsible, he is here, he guides the committee, and the authoritarian, undemocratic attitude that is displayed here is despicable. No administration in which I was ever involved, and there are two o� them, ever conduc�ed itself in this manner, and no Conservatiye that I know, Sterling Lyon, Sidney Spivak, none of them would have conduc�ed themselves in this manner.

From time to time when I had repartee with Sterling across the House, he would remind me and my colleagues that we were merely trustees for the people of this province, and that is what you are. you are not the owners of the work, you do not control, have the final say in respect to all things in this province. The people have, and the people are to be consulted. The people here should be consulted reasonao.y and adequately, and you want to put a 1 0-minute restriction on the time we can address to you.

You want some of these people to have to sit until twelve o'clock, and then you will decide in your wisdom whether you want to carry on, completely undemocratic. Mr. Chairman, the attitude of this government towards organized labour was demonstrated some time ago before you had your majority, and now you can exercise much more toughness in putting labour down in this province, and that is exactly what this leg;slation is all about, showing labour how tough you are. Well, how did you demonstrate that even when you were in a minority position?

The first thing you do, you got rid of final offer selection, which was a reasonable compromise that we developed in this province.

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 1996 We, I say, the New Democratic Party government developed in this province. I was privileged to be Min ister of Labour. Final offer selection was not something that I conceived as Minister of Labour. I give most of the credit to one of my colleagues, Jay Cowan, who had researched various labour legislation all throughout North America and come up with this as something we should have a look at.

We did look at it, and we weighed it and we checked it and we built it, and with some very real reluctance, organized labour in this province said, yes, we will give it a try. Some portions of organized labour were very much opposed to this legislation, because they thought it would end their rights to effectively collective bargain and ultimately withdraw services. We assured them that was not the case, and we crafted legislation that we believed would be fair.

Now I know that the Minister of Labour would say, but it was not fair, because a provision in the legislation which allowed workers, even after a strike had gone on for some time-and it was a required period, I believe it was 60 days or 90 days-the workers would have to tough it out that long on strike, but after that waiting period, they could say, yes, we will accept final offer selection, but the Conservative ideplogues in this province said, no, we will not allow that legislation to run its course, we put a time limit in, a claus e, a five-year li mitation clause in that legislation so it would automatically die on the order books, unless it was reimplemented.

But one of the first pieces of legislation this Conservative ideologically bound administration did was get rid of final offer selection. They did not look at it. They did not study the results. Labour did not always win. The union did not always win in these final offer selections. It did not curtail collective bargaining.

Arbitration, on the other hand, when you have arbitration, the parties sit back, and they do not bargain anymore, but you force them to look at final offer selection, then they have to think seriously about how attractive their offer is because, if their final offer is not reasonable, the other side's offer will be accepted. So this had the effect of constraining the parties to be reasonable, constraining them to be practical and to bargain. The result of it was that, and I have not got all of the statistics because I am sure the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr.

Toews) does not want to have all the statistics out there so people understand how effective final offer selection had been, but I have some of the statistics. 1be final offer selection for, I believe, the year 1990, it was repealed in '91, it did not go the full term, but the notes I have, there were 72 applications received. Five of those, the selector decisions were filed. Three were for the unions; two were for the employers. How do you like that, almost an even split?

There were seven selectors appointed with decisions pending; four outright dismissals; 49 out of 72, the parties had reached agreement prior to the selector being appointed. That did not chill arbitration. That did not chill negotiation to col lective bargaining; obviously, it worked. What this administration has demonstrated is an intolerance for labour. Now-(interjection] :?ardon me? *

(2020) Mr. Chairperson: One minute, Mr. Mackling. Mr. Madding: Well, I am going to suggest to you that no New Democratic Party government in this province has demonstrated an intolerance for business. We had business summ its. We brought labour and business together. We worked to bring people to work in Manitoba. We tried to harmonize, rather than antago nize, labour and industry in t"lis province. The attitude and the demonstrated actions of this government are the complete reverse. It is a shameful exposition of raw political might, and you will win in the short run .

You will ram through this legislation, I assume, but make no mistake about it, you will lose in the long run because what you are doing is unfair and unjust. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Mackling, I believe there may be a few questions to be put to you, sir, if you could, unless you are reluctant to accept the ques·.:ons. ' Mr. Mackling: Oh, not at all, not at all. Mr. Chairperson: I did not think so. Mr . Reid: T!tank you, Mr. Mackling, for your presentation. It "1as been a very educational experience for me to see a former Minister of Labour and a current Minister of Labour and the differences between the two.

One can see quite clearly that there was some reasonableness in previous govenun ents that we have had in this province trying to do consensus building with

October 24, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 respect to the relationship !hat has been hopefully, and hopefully will continue in hle future, between business and labour. One of the things hlat we have seen through Bill 26 is that this particular Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) through his office has referred Bill 26 proposals to the Labour Management Review Committee in this province. Are you aware, Mr.

Mackling, that the current Minister of Labour has received the recommendations back from the Labour Management Review Committee, and that this particular committee, which was comprised of both business and labour in a consensus-building way, has rejected in large part the minister's recor.wendations on Bill 26, and do you have a.'ly comment with respect to that particular committee? Mr.

Mackling: Yes, the honourable member is quite right in drawing attention to me, and through me the public and all present here, that the Labour Management Commi ttee establis.1ed some many years ago, before I was Minister of Laaour, has done excellent work in the field of developing an atmosphere of co-operation and understanding in labour relations in this province. They meet on a regular basis. They have vigorous discussions.

I am sure that on many times they agree to disagree on various things, because there are some strong-willed representatives of both management and labour that function on that corr..mittee, but by and large what they finally agree to has been reasonable and followed by government, certainly followed by this minister when I was Minister of Labour.

I want to commend the efforts of tha� commi ttee over the years and its current chairperson, Wally Fox-Decent, who I found to be a fairninded, reasonable person, always considered as-I knew Wally back in the days of university as a large-C Conservative, but he has functio ned as a reasonable, pragmatic person, not an ideologue, not a dogmatist, not someone who would antagonize and infuriate labour in this province, and I would commend the minister to rethink this legislation and go back and talk wit.., the Labour Management Review Committee and accept their advice. Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Chairperson, I would like to welcome my former colleague back to this Chamber, and I appreciated his comments on final offer selection. It was in this committee room that we fought against repeal. In fact, we delayed it at one point in time. We lost that battle. We may lose the battle on this, but I want to assure him that we will win the political war that will follow, because I do believe that most Manitobans do not accept this kind of-the confrontation we are seeing in this province with labour.

I want to ask you a question because you I think pioneered-you mentioned about final offer selection which was I think very successful here in Manitoba-was pioneer in terms of providing options.

