Manitoba Hansard — 9 February 1990 (Sitting 122, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-122

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, February 9, 1990. The House met at 1 0 a.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF BILLS BILL NO. 98-THE MANITOBA DATA SERVICES DISPOSITION AND CONSEQUEN TIAL AMENDMENTS ACT Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance) introduced (by leave) Bill No. 98, The Manitoba Data Services Disposition and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur !'alienation de la Commission des services d ' informatique du Manitoba et modifications corre latives . (Recommended by His Honour the Lieutenant -Governo r.) Mr. Speaker, I also ta ble his message . Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Spea ker: Is it agreed? There is no agreement? There is no leave? ***** Mr. Speaker : Order, please. The Honourable Member for Thompson , on a point of order. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): If it might be of assistance, we will allow this Bill to go to first reading, but our frustration is that this Government , whi ch talks about stalli ng the Session of the Legislature, makes accusations- Mr. Speaker: Order , pleas e ; order , please. The Honourable Member for Thompson will take his chair now, please. Is there leave to introduce Bill No. 98? Leave? Agreed . *

(1005) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Transfer Payments Federal Budget Mrs. Sharon Car stairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speak er, my question is to the Ministe r o f Finance (Mr. Man ness). Yesterday, Michae l Wilson , the federa l Finance Minister, introduced the facts that all Canadians wou ld be presented with a new bud get on the 20th of February . Would our F inance Minister tell this House what representa tio ns he has made to his federa l counterpart s with resp ect to the propo sed and often tal ked-about cuts to transfe r paym ents for health and post-sec ondary ed ucatio n? Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker , let me indic ate right from the offset , this Government continues to be very conce rned as to the potential reductions in growth that may be forthcom ing with respect to federal transfe r paym ents to this province . We share that conc ern with indeed other Ministers of Finance . At least I share that concern with other Ministers of Finance across Canada . The last time that we met with the federa l Minister of Finance, Mr.

Wilson , collectively and co-operatively , we in a sense implo red upon him that he not significantly reduce, or reduce at all for that matter , transfer payments . I was in conversation with Mr. Wilson as recently as last week and again I reite rat ed that statement. Documentation Request Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, what we are looking for is some concrete projections on the part of thi s Government as to what would happen to our economy should these transfers take place . Will the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) table in this House documentation which he has presented to the federal Government with respect to the effect on Manitoba of cuts to transfer payments? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker , the documentation is very basic . Last year we received an EPF funding, roughly $430 million or $440 million within that one area alone.

I can indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that although there is forecast a slight rate of increase within that area, that increase is far below the rate of inflation, indeed far below the commitment that this Government has made in support , particularly of those two areas, of social need. Let me indicate with respect to equalization, in that area too there is great concern that the provinces are hitting now the equalization cap and that potentially there could be a major slowdown in the increase in those transfers . We have pointed that out in number form collectively amongst all provinces .

At this point, the Minister of Finance has indicated that we will be apprised of his decision, unilateral as it might be, with respect to federal transfers in this area, the same time as all Canadians when he brings down his budget . ERDA Negotiations Signing Date Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have grave concerns that we do not seem to be providing to the federal Government the kind of negative impact information that is essential if they are to make a decision with respect to this provin ce in mind. 5152 I have a new question to the Minister of Industry , Trade and Tourism (Mr.

Ernst) . Over a month ago this Minister indicated, in the publ ic media, that they were down to the short strokes with regard to ERDAs, thereby

Friday, February 9, 1990 implying that it was simply a matter of days before agreement would be reac hed. This week we were informed by Charlie Mayer that no agreements had been reached with the four western provinces for WDF grants, which now also include the ERDA monies. Can the Minister tell us when these agreements will be signed, or will they all be lost in the federal budget of February 20? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Indust ry, Tra de and Tourism): Mr.

Speaker, when I commented with regard to those agreements between the federal and provincial Governments, I said within two or thr ee weeks was my anticipation time, not days. As well, I cannot comment on what Michael Wilson might do or the federal Government might do at this point. We have come to a conclusion with respect to what we think should be done. We have brought that to the federal Government negotiators. We have a ge neral agreement between the negotiator s and ourselves on that amount of money and which way it should be spent. We are simply waiting now for the federal Government to approve it.

Western Diversification Fund Manitoba Totals Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): The federal Tory senior Minister in this province, Jake Epp, promised the WDF monies would be divided equally among the provinces. As of January 12, 19 90, the latest figur es show British Columbia has received over 32 percent of the monies, followed by Alberta with 30 percent of the monies. Can this Minister tell this House what explanation he has been given for why Manitoba, once again, is getting the short shrift from their federal Tories? * (1010 ) Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Industry, Trade and To urism) : Mr .

Sp eaker , the use of the Western Diversification Fund is for legitimate projects that take place to diversify Canada's economy. If you remove two obvious changes from that, or at least one obvious change from that procedure in the case of British Columbia, the South Moresby project, then the numbers change significa ntly.

At the same time we have other work in prog ress at the moment for which Western Diversification funding has been applied for, and we will continue to work with the Western Diversification Fund to make sure Manitoba industry and Manitoba businesses get the kind of assistance from the federal Government they deserve. Bill C-31-Senate Committee Manitoba Representation Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Whether it is the Finance Minister (Mr. Manness) or whether it is the Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ernst), we get the same sad song.

Neither of them are pr epared to make forceful representations on behalf of Manitoba. We have a further example of where they are unable or unwilling to stand up to federal Governments and changes that affect Manitobans. This Government was asked to make a representation before the Senate Committee dealing with the unemployment insurance changes, Bill C-3 1. Why have they refused to appear? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker , recently we have had several members from my department in Ottawa and in Toronto, as a matter of fact, making representation on behalf of this province that we are concerned with regard to the unemployment insurance situation and the training dollars that are supposed to be forthcoming as a result of changes to that. As the Leader of the Oppo sition (Mrs. Carstairs) knows, there have been no announc ements made with regard to the changes that are forthcoming. We are waiting for that very eagerly , Mr. Speaker. We have made representation to our federal counterparts.

I can indicate to you as well, we have met with representatives right across the country, with provincial representatives , and indeed there was a paper published with regard to our position, with regard to training needs and with regard to unemployment insurance, that I am sure the Member of the Liberal Party is aware of. Indeed, we have not been sitting doing nothing, but it is a matter of consultation, a matter of discussing with our federal counterparts what indeed our position is going to be. Bill C-31-Senate Committee Manitoba Representation Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, let me table this letter. It is a letter to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province from the Senate Committee on Bill C-31 asking this Government to make representa tions. They received no reply to the letter. When that letter was followed with a phone call, the answer was, we do not want to appear, this despite the fact that New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E. I. and Newfoundland Governments all ind icated they wanted to ap pear. Why is this Premier, yet once again, unwilling to speak up for Manitobans? Hon. Gary filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker , I have an

article here from the May 3, 1989, edition of the Winnipeg Free Press entitled "Job Training Funds Sought, Pr ovince Wants Compensation For Lost UI Benefits." It details some major efforts on the part of the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Oleson) back almost a year ago with respect to these changes, meetings with her federal counterparts, presentations being put forward with respect to this particular issue.

That matter has been well documented; that issue has been raised and discussed between federal and provincial Min isters on num erous occasions. position was put forward publicly at a news conference with respect to last year's federal budget. I outlined the amount of money at stake, the changes there. At First Ministers' Conferences you will find comments and communiques with respect to losses with respect 5153

/ Friday, February 9, 1990 to Manitoba's change s in the UIC. This is a matter that has been ongoing for a year. It is not a matter , Mr. Speaker , that is going to change as a result of Senate hear ings . Cardiac Care U.S. Treatment Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Second Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier . Mr. Speaker , there is a disturbing trend now in Canada. We are seeing it in British Columbia with the Social Credit Government moving heart patients to the United States .

We are seeing it now in Ontario with the Liberal Peterson Government arranging heart surgery through Windsor to Detroit. Yesterday we learned that there are discussions going on with the committee looking at heart surgery in Manitoba with the Minneapolis Heart Institute for possible privatization of some of the heart surgery in Manitoba . I believe a made-in-Manitoba solution is the way for us to go under our health care system.

I would ask the Premier to categorically and clearly outline that this is not an opt ion for the Manitoba health care system , that we believe in a made-in-Manitoba solution to our health care and heart surgery challenges . * (1015 ) Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend 's

preamble is erroneous in a couple of very key areas . First of all, my honourable friend indicates that discussions are going on with the Card iac Care Committee that I established some several month s ago with the U.S. health care for-profit sector. That is not accurate. The genesis of my honourable friend's question is a November 6, approximately , letter to heart surgeons in Manitoba asking them to send patients down to a for-profit centre in Minneapolis.

Those physicians in Minneapolis, I unde rstand, are recent Canadian graduates and have established their practices , after receiving the ir training in Canada , in the United States. We are creating a made -in-Manitoba solut ion. We do not have to tak e the measures as Ontario and British Colu mbia have done . Emerg ency heart surgery is done because of increased budg et allocation of time in the Province of Manitoba. We do not need, at this time, to c onsider the use of for-p rofit med icine in the United States. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker , I accept the comments of the Minist er in ter ms of the process and where it is at. The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) says we do not acce pt at this time that this is a viable option. Can I please get a definitive statement from the Premier (Mr. Filmon ) tha t this is not an option at all in terms of the polic y of our health care system?

I am asking the Leade r of the Government to clearly say that this is not an option, we are looki ng at a mad e-in-Manitoba solu tion to the waiting lists of heart surgery and that is consis tent with a u niversal medicare program in Manitoba , not the way that B ritish Columbia and Ontario have gone. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker , that is exactly what we are crafting in Manitoba. Indeed , where procedures such as heart transplantation are not undertaken in the Province of Manitoba , we have Canadian arrangements whereby that procedure is fully funded and undertaken in London .

We used to have the process of bone marrow transplant undertaken most of the time in Canadian institutions , sometimes in U.S. institutions, where the service was available. It is the decision of this Government to make that part of Manitoba's health care service delivery, and we are doing it with resourcing, with policy planning and direction for the future care of quality and delivery of quality medicine in the Province of Manitoba. ERDA Negotiations Northern Education Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Second Opposition): I have a further quest ion to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) . Mr.

Speaker , we too are concerned about the health care cutbacks potentially in the federal budget . We outlined the $100 million in the last budget over five years from Michael Wilson's budget. We are also very concerned about some very direct and immediate local problems in our health care system . The Thompson General Hospital is suffering an exodus of nurses . Many of those nurses were trained at the Keewatin Community College as part of an ERDA program, a northern development agreement program.

We now understand that in spite of the absolute critical shortage of nurses, which has resulted in the closing down of hospital beds in Thompson, this Economic and Regional Development Agreement is not going to be renewed with the provincial Government and the federal Government. Can the First Minister confirm that? What action is his Government taking? *

(1020) Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker , let me make reference to the fact-and the Leader of the third Party has made reference to Thompson. I just want to put on the record the record of this Government and its activities in Thompson as it relates to health care. The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has introduced the kidney dialysis equipment and opportunity for all Northerners centering in Thompson, an excellent record for this province.

