Manitoba Hansard — 14 November 1996 (Sitting 81, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-81

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 81- 1:30 p.m., Thursday, November 14, 1996

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST. Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary. Hon. FINDLAY, Glen. Hon. FRIESEN. I ean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER. Harold. Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN. Gerard KOW ALSKL Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE. Doug McALPINE. Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER. Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben !'UEWS, \'H.:, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political AtTiliation Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River l!a1:cy N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. PC. N.D.P. N.D P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.DP N.D P. NDP . P.C. P.C. NDP P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. PC. PC. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.DP p C. PC. PC p C. N.DP.

4999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, November 14, 1996 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Guaranteed Annual Income Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Tasha Jade Jackman, Darlene Teeple and Pat Cordner requesting that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Mitchelson) to consider repealing Bill36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care, that this annual income increases as prices increase, that this new legislation provide for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningful work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families, and that this new legislation provides adequate supports so that individuals with disabilities receive appropriate assistance in finding meaningful work.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Herb Hewke, E. Braun, M.

Roux and others requesting that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Family Services to consider repealing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legi slation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care, that this annual income increases as prices increase, that this new legislation provide for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can fmd safe, meaningful work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families, and that this new legislation provides adequate supports so that individuals with disabilities receive appropriate assistance in finding meaningful work.

Thank you. Manitoba Telephone System Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Gail Kotowich, Colleen Allan, Leslie Benson and others requesting that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Guaranteed Annual Income Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Brent Letain, Carl Ridd, Len Metro and others requesting that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Mitchelson) to consider repealing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care, that this annual income increases as prices increase, that this new legislation provide for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can fmd safe, meaningful work of their own choosing and allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families, and that this new legislation provides adequate supports so that individuals with disabilities receive appropriate assistance in finding meaningful work.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Manitoba Telephone System Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Yes. Madam Speaker: Yes. The Clerk will read. *

(1335) Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth:

5000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14, 1996 THAT the Manitoba Telephone System has served this province well for over 80 years, providing province-wide service, some of the lowest local rates in North America, thousands of jobs and keeping profits in Manitoba; and THAT MTS contributes $450 million annually to the Manitoba economy and is a major sponsor of community events throughout the province; and THAT MTS, with nearly 4,0 00 employees, including more than 1,0 00 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one of Manitoba's largest firms, headquartered in Manitoba and is committed to Manitoba; and THAT the provincial government has no mandate to sell MTS and said before and during the 1995 election that MTS was not for sale.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legis lative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Spea ker: Dispense.

THAT the Manitoba Telephone System has served this province well for over 80 years, providing province wide serv ice, some of the lowest local rates in North America, thousands of jobs and keeping profits in Manitoba; and THAT MTS contributes $450 million annually to the Manitoba economy and is a major sponsor of community events throughout the province; and THAT MTS, with nearly 4, 000 employees including more than 1, 000 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one of Manitoba's largest firms, headquartered in lvfanitoba and is committed to Manitoba: and IHAT the provincial government has no mandate to sell MIS and said before and during the 1995 election that MTS was not for sale.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Mada m Spea ker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Manitoba Telephone System has served this province well for over 80 years, providing province wide service, some of the lowest local rates in North America, thousands of jobs and keeping profits in Manitoba; and THAT MTS contributes $450 million annually to the Mani toba economy and is a major sponsor of community events throughout the province; and THAT MIS. with nearly 4, 000 employees including more than 1. 000 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one of Manitoba's largest firms, headquartered in Manitoba and is committed to Manitoba; and THAT the provincial government has no mandate to sell MIS and said before and during the 1995 election that MIS was not for sale.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Guar anteed Annual Income Mada m Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) and it complies with the rules and practice of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

November 14, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5001 THAT in 1976 Canada signed the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognized the right of everyone to make a living by work which is freely chosen, recognized the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, recognized the right of everyone to enjoy a high standard of physical and mental health, and provided for the widest possible protection and assistance to the family; and THAT poor children and adults in Canada continue to die at a higher rate and earlier age than people with adequate incomes; and THAT Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment Act, will create even greater poverty among the poor in Manitoba by eliminating government responsibility to ensure that everyone who lacks adequate jood, clothing, housing and health care has these needs met; and THAT the bill proposes to punish people by cutting them off from social assistance or reducing their benefits if they fail to meet employment expectations; and WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Family Services to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care and that this annual income increases as prices increase and that this new legislat ion also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningfUl work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families and that this new legislation also provides adequate supports so that individuals with disabilities receive appropriate assistance in finding meaningful work.

Mada m Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Madam Speaker: Dispense, THAT in 1976 Canada signed the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognized the right of everyone to make a living by work which is freely chosen, recognized the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, recognized the right of everyone to enjoy a high standard of physical and mental health, and provided for the widest possible protection and assistance to the family; and THAT poor children and adults in Canada continue to die at a higher rate and earlier age than people with adequate incomes; and THAT Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment Act, will create even greater poverty among the poor in Manitoba by eliminating government responsibility to ensure that everyone who lacks adequate food, clothing, housing and health care has these needs met; and THAT the bill proposes to punish people by cutting them off from social assistance or reducing their benefits if they fail to meet employment expectations; and WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Family Services to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care and that this annual income increases as prices increase and that this new legislation also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningfUl work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families and that this new legislation also provides adequate supports so that individuals with disabilities receive appropriate assistance in finding meaningful work.