When I see, for example, the people who have been on strike with Wes.fair for six months who have to come to this Legislature and almost beg the Minister of Labour to try and get a mediator appointed who might have been able to access that kind of legislation, when I see the kind of lengthy labour disputes we have had in this province in a large part because of the confrontation this government has brought forward, and I note the casino workers being the most recen t, the direct confrontation with the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Toews) on that issue and also with the home care wo�kers, I am jus� wondering if it does not strike you as be'ing, I think, perhaps clearest evid ence of that their approach is not working, of the fact that we have this year a historic level of days lost to strike and lockout, when in fact mechanisms such as final offer selection and other mechanisms were available, would have allowed ways out, would have allowed people to get a decent contract settlement. In, fact in those cases you mentioned did. I am wondering if you could perhaps comment now. I am really glad to see you back.

Perhaps now we have a bit more of & historical perspective, because I believe it is close to 10 years ago now, it would have been in 1987, that we passed final offer selection. I am wondering if you would care to comment on what you see has happened with that perspective. Mr. Madding: Well, Mr. Chairperson, members of the commi ttee, there is no doubt in my mind that if we had had final offer selection available in this province throughout its full trial perioj, it would have demonstrated that this was a reasonable alternative to having vicious labour-management confrontations. Nobody wins.

Nobody wins in long, protracted labour strife because, as Minister of Labour, I looked upon the labour-industry sa:ne as one in which there had to be co-

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 1996 operation. There had to be understanding. There had to be some working toge ther, because men and women were working, yes, they were working for remuneration, but most men and women who have jobs are dedicated to their work. Yes, there is the odd slugger, the odd slacker. There is in everythin3, whether it be in law or any other human activity, but most people take pride in their work.

To me, it was vital and necessary that there be a hannonious relationship, as harmonious as possible, and ever ything that I as Minister of Labour sought was to develop a milieu, a framework for the greatest measure of co-operation and understanding. I am sad to say that it has been a black era that we have moved through in the �ast several months in particular. Mr . Chair person: Thank you, Mr. Mackling. That now concludes the time limit for questions, and I thank you ve ry much for your presentation before us this evenmg.

Ladies and gentlemen, there has been one presenter who has identified himself to us this evening, an individual by the name of George Anderson. Mr. Anderson did not communicate his telep�one number to the Clerk at the time . If he is in the audierice at this time, I would ask that he submit his telephone number or raise his hand if he is here, and we can-oh, there he is, good. We will get your telephone number so that we can contact you if additional meetings are scheduled. The next presenter will be Dave Tesarski on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Labour. Mr. Tesarski, are you in the audience?

Thank you, Mr. Tesarski, sir. Do you have written copies of any brief for the committee members? Mr. Dave Tesarski (Manitoba Counci' of the Canadian Federation of Labour): Yes, I do, but I am prepared to let another presenter that is from further out of town to go before me. It is not a big deal for me to come back or let somebody else go in front of me. Mr. Chair person: All right. We can put you down to the end of the out-of-towners, if that is your will. Mr. Tesarski: That is fine. Mr. Chairperson: All right. Thank you, sir.

The next presenter from out of town is Chris Hicks from the Souris Vtlley Teachers' Association. Mr. Chris Hi cks, would you come forward, sir. Do you have written copies of a brief for distribution to committee members? *

(2030) Mr . Chris Hicks (Souris Valley Teachers' Association): Could I make some cautionary notes, though? I am an English teacher, so I constantly revise things, so you will forgive me if l stray from the text that you have. I just found out about these hearings at 11 this morning, and I had to teach all day, so I wrote the brief on my lunch hou·, which is 45 minutes long. Mr . Chairperson: Thank you, sir. Would you please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Hicks: Good ev ening. Officiary, ! am here as a teacher representing the Souris Valley Teachers' Associa tion.

Unofficially, I am here as a human being who feels an obligation, si;ly though it may seem, to defend a couple of seemingly basic universal rights. So tonight I represent both capacities. It seems very odd that a citizen of the western world, much less Canada or even Manitoba, should be forced to be here defending his human rights, and it seems even more odd given the perpetual reinforcement in western societies of the virtues of democracy and the virtues offreedom. Today, in the Manitoba Legislature, that perpetual reinforcement amounts to little more than rhetoric lip-service maybe.

Tonight, I am questioning those values, not because I think them unimportant; rather, I am questioning them because they are being redefined or, many would argue, threatened by the proposed legislation of Bill 26, to name one, sadly, of many. I will use the words "democracy" and "freed om" regularly in the course of this brief because my feelings are so strong and I want to ensure that I have your attention, as I urge you to drop Bill 26. Perhaps a little history is in order.

During the course ofthe Filmon government's rule, the people of Manitoba have been treated to some of the most flawed welf are and social reforms of its time, and "reform" is a curious word to use since one can hardly label tens of millions of dollars in fimding cuts to education, for example, reform. Examples of grotesque underfunding of some of our most basic and, theref ore, crucial public institutions mount in

October 24, 1996 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 numbers off antastic proportions. Bill 2 is a case in point in which the method of deficit reduction must make Wall Street cringe-and laugh. The infamous Filmon days added more useful expression to his government's commitment to exploitation, quite ironically, of the same people who vote for his government term after agonizing term.

Bill 22 forced sc;.ool boards to reduce work days, school days, rather, in a successful attempt at salary deprivation of educators, and in a further effort to continue its commitment to abolishing the effectiveness of public schools. The media yawned, and somehow the Filmon government won a majority of seats. Of course, the truly unsettling reality is that the consequences of the Filmon government's actions somehow get ignored or forgotten at election time, or so it would seem, but not today, as the government is availab!e to address these deep and true public concerns over their policies.

For that, I guess, I thank you. In the past year a new phase of reforms to public ins titutions and fundamental social programs has emerged, and here we are defending ourselves. This time we have gone beyond just hoping to save a few more years of job security, a few more hospital beds, a few more classrooms, a few more qualified, enthusiastic teachers, even a few more lives. Now what we have reached is a stage where citizens are being forced to def end their fundamental human rights-rights to live freely, rights to privacy, rights to freedom of speech and ri ghts to the freedom to oppose.

These freedoms are more than sentimental treasures to admire; quite plainly they are necessary for the survival of our quality of life. Having even to debate the possibil ity of having to defend these rights-in Manitoba yet-suggests how utterly offensive Bill 26 and other proposed legislations are to the principles of democracy, but here we are. So upon whose shoulders rioes this burden fall? In the case of Bill 26, it falls U)On the shoulders of active unions that have the welfare of their members to consider.