The negotiations and discussions are going on with the federal Government as it relates to northern development , and education and training are part of those discussions . Mr. Doer: My question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), in charge of federal-provincial agreements and relations. Can the First Minister inform this House of the status of those negotiations?

We have been informed that agreement will not be renewed and that will put in jeopardy the Northern Nursing Program in Keewatin Community College, one of the many agreements that have either been downsized or cut back by the federal Government in an insidious way in this province. 5154

Friday, February 9, 1990 Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party may want to make fun of northern Manitoba and the health care, but we do not. We take our re sponsibili ties very seriously. Mr. Speaker, I just want to further add that our record is very clear as it comes to nur ses' training as it refers to the northern community. We just have implemented some short months ago an agreement with Oscar Lath I in and the tribal council of that area, a major health nurse training program which was not able to be accomplished for many years under the previous administration.

Training is an important part for northern Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, and we will continue to work on behalf of those individuals for training of those individuals. Thompson General Hospital Intensive Care Services Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) was notified nine months ago about the pending disaster at Thompson Hospital. That is due to the shortage of ICU staff. That is leaving 42,000 Northerners without critical care. That is unaccepta ble.

Can the Minister of Health tell us today why he has failed again to fulfil! his obligation as a Minister of Health to provide the intensive care for the northern residents of Manitoba? Hon. Donal d Orchar d (Mi nister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I fully accept that my honourable friend, the Liberal Health Critic, should he ever occupy the position of Minister of Health, will be able to singlehandedly hire all of the nurses that are needed in Thompson, will be able to singlehandedly create all of the solutions to every problem in health care and do it instantly and overnight by the waving of the magic Liberal wand.

Mr. Speaker, before my honourable friend jumps to the conclusion that the Minister of Health, should he ever occupy the office, is responsible for hiring nurses in Thompson General Hospital, I simply tell him that is the responsibility of the administration. Second, Mr. Speaker, the salaries that nurses have currently availed to them through the system are those salaries as negotiated two years ago, prior to our becoming Govern ment. Those are the salaries, plus some incentive bonuses, which Thompson General Hospital can offer for the recruitment and retention of nurses in Thompson. Mr. Cheema: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell us that the northern patient who requires immediate intensive care can survive a four-hour trip to Winnipeg? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of discussions over the past several months with the management of the Thompson General Hospital. The management of the Thompson General Hospital has made arrangements for intensive care patients, and to share with my honourable friend some of the most recent statistics available, there are three intensive care unit beds in the Thompson General Hospital. Mr.

Speaker , those have been occupied over the past ten months at the rate of 20 percent. The occupancy rate is very low in comparison to other areas of the hospital. What the contingency plan has been in the interim period of time where recruitment of intensive care nur ses is facing some difficulty by the Thompson administration is, they have made extra arrangements with the air ambulance to stablilize the patient in Thompson General Hospital for rapid and very quick transpo rtat ion to a southern hospital in the jet. Air Ambulance Service Tra nsportation Costs Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildon an): Mr.

Speaker, my final question, can the Minister of Health tell us how much taxpayer money will be spent transporting these patients and their families to Winnipeg hospitals? * (1 025) Hon. Donal d Orchar d (Minister of Health ): Mr . Speaker , I cannot provide my honourable friend that information.

The air ambula nce is part of a some $5 million increasing commitment that we have made on this side of the House to providing ambula nce services to the province, to the citizens of northern Manitoba, that in addition to a doubling of the ambulance funding, which will now take us from the lowest per capita funding in Manitoba under the previous administration to the median level of funding of ambula nce services in Manitoba. The monies that we have dedicated to ambulance services will serve nor thern Manitobans and other Manitobans very, very well. Public Schools Finance Board Ea stwood School-Thompson Mrs.

Iva Yeo (Stu rgeon Creek): Once again concerns with the Public Schools Finance Board rears its ugly head, this time from the City of Thompson, this time the Eastwood Elementary School in the heart of the city, built with an optimum capacity of 500 students, now housing 600 students, with the possibility of 700 children attending that school in September, an increase in 40 percent. We have learned that the majority of these students are latchkey kids from single-parent families who come to school without breakfast. They need their community school.

Will the Minister review the Mystery Lake School Board's request of the last two years to have portables tha t would extend Eastwood School, providing a less crowded environment that would obviously be more conducive to learning? Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): In the last week or so we have seen the Liberals stand up in their places and ask us to build schools where there are no students, ask us to build schools all over the province, intervene in the normal process of the Public Schools Finance Board, and we really do not understand where the Liberals are coming from in terms of their policy in building schools. Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that the Public Schools Finance is now considering all the requests that have 5155

Friday, February 9, 1990 been put forth by individual school boards right across the count ry with regard to th eir capital fa cilities req uir ements. When th ose analyses ha ve been completed for this year, school boards will be notified as to which of their priority projects they will be able to proceed with immediately. Mrs. Yeo: He does not know where we are coming from. We certai nly know where they are coming from. Not one of the six elementary schools in Thompson has lunch facilities.

Will the Minister allocate funds to increase the space at Eastwood School, or would he prefer to use these same dollars to add lunch room facilities at the other six schools? Mr. Derkach: We do not look at a single part of a school and say, well, this school does not have a lunchroom facility, so we will build one over here and that school does not have a library, so we will build a library over there. The capital faci lities of school divisions is the res ponsibili ty of the school board. They set their prior ities.

They submit their prior ities to the Public Schools Fin ance Board and a I ind icated to my Honourable Member, those priorities for this current year are being looked at and examined at the present time. Eastwood School- Thompson Open Area Classrooms Mrs.

Iva Yeo (Stur geon Creek): In light of research that demonstrates that open area classrooms are not conducive to an effective educational environment, will ihis Minister show some leadership to assure that Eastwood School in Thomp son does not have to continue using curtained off spa ces in the forum of Eastwood School to try and provide classrooms for these students? Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training}: Once again the critic for Education, on the Liberal Bench, wants to have the Minister of Education go into every school and determine what is the most approp riate kind of physical space that school should have. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have responsible school boards around this province who can make those decisions very well. That is why we have administrators in schools. That is the respo nsibility of school boards and administrators in those school divisions. *

(1030) Winnipeg School Division Minister's Meeting Mr. Storie (Flin flon): There is a little hint of hypo crisy in the Minister of Education's (Mr. Derkach) final remarks. He has just lectured the Member for Sturgeon Creek (Mrs. Yeo) on the responsi bilities of school divisions- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. ***** Mr. Speaker: The Honour able Government House Leader, on a point of order. Hon. James Mccrae (Government House leader): You have repeatedly warned Members of the New Democratic Party about what you call post-ambles to previous answers arising from questions put by other Honourable Members.

I wonder if that is what the Honourable Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) is up to today. Some Honourable Membe rs: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. The Honourable Member for Flin Flon -1 am una ware of whether or not it was a post-amble or a

preamble to the question that you were about to pose.- (interjection)- You were? The Honourable Government House Leader does not have a point of order then. ***** Mr. Storie: Mr. Spea ker, last week or a little more than a week ago, the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) denied the parents of Marg aret Scott School the right to a community school, a decision that was also concurred in by the Winnipeg School Division. On Wednesd ay, the same communi ty members learned that they may be facing a tax rate hike of $17 5 to $200.00.

I am wondering today whether the Minister of Education has met, or will meet, with the Winnipeg School Division immediately to assist them in their efforts to provide quality education to inner city school residents. Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Spea ker, may I indicate that the funding announcement we made on February 1 was indeed a commitment to quality education in this province.

May I also indicate that just last Thursday the Winnipeg School Division or was it- pardon me, it was just this week that the Winnipeg School Division received their information, their detailed information, as to what our funding annou ncement really meant to their school division. They were also instructed that they are to do th eir home work no w, in terms of analy zing th eir priorities. Onc e th at ho mework is done, staff from my department are very willing to meet with staff from their division.

If solutions cannot be found, if there are some extraordin ary problems that they have not identified in their preliminary budgets, I have indicated that I am very willing to sit down and meet with them. Mr. Storie: We are all pleased to hear the Minister's commitment to quality of education. Given the fact tha t St. J ohn's -Ravenscourt has received a 10 0 percent increase in funding in the last two years, and Winnipeg School Division has received 8 percent, will the Minister now agree to meet with the Winnipeg School Division to help them accommodate the needs of their students, 5156

Friday, February 9, 1990 100 percent for private schools, 8 percent for public schools? Will he meet with the Winnipeg School Division- Mr. Speaker: Order , please. The question has been put. The Honourable Minister of Education and Training. l\ll r. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) atte mpts to distort the facts. He attempts to distort the truth. We have funded public education in this province substantial ly, a lot higher than what was done by the former administra tion. I am proud of our commitment to education.

We have bent or we have changed the formula, which now add resses the funding aspects of divisions in this province in a more equal man ner, an approach that has been lauded by many of the school divisions across this province. We are addressing the educational needs within the Winnipeg School Division No. 1. I have indicated that if there are some extenuat ing circumstances that have to be addressed, I am indeed agreeable to meet with the school division as soon as possible. Funding Requirements Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speak er, we finally get to the point. The Minister is willing to meet.

The next question is, is the Minister willing to address the fact that Winnipeg School Division now receives only 61 percent of its gross financial needs from the Province of Manitoba? Is he willing to acknowledge that they have special requirements, both in their educational programs- Mr. Speaker: Or der, please. The question has been put. The Honourable Minister of Education. Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, let me say first of all that the criteria that are used today are the same criteria that were used by the former administration in determining the percentage of support that school divisions receive. That percentage, Mr. Speaker , now remains at 80 percent. May I indicate also that in view of the fact that there are special circumstances in divisions like Winnipeg 1, we have targeted funding into special areas such as increasing special needs funding, such as increasing transportation funding, such as increasing grants to those divisions that have been experiencing increased enrollments.

Forest Fires Inquiry Invitations Mrs. Gwen Charles (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker , last spring the fires in the Ashern area were devastat ing. It was only through the courage and initiative of many people that further tragedy was avoided. In order that we may learn from the actions taken and the errors found, the Department of Natural Resources has undertaken a series of hearings in the fire ravaged areas. Can the Premier (Mr. Filmon) explain what use these hearings will serve when the public has not been invited to appear before them? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I find it passing strange that the Member- -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order , please. The Honourable First Minister. Mr. Filmon: -for Selkirk is now inserting herself into the discussion about how the forest fires were being handled last year in this province when last spring in May she and her colleague from Springfield were quoted as sayi ng that the province should stop spending all of its time and energy fighting the fires in the Interlake and pay more attention to people problems. Mr. Speaker, they criticized the manner in which we were handling the forest fires.