Ma dam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

5002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14 , 1996 An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mada m Spea ker: Dispense.

THAT in 1976 Canada signed the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognized the right of everyone to make a living by work which is freely chosen, recognized the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, recognized the right of everyone to enjoy a high standard of physical and mental health, and provided for the widest possible protection and assistance to the family; and THAT poor children and adults in Canada continue to die at a higher rate and earlier age than people with adequate incomes; and THAT Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment Act, will create even greater poverty among the poor in Manitoba by eliminating government responsibility to ensure that everyone who lacks adequate food, clothing, housing and health care has these needs met; and THAT the bill proposes to punish people by cutting them off from social assistance or reducing their benefits if they fail to meet employment expectations; and WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Family Services to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care and that this annual income increases as prices increase and that this new legislat ion also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningfUl work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families and that this new legislation also provides adequate supports so that individuals with disabilities receive appropriate assistance in finding meaningful work.

Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honoura ble member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

That in 1976 Canada signed the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognized the right of everyone to make a living by work which is freely chosen, recognized the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, recognized the right of everyone to enjoy a high standard of physical and mental health, and provided for the widest possible protection and assistance to the family; and THAT poor children and adults in Canada continue to die at a higher rate and earlier age than people with adequate incomes; and THAT Bill 36.

The Social Allowances Amendment Act, will create even greater poverty among the poor in Manitoba by e/iminacing government responsibility to ensure that everyone "ho lacks adequate food, clothing, housing and health care has these needs met; and THAT the bill proposes to punish people by cutting them off from social assistance or reducing their benefits 1jthey fail to meet employment expectations; and WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Family Services to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care and that this annual income increases as prices increase and that this new legislation also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningfUl work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families and that this new legislation also provides adequate supports so that individuals with disabilities receive appropriate assistance in finding meaningful work.

November 14, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5003 Manitoba Telephone System Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Manitoba Telephone System has served this province well for over 80 years providing province wide service, some of the lowest local rates in North America and thousands of jobs and keeping profits in Manitoba; and THAT MTS contributes $450 million annually to the Manitoba economy and is a major sponsor of community events throughout the province; and THAT MTS, with nearly 4,000 employees including more than 1, 000 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one of Manitoba's largest firms, headquartered in Manitoba and is committed to Manitoba; and THAT the provincial government has no mandate to sell MTS and said before and during the 1995 election that MTS was not for sale.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Manitoba Telephone System Privatiza tion-Information Request Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

We have asked in the past for information that the government has available to it dealing with their analysis of the impact of privatization on rates, on investment, on jobs, on debt and other tax considerations, and the government has kept that information, unfortunately, secret from the people of this province. In the latest issue of CA Magazine, apparently a fmancial group has been established made up of Mr. Stefanson, Mr. Fraser, and Ms. Barker that has prepared a number of financial bits of information and analysis of information on the pri vatization of the telephone system.

The CA Magazine goes on to say that this group has prepared earnings forecasts for the new priv ate company. I would like to ask the Premier, in light of the fact that it is the shareholders and the public of Manitoba who now curr ently own this telephone system, will the Premier make public today the earnings forecasts for the Manitoba Telephone System? Bon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have indicated to the member opposite on numerous occasions that the governm ent of Manitoba, in reviewing the report and the analysis that was done for us by the Crown Corp orations Council, was faced with an analysis that said that the Manitoba Telephone System was the highe st-risk Crown corporation that we had of all the Crown corporati ons in public ownership.

They said that based on a number of factors, one being that the field of telecommuni cations is the field of the most rapidly changing technology of any sector of our economy and that, as well as that, this particular telephone company had the highest debt-equity ratio of any telephone company in Canada, that in addition to that, the Manitoba Telephone System was going to be faced in the near term with decisions that might involve the investment of some half billion dollars with respect to their continued need to compete with the private sector because now, as compared to when they were operating for many, many decades as a monopoly, they are today a Crown corporation in which over 70 percent of their revenues are in competition with the private sector.

That puts them in a position where they will be very much in jeopardy in their efforts to try and keep up with technology, to try and keep up with changes. Madam Speaker, in order for us to make analyses as to what might happen to the rates, what we have to do is compare, as I have indicated before, to the rates that are charged by other telephone companies in Canada, either in public or private ownership. I indicated, for instance, in Rate Group 2- * (1 340) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

5004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14, 1996 Madam Spea ker: Order, please. Mr. Filmon: I am sure that the members opposite do not want to hear the answer. They just want to go on with their rhetoric. The fact of the matter is they can act like a rabble as much as they like. I have a right and a responsibility to answer questions and to put information on the record. Point of Order Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear that "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." The Premier was asked a very specific question about fmancial projections that have been made. His answer bears no resemblance to that. I would like to ask you to call him to order and answer a very serious question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. * * * Mr .

Doer: Madam Speaker, I asked the Premier to produce the earning forecasts that were produced for the private investment. Surely the public shareholders of Manitoba Telephone System, contrary to the Premier, the 57 members in this Legislative Chamber that deal with the Manitoba Telephone System and the one million Manitobans have a right to those forecasts, not just the brokers and investors. I would like this Premier to start acting on behalf of all Manitobans and not just the investors and the brokers in this province, so I would like the Premier to table the information as we have asked him. What is he hiding?