Does the union's having to provide regular audited financial statements to various boards available to the public, yet, reflect its commitment to looking after its members? Does being forced to make available detailed lists of all employees' compensation over $50, 000 a year reflect this commitment? What do we make of the penalties for the failure to provide this? The Labour Board is granted authority to authorize school boards, for example, to deduct all union fees when a union fails to comply with the above demand. Even upon compliance, the fees already deducted cannot be recovered.

What of Bill 26 and the attack regarding political action? Unions are forced to have processes of consulting each member whether the member wants the union dues to go toward political purposes. Well, this is the democratic way. That is since western democracies cannot rule its unruly citizens by force, legislation is adopted that hopes to make them, unions, destroy themselves. If the union fails to comply, it can be charged with unfair labour practice. Unf air, of course, is to be decided by body outside the actual operation.

As well, normal privacy laws and protections, that is, privacy of one's salaries and benefits, are not applicable. Democracy? It is subtle and may appear harmless, but a careful analysis shows the intent of such preposterous legislation. Even after we analyze the implications of Bill 26, really only one \question remains, and that question is, why? What benefit could this possibly have to society? I could make good guesses, but they are just guesses. Please take that as a note of sarcasm. The shortcomings, however, are more easily derived .

As a teacher I value the ser-Vices provided by the Manitoba Teachers' Society, as do my 14,000 colleagues. I am more comfortable knowing they are occupied with maintammg my professional welfare and not aggravati ngly preoccupied supplying meaningless information demanded by some detached and unneces sarily involved government department or board. As a teacher I value the services of my union in that it provides in the relationship for the services it provides to my students. I am, because of my union, constantly being supplied with professional resources that I hap!Jily adapt and apply to my programs.

Yes, even my stuc.ents are cared for by my union. They need not be burdened with labour unrest. I fear that will happen if Bill 26 passes. So again, why Bill 26? Well, certainly we have to look at the political action clause. Recall, for example, the stand MTS took on the Filmon government's view of public education in the last election. We exercised our

18 LEGISLATIVE ASS.SMBL Y OF MANITOBA October 24, 1996 right to speak out and to oppose any organization which poses a threat to public educat ion. Again, the purpose of Bill 26 is subtle fo r a while, then it is painfu lly obvious. In a democracy the people ought to judge the value of such opposition, not the government, but are not democr atic governments elected to make responsible <!ecisions, if not decisions then to at least assume respons ible accoun tability fo r their actions?

The Film on government has to understand this by now, fo r they celebrate their actions that appease the private sector, fo r example, funding private schools with public money, but abdicate accounta bility of their lunatic actions toward public programs to their victims, such as massive cuts to health and educati on. Respo nsible government? Legitimate government? Respo nsible and legit imate government creates and maintains service to its people, not the other way around.

This is the standard view of democracy and any view to the contrary con jures up horr ible images and examples from human history of ruthless dictator ships, violent rebel lions. We are not there yet, of course, but there are some connections, again, wit'1 some analys is. Something that is very unsettling abbut this whole affair is not why we unions are resisting. It is unsettl ing, yes, but it is not surprising. More unsettling is why we are vi rtually alone in resisting. A dishonest response would be that we stand to lose the most.

As I stated above, however, losing typical freedoms everyone loses, and history provides example after example of where people have known what it means to suffer this loss. A passing glance at even the most nominally turbulent societies today would show that it began with the exploitat ion and eventual term ination of basic freedoms. *

(2040) Will Manitoba be the subject of another page in that hist ory? Well, Bill 26 testifies that the page is already being drafted . Since I am discussing basic freedoms I will conclude by adding a final word on Bill 26. In its most basic fo rm it is an obscenity, contrived by questionable leadership and highlig hted by political paran oia. There is little if any legitimate justi fication fo r even pro posing this bill. Justi fication fo r passing it is in a class not of this earth and, being thus, it is vulnerab le to the kind of criticism I have cited here tonight and that will probably fo llow.

Ultimately, this aiticism is aimed toward a government who claims to have legitimacy but whose legislative proposals make that legiti macy suspect, sometimes laughable and probably dangero us. This is not the kind of government who can clainl to be fo r its peo ple. If such is the case then it is not our governo1ent and I cannot claim with any semblance of confidence that it is my gove rnn1ent. I thank you fo r hearing me tonight. As I urge you to repeal Bill 26, please coo sider the fo llowing when you go to decide.

I belong to a union of pro�' essional educators whose ultimate purpose is to provide the necessary el ements that maintain a healthy and worthy quality of life fo r our society; that is, the public education of our society's most valuable resource, our children. If I am not able to look after my prof essional inter ests or have them looked after by a body of my own choosing, namely my union, then I can hardly claim to be able to look after myself, and if I cannot look after myself, who is going to look after my students? Thank you. Ms.

Barrett: �j ust have a comment actually, and it fo llows along on the nonverbal comment that you just received on your presen tation. We in the Legis lature, in this session and in earlier sessions, have been talking a lot about the problems that various pieces of legislation have had fo r people in Manitoba, and I think this paper very eloquently connec ts all of those freedoms and things that we have taken fo r granted and that are being threatened by leg;slation such as Bill 26.

You take it outside the narrow parameters that the government is trying to frame it into and put it in its global context which is that it is part of a potentially larger, and I will use the word "conspiracy ," to ref orm some of our basic democrat ic rights, and you have done it, as I said, very eloque ntly, and thank you very much for your presentat ion. Mr. Hicks: Thank you. Mr. Reid: I would like to thank the presenter very much fo r his stimulating presentation here this eveni ng. I fo und that I am in agreement with all that you have raised through your presentation, but I want to ask you about

October 24, 19 96 LEGIS .:.. .ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 and maybe draw to your attention, as you so eloquently spoke about in your presentation, the government's actions in taking away our basic human rights. Are you aware that this government, through at least six or seven pieces of its legislation that they have currently before us in the Legislature, .tas taken steps to withdraw the ability of wor .. dng people of this province to have the right of determination on who would represent them?

Through Rlls 54, 49, 17 , this bill, Bill 72 and 73, all of them will remove in some way the democratic rights of working people of the province of Manitoba. Are you aware that this government has taken those steps through so many pieces oflegislation? Mr. Hicks: I did not know there were so many. Mr.

Reid: In the Legislature, because we saw Bill 26, as we saw so many other pieces oflegislation, as being so dictatorial in nature, we proposed to send, and introduced a motion in the Legislative Chamber to send, this Bill 26 to the United Nations International Labour Organization to have this legislation viewed on whether or not it conf ormed with the code that Canada is a signatory to. Do you think that the government should have supported that motion to have this legislation viewed to giving us a chance to determ:ne whether or not it met our obligations towards working people of this province and this country?