I might tell you that we were complimented by people throughout this province everywhere saying that this was the gr eatest tragedy that we have had in peacetime in this province, and we handled it throughout this province in an organized, compassionate, considerate fashion that met the test of moving 23,000 people out of their homes and back, that met the test of conta ining the fires and the damage so that not one community suffered any major damage in terms of the fires, that did all of the things that people ask for. She said it was not good enough. She said we should not be fighting those fires.

We should concentrate on other people problems. Now she has the audacity to ask a question like this. She ought to be embarrassed, Mr. Speaker . Mrs. Charles: If the Premier has finished his tirade and tantrum, I will ask the question again in another form. Can the Premier (Mr. Filmon) explain why the Department of Natural Resources has not called the public before their hearings to find out what can be done better, should any horrible disaster like this ever occur? Why are the people not important to this Government? Mr.

Filmon: Letters of invitation have gone out to groups throughout the province who were affected by, and involved with, the forest firef ighting efforts. Public sector groups who were involved in the efforts to evacuate people, to mobilize equipment and services, whether they be Native groups, whether they be local Go vernment gr oups, whether the y be emergency measures groups, any numbers of public sector groups, any groups in society who were affected by, or involved with the forest fighting effort, have been invited to come to these hearings.

They have been scheduled throughout the province in areas so that it is convenient for people to get to, and it is convenient for them to have their views heard and their concerns known. Those meetings have been set up, and we are indeed listening to those people to see what things they believe ought to have been done, perhaps differently or better, what improvements can be ma de, because we want to ma ke whatever improvements we can, learn from our experiences, and always be prepared to do the best possible job on behalf of the people of this province. Mrs.

Charles: Can the Premier then explain why Hodgson residents were informed only by press release, 5157

,, Friday, February 9, 1990 and only two days prior to the hearings in their area, and why the Ashern resid ents were informed only of the hearings the day of the hearings , and why the five Indian bands in the Inter lake area were not informed at all? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please . The Honourable First Minister. Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker , I guess we ought to ask the Member for Selkirk (Mrs. Charles) whether or not she is interested in us going out and listening to people holding these hearings and attempting to get feedback . I went out personally.

I know she was out there holding a news conference in Ashern saying that we should not be fighting the fires , we should stop the forest firefighting activity and look after people . I was up in Thompson with the Min ister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), with the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), people throughout the Government . We were up there during the fires .

We were up there listening to people, meeting with people, town councils , local municipal Governments, telling them that we were concerned and getting involved in the effort. They were here criticizing the Government for what it was doing, Mr. Speaker, and they carry on that negative view. I think that this is unfortunate. The people of this province know that we did some excellent efforts, know that we carried out the forest fire efforts , the evacuation effort s, in a way that did not lose one single life, that did not cause major property damage- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please .

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please ; order, pleas e. Physically Disabled Program Funding Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): My question is also for the Premier (Mr. Filmon). His Minister of Family Ser vices (Mrs . Oleson) continues to refuse to address the very real and serious concerns of the Society for Manitobans with Disab ilitie s. I am aski ng the Premier , since he received a letter as early as August 1 from David Harg rave, the preside nt of this society, with his very real concerns -it is clear that they did not want to go public.

They had hoped that this Government wou ld deal with the issue seriously and with sincerity. Will the Premier now step in and reverse the policy of cutbacks, the policy of killing servic e organizations slowly, and order the Minist er of Family Services (Mrs . Oleson) to provide an incr ease abo ve, not below , inflat ion and that is responsive to the inc rea sing demand s in th is area? 5158 *

(1040) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, with great respect I would like to say to the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) that she ought not to misrepresent matters in this Legislature. The fact of the matter is that when organizations get an increase in funding this year over last year, that is not a cutback. She can attempt to maneuver it and manipulate it in any way she wants, but when they get more money from this Government this year versus last year, that is not a cutback .

I might indicate that we as a Government have substantially increased funding in the area of health care and community and family services. In those cases both of those departments for the past two years have received increases that range at double the inf lation rate in this prov ince, Mr. Speaker. Within those two department areas we have a myriad of organizations and activities that are very worthy of our support. They range across all types of services to people in this province and we want to be as generous as we possibly can in serving those needs .

Regrettably we do not have an unlimited pot from which to dip all of this money and we can only go so far. -(interjecti on)- Pediatric Services Mr. Speaker: Order , please . The Honourable Member for St. Johns . Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): I cannot believe that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would say these things if he knew the emotional trauma that parents of children with disabilities go through and the added stress when there is no pediatric services . I want to ask the Premier , since the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Oleson) has postponed dealing with that problem of no services for these children , what advice would he give to the parents of the approximately 100 children with disabilities in rural and northern Manitoba who have no access to any ped iatric services and whose parents must be going through incredible emotional stress? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we fund the Society for Manitobans with Disab ilities in a variety of ways with programs that come out of Health, programs that come out of Family Services.

I have here, for instance, a letter dated January 22, 1990, very recently from the Minister of Health to Mr. David Hargrave , the president. It says, "I am pleased to advise you that the 1989-90 grant of $695,3 00 has been approved for the wheelchair program, the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities . The grant represents a $94 ,700 increase over the 1988-89 base, provides for 4.5 percent price increase which you may allocate as required plus new funds spec ifically allocated to . .. " and it goes on and lists . We are continually evaluating the needs of every one of these organizations.

Organizations such as the Society for Manitobans with Disabilities do a tremendous job for us. We very much appreciate the efforts that they put in and we are constantly attempt ing to be as generous as possible in our funding of them .

Friday, February 9, 1990 Mentally Handicap ped Employment Program Funding Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, we appr eciate those initiatives but we are worried about the over 100 children with disabilities in rural and northern Manitoba without any pediatric services. I want to ask my final question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on the same matter I raised a week ago today and also on January 15.

Why is the Government cutting back to Manitobans with mental disabilities and will the Premier reinstate a grant to Premier Personnel which was cut back from $75,000 to zero dollars in the short time this Government has been in office? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) will know I am sure that these are not matters that are directly under my area of responsibil ity. I indicated that I would bring her back a response on that.

I know that I have had some information in my office that indicates that Premier Personnel does not only receive its funding from the Province of Manitoba-in fact much of the funding that it gets comes from other levels of Government-and that we have been, in the past, a small participant in a part of its program. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speak er, I will get the full information and bring it back to the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis). Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. NON-POLIT ICAL STATEMENTS Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): May I have leave for a non-political statement? Mr. Sp eaker: Does the Ho nourable Min ister of Agri culture ha ve leave to ma ke a non-poli tical statement? (Agr eed) The Ho nourable Minis ter of Agriculture. Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, it gives me a great degree of pride to rise at this time and pay tri bute to one Lyndon Johnston, a figure skater from the Town of Hamiota.

The Town of Hamiota has received provincial, national and international recognition in a number of sports over the last years, baseball, curling, hockey, basketball and figure skating. Lyndon has been a figure skater of provincial, national and international acclaim for about 10 years, and he has shown persistence, hard work and dedication as he has risen through the ranks.

Last year he and Cindy Landry won the Silver Medal in the World Championships in Paris and have just now won the Canadian Pairs Gold Medal in figure skating, a Canadian title that he has never claimed before, and I know that they will do exceedingly well when they go to the World's again in 1990. I know that the parents of Lyndon have dedicated an awful lot of their life and their financial resources to being able to get Lyndon to the position he has achieved in this world. Carlyle and Catherine will be very proud at this time, as well as the Town of Hamiota.

What Lyndon said last night when he received this honour was that good things come true for those who wait. He certainly exemplifies that. Mr. Speaker , I wish him well in his future endeavours and congr atulate him on all his past accomplishments. ***** Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): Could I have leave to make a non-pol itical statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member for St. Johns have leave to make a non-p olitical statement? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for St. Johns. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Merci, Monsieur le president.

Aujourd 'hui, j'ai le grand plaisir, au nom de tous mes collegues et, je suis sOr, au nom de tous les deputes ici dans I' Assemblee, de saluer les personnes qui ont organise le Festival du Voyageur qui com mence aujourd 'hui et qui va durer une semaine. C'est un moment tres important dans la vie de cette province, un evenement qui est tres historique et culture! et important pour la vie au Manitoba car ii reconnaitra la contribution de la Francophonie ici au Manitoba. Et au nom de tout le monde ici, nous voulons remercier les organ isateurs du Festival du Voyageur et leur exprimer notre gratitude et appreciation.

Merci. (Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today, it is my pleasure, on behalf of all my colleagues an d, I am sure, in the name of all Members here in the Cham ber, to congr atulate all of the people who have organized the Festival du Voyageur, which begins today and will last for one week. This is a very important moment in this province, an historical and cultural event of major importance in the life of Ma nitobans, who are gi ven the cha nce to acknowledge the contributions Francophones ha ve made to Manitoba.

On behalf of everyone here, we wish to thank the organizers of the Festival du Voyageur and express our gratitude and appreciation to them. Thank you very much. ***** Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member for St. Boniface have leave to make a non-political statement? (Agreed) L'Honorable depute de Saint-Bonif ace. * (10 50) Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface ): M. le president, ce n'est pas la deuxieme place comme le membre de Concordia (M. Doer) le dit. J'a i eu l'honneur d'etre le Voyageur en'84-85. Alors, j'ai ete dans la premiere place du Festival du Voyageur a Saint-Bonif ace.

Mais le Festival du Voyageur, qui fete son vingt-et-unieme ann iversaire, demontre que -(interjection)- oui, ii faut chaud, 9a me fait plaisir de voir que le membre 5159

Friday, February 9, 1990 d'Emerson (M. Albert Driedger) apprend du francais . Et puis- An Honourable Member: He is bilingual. He can heckle in two languages. An Honourable Member: He is a junkyard dog in two languages. Mr. Gaudry: -oh, ca ce n'est pas beau, ca, c'est pas beau du tout ca. Et aussi, ca me fait plaisir de souhaiter une semaine de fete a Saint-Boniface pour le Festival du Voyageur . En meme temps, j'inviterais tous mes co llegues a venir visiter le festival.

Ce n'est pas juste pour la communaute de Saint-Boniface parce que ca a ete demontre que c'est un festival international qu 'on considere parmi un des dix sur la scene internationale depuis plusieurs annees maintenant. Je vous invite a venir faire un tour, vous aussi M . le president , et puis on prendra un verre de Caribou ensemble . Bonne fete! Merci. (Translation) Mr. Speaker , it was not second place , as the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) says. I had the honour of being the official Voyageur in 1984-85 . So I came in first at the Festival du Voyageu r in St. Boniface .

But the Festival du Voyageur , which is celebrating its 21st anniversary, demon strates that .- (interjection)- Yes, it is hot. I am pleased to see that the Member for Emerson (Mr. Albert Driedger) is learning some French .- (interjection)- Oh, that was not nice , that was not nice at all. I also hope that the Festival du Voyageur in St. Boniface will be a fine wee k o f celebrations. At the same time, I invite all my colleagues to come and visit the festival. It is not just for the people of St. Boniface because it is consi dered to be one of 10 major international festivals for several years now.