What is he keeping secret? Why can he not share this information with all 57 members of this Legislature? What has he got to hide? Further, the CA Magazine goes on to say that tax issues must be dealt with in the privatization of the Man itoba Telephone System. The financial group has been preparing work because investors will be insistent on accurate forecasts dealing with the tax changes of the federal governm ent. Now we should be insistent as well as the investors of what the tax implications are. The Premier has refused to make that information public in the past.

Will the Premier now today table that information that has already been prepared by senior officials ofthe Manitoba Telephone System? Release it for all of us rather than just a select few that may buy the shares of the telephone system. Mr. Filmon: As I have indicated before, the Manitoba Telephone System has been informed that the assets of the Manitoba Telephone System can only be carried out on the books for purposes of depreciation at maximum, at fair market value.

Since in the privatization process people will be paying for those assets and will be establishing the fair market value, that will be the value that will be utilized for depreciation pwposes, and it will be the value that is placed upon the share offerings. The second aspect to it. which I have also indicated previously, is that an advance ruling has been made in favour of the ability of the telephone company to transfer in as an asset at full value the pension funds that will be transferred in with the company, so a favourable tax ruling has been received there.

Both of those matters of course would be matters that would need to be disclosed and will be fully disclosed in any prospectus that might be issued. *

(1345) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Doer: Members opposite clapping for a Premier that said that this information will be disclosed to the private future investors rather than to the present owners of the telephone system, the one million Manitobans. We all know that the telephone system is worth well over the debt, Madam Speaker. That is why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) is licking his lips with the $400 million or $500 million he is going to put in his Fiscal Stabilization Ftmd. We know that it is worth a lot more than what the government is telling the people of this province.

They are trying to have it both ways: Use the debt as a reason to sell it but use the assets before the next election. I think it is a disgrace in terms of what is happening. I would like to ask the Premier a further question. The CA Magazine also goes on to say, and quotes senior partners across Canada, that tax treatment can put

November 14, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5005 privatization in doubt. It is one of the reasons Ontario Hydro has stalled the privatization efforts of the Ontario Hydro, because Ottawa has cancelled a

section of the tax act. I would like the Premier finally to table the forecasts of revenue, to table the analysis that he has. Make it public. Let us have the debate out in the open, not in the backrooms of the Conservative Party. And will he table the analysis dealing with the tax rulings as indicated by the accountants must be before the public before decisions are made? Mr.

Filmon: It is because, of course, the member opposite and his colleagues, the New Democrats, are so brilliant in their knowledge of values and investments that Manitoba Telephone System under their stewardship lost $30 million in Saudi Arabia-because they are so brilliant, Madam Speaker. That is why of course no Manitoban would ever trust them to value a corporation or to put any sound financial advice on the record with respect to any issue.

As I indicated prior, the tax information that the member opposite is putting on the table is information that is readily available, and the fact is that it is not possible under current tax legislation and regulations in Ottawa to value a corporation at greater than its fair market value. So we are not in the situation that Ontario Hydro attempted to be in of trying to value its assets at their purchase value as opposed to their fair market value.

We have received what we believe is sound advice on that, and that is how the corporation is operating, based on sound and solid advice, not on the musings of the Leader of the Opposition. *

(1350) Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Referendum Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): The Premier mentioned the word "trust" and the people of Manitoba trusted this Premier in the provincial election not to sell offMTS, Madam Speaker. Given that the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, the Manitoba Society of Seniors, the Manitoba Pool, 67 per cent of Manitobans province-wide and 78 percent of rural Manitobans do not want MTS sold off, I would like to ask the Premier a very simple question. It is based on trust here.

Will he trust the judgment of the people of Manitoba and refer the issue of MTS to a vote of the people, a shareholders' vote, a referendum on the issue of the sale ofMTS? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, it is with interest that we listen to what Manit obans say. The member focuses on certain individ uals. I focus on the kind of editorials that come out in various papers right across Manitoba. The most recent one- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Findlay: Madam Speaker, those editorials focus on the realities, the issues that are in front of us. They focus on competition; they focus on technology that is changing; they focus on the need for MTS to respond quickly, to be competitive, to be able to supply the best service in the future; they focus on the debt that government currently guarantees; they focus on the new capital that is going to be needed and they understand things have changed.

As Bob Rae mentioned when he was in Winnipeg last week, the NDP now has to embrace the concept of what debts and deficits mean to governments in terms of their ability to serve the basic needs of society. Supporting a Crown corporation that is in a competitive field is clearly not one of them and is identified in many editorials, also in rural Manitoba, Madam Speaker. Mada m Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question. Mr. Ashton: My supplementary is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

I want to ask when the Premier is going to stop listening to investment bankers based on Bay Street, editorial writers, and listen to the people of Manitoba by doing one of two things, either stopping the sale of MTS or, at the very least, put it to a vote of the people of Manitoba. Let the people decide, Madam Speaker.