Mr. Hicks: I think they should support it. It would not surprise me if they did not, though. Mr. Reid: Can you commer.t on the fact that for the first time teachers will now be a part of The Labour Relations Act only insofar as they will be required to have detailed financial reporting and be dforded no other provisions under The Labour Relations ACt. What are your thoughts on that? Mr . Hicks: I think it is preposterous for any union to have to do that. They have got better things to do.

Actually, is not the political action-union dues toward political action, I think, that is a travesty; to have tcr-1 mean, we elect the people who represent us the same way. If I have a problem with my union, I do not run to Gary Filmon; I run to my union reps. Mr. Reid: Thank you for those comments. Mr . Hi cks: Actually, I do not run; we diplomatically discuss it like adults. Mr.

Ashton: I want to focus in on that because what I really appreciate is the way you have brought together a lot of the themes and particularly focusing in on the whole sitt.ation with democracy, and I am just wondering if you have any concerns. You mentioned about the government, the way they conducted themselves, and I mean if they really set any example to now try and be interfering in the internal affairs of your union, MTS.

By the way, they do not like the term "union." Somebody, one of the members, this afternoon gave a great long speech in the Legislature from the Conservative side criticizing MTS for being a union. I was really surprised he felt that was some pejorative term, because I know a lot of people at MTS are quite proud to be represented by that union, but I am just wondering what kind of democratic process you see in place when yo� now have a government-and this is the same government that talked about elections that did not-you know, they said, they were going to save the Winnipeg Jets, they were not going to sell MTS.

I am wondering if you can comment on what kind of example they have set for democracy that they now feel they should be implementing and ramm ing through in terms of your particular organization, which is a democratic organization and it is an organization run by the people that should be running it, which is the teachers of Manitoba? What kind of example are they setting to now interfere in the internal affairs of your Manitoba Teachers' Society? Mr .

Hicks: In the context of Bill 26, which probably leads into the other one-57 or something-where anyone can just come and check out how much money I make, I mean, the real problem is I do not understand what the point of Bill 26 is, what possible benefit it does. Maybe I did not read the same one, I do not !mow, but it does not seem to me to be a favourable situation when you are not allowed or you are put in a situation where you can create disharmony within your membership over whether or not you want your union dues towa:d political action.

Well, if we did not put out commercials and we did not advertise and keep, you know, government legislation in

20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24; 1996 the public, because we know that the government does not do a good enough job of it themselves, how is anyone supposed to know? Mr. Chairperson : :3at will conclude the questions fo r this presenter. Mr. l-i:cks, thank you very much fo r your presentation this evening. Mr. Hicks: Thank you. Mr . Chairperson: The next presenter is a Robert Lindey, Manitoba Association fo r Rig hts and Liberties. Is Robert Lindey in the audience? Robert Lindey's name will go to the foo t of the list. The next person to be considered tonight would be Randy Bjornson.

Is Randy Bjornson-ah, good, Mr. Bjornson. Mr. Randy Bjornson (Lakeshore Teac'1ers' Association): I am also a teacher. Mr. Chairperson: Good even ing, Mr. Bjornson, and you have s.:.��e written presentat ions;, fo r us to be circulated. Thank you. * (2050 ) Mr . Bjornson: I am not as eloquent as Chris is, but I represent around 100 teachers in the Lakeshore School Division. If I can continue, Mr. Chairperson? Thank you. Good evening. My name is Randy Bjornson. I teach Grade 5 up north at Ashern Central School, in Ashern, Manitoba. I am also President of the Lakeshore Tea chers' Association.

This evening, I represent around 98 teachers in the northern Interlake region, which inclu des the commun ities of Ashern, Eriksdale, Fisher Branch, Inwood, Lundar and Moosehorn . On behalf of the executive of the Lakeshore Teachers' Association, I fe el we must respond to the three bills that are bef ore the Legisl ature this fall, and there are more bills, as I hear now. These bills include 26, 57 and 72. I will speak to Bill 26 this eveni ng.

I also heard late last night that this presentation was about to take place, so I had to do this on my lunch hour as well and drive in for three hours to get here on time, so I appreciate the amount of time that you gave us. I would like to tell you how Bill 26 affects us as teachers. Our �ota" budget �or the LTA, the Lakeshore Teachers' Association, is $4,900. We are a small division We spend money on a number of things such as executive meetings once t. month, mile age and meals fo r executive members on :... T A business, and the ma jor portion of the budget !s spent on prof essional development .

We have three or fo ur days out of the year where we spend this money . That is where the rest of the budget goes. Now, why would the government fo rce us to divulge such mundane inf ormat ion to them? That is what I am asking. This biD, as presen ted, makes no sense to us. This bill intrudes and infringes on our rights as a group of people who want to improve and enhance our prof ession. We have enough to do in the teaching prof ession as it is other than responding to bills such as this, but we will respond, and you will face the consequen ces. The government has fo rced us to respond.

This biD, I fee l, has done us a favour. It has solidified teachers' fee lings, and this is one of the ways that we are trying to get together and work together, is wear these little pins. It has awakened teachers to what is going on around us, awt.kened them to a government intent on pushing our prof ession down, jumping on people who are working hard at trying to improve their child ren's lives in our society. I have never seen such interest and concern shown bef ore by our tea ching prof es sionals.

I have taught now fo r 24 years , and there are gray hairs up here to prove it, and I fe el the concern, and I see it on the faces of the individuals that I talk to about Bill 26 and also definitely BiD 72. This biD invades ou:- privacy . This bill costs us needless money . -:1Us biD harasses cer tain members such as the nine or 10 members of our executive who live 15 0 miles north of here . Other members of other bargaining units can look at our association's business. Is this ight? I do not think it is. What business ;s it of the government's how we spend our money? This is oar money we put in here . It

October 24, 1996 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 is not your money. You do what you feel with your money. The way the government keeps hammering on teachers forces us .o spend money on informing the public on how important a job we have to do for your children and our children. It is bad enoLgh now in the public, and the government should be helping us out, not wasting our time playing this political football tonight. The government has forced us to respond. I am not and we are not political activists. We are teachers. We are teachers of your children and, from some of your looks, grandchildren.

That was a joke, and I c.m sorry. Please think about that when you vote on Bill 26. I would like to summ arize by quoting my Grade 5' s favourite saying in the playground: That is not fair. You, the government, have not been fair with us. Thank you for allowing me to present to you. Mr . Chair person: Mr. Bjornson, there may be a few questions from the committee. I do not know. Mr . Reid: I would like to thank Mr. 3jornson for his presentation here this evening. I am sorry you had to wait so long, sir, for us to work our way through the committee process, and I thank you for travelling in to this committee.