I invite all of you to attend , you as well, Mr. Speaker , and we will have a glass of Caribou together . Enjoy the festivities! Thank you. ***** Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Minister of Health have leave to make a non-politic al statement? (Agreed) The Honourable Minister of Health. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): M. le president, c'est avec pla isir que je dis un message de congrat ulations a mes amis a Saint-Boniface . C'est avec plaisir que moi et mes collegues allons assister au festival la prochaine - what is week?

M . le president , en ce temps , ii fail chaud pour le Festival du Voyageur et j'espere que nous "wishe z bonne chance au Festival du Voyageur. " (Translation) Mr. Speaker , it is my pleasure to send a message of congratulations to my friends in St. Boniface. I am happy to say that my colleagues and I will be attending the festival next -what is week? It is war m weather for the Festival du Voyageur and I am sure all of us want to wish good luck to the Festival du Voyageur . ***** Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourab le Member for Rupert sland have leave to make a non-political statement? Mr.

Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Yes, I ask leave of the House to make a non-political statement. Mr. Speaker: You have it. The Honou rable Member for Rupertsland . Mr. Harper: (Cree spoken-translation unavailable) Mr. Speaker: I will have to ask the Honourable Member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) to provide translation to Hansard. ***** Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Minister of Rural Development have leave to make a non-political statement? (Agreed) The Honourable Minister of Rural Development . Hon.

Jack Penner (Minister of Rural Development): (Low German spoken-t ranslation unavailable) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order , please. I will also have to ask the Honourable Minister to provide translation to the Hansard recording . **** * Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member for Kildonan have leave to make a non-political statement? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Kildonan. Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildonan): Mr Speaker, can I say it in my own native language? Mr. Speaker: Yes, you can speak it. We were waiting for this one . Mr. Cheema: (Punjabi spoken) (Translation) Mr.

Speaker, I will offer my congratulations in my native language as other Members of the House have offered their best wishes to the French Canadian community in Manitoba. For the past 20 years Manitobans have come together to celebrate the opening of the West. Since the late 18th Century, these voyageurs have played an important

part in Manitoba's history. This culture is an important part of Manitoba's cultural mosaic and the community has played a very important role in its development. My congratulations to the French-Canadian community and the Member for St. Boniface. Mr. Speaker: I will also have to ask the Honourable Member for Kildonan to provide translation to the Hansard Recording Division . 5160

Friday, February 9, 1990 ***** Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreat ion have leave to make a non political statement? (Agreed) The Honourable Madam Minister. Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and associate myself with all colleagues from all different backgrounds in this Chamber toda y to wish well our French community in their 21s t year of presenting the Fest ival du Voyageur to Mani tobans and for Manitobans.

We do truly recognize, and I believe by all the different langu ages that were spoken in the Chamber today, that we as a multicultural province and community do want to work together, do want to share our culture and our heritage with each other. Mr. Speaker, along with that sharing comes the understa nding and the awareness of each other's cultures.

I believe tha t is the way we can truly begin to work together towards making Manitoba the best province in our country, the province that wants to show our understan ding of each other and along with that understanding the desire to work together in harmony for the best we can possibly have. We have a province in which we should all be proud. I am very proud to be associated with my colleagues from every very different background in this Cham ber. I hope that we can continu e to work together towards that better rela tionship that we all desire. Mr .

Sp eaker , I want to commend the French community on the Festival du Voyageur. I do want to congr atulate the volunteers and the people in that community who have put full time and effort towards making the festival the success that it is. I will save my French comments for the opening ceremonies tonight. Thank you, Mr. Speaker . ***** Mr. Speaker: Does the Hono urable Mem ber for Burrows have leave to make a non-poli tical statement? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Burrows. Mr. William Chornopyski (Burrows): Mr . Speaker, too wish to add a few words of good wishes to my friends in St.

Boniface in my own language if I may. Mr. Chornopyski: (Ukr anian spoken) (Translation) It gives me pleasure to, on behalf of Burr ows cons ti tuen cy, extend best wishes to the French community in Manitoba in the celebration of the Festival du Voyageur. We wish them every success now and years to come. I wish them well. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Burrows will also have to provide translation to the Hansard . ***** Mr. Speaker: Does the Hono urable Mem ber for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) have leave to make a non political statement? (Agreed) Mr. Steve Ashton (T hompson): Mr.

Speaker, first of all I would like to indicate that I am extending wishes not only to the Festival du Voyageur, but also to the Thompson Winter Carnival which begins this weekend. It has been in place for many years in Thompson. It gives people in our community the oppor tunity to experience the North, the many pleasures of northern living, and I would en courage Membe rs of the Legislature to attend that. At the request of the Member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard), I will say something in Greek and that is: (Greek spoken- translation unavailable) Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) will also have to provide translation to Hansard. * (110 0) ORDER S OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS Hon. James Mccrae (Government House leader): Mr. Speaker, I am announcing today that the Law Amendments Committee will sit on Tuesday, February 13, 10 a.m., Room 254, to consider Bill No. 83 and will sit also at 8 p.m. if necessar y. The Privileges and Elections Committee will meet on Tuesday at 10 a.m. in Room 255 to consider the matter re lating to the Standing Comm ittee on Economic Development last May, as referred by this House. Mr.

Speaker, would you call the Bills in the following order: Bills Nos. 31, 35, 19, 84, 70, 47 to 52 inclusive, 57, 59 and 60. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House leader): On House business, I am pleased the House Leader has called the Law Amendments Committee tor Bill No. 83, and also Privileges and Elections.

I am just wondering what the intentions of the Government are in terms of committee hearings for the other Bills that are before second reading, name ly, 42, 63, 64, 71, 73, 74, 77, 81, 82 and 89, and also what the intentions are in terms of some of the other Bills that I know Opposition Parties have indicated a willingness to pass in terms of both passing them on through to second reading and getting them into committee. Mr. McCrae: We will indeed be calling committees to deal with Bills that are passed at second reading and have been passed at second reading.

I do not know of any Bill that Honourable Members have not been able to tell me they would pass. The Honourable Member suggests that we deal with Bills that have been offered by the Members of the Opposition to pass, yet 5161

/ Friday, February 9, 1990 I think on Bill No. 31, for example , the Bill still stands in the name of the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan)- An Honourable Member: For a while. Mr. Mccrae: -for a while as he says, and as he said in his comments yesterday, maybe for perhaps several days. Who knows how long it will be? I think the evidence kind of shows that perhaps Bills are not really going to pass as Honourable Members suggest they are . We would like to see Bill No. 31 pass ed . We think that might very well lead to other Bills being passed as well. ***** Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Speaker , I stand on a point of order actually. I indicated yesterday, I indicated in writing to the Government House Leader December 4 that we were willing to pass a number of Bills , three of which have not yet been passed through to second reading, Bill 19, Bill 35, and Bill 84. We are willing to pass them today and still continue the debate on 31. I was won dering why the- Mr. Speaker: Order , please ; order , please. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order.

The Honourable Member is quite aware that a point of order is used to show the House or the Speaker some breac h of the Rules ; therefore, he does not have a point of order. Mr. McCrae: I rise on a new point of order. Mr. Speaker , I am delighted to hear that the Honourable Member 's Party agrees to pass Bills 35 , 19 and 84 today , and that can be done immediately after we pass Bill 31. I appreciate that very much . Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank both Honourable Members. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS BILL NO. 31-THE LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT Mr.

Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labo ur (Mrs. Hammond) , Bill No. 31, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Church ill, the Honourable Member for Chur chi ll. Mr. Jay Cowan (Churchill): Mr. Speak er, M . le president, au demain . It is indeed a pleasure to stand to partici pate on ce again in this very important debate.

I have to make note of the House Business that transp ire d just previous to my taking my feet, because I believe that perhaps there is an opportunity here for the House to co-operate a bit more in order to pass some more legislation through the House and to accomplish at least part of the agenda of the Government with respect to the legislative package. 5162 (Mr. William Chornopyski, Deputy Speaker , in the Chair) Now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what clearly happened was the New Democratic Party did today, as it has done on many occasions in the past, offer to the Government a series of Bills which we would be prepared to pass through relatively quickly so that they could pass second reading and get into committee where they could be reviewed by the public as per the Rules and traditions and practices of this Legislature . We did so because we want to see some of the work of the House progress in an orderly fashio n.

That is what we have wanted to see, not only now that we are in Opposition but when we were in Government, and I want to reflect a bit on how that process worked in the past. That is what we will want to continue to see as legislators in years to come , because this House does have to function. This House does have to pass legislation, but it is not the total vehicle, the captured vehicle I should say, of the Government alone, whether it be a Government in a majority position or a Government in a minority position. Mr.

Deputy Speake r, I can recall being House Leader in a majority Government situation for a number of years. Even with the ability to win the votes in the House, we did not attempt to railroad legislation through the House in the manner that is being done with Bill No. 31. Why did we not do that? We did not do that because we felt that the Oppos ition has all sorts of ways possible to slow down the business of the House if they so desire . It would be much better for us to negotiate our way through the business of the House rather than to attempt to ramrod or railroad our way through the business of the House.

I have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as House Leader I was responsib le for those negotiations from time to time . I negotiated with Mr. Gerry Mercier. An Honourable Member: A fine man . Mr. Cowan : The Member for Arthur, and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), from his feet in the back says, a fine man . I have to agree with him that as far as the negotiat ions proceeded with Mr.

Mercier, I found him to be a capable negotiator, I found him to be a competent negotiator, I found him to be a trustworthy negot iat or, and I found him to be a person who wanted to make the system work through negotiation . I did not agree with Mr. Mercier in all issues. I certainly would not have agreed with Mr. Mercier on final offer selection , nor do I think we share agreement on that issue today. There are many other issues of principle and philosop hy on which we had some disagreement . As well , there were many times on specific items that we disagreed .

There were occasions where we found ourselves in general agreement as to an approach , an item, an issue, a philosophy or principle or practice . That is not unusual in this House. Putting those disagreements aside in order to find a productive way to make the House work was our responsibil ity, our collective responsibility as House Leaders.

Friday, February 9, 1990 Let me tell you how the system worked. Every day for the most part, and Ha nsard will confirm this, I would ask the Member for St. Norbert, the Oppo sition House Leader, the Conservative House Leader, as to what Bills he would like to see brought forward at a particular time. I did so because I wanted as much as possible to arrange a legislative agenda so that the Opposition felt they had adequate time to debate the Bills in the order in which they wanted to. I have to tell you there were times when we disagreed as to the ordering.

There were times that we had a bit of a tug of war in the Cham ber. I can tell you that those times were relatively rare and for the most part we were able to reach an agreement before the provision of business on each day as to what Bills would be called. From time to time we felt it was necessary to push and prod a particular Bill into second read ing and we accept that this Government from time to time will have to do that as well, but the practice was a practice of negotiation and the objective was an objective of comprom ise.

It was not always reached and it was not always implemented perfectly, but it in fact was for the most part a workable sys tem. * (11 10) We are saying today to the Government, and I am saying to the Government Acting House Leader, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), because I believe the Minister of Finance to be more philosophically and practically in tune with that process of negotiation than is the House Leader. I tell you why I believe that. I believe that because on many-he shakes his head, no.