5006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14, 1996 Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, we were elected to govern in the province of Manitoba. We were elected to be fiscally responsible to look after the affairs of the province of Manitoba, to reduce the level of risk that we put the taxpayer to, and that issue was identified time and again by Manitobans as they speak to us, as they write editorials. The risk is high; the time has come to do what we are doing.

It is right, to be sure, that we protect the government in terms of being able to be sure we deliver the health care, the education, the family services, to build the highways that are needed without unduly taxing the taxpayers. We are supported strongly and widely in Manitoba in that concept. * (1 355) Privatization-Campaign Promise Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, on a final supplementary and once again to the Premier.

I want to ask the Premier if he will now state very clearly to the people of Manitoba, since we have seen in this Chamber that there are about 30 people in Manitoba left who do not believe this government broke its election promise, that in fact, in 1995, he said he was not going to sell MTS and that he will now be breaking that campaign promise if he goes and rams through a sale that is not supported by two-thirds of Manitobans and 78 percent of rural Manitobans. Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, above all, whenever I have run for office in this province I have promised to exercise my best judgment to do the very best that I can to ensure that the people of Manitoba are prote cted. I can understand why members opposite get very agitated and upset, why they want to shout us down when we talk about responsibility. They do not understand that term. Members opposite can go and they can spread misinformation. They can go and they can stir up their own political pot. They can go and be as irres ponsible as they want. They can be on all sides of issues.

They do not have to look at the long-term interests of the people of this province. They do not have to look at the long-term effects on the economy of this province. They can shout all they want, but the fact of the matter is, this is a government that is responsible. This is a- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the members opposite can be as childish as they want. The fact of the matter is that we take responsibility to be in government seriously. We take our responsibilities to the long term- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, we take responsibilities for the long-term interests of the people of this province and the economy of this province. Based on that, we believe that we are making the right judgment for the future of Manitoba. Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Impact on Rates Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): The Edmonton Social Planning Council have interviewed 40,000 people in the city of Edmonton, and the results of their research shows that the ability to pay for a telephone is affecting all low-income people, including people who are unemployed. people who are working but low-income and people on social assistance, so that fewer of them own a telephone.

I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System ifhe can guarantee that rates will not increase in Manitoba as a result of privatization, and if he cannot guarantee that, then why are you selling the Manitoba Telephone System? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, we have a very competent regulator in Canada called the CRTC that takes into account all the factors that the member opposite has mentioned.

I also want to remind the member opposite that we have a penetration rate in the telephone system in excess of 98 percent. I cannot give him the exact figure, but it is in excess of98 percent, a very high penetration rate. The CRTC considers all those factors in the many, many rulings that they are involved in to be sure that we have the best telecommunication service for all Canadians across this country. * (1 400)

November 14, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 500 7 Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System if he has talked to his colleague the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) or whether they are working at cross pur poses, since we know that privatization is going to make a telephone unaffordable and many people will not have a telephone. Presenters on Bill 36 said over and over again that they need a telephone to find a job. It is absolutely essential to have a phone to find a job.

Why is this minister working at cross-purposes with the ability of people to find a job in Manitoba? Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, CRTC's major mandate is affordable universal telephone service to all Canadians. The other thing the member must realize is the telephone bill is made up of local, interprovincial charges, and becaus� of competition over the last five or six years, long distance rates, which benefit every telephone user, have gone down in the vicinity of 50 percent. Mr.

Martindale: Can the Minister responsible for the Mani toba Telephone System assure low-income people in Manitoba, including the unemployed, people who are working but low income, and especially the people who are on social assistance, that rates will not increase, given that he knows that the CR TC always gives the increases they are asked for, including in Alberta of $6 a month increase in rental, so that people can afford a phone, so that the same number of people will continue to have a phone so they can get a job and get off social assistance? Mr.

Findlay: Madam Speaker, as telephone companies put forward rate applications to CRTC, CRTC holds hearings where every interested individual group of citizens across the country can make representation to present their case. At the end of the day, CRTC makes those fair and reasonable decisions to be sure that the majority of people, the vast, vast majority of people have access to a telephone at a reasonable rate as is the case in Canada .. There is no indication that that will change, and ownership of the telephone company is not relevant in the process of making that decision.

Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Board of Directors Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, one of the most deceitful elements in the undemocratic plan to pri vatize MTS is the pretense that the company's board will be made up of Manitobans and that the real head office will be here in Manitoba. Will the Minister responsible for MTS now acknowl edge in this House, as he had to in committee, that the so-called protections are just shams which evaporate the moment that the debt is paid off to the Manitoba government? Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, the member was present in committee. Within the bill it is very clearly stated that the majority of directors must be Manitobans and the head office must stay in the province of Manitoba. I would request him to read the bill and pay attention to that. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, with a supplementary question. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, is the minister then saying that Mr. Yaffe, the corporate counsel, and Mr.

Benson, who answered questions at committee, were wrong and that the certificate of continuance which will be issued with these conditions in it cannot simply be amended at any meeting of the board of directors or any properly called shareholders' meeting, that all these protections evaporate, all that is left is a set of letters patent that can be amended at any time? These protections are shams. Is he now saying his own counsel was lying, or is he not telling the truth? Mr. Findlay: When the debt is defeased, there is continuance under The Corporations Act.