It is unfort\Ltate this committee does not take the opportunity-at any time in my years here-to travel through the province to have public hearings at various parts of the province on the pieces oflegislation that come before us, but il is obvious that this government is trying to limit the amount of public discussion that takes place and, in no small way, disadvantages a lot of the members of the public that would like to present. With respect to-you say your total budget for your particular Lakeshore Association is $4,900 a year.

This government is saying that, through this legislation, now the various labour organizations of the province, when they have some difficulties with employers on issues, are going to have to go to mediation or arbitration, that the associations or unions are going to have �o pick up some the costs that are associf.ted, a portion of the cost associated with that. How do you see that impacting upon your particular people that you represent, teachers that you represent? Mr. Bjornsoa:: Well, of course, when we have to go to arbitration, it costs us a lot of money.

Of course, our fees would have to oo increased, and that is coming out of our pockets. The whole thing about this whole bill makes no sense to us at all. If it did something, I am sure we would be looking, you know, forward, but it does not do anything. All it does is it gives you a big stack of papers this high or higher, and it does nothing for you. The government should be doing other things than doing this kind of s.uff. Mr.

Reid: So if I can paraphrase, and I do not want to put words into your mouth, sir, but ifl can paraphrase what you are saying, it is that you see that portion of the bill as being a tax upon the members, upon the financial resources of your members, because your dues are going to have to be increased as a result of portions of this bill. Mr. B;ornson : It just depends on how everything works out. I cannot really say that for sure, but that is something-of course, if we have to go to arbitration, if we have to go to conciliation, that costs us money. Mr.

Ashton: As a person who regularly drives Highway 16 from Thompson, I know how much you have had to drive in, and I appreciate the fact that you have come here. I want to focus on something else. You know, I have talked to a lot of teachers in my own area, and I have had the opportunity to talk to teachers in various other areas of the province. One of the feelings of a lot of teachers is, and I think the phrase that they are using now is, that they feel like they are being punished by the government for having spoken out during the election and basically running an advertising campaign that said, think education.

Mr. Bjornson: It was not antigovernment. Mr. Ashton: Is that your sense and the sense of teachers in your area? Mr. Bjornson: I would like to say not, but personally, yes, I think they are being antagonistic, they are saying, wei�. you did that to us, tit for tat. That is how I feel. I am not sure, you know, how any other teacher does feel. I think it is just like in a Grade 5 class I teach every day.

22 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 19 96 If there are one or two kids that are acting up and I punish the whole class for it, is that fair? It is not fair. Mr . Ashton: I am wondering too, the adverti sing that was done, the information that was put out on the election, was that ma(e-th rt was a decision of the MTS, the teachers gener allj? Mr . Bjornson: All of us were part of that decision making pr ocess. I represented our president council.

We will be meeting on Saturday again to plan strategy, to look at where we are going, to look at the government and where it is going, and who knows where we are going? That is the way the government seems to want it nowadays. We want to be conciliatory; we are not antagonistic people. Teachers are not antagonistic people. We try to be conciliatory in the way we do things. That is the way our classes are run. But this is the way it seems to be. That is the way it has to be. This is the way it is going to be, and we are ready . ,. (2 1 00) Mr.

Ashton: Oh, I just have one further question on the advertising, and one of the things that strikes me as the most inconsistent here is you said it was a democratic decision of the teachers to make a st4tement in the election in terms of education, but we have, for example, the governm ent right now spending $400,000 promoting the sell-off of Manitoba Telephone System. They did not even go to the people of Manitoba on that in the election. They have no mandate for it, and I know a lot of people who would love to be able to have some say over that.

I am wondering if you do not see some inconsistency in the fact the governmen t can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of adver tising without your consent as a taxpayer but, on the other hand, now wants to interfere in the democratic decision-making process of teachers to prevent you from, in an election, speaking out on something that is as fimdamental to teachers as education. Is that not somewhat inconsistent? Mr. Bjornson: I think it is too, and I also rece ived the two-page, nice letter from the head of Manitoba Telephone System in my mail the other day.

If that letter was not political, then I will- Jv.rr. Chair person: Thank you, Mr. Bjornson. That concludes the time limit for the questions with this presenter . The next presenter is Dan Lemieux. Is Mr. Lemieux in the audience? Dan Lemieux? All right, his name will go to the foot of the list. The next presenter is Edward Hiebert. Edward Hiebert's name will go to the foot of the list. The next person is ?.. oss Martin. Ah, good. Mr. Martin, I see you have some written presentations as well. Please proceed with your presentation, sir. Mr . Ross Martin (Brandon & District Labour Council): Thank you.

My name is Ross Martin. I am presid ent of t'1e Brandon and District Labour Council, and with me here tonight is the first vice-president, Mr. Ronald Teeple, and also si ster Colleen Seymour, the second vice-president. Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee, the Brandon and District Labour Council represents appr oximately 4,500 members from 25 affiliated local unions in Brandon and the surrou nding area. We always believoc that the government of Manitoba's main objective was to improve the living conditions of all Manitobans.

While we often disagr eed with their methods of rea ching that objective, at least there was some belief that they did have the inter ests of Manitobans at heart . This governrr ent has abandoned that philosophy. They have indicated very clearly through this biU and the others in this legislative session that they are only interested in promo ting the corporate bosses, the elite of society, with other Manitobans should be relegated to ser ving those with money and power .

We have always believed that the Minister of Labour should be an impartial umpire who would ensure that the balance between labour and employers would be equitable. Approximately one year ago the Minister of Labour saw nothing wrong with T.·e Labour Relations Act, yet today it needs major reva mping, even against the advice of the minister's Labour Management Review Committee. The minister against labour has introduced legis lation which is a brutal frontal attack against all working Manitobans, especia:!y those who are unionized. The minister, in l�ed goose step with the employer, has declared his bias.

October 24, 1996 LEGiS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 Is it not strange that in every dictatorship throughout the world the first thing that they do is silence the labour unions? Welcome to Big Brother Manitoba. This government has declared that majority votes in union certifications no longer count. Democracy should not apply to the workplace. Only a vote by 1 00 percent of the workers is adequate, Mr. Toews says. Votes will take place in seven days or wheneve: the employer feels that they can intimidate enough wo:kers to change their votes.

When was the last time that every member of this Tory government got a clear majority of votes cast, or 65 percent of the vote? Why do workers have to vote twice on whether they want to join a union? so�ne democracy. This government has declared that unions must open their financial statements to employers and other nonunion people. Where is the fairness in this when employers do not have the same obligation? What kind of democracy is this? I have always had the opportunity to view and question the financial statements of all union organizations that I have belonged to.