I do not want him to be humbled or I do not want him to in any way be diminutive about his ability to bring order into this House through negotiation, and to meet the objectives of moving the House through its business in a rational and orderly practice, because when the Acting House Leaders had responsibility for the legisla tive agenda we ha ve found, as New Democratic Party Members, that the compromise was there, that the negotiation was there, and that the House did move quicker and did conduct its business more effectively and more efficiently. I think the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manne ss), if he put his own humility aside and sort of stepped aside of his loyalty to his House Leader-which is imposed discipline, I think, rather than one of overwhelming emotion on the part of the Minister of Financ e-h e would say truthfully that the business did proceed better when it is negotiated and that he was a more able negotiator than is the House Leader. For example, today we offered to pass a number of Bills, three Bills today, through second read ing to get them in the committee. We offered to pass them through to the extent that we can make that offer. Let me be very clear.

We cannot speak to the Liberal Opposition nor can we speak for the backbenche rs or the Government Caucus, but as for the New Democratic Party Caucus, we were prepared to limit our debate -(interjection)- the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) picked up his attent ion a bit when he heard "backbenchers of the Government Caucus." I want to just maybe reiterate the point in case he missed it. Did he miss the -(interjection)- The point I was trying to make, for the Member for Lac du Bonnet, was that we, as a New Democratic Party Opposition, 12 Members, can commit ourselves to a certain discipline.

Over the years we have shown that we can live up to our commitments for the most part. Our commitment today was that we would not unduly hold up those Bills, we would allow them to pass through on second reading if they were called. However, I cannot say-because I have no way of knowing it an d, even if I had a way of knowing it, I have no way of enforcing it- that the Conser vative backbenchers or the Conservative Government Caucus would respond the same way or the Liberals would respond the same way.

I believe it would certai nly be in the interest of the Government to get some Bills through second reading and into committee stage. It would also be in the interest of all Parties to do so. We made a very sincere offer. That is not the first time that offer was made. That offer has been made by our House Leader on numerous occasions, both publicly and privately. I can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will continue to make that offer. What happened when we made the offer today to debate those Bills first and then to go into debate on second reading on Bill 31 if time permitted?

What happened, the Government House Leader said, no. He knows that we intend to speak out Bill 31 today and, knowing that, he knows that his offer was not a valid response- An Honourable Memb er: As phony as a three-dollar bill. Mr. Cowan: Well, as the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says, phony as a thr ee-dollar bill. The fact is, he does not want to see those three Bills passed through the House today. I do not know why that is. Perhaps he thinks that we will crumble, sit down, let Bill 31 pass and get to those Bills anyway. We ha ve told him tha t is not the case.

We have told him publicly and we have told him in this House. Let us put what happened today, what transpired today, in the context of the charges that we are hearing consistently and constantly from the Government House Leader with respect to obstruction of the business of this House. Let us take a look how it affects Bill No. 31, the final offer selection Bill, and how it affects what is transpiring right now.

They are sayi ng, because we are taking a strong, hard line on defending the rights of working people by blocking the passage of Bill 31 to the extent that we can, we are obstructing the business of the House. The logic of that, if carried not to its extreme but just to a certain point, is that the only business before the House is Bill No. 31. No. There are many other Bills before the House right now that could be debated, three of which we said we were prepared to pass today. So who is obstructing the business of the House by not calling those Bills?

The Government House Leader is obstructing the business of the House. Certainly what we are doing today is a bit of an obstruction. We are obstructing Bill No. 31. We are 5163

Friday, February 9, 1990 trying to hinder the process of Bill No. 31. We are trying to prevent the Government from taking away the rights of working people and employers in this province through the repeal of final offer selection. I admit very clearly and have no problem defending what we are doing, that we are att empting to hinder the prog ress of Bill No. 31 through this Legislature. We will continue to do so in many different ways over the next number ol days, weeks and months if required.

That is not obstructing the business of the House, because we have said at the same time we are prepared to debate other issues. We are prepared even to pass other issues. All we have to do is sit down and negotiate with the Government House Leader (Mr. Mccrae) the number of Bills that are corning forward in what order and the business of this House will proceed through very, very quickly; as a matter of fact will proceed through much faster than it did on many days when they were the Opposition and we were the Government. There is no obstruction of the House, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when I stand and speak at length on Bill No. 31. The obstruction of the House results as a consequence of the unwillingness or the inability of the Government House Leader to negotiate the passage of the other Bills through the Legislature or his-a nd it would be something that would ther efore be shared by the entire Cabinet and caucus, because it is a collective process-incom petence.

Either the Go vernment Hous e Leader is too incompetent to get the business through the House when given a perfect opportun ity to do so or the Government House Leader does not know how to negotiate in order to get the Bill through the House. (interjection)- The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), from his position standing in the back row, says you cannot negotiate with unpr incipled people. If any Member should know about the inability to deal with unprincipled people, it should be the Member for Pernbina, from the basis of personal experience, from his own history.

He is the man that called the doctors the liars, and is there negotiation going on now? No. Why not? I can tell you the doctors consider him to be either an ignorant Health Minister or an unprincipled Health Minister, and they may be right in both instances. The fact is, he knows that of which he speaks. He acts upon that which he knows. The fact is, he is right. * (1 '120) You cannot negotiate with people that do not want to negotiate. He does not want to negotiate with the doctors, they know they cannot negotiate with him. Quite frankly , I bear no truck with the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard), nor no truck with the doctors, but what I worr y about is the intransigence and the unprincipled appr oach on the part of the Minister that is going to result in the detrimental health care to Manitobans. That is what I worry about. i do not worry about what the doctors are going to get or what the Government is going to pay.

I worry about the fact that because they have a stu bborn, intransigent Minister who calls the doctors liars, they 5164 have been put in a position where they are now thr eatening to withdraw their services, and when they withdraw their services it is not the Minister of Health that is going to be hurt, and it is not even the doctors that are going to be hurt, it is, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, you, I, the patients, every Manitoban who looks to this health care system as a way to provide them with a quality of health that should be second to none in the world and has been in the past.

It is now deteriorating as the crisis in the health care system grows and grows and gr ows and compounds itself over time. I make that point because final offer selection could be something that the doctors and the Government could be looking at as a way to resolve the impasse, given the fact that they have gone so far down a path of animo sity that it looks as if negotiations may be poisoned to the extent where a settlement cannot be reached in a fair and equitable man ner. So indeed that matter does relate very directly to the Bill that is before us with respect to final offer selection. I also want to, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, before getting into the crux of my discussion today, or my comments today, talk about something else that transpir ed this morning. The Government came in at this late day in the Ses sion, day No. 12 2, and in trod uced new legislation. We have not even seen that legislation as of yet-B ill No. 98. Let me juxtaposition what happened today against what happened in the past. Before doing so let me tell you why things were as they were in the past.- (interjection)- The Minister of Highways (Mr. Albert Driedger) asked if I am still on Bill No. 31.

Had he listened to my comments yesterday he would have heard me say very clearly-and I think it was accepted by the House as being a legitimate appro ach then because there was no challenge and therefore should be a legitimate approach today-that the way in which a Bill is brought to the House and passes through the House is very indicative of the way in which a Government sets its agenda and tries to implement its agenda and how strongly or not strongly it feels about a particular issue.

Speaking to process I think is a very important part of reviewing a Bill in second read ing, when you are talking about very general principl es. The principles of how does a Government feel about a particular Bill, how strongly does it feel, how important is it to its legislative agenda? Without trying to stretch the point or belabour the point, I want to go back to my earlier comments before I was interru pted and distracted by the Minister of Highways, who I hope right now at his seat is working on something more positive for the Port of Churchill than he has been able to provide during the past two years.

I may want to address the Port of Churchill a bit later in my comments. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when we were Government House Leader, one of the complaints-and I address these remarks directly to the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) and let me tell you why I do that, because I believe that the Member for Lac du Bonnet sincerely cares about the legis lative pr ocess and how it works and making this Legislature work on behalf and to the benefit of his constituents in Lac du Bonnet. I know that. I have had discussions with him. I am not telling

Friday, February 9, 1990 tales out of school when I say that he has a sincere interest in the House. As a matter of fact, he studies it. The man is a very politically astute politician and I say that in endearing terms and in no way diminutively speak of the Member for Lac du Bonnet. POINT OF ORDER Mr. Deputy Sp eaker: Order , please. Ord er. The Honourable Government House Leader, on a point of order. Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We un derstand Mr .

Sp eaker ruled yesterday tha t the Honourable Member for Churchill may use the right of unlimited time to discuss Bill 31 and we accept that ruling, made by the Speaker. We know the Honourable Member has given us notice that he intends to speak for days, weeks, months if necessar y.- (interjection) Well, he says not months today. That is news I suppose. The point that I am making, Mr. Deputy Speaker , is that he has that right to unlimited time to speak on Bill No. 31.

I have been listening for some number of minutes now to the Honourable Member talking about other things that have nothing whatever to do with the intent of Bill No. 31. At second read ing, the rules of debate call for Honourable Members to speak about the intent of the Bill, and here we have the Honour able Member talking about House Leader business and so on. Perhaps he is disappointed that his Leader removed him some wha t inglo riously from the position of Oppo sition or House Leader for his Party. He would like to pretend he is still the House Leader.

The time spent now on Bill No. 31 is for debate on Bill No. 31 and not on negotiations between House Leaders and how the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) thinks the business should be done, which Bill should be called, and in which order . We know the attitude of the Members of the New Democratic Party with regard to Bill No. 31. They have made it perfectly clear. This is the second Session that this Bill has been before the House because of various rea sons, not the least of which is the unbr idled opposition of the New Democrats to Bill No. 31, which is their right.

That Bill died on the Order Paper in the first Session of this Legislature. We are well past the normal length of a Session, and here we are, they are trying to tell me, Mr. Deputy Speak er, that we should be debating other Bills, that we should be accepting the list in the order that they would like to see it done. The Honourable Member for Churchill, I thought, had reconciled himself with the fact that he and his Party find themselves in third Party position in this House and not in the Government any more.

The Honourable Mem ber for Ch urchill is ha ving trouble toda y understanding that indeed is the position in which he finds himself. I am not able to quarrel and I do not wish to quarrel with the ruling of the Speak er, that the Honourable Member for Churchill has unlimited time to debate Bill No. 31. Bill No. 31 is the issue at hand, not whether we should be debating something else, not how the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) handles matters relating to health in this province, although parenthetically I can tell you that we probably have the best Minister of Health that this province has seen for many, many years. That is quite irrelevant to this issue of Bill No. 31. Bill No. 31 deals with the issue of final offer selection, what we on this side suggest is an intrusion into the principle of free collective bargaining in our society. That is the issue we are discussing, whether we should carry on with that process as it has been handled in this province since Bill No. 31 became law back in the summer of 19 87.

At the time, that Bill was referred to as a bail-out-Bernie Bill as I recall, refer ring to one Bernard Christophe. We remember the events at that time. We remember the picket line violence that was carried out in this province.