We have made it very clear in open presentation to Manitobans to give them the offer to purchase. Manitobans will be making the decisions of the Manitoba Telephone System in the future, assessing the risk and supplying the level of services necessary. I cannot imagine Manitobans wanting to move the telephone system out of Manitoba. Privatiza tion-Manitoba Ownership Mada m Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Will the minister who has just now confirmed that his first answer was inc�rrect

5008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14, 1996 and Mr. Yaffe was correct that these protections are shams, will he now explain how Manitobans are supposed to believe that there will be nobody owning more than 10 percent of the shares, that there will be no accumulation of shares on the part of multinational or other Canadian telecommunication corporations, that that promise is also a sham, as confirmed by Mr. Yaffe? Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): To increase the level of Manitoba participation, we removed the 25 percent available to a strategic partner. We have lowered the maximum that any one individual or group of individuals can own from 15 to 10 percent. [interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Findlay: As the Premier (Mr. Filmon) pointed out earlier in Question Period, we have a responsibility to protect the taxpayers of Manitoba, to reduce the level of risk that they are going to face in the future if it remains a Crown corporation.

Members opposite refuse to ever address the issues in front of this government, in front of all-[ interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System, to complete his response. Mr. Findlay: Around the world, government ownership was the order of the day in the past.

The lists that have been privatized to this point and the list that we have privatized in the next year or two is rather phenomenally long as every government assesses the level of risk that they face in the telecommunication industry that has high competition, further need for capital and under a high level of risk. Those are the issues that we face, and those are the issues on the basis of which we make the decision that we protect the taxpayers best by the process we are involved in. * (1 4 10) Manitoba Telephone System PrivatizatiorrDistribution of Sale Proceeds Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): The Liberal Party is greatly concerned in terms of how this government is going to be using the revenue generated by the sale of MTS to manipulate the voters in the next provincial election. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster, to pose his question. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, on March 16, 1995, the Premier made a commitment that projects totalling $1 91 million will be approved for health care capital construction.

My question to the Premier is, given that he has broken the promise on the sale of MTS, will he fulfill his other promise of the capital infrastructure and make that commitment today that that money is going to be reinstated with the proceeds from the sale of MTS? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I would think that a Liberal whose government is cutting back on transfers to the province for health and post secondary education amOWlting to some $220 million per year would hardly have the nerve to stand up and ask about expenditures on health care from a government who spends more as a percentage of its budget on health care than any other prmince in Canada. The fact of the matter is, we are spending over one third of our entire expenditures on health care in this province, no thanks to the Liberals who have cut us back by $220 million in annual transfers.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I have been listening very carefully to the Premier's answer, and I am still looking for an answer to the question. I am familiar with Beauchesne's

section 417 , I have heard it often enough here , that the answer shall be as brief as possible and answer the question or he does not have to answer it. The member for Inkster asked a question about whether or not he will put money into the capital projects in health care. Is there an answer? If not, I believe the Premier is out of order talking about many other issues. Madam Speaker. Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for The Maples, I would remind the honourable First Minister that his

November 14 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5009 answ er should be as brief as possible and should pertain to the question asked. * * * Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, despite this reduction in transfers from Ottawa of some $220 million annually, we are proceeding to keep our commitments with respect to health care.

The members opposite may know that, in eva luating the priorities under our Health capital program, we have renewed our commitment to the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and that we have indicated publicly that, in accordance with the new regional health authorities, we will be again reviewing the prior ities and that capital commitments will continue to be made in the priority in which they are required to ensure that the people of this province continue to get the highest standards of health care that we can possibly deliver and, as I have indicated before, to the funding that is the highest percentage of funding given to health care of any province in Canada.

Mr. Lamoureux: Will the Premier today make good the word that he said back in March 1995 that $1 91 million was going to be vested in capital infrastructure for health care? We do not have to wait to two months prior to the next provincial election. WiH the Premier make the commitment today so that he is not- Madam Spea ker: Order, please. Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, I know that the member opposite is having difficulty because he is getting signals on the one hand from a Leader who says she is swinging left, on the other hand is trying to say that they approve of privatization of Crown corporations but they just do not like the way this is being done. They are all over the map on it. I am trying to figure out what he really has in mind here. He says on the one hand that he is against the Manitoba Telephone System privatization, but he wants us to use the money from the privatization. You cannot have it both ways.

I know that the member opposite is confused, but I think that he is adding to the confusion. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, my question to the Premier is, how does the Premier of this province justify to Manitobans that he is using the proceeds that are going to be generated from the revenue of the sale of MTS for nothing more than a cash cow that is going to be put into a slush fimd for his personal re�election as Premier of the province? That is an absolute disgrace and the Premier should apologize- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, I totally reject all of the information that the member opposite put on the record. It is absolutely false. The only money that will accrue from the proceeds of this sale will be to the interests of all the people of Manitoba. Minister of Education and Training Parent Group Meeting Request Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Education was recently sent over 140 letters by Steinbach parents asking simply that the cuts to education stop now. We know that the minister refuses to meet with representatives of over 2,000 north end parents until she is publicly embarrassed.