It is my individual right to refuse to join, but then I have given up the right to have a say in their affairs. Will M:. Toews and his Tory Party let me into their conventions with voice and vote without being a member of their party? This government has decl�·ed that unions cannot lobby political bodies in an effort to improve the lives of their members and other Manitobans. Union members decide how their money is to be spe�t through a very democratic process called a majority vote.

They used the same strange method to decide who will represent them and never once in my memory have they voted for the government to represent them. Union members do not need nor want the government to run their unions. If members do not want their elected representatives to participate in any campaign, political or otherwise, we will tell them or else remove them from office. Yet Big Brother Manitoba has determined that democracy should not be followed in unions and the minority and nonunion people should be able to move their dues to wherever they wish. Does this apply to the corporations? Will Mr.

Toews allow me to divert my tax money to the charity of my choice since I do not agree with any of this legislation? This government has declared itself as Big Brother Manitoba, and its bosses and employers can make union members vote on any of their offers any time. This seems rather one-sided. Will the minister allow union member representatives to have the same right over employers? Union negotiating teams are elected by the members to get the best deal possible. This completely circumvents them, therefore attacks at the heart of union democracy.

This government has declared that more strife is necessary in the workplace; therefore,· expedited arbitration is restricted. Expedited arbitration resolves disputes too quickly, I guess, allowing too much time for employers and employees �o coexist in harmony. By severely restricting expedited arbitration, the grievances can drag out for years, C:enying justice in the workplace and always supplying a flash point for other disputes. Yet Big Brother Manitoba says this is good for Manitobans. The government has declared picket lines legal firing lines for employers.

By taking aw� the right to strike through intimidation, Big Brother Mai'titoba has fed the workers to the wolves. We fail to see the democracy in this and are sure that Mr. Toews has forgotten a piece of the legislation. By taking away : _e ultimate union weapon, the right to strike, I am sure that Mr. Toews will amend this legislation such that when a strike is called the employer must immediately shut down the business until the strike is settled. For this there will be no picket lines. After all, Mr. Toews says he is a fair man; let him prove it through his actions.

The .9randon and District Labour Council knows that the proposed legislation eliminates or seriously erodes democracy in the unions that it is purported to enhance. This is a tale of smoke and mirrors where Big Brother tells us what is good for us yet destroys us ir the process. It takes the right away from our elected representatives to represent us. It puts real power in the hands of Big Brother Manitoba and its employer bosses. This is bad legislation that bre<&Ks the more or less balanced Labour Relations Act, and it will have serious repercussions in the future if passed.

Workers should run unions, not government. This legislation should be trashed for the sake of all Manitobans. I respectfully submit on behalf of the Brandon and District Labour Council. Thank you.

24 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 1996 Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Do any of the committee members have a question of the presenter? I see Ms. Barrett. Ms. Barrett, the Chair recognizes you. Ms. Barrett: A brief comment and then a question for the presenter, if I mc;y. The comment that through your questions of the minister and the government throughout your presentation you very neatly highli ghted the hypocrisy of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) when he talks about this legis lation as democratizing the workplace and providing more power for workers. I thank you for that.

You have encapsulated that very nicely. You, on your second page, one of your questions was, when was the last time that every member of this Tory government got a clear majority of the votes cast or 65 percent of the vote? Is the presenter aware that the Minister of Labour �ctually got 35.5 percent of the eligible votes of the votes cast in the last election? Mr . Martin: No, I was not aware of that, but I can understand people not voting for him. Mr . Ashtor.: I want to thank Mr. �artin for his presentation.

I want to focus on the question of political action, because I asked the representative before from Lakeside Teachers, because I know many teachers are feeling they are being punished because of having spoken out. I am wondering if you feel that perhaps one of the reasons behind this piece of legislation is that the government does not like the fact that the labour movement speaks out politicaliy during and in between elections and if this is not really an attempt to prevent the labour movement from having that abi:ity to participate politically. * (2 11 0) Mr.

Martin: To me this government has shown itself to be very vindictive. It wants to quiet uni'lns. It wants them to shut up and go away, be stuck off in a comer. I believe it is straight revenge. We try to work in the pol itical process. We do it very democratically, from what I saw tonight much more democratically than some things are handled around here. I believe it is outright revenge against anybody that opposes them, and I think we are well on the way, because they have a majority, that they are going to treat it as a dictatorship rather than good government.

I am afraid that we have lost the whole thing on good government. Mr. Ashton: I mentioned the Manitoba Telephone System and the fact the government has no mandate to sell off the Manitoba Telephone System is now spending $400,000 on what a previous presenter called obviously political material, and I am wondering if you do not see some inconsistency here with the government now trying to dictate internally in terms of the affairs of unions, in terms of political activity, when Manitobans, most of wh001 do not want to see MfS sold off, are forced to foot the bill for $400,000 for advertising.

Is there perhaps not a slig ht inconsistency in that? Mr. Martin: Well, dictatorship in one form or another-1 mean, if they had said they were going to sell off MTS during the election campaign, that would be a little bit different. Now they are tryirg to h;de that they are even selling it or they are keeping it very quiet. They refuse to call public meetings. I mean, the list goes on and on. We have tied to get public meetings on the sale of Manitoba Telephone System.

He refuses to because he does not want people to know that they are selling it, and he is hoping they would pass through the legisl ation, I believe, before people find out. In this case, fortunately, we knew about the legis lation because we know that we have to watch thes� oeople because they are not to be trusted, and so basica"ly that is why we are here tonight. We have to lllUe sure that we keep an eye on them because Manitobans no longer have trust in these people. Mr. Ashton: I a• wondering, too, you talked about the process, and we •.alked earlier about the process.

Both the previous presenters have talked about the fact that this bill really is part of a bigger agenda which is taking away much of what we have come to accept as the democratic process in this province. You mentioned about MTS.

This is another principle, I believe, too, the right to form a union a:.·d run the aff airs of it yourself I am just wondering if you can comment on the legitimacy of any government interfering in that process, and perhaps, if you might, s' nce it is obvious to my mind that many members on the government side have no idea on how a union operates internally, explain the democratic process that takes place within unions and perhaps indicate to them why people select unions in the

October 24, 1996 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 first place, how they do it and how they make those decisions, because it strikes me as absolutely bizarre sometimes that a government that should lecture no one on democracy does not understand that unions are there to represent their members. If they do not represent their members, they do not retain the position of being the union that represents that membership for very long. So I am wondering if you might want to spend a couple of minutes to explain to members on the committee how unions actually work in practice. Mr . Chairperson: Mr.