We remember the position that Members of the New Democratic Party took with regard to violence on the picket line and all of those things. * (1 130) All of that surrounds the issue relating to what has been known as Russian roulette arbitration, final offer selection, which somehow leaves management on one side and labour on the other, leaves us in a position where we have winners and losers, where we have no particular attac hment to collective agreements that are imposed on people. Those are all of the issues.

The Honourable Mem bers in the New Democratic Party will no doubt want to argue that final offer selection has worked in this case or that case or could work better or given time could work even better still. They can argue all of those things which are relevant to Bill No. 31, but the business of the House is something that the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and I and the Honourable Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) deal with on a day-in day-out basis. We know how the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) would feel when he is removed from that position, and we know why he was removed too.

But that really has nothing to do with Bill No. 31 and the intent of that Bill. That is what the debate is about. I would ask you, Your Honour, to consider calling the Honourable Member to order when he strays from that path of discussing that which he ought to be discussing and that which the Rules allow him to discuss. We are not here to deny him the right to discuss Bill No. 31.

I think in the interest of the smooth operation of this House and the serving of the interests of the people of Manitoba that, if they would confine themselves to obeying the Rules of this House rather than using the Rules for manipula tive and obstruct ive pur poses that we could get on with the business of this House. I heard the Honourable Member for Churchill Cowan) for example-this is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not finished making my point. The Honourable Member made reference to other Bills he and his colleagues would pass.

I tell you, I think are in, somebody told me, the 102nd day or something -(interjection)- 12 2nd day- 5165

Friday, February 9, 1990 Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order , please. Mr. Mccrae: -of this Legislature. I ask you, that alone is historic, the length of this Session. I ask you, how many Bills ha ve they allowed to pass to this point? But that too is not relevant to the issues contained within the parameters of Bill No. 31. These are the issues the Honourable Member for Churchill wants to debate, because he has run out of gas when it comes to Bill No. 31. Now if I am wrong about that, I would be delighted to be corr ected by the Honourable Member for Churchill. In short, Mr. Deputy Speaker- Mr.

Deput y Sp eaker: Ord er, please. Order . The Honourable Government House Leader is right. I thank him for that advice. I would ask the Honourable Member for Churchill- The Honourable Member for Thompson, on a point of order, the same point of order. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, first of all I would like to ask whether the Government House Leader (Mr. Mccrae) sought leave of his Leader to give unlimited time on a point of order, because I must say that was the most lengthy, convoluted and desperate attempt to raise a so-called point of order.

I would like to cite for you a couple of cita tions in Beauchesne's tha t relate specifically to the fact that points of order should not be used to interrupt Members in debate. I would note from our Rules, for example, that the Speaker may permit-and this is from our Rule book, 38 and Subsection 2, and I will quote it. The Speaker may permit debate on the point of order before giving his decision, but the debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would submit to you that the Government House Leader's so-called point of order was in fact nothing more than an interrup tion .

The Government House Leader, in the space of one of the longest so-called points of order that I have seen, referenced a number of items that were not at all relevant to this so-called point of order that he had rais ed. He referenced Ho use negotiations. He referenced Bill No. 31. He was attem pting to debate it, something he has not done in this Session. In fact I would be interested if there was a precedent in this in terms of the Government House Leader having used his opportunity to speak, because he did reference the Bill. But that is not the only citation that we have, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We have citations in Beauchesne's as well tha t are very clear and indicate quite clearly that points of order are not to be used as an interruption in debate. I would refer you to our sec tions in Beauchesne's which refer specifically to the fact that interruptions are not permitted. I will refer you, I do not ha ve the current edition of Beauchesne's with me, but I am quoting from the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne's in terms of questions of order,

Section 234.( 1) . If a point ol order consists of asking a question to the Member speaking or it is a mere interruption or if it is defective for other reasons, the Speaker will rule it out. I think 5166 that is clearly what the Government House Leader's point of order was. It was nothing more than an interruption. I would like to further read to you another subsection of Beauchesne's tha t also I think is relative to the point of order that was raised. A Member shall not rise on a point of order to deter or impede the prog ress of his own motion. In this case, while the Government House Leader (Mr.

Mccrae) did not introduce this Bill, I find it highly ironic that the Government House Leader rose on a supposed point of order to interrupt the debate, delay the debate, on a Bill that was introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), by his own Government. I would submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that what we had from the Government House Leader earlier was one of the longest attempts at a point of order, but also one of the most thinly veiled and disguised ways of trying to inhibit, trying to harass the Member from Churchill (Mr. Cowan) who is giving his views on the debate, in this debate- Mr.

Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please; order, please. I think the Honourable Member has exceeded the very thing that he is complaining about. The Honourable Government House Leader did in fact have a point of order. He is quite right, there is some-the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) did from time to time get off the subject matter and I want to thank the Honourable Government House Leader for that advice. The Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did not have a point of order. The Honourable Member for Churchill has the floor. ***** Mr. Cowan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you very much.

I would ask, given that I am going to be on my feet for some time, that if at all you sense that I am stra ying from the topic matter or that my comments are not exactly relevant to the debate that you would interject and in your most polite and kind and leading way inform me of your concerns. I will do everything that is within my power as a parliamentarian, as a speaker, and as one who is familiar with the Rules of this House, either to convince you that indeed I was on point or relevant, or to accept your admonition without any comment whats oever.

I have to tell you though, in keeping with the Rules, once you have made the ruling as you have now I accept that. I do ap preciate the assistance that you have given me, and I look forward to fur ther assistance if I should happen to inadvertently stray from the subject matter at hand. I do find it interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that while speaking on the subject of Bill No. 31, the final offer selection repeal, I was in the midst of complimenting the Member for Lac du Bon net (Mr. Pr aznik) on his understanding and his inter est in this House when I was interrupted and called to order.

Those comments were called short by the Government House Leader (Mr. McCrae). I just want to clear the record right now and let the Member for Lac du Bonnet know that we

Friday, February 9, 1990 will continue this discussion in private if he so wishes. I would like to explain to him what I was going to explain on my feet for the re cord, but un fortu nately hi s Government House Leader will not let me carry on with that portion of the debate. In reviewing the debate and the background research on final offer selection, I came across an

article from the 19 75 Osgoode Hall Law Journal by Mr. S.A. Bellam, not Mr. Ruben Bellan, no. It is a different Bellam I believe. It was published in 19 75 and it was entitled, Final Offer Selection, Two Canadian Case Studies and an American Digression. I believe that if I were to read this into the record, I would be on topic. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not going to do that at present. It may be necessary at some point in time to reinforce some of the comments by reading sections of it into the record, but I will try to keep those to the minimum limit possible.

I do want to start off by reading the first line. Actually I want to read the first two lines of that article. I quote Mr. Bellam: "It has been observed that politics and religions do not admit of rational discussion, and for that reason these topics should be avoided in polite company.

Perhaps another subject should be added to the list, compulsory arbitration, for here too reason seems a meagre bulwark in face of the volatile response usually evoked by the suggestion of a compulsory arbitration syst em." In fact we have probably seen some of that volatility and that lack of reason take place during this debate over the years in this Legislature. I want to go back and try to put some of the comments that have been made by the Minister of Consumer and Corpor ate Affairs (Mr. Conn ery) when he was Minister of Labour , by the present Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), by the Member for St.

James (Mr. Edwards) and also by some other Members in the context of what we know about final offer selection in the American experience, in the British experience. It has been a vehicle for arbitration and negotiation that has been used in Britain for generations, since the early 19 50s in the coal mines, and what we know from the Canadian experience in other provinces and our own experience here. Yesterday when I concluded my remarks for the day, I just started into discussing points that the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr.

Con nery) had made in his comments on final offer selection when he, as Minister of Labour, brought back the final offer selection Bill which caused the repeal of the legislation at that time. That attempt, as has been noted by the Member for Brandon West, the Attorney General (Mr. Mccrae), was an unsuccessful atte mpt, as we believe this one will be.

I think the comments that were made at that time have been made again and have been reinforced by Mem bers of the Cons ervative Pa rty and now by Members of the Liberal Party and do warrant some full consideration. * (1 140) I picked out a number of points that I polled from the Member for Portage's (Mr. Connery) comments when he was Minister. I would ask that if he thinks that I am misinterpreting what he said, or I am skewing what he said or I am in any way not providing an accurate reflection of what he said, that he would call me to task, and I would try to deal with those comments at that time.

What I have tried to do in order to ensure that my comments are as accurate as possible is quote or at least very closely paraph rase what was said. In his speech, the first point that the Minister made was that repealing final offer selection legislation "was the best way to restore fairness to the collective bargaining process." He, in that comment, makes a couple of assumptions. He assumes first that the pro cess is already as fair as it will ever be, and that is not out of keeping with the typical Conse rvative approach to labour relations.

They are the Party of the status quo when it comes to labour relations. They have been the Party that has fought every progr essive change in bargaining and in labour relations and in creating better, fairer, more equitable safer and healthier workp laces in this Legislature and in Legislatures across this country from the time they became a Party. That is why they have earned the reputation of an anti-labour Party. They deserve it. They worked hard to earn it.

It is something that they captured over, not one generation, but over generations, by re-enforcing the public perception that they in fact oppose any sort of progr essive labour legislation, because they believe the system is fair. In every instance they believe the system is fair. They have always believed that the system is fair because the system has generally been skewed toward the rights of management, historical ly.

I am going to go into the history of this at one point in my comments, if time permits, in some detail, to show you how labour relations legislation has evolved over the years, and historically it has been the Conservatives that have provided the most strident opposition as they are now doing on final offer selection. The assumption is that the status quo works. That was the assumption back in the early 18 00s, that was the assu mption in the mid- 18 00s, tha t was the � assu mption in the late 18 00s, the early 1900s, the mid- 19 00s, and tha t is the as sump tion no w, of the Conservative Party.

The status quo works, because what we are dealing with is an imbalance of power and labour legislation has generally given more power to working people at the expense of management. It has tried to create a fairer playing field, a more equitable system, a more balanced sys tem. When the Minister says that repealing the legislation was the best way to restore fairness to the collective bargaining process he is re-enforcing that historical perception and he is reiterating what has been a consistent theme on the part of Conservatives.

They do not like final offer selection because they believe it takes away the rights of management and they have said that very clearly . Their assu mption is that the system is already fair and that final offer selection makes it imbalanced. I disagree with that. My Party disagr ees with that. The majority of the labour movement in Manitoba disag rees with that. 5167

Friday, February 9, 1990 They do not believe that the system is totally fair now, that the status quo is perfect, and they do not believe that final offer selection creates an imbalance. They believe it brings about equity and it makes the system more balanced because it does provide for the shifting of power and the sharing of decision-making. Yesterday I went over a number of comments from the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) which I take to be reflective of the Liberal policy.

We will find that as we go through the Conservative comments piece by piece by piece, and this in fact is saying something, it is reviewing, it is analytical, it is something new to the debate, it has been care fully researched and a lot of work has gone into it. While maybe I elaborate in some detail, the comments that I make, they are based on very specific points that I feel are reasoned points, thought-out points.