We know that the minister is frequently and openly contemptuous of legislative debate. I would like to ask the rmruster today what her response will be to those parents from Steinbach. Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I see that the members opposite have run out of questions on the MTS. Having extended the session to deal specifically with the Manitoba Telephone System, I see the members opposite have now run out of questions on the Manitoba Telephone System and I hope that then- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member for Thompson, on a point of order. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, Beauchesne does not have any specific ref erence to ministers being able to give editorial comment in answer to questions, particularly in Beauchesne Citation 41 7. I also want to add that we have plenty of questions from MTS. We are just pacing ourselves for the next

50 10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14 , 1996 little while. I do not think the minister will have to worry; we will have lots of questions on MTS before the session is over. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, actually I was going to rule in his favour but have some difficulty doing so given the debate he entered into while raising his point of order. ,., ,., ,., Mada m Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education, to respond to the question asked. Mrs.

Mcintosh: I am presuming then that they will give leave today to fmally debate the Manitoba Telephone System bill. The member for Wolseley, having now as part of their broken agreement on the House rules extended Question Periods, knows that I meet regularly with parents and her comments about me not meeting with parents and so on are out of order in terms of accuracy.

I also say that she knows perfectly well that in terms of funding for Manitoba schools, why just this day in the paper we have people indicating the results of the education system as being extremely satisfactory, clearly pleased with what is happening in education with the dollars they have been giVen. The people from Steinbach I have communicated with regularly, people from the Steinbach area. I have met with the board there on many occasions. I have met with teachers from the Steinbach area.

I have met with parent council from the Steinbach area, and I have indicated to them what everybody knows to be true, we have increased funding to education by over $1 13 million since we took office in 1988. ,., (1 420) Education System Impact of Funding Reductions Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, would the minister confirm that the poll conducted by Winnipeg School Division No.

I, which she just quoted from, where 4,000 parents, 4,000 , expressed serious concerns about her education cuts, reflects exactly what she has been told in recent weeks in letters from the Transcona Springfield trustees, Brandon trustees, Brandon teachers and hundreds of presenters at the committee hearings, that her education cuts have hurt a generation of children? Bon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): I point out to the member what I have tried to point out to her on numerous occasions.

We have been throwing money at education in Canada for 25 years, throwing money I say across the country, huge, huge, huge amounts of mone) being designated to education across Canada in the last 25 years.

The results that have been obtained until ministers of education across this nation started looking at measurable standards, improved curricula, the results were not giving us what we should have been expecting for the money given across this nation in the last two decades until the recent few years when we hear parents sa)ing these things: that 79 percent are pleased \\ith the quality of education, 81 percent are tremendously satisfied with the teaching, 77 percent are satisfied \\ith the performance of the school administration, 6 7 percent believe in provincial examinations.

Madam Speaker, the people are clearly satisfied with the results of the education that they are getting for the money that we are giving them. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Manitoba Telephone System Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Madam Speaker, yesterday I was amused while the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) quoted from his top 10 list. Today, I would like to invite members opposite to participate in what could be called Jeopardy, NDP style. The first one: The NDP, without referendum, increased this tax 2.25 percent. Answer: What is the payroll tax?

The NDP, without referendum, lost $40 million of taxpayers' money on this aircraft company, leaving taxpayers with old, used uniforms and matches. Answer: What is Saunders Aircraft? The NDP, without referendum, lost $27 million of taxpayers' money on the

November 14 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 50 11 sands of Saudi Arabia through a venture called this. Answer: What is MTX? The NDP, without referendum, spent $30 million of taxpayers' money so tourists could sit in their lawn chairs to watch the ice go out of the Red River on this bridge north of Selkirk. Answer: What is the bridge to nowhere? Madam Speaker, I sit here in complete bewilderment as to why the NDP party did not involve the people of Manitoba in these financial decisions.

Given their unbridled enthusiasm for referendums, one must ask, where was this enthusiasm when they increased taxes 22 times in five years while in government? One can only wonder. Perhaps they should speak to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) who very reasonably agreed with a statement made by the Premier (Mr. Fihnon) that declared, we are in office with a mandate to exercise our judgment and to make decisions on a whole range of issues under new and changing circumstances. This is clearly what the situation with MTS is. Manitoba Telephone System Mr .

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Despite the huffing and the puffing of the members across inside the Leg islature, they do not have the courage to go out and say these kinds of things to Manitobans. This government has no mandate to sell off the Manitoba Telephone System. They told the people of Manitoba in the election of '95 they would not do it and here we are; they are doing it now against the people's wishes. It does not seem to matter to this government that 78 percent of my constituents and theirs do not want you to sell MTS.

It does not seem to matter to this government that 67 percent of the people of Manitoba say, do not sell MTS. It does not seem to matter to this government that 182 out of 185 presenters opposed what they are doing. A couple of weeks ago, Madam Speaker, I challenged the members across the way to join me in Grandview to debate the MTS sale. Not a single member across the way had courage enough to leave this building and join me there. I want to find out how confident this government is in their word. I put out another challenge to each and every one of you across the way.

If we can show you that you broke your word in the 199 5 election, will you put MTS privatization on hold? Will you have the guts to do that? I do not think so. You will not keep your word and you will not take me up on this challenge again because you do not have the courage to do it. You will not face Manitobans. Thank you. Operation Red Nose Mr. David Newman (Riel): Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend a community group which has taken up the initiative to help make our streets safer. Manitobans deserve to be safe in their communities and in their neighbourhoods.