Martin, for a very brief response. Mr. Martin: Very briefly, well, when we join, we vote on everything. There is nobody that really gets appointed. In our union, we vote for a president, we vote for a vice-president, we vote for aL the executive posit ions, we vote for our shop stewards, all through a democratic process. We vote to send people to various places if we want them to go to conventions. We vote for our negotiating committees. There is not too much that we do not vote on, md it is all done through a democratic process.

If we send people to re:,Jresent us at the Manitoba Federation of Labour, we have to vote those people in. If we want to send them to the Canadian Labour Congress, we vote for those people. If we want to have representatives on a labour council, we vote for those people. It is all democratic. The part that is not democratic is the government interfering within our internal affairs. This is my money, it is my dues, and I think that I am the one who should have a say of who I elect, who I do not elect, and I do not need a government meddling around. I mean, I wonder if the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Toews) will take his income tax and bring it to his next public hearing and let the public have a loo� at it and all the media. If he does not bring it, then � would suggest that, rather than us hiding something, perhaps the minister is hiding something. I would like to see that. If you want openness, let us have openness by everybody and everybody have control. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Martin. That now concludes the questions for this presenter. Mr. Martin: Thank you. Mr .

Chair person: Ladies and gentlemen, there are a number of other individuals who have walked in this evening, and I will read their names at this time in order that they know that we have recorded their names and so that they know they are on the list. Number 57 , Buffie Burr ell; 58 , Brian Bouchard; 59, George Anderson; 60, Bernie Parent; 61, Keith Hillis; 62, Phillip Trottier and 63, Leagh Blackwell. The next out-of-towner who has priority this evening will be Keith Hillis who is presenting as a private citizen. Mr. Hillis, would you come forward, sir. Number 61 is Keith Hillis. Are you Mr. Keith Hillis, sir?

Mr. Keith Hillis (Priva te Citizen): Yes, I am. Mr. Chair person: Oh, good. Do you have a written presentation? Mr. Hillis: No, I do not. Mr . Chai rpel:son: Okay, thank you very much, sir. would invite yo'u to proceed. Mr . Hillis: I do not have a lot to add on to what the other speakers have said.

The only thing that could be said, I guess, if they are going to legislate where any organization has to declare all their income, how they spend the income, possibly it woufd be a good idea if the parties also made out a declaration and published it as to how they spend the funds that they receive from other organi zations such as the parties of power in the federation, in the labour, also the parties in the Legislature of Manitoba. As long as one person is going to declare everything that comes in, maybe there should be declaration for all. Thank you. Mr . Chairperson: Thank you, sir, very much. Mr.

Ashton, do you have a question of this presenter? Mr. Ashton: One question that I ar:t being puzzled with in terms of the degree to which this bill goes is how far they are going. I think you pointed to some of the inconsi stencies. I am just wonde1ing whether you feel there is much merit in what the government is doing to the extreme that they are going. I mean, some of the disclosure they are talking about is not only going to be available to members within a union internally but to others as well. I am wondering if you feel that is fair as

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 1996 well to have people getting that kind of information rather than the members, many of whom now ha"e this information ava ilable anyway. I know most unions are very open with pub:ic statements with their members. There is open discussion of budgets, et cetera. A (2 120) Mr . Hi l:·s: Within the union that I am in, I know the other unions, there is always open books as far as the membership is concerned. I do not think there is any reason at all for it to be opened up to the pub'ic. I have to close there. Mr. Reid: I thank the presenter for his presentation.

I want to ask one question. You have indicated Ltat perhaps the parties should look at opening up the books.

I want to ask your thoughts, sir, since this government is only appearing through its legislation here in 26 and the other antilabour pieces of legislation to have certain requ irements of disclosure to labour organizations and the working people involved with them, I want to ask your thoughts, sir, about whether or not this particular gov ernment should be bringing forward legislation that would require that all companies that do business with the government disclose the benefits, the wages, the expenditures of their top-floor executive officers in any of their dealings as far as disclosure is concened and whether or not the shareholders of any of those companies should vote on any expenditure of funds bef ore they go ahead and take place in political advertising in this province.

Mr. Hillis: Yes, I think that they are going to go to this extent on this disclosure, that it should be extended to that also. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions of this presenter? Thank you, sir, very much for coming this evening. We now will go back to the start of the list and I will call Mr. Dave Tesarski. He is the individual who stood down earlier to def er to some of his other colleagues who were presenting this evening. Mr. Tesarski, you have some written presentations to circulate. Thank you. I would invite you to proceed, sir. Mr.

Tesarski: The mandate of the Manitoba Council of the Canadian Federation of Labour is to proactively represent our �em:X:r organizations in a nonpartisan mann er to promote !abour issues to government, business and workers in o·:.· community. In keeping with that statement, the Manitoba Council is also committed to strengthening our economy by supporting long-term growth and deve lopment fm all of Manitoba. This, however, can on!y be ac-:omplished with fair and equitable legislation. The collecti ve bargaining system in Manitoba has, like all other systems, had its successes and problems.

It has functioned through the bus�ness cycles of the last fe w decades and should from time to time be reviewed so that we can look forward to the future with greater, more progressive stability in labour relations. When changes are considered past performance of the act must be examined. Proposed amendments must be designed to enltance the act. A balance must be maintained. When the govenune nt proposed these amendments, the Manitoba Council execu tive board met with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews).

The question that was asked of him was to explain the reasming and intent by which this government proposed such radical changes to

an act that currently provides Manitoba with a fairly stable labour relations env ironment. The response from the minister was, unions need to be more accountable to its members, the need to protect union members from their union, current legislation favours labour and the process of unionization nee<'.s to be more democratic. Let me speak about unions and democracy. Unions practice three kinds of democracy: political democracy, economic democracy and social C:emocracy. Political democracy is a system in which people govern the mselves. Unions proviC:e this.

Union members detennine by means of voice and vote the way their union operates. A union member has the opportunity to participate in their union as much or as little as they desire. Union members have the ability to run for executive board "Jositions, union representat ive position, shop steward positions or even just volunteer their time on various committees. Unions encourage all members to participate because they are the union. Union members themselves determine the direction the union

October 24, 1996 LEGIS .:.. ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 takes on issues that affect its members. Union members set unio n policies to guide the union on day-to-day business matters. Union leaders take their direction from union members. Econ omic democracy gives union members the ability to voice their opinion on issues that affect them at the workp lace. Union .n embers' input and participation is the heart and sou. of their union. For example, union nego tiators , negotiation committees are comprised of union members.