There may be disag reement as to whether or not they reflect accurately what is actually happening, but that is what this Cham ber is all about, a place to air tho se disagreements, to review them and to come to a decision on the basis of informed decision-making. I will continue to do that. The Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) in his point No. 2, which is not his point No. 2 but the point that I classified as No. 2 yesterd ay, said one of his concerns about final offer selection was that one side has a gun which is loaded, the other side does not have a loaded gun, it has no bullet, and the inherent message, the implied message, the theme of that is that there is no fairness with respect to final offer selection. Now, in his article, which is probably the most comprehensive and well thought out

article I have been able to find with respect to final offer selection- there may be others and I am resear ching them now. I have looked through quite a few articles over the past number of years, right from when this matter was first brought to the attention of the previous administration to today, and what Mr. Bellam says to counter that argument is the following. It will take me just one minute to shuffle through some of the papers on my desk and find the right one.

I quote from his article, and he is talking about what happened in final offer selection in reality , in actual cases that were conducted under real circumstances. He said in that quote: Both parties felt compelled to justify their positions during negotiations by reference to concr ete financial data in preparation for the FOS criteria of reas onabl eness. In deed both reported that the FOS deadline encouraged realistic bar gaining throughout.

Now that is one point with respect to this type of bargaining -(inaudib le)- A more pertinent com ment he ma de was the following, and he is talking about what happened in Ontario with the teachers. Remember, the title of his

article was Final Offer Selection, Two Canadian Case Studies and an American Digression, and he reviewed what happened in Ontario with teachers with respect to final offer selection to try and get some sense of how it actually worked as a labour negotiations tool in the field. What he found was that the teachers said, and I quote: The teachers felt that the FOS device operated to equalize bargaining positions

whereas formerly they had felt underdogs in a more paternalistic setting. In the actual case of the teachers, they felt that the system was not fair to begin with. They felt that management, because of their paternalistic approach, had put them in the position of underdogs. They felt that they were not as equipped with respect to the power that they held or the influence that they could generate to compete at a negotiating table with the emp loyer because of historical circum stances and present circumstances as well.

At least the teachers are sayi ng, and I think others have said it as well, it is not entirely a fair system, that labour many times is the underdog at the table, and that final offer selection in their instance oper ated to equalize bargaining positions

whereas formerly they had felt they were the underdogs. * (1 15 0) So indeed the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) may in fact believe that the status quo is good, that the system is fair now, and that final offer selection creates an imbalance, as does the Member for St. James (Mr . Edwards). I expect that he is speaking for all the Liberals when he says that because the rest of them have not spoken on this Bill at any length to speak of. I think one may have. They are wrong accord ing to Mr.

Bellam and they are wrong according to what I think, but I know they are not going to accept my judgments or my analysis carte blanche. They want me to reinforce with documentation and fact and analysis what I say. If they have other documentation or research that proves to the contr ary, let them put it on the table. I have not heard them put it on the table. I have heard them say what they think. I have heard them tell us how they feel. I have heard them speak in subjective terms, but I have not heard them quote the authorities. I have not heard them quote the actual experience here.

I would like to hear that if they have it. I would like to hear them quote that. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives agree I assume that the status quo, at least in the instance of final offer selection, is a fair status quo and equitable and that final offer selection creates an imbalance. They have both said that. I think they are wrong. Mr. Bellam thinks they are wrong. Others think they are wrong. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member for Portage then went on to say that he felt that final offer selection was, quote, intrusive, imbalanced methods for settling cont ract disputes. We find that the Member for St.

James (Mr. Edwards) actually in two of his points makes that same point. One point he called it, and I referenced this as point No. 1 in my speech yesterday, unwarranted intrusion into the labour relations environment, and I have already indicated in point 2 he thought it was imbalanced. They agree together, the Liberals and Conservatives, that final offer selection is in fact in their opinion intrusive and imbalanced. I do not quite understand how they 5168

Friday, February 9, 1990 consider it to be unwarranted intrusion. They ignore the fact in saying so that it is the majority of workers, the majority of people that are going to be affected by the decision that must vote on final offer selection. It is not forced upon the workers. They have an opp ortun ity to vote on it. Both parties ha ve an opportunity to request that vote. One party has an opportunity to vote.

That is far less intrusive than is the lockout, where management has an opportunity to arbitrarily shut the gates of a plant and throw the majority of the workers out of work without ever consulting them.

That is not nearly as arbitrary as the right of management to close down a plant as we have seen happen in this province very often quite recently, and not just quite recent ly, over the years, without any consulta tion with the workers, without any reference to the rights or the responsibilities of the workers other than those minimal rig hts and stan da rds tha t are legis lated in The Employment Standards Act or The Labour Relations Act or the federal Bankruptcy Act. That to me is an unwarranted intrusion into the workpla ce and into labour relations.

Let us take a look at how a dispute unfolds, starting from the first instance. You have two parties that enter into negotiations. Why do people negotiate with each other? People negotiate with each other because they want to see a change in a particular circumstance or the status quo that the other party does not particularly want to see in exactly the same way at that time. That happens in negotiations whether they are in a shop or a mill or in a factory or in a hospital or between Go vernm ent and its empl oyees or between two individuals or in a fami ly. That is the very essence of negotiations. (Mr.

Speaker in the Chair) A number of parties -I said two parties and I want to correct myself-it could be two, it could be more than two, there are multi-party negotiations, want to see a change in the status quo. They sit down and negotiation historically takes on a pr ocess of compromise. We have often heard about the give and take of negotiation, the quid pro quo, the trading off of one item for anoth er.

As a matter of fact, the whole language of negotiations implies that reaso nable parties are sitting down, putting forward their concerns, their objectives, and discussing with each other how they can best accomplish those objectives. Some will be able to accomplish some of their objectives and others will be able to accomplish other parts of their objectives and compr omise usually rules the day. What if they cannot comprom ise, what if they cannot negotiate? We see an example of that today in this House.

The Go vernment Ho use Leader and the Opp osition House Leaders had an op portun ity to accomplish a goal of moving business through this House. We offered to pass three Bills, but because of some reason that we will explore but perhaps never fully understand, or at least never be able to fully confirm, they were unable to reach an agreement, although they said they had the shared objective of making the House work. Well, let us look at it right from the very start. Did they ha ve a shared objective or was there a hidden agenda? Did they really want to make the House work?

By working in this stage of the process of the Legislature it means passing legislation through. Or did they want to accomplish something else? Unless Parties are honest with each other in the negotiations, it is very difficult for the negotiations to proceed smoothly. You are always trying to negotiate a phantom issue of which you are not aware, or if you are aware, the other Party does not speak truthfu lly with respect to its real objectives. If you do not know what the real objectives are, then you do not know what it is you have to do to strike the compromise.

In other words, in this instance is the Government trying to set up a charge of obstructionism so that they can go to the people in an election in a period of time? That has been suggested. Quite frank ly, it is not beyond this Government or any other Government to try to manipula te the process in such a way. The Premier shakes his head no. I think he is shaking his head no in response to what I am saying and not the letter he is writing or signing. Let us explore that for just a bit in the context of final offer selection.

Why is it that the Government House Leader today forced final offer selection, Bill No. 31, the repeal of the Bill, to be the only agenda on the legis lative agenda today, the only issue, when he knew, and we had said very clearly that we would pass three other Bills to get them into committee? Who is obstructing the Bills from getting into committee? The First Minister (Mr. Filmon) says we are. I do not know if that was a collective you or a singular you. Any hints? No. Maybe he is not certain. The fact is, let us assume it is a collective view. Are we indeed obstructing?

I addressed this point earlier in my comments, Mr. Speaker, on Bill No. 31. What we have said is that we are prepared to pass other legislation through the House, but we are not prepared to pass Bill No. 31. If he were to charge that we were hindering or impeding the progr ess of Bill No. 31, I would agree with him. We are doing that for some � very specific reasons. We are doing that because we believe it is wrong-headed legislation. We are that because we believe ii is a Bill that puts the and the Co nservatives in the pockets of big business at the expense of the working person.

We are doing that because we believe final offer selecti on to be a fair and equi table process o! negotiating and resolving disputes where it is necessary to use it. We are doing that because we want to see a fairer , more balanced, more equitable society, and one of the places you can start building that fairer. more equitable and balanced society is in the workplace. Yes, we are obstructing the progr ess of Bill No. but we are not intentionally obstruct ing the ""'"""'"" of this House. We have offered to pass other and we will do so.

I do not want to get too far comments with respect lo Bill No. 31, but make that point. I want to go back the point the Member for Portage made in his comments a couple years ago with respect lo intrusive imbalanced methods 5169

Friday, February 9, 1990 for settling contr act disputes. I t hink that this matter is really far less imbalanced than is the lockout. If they really want to deal with inequity in the system in an unbalanced labour relations system, then let them, along with this particular Bill, and maybe we could actually look at that, outlaw lockouts without a majority vote of those people who are going to be most affected by it, the workers themselves. Let them do that and perhaps we will talk about final offer selection and other ways of accomplishing this.

If they want to deal with inequity and an imbalance, let them really deal with the inherent inequities and imbalance in this sys tem. Mr. Bellam also talked about that in point No. 4, and I am not going to repeat it, but the fact is the teachers did feel themselves to be underdogs and that this provided for a more balanced system. What we are saying is substantiated by what the analysis says to us in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal article. The third point that the Minister of Labour (Mrs.

Hammond) said with respect to his comments was that final offer selection is an all or nothing proposition that creates a winner and a loser. Now, I have not heard the Liberals say this directly but I have heard them imply it. I am not going to say that they stand side by side, cheek by cheek and jowl by jowl with the Conservatives with respect to this criticism of final offer selection because I do not know and I do not want to be unfair to them. I do not want to words in their mouths or ideas in their heads that are not already there. I do not want to misrepresent their positions.

Let us just deal with wha t the Conservatives say in that. The fact is that to an extent final offer selection does create winners and losers but all negotiations create winners and losers. The question then is this: does the process of final offer selection make more winners and more losers, or make the winners and losers win more or lose more than would other conventional means of negotiations? If they do not, then the argument that it creates winners and losers should be an invalid one. � * (1 200) Let me read what Mr.

Bellam says in his journal, page 872, and I will quote: nonetheless that final offer selection produces a "winner" and a "loser" -and he quotes both winners and losers in quotes-is most frequently cited as a weakness. That is, obvious victories by one or other parties would generate acrimonious relations over the long run. It is contended, however, that the win-loss concept is endemic to the collective bargaining system and is by no means confined to final offer selection. To be sure, if the negotiations proceed smoothly trade offs result in the collective agreement.

Good will and co-operation are likely to abound in serendipitous circumstances. If each side wants what the other cannot or chooses not to grant, the zero-sum game becomes appa rent. That is, in a free collective bargaining system the final arbiter is the strike or lockout and one side or the other can better withstand the economic consequences.