As you know, Manitoba brought in the toughest drinking and driving laws in Canada, laws which have been emulated in other jurisdictions and laws which we intend to make even stronger. Our laws can only do so much. * ( 14 30) We need the support of the community to make our streets safe and that is why Operation Red Nose is so important. Using volunteers, Operation Red Nose is going into its second year to help Manitobans reach their destinations without posing a danger to others or to themselves.

Instead, driving a vehicle when they should not, the individuals will be able to make a phone call to Operation Red Nose and be provided a ride home for themselves and their passengers. This sort of community partnership which helps make Manitoba a safer place needs further support from all of us. We all need to work together for the common goal of ensuring a safe place for ourselves and our families. In add ition to helping make a road safer, donations to Operation Red Nose go towards the Manta swim club.

Our government appreciates the volunteers at Operation Red Nose and the Manta swim club for taking this initiative. I am sure, for the many Manitobans who took advantage of the program last year, they will-all the provinces benefit. I encourage Manitobans this year when appropriate to utilize this service and donate generously when they do so.

Madam Speaker, very briefly, moving to another subject, MTS, which we can call operation red face by the members of the opposition in the way they have conducted themselves, I wish to record my disappointment at the tactics of the official opposition with respect to the sale. I had expected them to conduct the mselves in a more respectable fashion. The end

5012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14 , 1996 just ifies the means has no

part in a democracy. Thank Madam Speaker: Order, please. you very much. Manitoba Telephone System Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I have to say that it is a sign of a desperate government when the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) has to stand back and bring up issues that go back 3 0 years ago of things that the ND P did. It is a desperate government that is trying to cover up their tracks.

What the member for Turtle Mountain should be talking about is the money his government lost and wasted-$4 million on Connie Curran; $50 million that they have lost on the Winnipeg Jets; $10 0 million that they gave to the Royal Bank only last year. The member for Turtle Mountain should raise some of those issues. CFI? Why will he not raise this CFI and the money that they lost on that?

What the member for Turtle Mountain should really be telling the people in this House and the residents of Manitoba is that he was one of the rural candidates who told the people in his constituency that his governm ent, the Filmon team, would not be selling MTS. He was one of those candidates, so let him not try to come off so squeaky clean . This government misled Manitobans during the election, but we should not be surprised. They misled them on many other issues. They told us that they were going to save the Jets. Where are the Jets today? This government and the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr.

Tweed) is just trying to raise issues because he is ashamed of what he is hearing from rural Manitobans. He does not want to accept the fact that 68 percent of the people across this province do not agree with this government on selling MTS. Seventy-eight percent of rural Manitobans oppose. You should be ashamed as a rural member that you are saying you support the sale of MTS when Manitobans are telling you that they do not want it. Stand up on your feet and go out to rural Manitoba, hear what the people have to say and give people an opportunity to have a say.

Hold a referundum on this issue; do not be afraid to go out to the people of rural Manitoba. Some Honourable Memben: Oh, oh. Legisla tive Process Mr . Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): It was interesting listening to the member for Swan River, the member for Turtle Mountain_ I anticipate on Monday, it will be David Letterman's top I 0, and who knows what the New Democrats will come up with? But we wait with bated breath . It shows that there are a lot of games that are played inside the Chamber, no doubt about that.

We, no doubt after the Members' Statements, are going to be seeing the government House leader request some form of leave so that debate can continue on inside this Chamber with respect to MTS and the sale thereof. We do not necessarily oppose allowing for that debate to occur, but, having said that, we do not support the government House leader adjourning this Chamber. There are substantial other bills, private members' bills, resolutions and so forth that can in fact be debated.

In particular, I will give a little bit of a plug for Bill 200, a bill which the Liberal Party has on several occasions brought, in different forms, into this Chamber, which has really never been debated in this Chamber, and it is most unfortunate. Here we have a golden opportunity to be able to have a good debate on that particular piece of legis lation. That is one of the reasons why we do not bel ieve that it is a responsible way of dealing with taxpayers' dollars when we adjourn the House as we have done in the last couple of days. We want to be able to allow ongoing debate inside this Chamber.

We are also very concerned about the potential of the governm ent bringing in a closure motion. We have dealt with different forms of closure from the New Democrats in the past. We are very concerned that this government does have intentions of bringing in a closure motion, and we would suggest to the government that they start wheeling and dealing with the New Democrats and try to come up with some sort of a compromise that would not see closure brought into this Chamber. Thank you, Madam Speaker. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I rise in my opportunity in this session to raise a grievance. To

November 14, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 50 13 the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh), the issue is MTS, and I want to assure the Minister of Education and other government members, they have not heard the last from us or the majority of Manitobans who do not want their telephone system sold. I found it rather bizarre in this House-you know, I had the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) yesterday say that it was only the socialists like the member for Thompson who were concerned about the sale ofMTS. I found that interesting.

That may be news to the 78 percent of rural Manitobans who oppose the sale, the 67 percent of Manitobans who oppose the sale. I do not think they are all socialists. I will tell you, after this government is finished with another three or four years, a lot of them may be. I know a lot of them are going to vote New Democrat in the next election. But the logic, or lack thereof, of the government just escapes me. The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) reminds me of The Charge of the Light Brigade. You know, onward they rode into the valley of death, cannons to the left of them, cannons to the right of them.