Their purpose is to represent the members on the issues that need to be addressed at the bargaining table. Union leaders take their direction from union members. Social democracy. This benefits union members and nonunion members in a more material way. Unions over the past 50 years have been respo nsible .:Or achieving old age pension, unemployment insurance, universal free public education, medicare, workers compen sation, health and safety legislation, decent wages, dental plans and so on.

That was accomp lished oy union members directing their leaders to lobby governments on their behalf This has benefited all workers . All three types of democracy are an everyday fact in unions. Just to say a few words on Bill 26. The compulsory vote on application fo r certification. There is no need fo r this. Employees are exposed to employe rs' ways and means of doing business on a day-to-day basis. If the emplo yee feels it would be better served by union representation in the wor kplace, that is their democratic right.

A threshold fo r automatic certification must remain in the act, and if it is to be democratic it should be a 50- plus one when the cards are signed. Requiring unions to provide detailed financial statements. Unions have a built-in accountab ility mechanism. Local union by-laws and constitutions clearly state union representative salaries, expenses. Each and every union memoer has a copy of their local union by-laws and constitution . Financial statements are also read out at monthly union meetings.

Union members can access financial statements at any time; all they have to do is go to their union hall and ask fo r it. To have a penalty such as loss of the Rand Formula impacts the people the government believes they have to protect from the union. Dues in some cases are used fo r health and welfare plans fo r members, pension plans, insurance plans, dental plans; that is not protection fo r worke rs. Expedite grievance mediation/a rbitration .

When a member has a grievance with the employer, the union member and their union want to resolve the dispute as fairly and as quickly as possible, the expediting process does just that. Union dues fo r political purposes. The Canadian Federation of Labour is a politically nonpartisan orga nization. However, it is the democrat ic right of any labour organization that wants to use union dues fo r political purposes, they must be able to. Co mmitting acts of misconduct during a strike or lockout.

The existing Labour Relations Act clearly defines strike-related misconduct and cont ains provisions to deal with that conduct. The party can file an unfair labour practice, and the board must hear the case and provide a remedy. If this is suc�1 a prob lem, the best way to prevent mis6onduct from occurri ng is put in anti replacement worker legislation. Order a vote on employer's last off er. The collective bargaining process gives the workers the right to negotiate through chosen representatives, terms and conditions of employment.

This does not give the employer any reason to go back to the table and bargain with the union. In any case, unions already take back final off ers to the membership as it is. If this is such a problem, then governments should reinstate the final offer selection procedu re. In my closing remarks, unions are democratic organiza tions that are totally run by their members. The purpose and intent of The Labour Relations Act is fo r harmo nious relations between employers and employees by encoura ging collective bargaining.

New or amended legislation must reflect a balance Llat will enhance the social and econom ic conditions of Manitoba. In December, the government, and I believe it was David Newman, used a test on the throne speech. Is it fair? Is it the truth? Will it benefit all that are going to be affected? Bill 26 does not do any of that. It is not the truth. It is not fair and it is not going to benefit anyone

28 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 1996 whether they are union members, nonunion members, the economy of Manitoba or anything. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Tesarski. Mr. Toews: Thank you for your remarks, Mr. Tesarski. Whether or not this committee will agree to amend anything is yet to be determined. However, I do want to state that I know of your activities. You are held in high regard. You are a progressive person. You are a credit . to your union, and I hope that the membership realizes what a person they have in you.

Whether we, you and I, agree or not, I believe that the trade union movement in Manitoba has much to be proud of in yourself. Mr. Reid: It is nice to see that the minister has finally woken up. I want to ask the presenter and to thank the presenter for agreeing to- Point of Order Mr . Toews: On a point of order, I am just wondering whether that renuuk was called for and if the member was implying tha� I have been sleeping. I think he should retract that. I have been sitting here.\ I have been li stening. I have been quiet, yes, but I have been list ening as opposed to engaging in rhetoric. * (2 130) Mr .

Reid: Mr. Chairperson, if I have offended the minister's sensitivities and his feelings, I apologize for that. I was only aware that he had not asked any questions of any presenters up to this point. Mr. Chairperson: Your apology is accepted, and I would ask you to proceed then with our question. * * * Mr. Reid: I would like to thank the presenter for taking the time to come out this evening. I have several questions that I would like to ask, because the minister has said quite often that unions function in antidemocratic or undemocratic fashion.

I want to ask your thoughts, sir, on the membership which you represent. Do they have say in all of the activities of your union, the unions that you represent, and is there full accountability of your union leade rship to the members themselves? Mr. Tesarski: Yes, there is. It all has to go through a vote process. Nothing can be approved unless it is the majority. Mr . Reid: Do you provide, the unions which you are part of, do they provide detailed financial statements to the membership? Mr. Tesarski: Yes, they do. Mr. Reid: Sir, did you ask the minister to bring forward this legislation?

I am not being facetious by asking that, because the minister said yesterday in the House that 12 or so people of the labour movement asked the minister to bring this legis lation forward. I want to know if you are one of those 12 people. Mr . Tesarski: No, 1 am not one of those 12 people. The Manitoba Council has approximately 10 ,000 members. Point of Order Mr. Toews: Just on a point of order, I do not believe those were in fact my comments at all. The questions that were asked of me in the House were whether I had discussed this or consulted with anyone on this issue.

I did, in fact, indicate that I had and I indicated that there had been dozens i� not hundreds of emp • oyees that have in one way or another contacted me on this issue. I just want to clarify the record. Mr. Chairperson: That would be a dispute, I believe, on the facts. I would invite Mr. Tesarski to continue with his answer. * * * Mr. Tesarski: As I was saying, the Manitoba Council is made up of 10,000 union members. We strictly and adamantly oppose this legislation. It is stated in our position paper tha: was sent to the Minister of Labour on July 22, 1996.

October 24, 1996 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 29 Mr . Reid: The government proposes to take away the Rand Formula fo r labour organizations that do not comply with the detailed financial disclosure aspect. Do you represent unions that are in the :,Jrivate sector that freely negotiate the Rand Formula into contracts and, if so, what are your thoughts with respect to the minister and the government interfering in freely negotiated contract s? Mr. Tesarski: Yes, we have several unions that are in the private sector. The loss of the Rand Formula if you do not file a financial statement is ridiculous.

It is not fair. It is unjust, and it should not be allowed in the act. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Reid, fo r one very short question. Mr. Reid: Mr. Tesarski, could you tell me to the labour organizations that you represent, do they hold secret ballot votes where required under law? Mr. Tesarski: Yes, they do. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you Mr. Tesarski. That now concludes the time fo r the questions, and I thank you very much fo r your presentation. The next individual that committee has agreed will have p

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-ir1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf ir1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2359624f046ab01a2c3b723ebaf5749f979f06d3

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