The strike has been termed a catharsis clearing the air of the workplace, but surely this is to gloss over the real 5170 bitterness engen dered by the picket line violence, loss of irrepla ceable wages, decreased expectations, loss of faith in the bargaining process and such. (Mr. Harold Gilleshammer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Yes, there is a win-loss element to final offer selection process, but there is much more of a win-loss element to standard negotiations. For example, today in the House we could have negotiated the passage of three Bills and delayed the debate on final offer selection for another day.

That would have been a win-win. We could have had a win-win situation today in this House by following standard negotiating procedures, and both of us would have accomplished something. There would have been a compromise and both Parties would have been able to get at least part of what they wanted. The Government would not have gotten its entire legislative agenda passed, no. We would not have gotten final offer selection dropped, which we want, no. We would have had it delayed, and they would have made prog ress; win-win. In stead, today there was a win-loss.

I am not certain who the winners and the losers are, but I do know that we are delaying the process and I do know tha t they are not passing any legislation, so I would assume from my very biased perspective, from where I stand today speaking on final offer selection, Bill No. 31, tha t they are the losers and we are the winners. I would be prepared to put final offer selection to the test. I would be pr ep ared to say in today's circumstances we could have each put down what we wanted to accomplish.

We could have said, we are prepared to pass three Bills without undue delay or debate If in fact Bill No. 31 is not called today, and you know what, I believe an arbit rator would have chosen that over what has transpired today. In tha t instance the business of the House would have been carried on and there would have been a win-win situation. On the basis of that very limited example and very biased example I admit, we could have had a win-win situation through final offer selection today, and instead we have a win-lose situation because of the lack of negotiations.

Let us assume that there is a win-loss element. What do other parties say about it? James Stern prepared a paper for the annual meeting of the National Academy of Arbitration. I assume that because he prepared the paper, I do not know all his credentials, that he does have credentials in this field, otherwise he would not have been writing on that particular subject at tha t particular time for that particular body. What did he say in the paper? He said, and I quote, there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the pro cess on the part of individuals who have not been involved with final offer selection.

As for any damage wrought by the winner-take -all aspects of the final offer arb itration awards, it has not caused either the winners or the losers to condemn the procedures on that ground. In other words, taking a look at the experience and reference indirectly to the win-loss concept, there is

Friday, February 9, 1990 no documentation that proves the contention of the Conservatives that the win-loss element is gr eater in final offer selection negotiations than outside of final offer selection. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Bellam, whom I quoted before, from the Osgoode Ha ll Law Jo urnal, Final Offer Selection, Two Canadian Case Studies and American Digression, which is based on experiences in the '70s in the United States, but more importantly and more comprehensively in Canada, says and I quote, final offer selection merely reflects the broad win-loss notion of the col lective bar gaining sys tem, and in fact by generating convergent pressures the parties may be so close together that animosity is lessened at the end of their arbitration process.

Finally, by forcing the parties to compromise rather than risk every thing in arbitration, the result is likely more acceptable than if the arbitrator himself comprom ised the two positions to reach a settlement. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) Both Mr. Bellam and Mr. Stern, on the basis of their research, discount the notion of win-loss as being a negative with respect to the use of final offer selection. As a matter of fact, the teachers that use the system in Ontario had this to say, and I am paraphrasing the teacher through directly quoting Mr.

Bellam in his article, it is one of the eight conclusions that he drew from his review. That review is based on the contention that some would suggest final offer selection discourages good faith bargai ning. He said that both parties felt compelled to jus tify their positions during negotiations by reference to concr ete financial data in preparation for the FOS criterion of rea sonableness. Indeed both reported that the FOS deadline encou raged realistic bargaining throughout. They also said that there was significant conversion pressure to appear reaso nable in the eyes of the selection officer.

We have talked about that in his other quote. Finally he says, both sides felt strongly motivated to sett le the agr eement thems elves for personal satisfaction and to avoid the risk of a complete loss at arbitration, yet both felt that final offer selection gave the parties a larger measure of control than did conve ntiona l arbitrati on. The teachers, who were probably the most versed in using final offer selection and had the most experience, disagr ee entirely with what the Minister of Labour of the Day had to say when he tried to rationalize the introduction of a Bill to repeal final offer selection.

The Minister at the time in point four also said that this can lead to animosity between the parties and that is why they were repealing final offer selection. Of course, the contention is that when you bring in final offer selection it will create an atmosphere that results in animosity because one party gets what they wanted and the other party does not. Let us look at what the Liberals have to say about that particular issue as well. The Liberals say through the Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) that in one point final offer selection does not achieve what the 5171 proponents say it does, that is, a peaceful workplace. It ma y end this strike. Will it create a peace ful workplace? Not a chance. They also say that the final offer selection has caused disruption in the workpla ce, which is not warranted . It does not stop strikes, in my view, it creates unrest in the workplace and will continue to do so. * (1210 ) Again, we see the Liberals and the Conservatives joining hands and linking minds in a collective response to take away this right of working people. What do others have to say?

I have taken a look at what has happened in the context of the Manitoba experience to date, and we cannot see that lingering anim osity after final offer selection has been used as a process, whether the selector had to come to a decision, and that has been relatively rare, or whether the parties agreed to a contra ct before that was necessary. That has not happened in other jurisdictions. It has not happened here. As a matter of fact, the reverse is true if we listen to the experts. I think there are experts in this particular area that we should listen to very carefu lly, and I have quoted them.

I am going to go back to Mr. Bellam's point. Mr. Bellam's point said that both parties in final offer selection, felt that the time frames set in advance prevented a stalemate from developing and kept talks progr essing, albeit slowly at times. What it does is it keeps the parties speaking to each other. That reduces anim osity.

Also if anyone in this Chamber has been through a strike, and I believe they have, they will know that strikes, even strike votes or even threats of lockouts, create a great deal of animosity in a workplace that is very difficult to overcome, even over a longer period of time following the strike itself or the lockout Mr.

Bellam also says, and he is again quoting what he learned from his experience in reviewing final offer selection, I quote, both parties believe that the FOS deadline with its criterion of reasonableness set the tone for "civilized" bargaining from the outset, that they felt that less emotion and grands tan ding was disp layed during negotiations and less ani mosity � remained after settlement than in previous years. These are indi vidua ls that he is revie wing and organizations, both management and labour, that have had experience with different kinds of arbitration and different types of strikes.

They felt that final offer selection, and I reinforce it by quoting again, because it is a very important point, created less animo sity after settlement than in previous years. Where does the Minister of Labour get off suggesting, along with the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) and the Liberals, that it can lead to animo sity between the parties? Where is his factual information? What expert is he quoting? What research has he done, or is it just something he feels in his gut?

Because he feels it in the gut, he expresses it in a speech without any basis in fact, without any reinforcing documentation, without any researc h. If he has the resea rch, if he can show definitiveiy that it has created animosity in the majority of instances

Friday, February 9, 1990 moreso than do other forms of negotiations or contractual dispute reconciliation, let him bring forward those facts. He cannot, because he does not have them. He does not know what he is talking about. He never knew what he was talking about. They are bringing forward this legislation on false pretenses. They have the collabor ation of the Liberals in doing so. If they are bringing forward the legislation on false pretenses, then what is the hidden agenda? The agenda is not to reduce animo sity, because that is not a problem.

The hidden agenda is to pay back their big business supp orters, whether they be Liberal big business or Conservative big business for the supp ort that they have shown them over the years. Mr. Speaker, I did not say pay off because I do not in any way want to reflect upon their integrity. I think what they are doing is wrong-headed. I think it is done out of ignorance. I think that they do not know what they are talking about. I think that they are obviously paying back in a way support which everyone does by providing a legislative agenda that reflects the needs of those people who support us most.

In our instance it is working people; in their instance it is big business. I do not think that there is any thing beyond that. I think it is just the way politics works. They are elected here on the basis of a platform that they put forward. That platform is designed to appeal to the people whom they want to support them. They get a lot of their support from big business, as do the Liberals. That is where their platform is directed. It does not matter whether it is the land developers or the large corporations or the transnationals or the multinationals. They have the same agenda.

It is not inconceivable nor is it difficult to understand why it is that those corporations and those developers and others want to have more power. They are use to power, they know it works well for them, and they want to gain more power. They see final offer selection as a way of taking power away from them. That is why they asked the Conservatives, and that is why they asked the Liberals, to support them in repealing that par ticula r Bill. Tha t is why the Li berals and the Conservatives, when it was first brought forward, spoke against it. If nothing else, they have been consistent, not ra tional.

I think not coherent, but at least consistent. The fact is that others who research it from an unbiased prosp ective do not find that anim osity. Let us take to the next point. The Min ister of Consumer and Corpora te Affairs when he was Min ister of Labour and introduced this Bill said one of the reasons they were introducing it is because they thought it damaged the collective bargaining process because, and I quote: it certainly lessens the commitment of one side to the contract. The Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards), the Liberal Critic, said on one of his points as a rationale for opposing the Bill that, I quote: what you would get is a contract that the parties do not feel they have partici pated in. The impli cation if the y ha ve not participated in it, they do not have a sense of ownership of it, if they do not have a sense of ownership of it then they do not have the commitment to it. If in fact that was the case, one would have to accept that as a reason for considering the Bill.

I would say 5172 that you would not want to accept it as a reason for considering repeal of the Bill but as a reason for considering how to improve the Bill, but is that the case? Again, let us go back to people who have studied the issue in some detail from an unbiased, realistic, rational perspective. What do they have to say? - (interjection)- No, the Minister of Industry , Trade and Technology and whatever else, just Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Ernst) says from his seat, let us go back to what the Canadian Federation of Labour said. Did I hear his comments correctly? Oh, I am sorry.

Let us go to what other parties say, and I want to do that in some detail a bit later on in my comments if I have time today. Well you know, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortuna te tha t so much of my speaking time today was eaten into by different points of order and different, other events in the Legislature, although I do feel the non-political sta tements were inde ed warr anted , were in deed productive, and were indeed an important part of our work here, so I do not resent that. An Honourable Member: That is democracy for you though, Jay. Mr. Cowan: Yes, the First Minister (Mr.

Fi!mon) from his seat says, that is democracy for you. Indeed it is democracy. Democracy is allowing people to stand up and have their say. Democracy is allowing people to express themselves and in trying to come to decisions based on the information that has been provided. That is what we did earlier today and that is what we are doing now. Democracy is not trying to ram a Bill through by denying the Member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) the right to speak. Democracy is not trying to push your agenda, in a most ung lorified and undignified mann er, through the House by refusi ng to allow people to adjourn debate.

Democracy is not the way that this Government has proceeded with trying to ramrod and railroad this Bill through the House in order to pay back the support that they have received from the big corpor ations. Democracy is not the unholy coalition between the Liberals and Conservatives that has resulted in their at tempting to thwart the no rmal proced ur es and practices of this Parliament to ensure that this Bill goes t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-122
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 122.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	26c1c35d9a861494761fa96d499675a02d965a28

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