This is the member who stands up here and has thunderous applause from 29 people. When will that member and every single one of those government members who have not had a single public meeting have the courage to face their constituents? Have a public meeting. Face your constituents, the 78 percent who oppose the sale. I have said it before, I will say it again, and I will say it to the Minister responsible for MTS, let us start with a debate in his constituency next Tuesday. We are going to be holding a meeting open to members of the public in Springfield next Tuesday, 7:30, Dugald Community Centre.

I want to see the minister there. How about the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh)? Anywhere, anytime, we will debate the issue. How about the Premier (Mr. Filmon)? I want to see the Premier in front of a public meeting, explaining why he did not really mean what he said when he said he would not sell off MTS. I want to see him explain the comments ofhis members. I am reminded of the old story of the emperor having no clothes. I mean, everybody in this province knows that the Premier said he would not sell MTS, and he has broken that promise except to 29 government members. The Deputy Premier (Mr.

Downey) said, oh, we did not promise to do that. We did not promise them. The Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay), oh, we did not do that. We never said, we never- The bottom line is, he said it on the record. We have witnesses at public meetings where he said it. He even said it in the House in May of 1995 . You wonder why we are fighting for the people of Manitoba on the sale of MTS right to the bitter end? I can assure all government members, it ain't over till it's over.

The bottom line is, I have never seen a government so arrogant as to say that 67 percent of the people are wrong; they do not know what they are talking about. You know the government that will not hold one public meeting turns around and does what? What do they do? They say the opposition is spreading misinformation. They have not even had to courage to have one single meeting. They have hidden behind $400,000 worth of advertising. What do they then do? What have they done this week? The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) accused me of what, Madam Speaker? Of hiding behind the silly rules.

The government House leader (Mr. Ernst) talked about hiding behind the rules. Our rules are based on hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition. This government may feel that it is appropriate, as it did last week, to ram through the sale ofMTS at 3: 22 in the morning. They may feel it is appropriate to take the largest single financial item that has ever been decided by this Legisla ture in any bill-this is the largest matter this Legislature has ever had to deal with. Think about it. They have concern that we are doing what? They accuse us of wasting the taxpayers' money. Is it not amazing?

You know, they say it costs $1 0,000 to run the Legislature. I have a solution. Let us adjourn the House ri ght now and put the issue of Bill 67 to a vote of the people of Manitoba. * ( 1440) I want to say this in a way of helping the government a bit, because we have tried everything. We have had public meetings throughout the province. There is not one of our constituencies where we have not had a public meeting. If you look at Winnipeg, we have had several

5014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14 , 19 96 here. We have had meetings throughout rural Manitoba. We have gone to Conservativ�held areas . We have been in Morden and Neepawa, Minnedosa and Roblin. We have been all over the province and, you know what, 78 percent of rural Manitobans said, you are right. We have been there. I just want to say something to the government. I am wondering what they think they will have left in the way of credibility out of this whole process. You can give the greatest speeches in the world in this House, but what are you going to say to the people?

I just want to run through this, because I mentioned this in committee that night between 3: 22 and nine o'clock, and this will have to be a slightly abridged version, unless I can get leave to speak for somewhat longer than 15 minutes.[ interjection] Oh, okay. Well, anyway, I will probably have a longer period of time to speak in later stages of this bill. I would ask in fact on the record, to my Leader, to have desi gnation to speak for unlimited time on at least one section. But what are you going to do in the next election? What kind of campaign are you going to run? I can just see it now.

You are going to have Gary Filmon walking along a riverbank saying, trust us on health care. No, sorry, I do not think that is going to work, especially after home care and Pharmacare. What are you going to do? Educati on-oops, slight problem there. No, that is not going to work too well. You know, we are the party that supports public education-do not think so. What are you going to do? I know. You could always promise not to sell MTS retroactively. Oh, wait a sec, I know. You will say, we promise not to sell Hydro and Autopac. I do not know.

Somehow I think that might just get a few people going, well, this does not quite add up here. What are you going to run on? Save the Phoenix Coyotes? What are you going to have left? Now I know you are going to say: We made those tough decisions. We said no to 78 percent of our constituents. We sold off the phone company. Rates have gone up-well, whatever. What could we do about that? You know, service is not there. The head office is off to who knows wherever. Madam Speaker, think about it, and I say this seriously to members opposite.

I know in the next election I can go to the people of my constituency as I have for five elections and know that I said the truth to the people of Thompson last election. I know that. You will not be able to do the same in your constituency if you pass this bill. Not only that. How can you say you represent your constituents? You can debate, and that is a legitimate debate to representative democracy and government using other means, including referendum and plebiscites, but I want to make this argument.

Representative democracy is based on the fundamental principle that you tell the truth in the election and you have a mandate for what you are doing. You have no mandate, and you wonder why we say, put it to a vote. Then I find it amaz ing the argument of the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) in saying, well, you did not want to vote this, that and the other of the other issues, so, even though we said, we sort of like votes in some things, we are not really in favour of votes on this. I know why you do not want to vote-because you are not going to win it.

You are afraid to face the people Well, I want to put this on the record because I hope, if MTS is sold off, that it can be brought back under public ownership. But, you know, it is like unscrambling the omelette. This is not something that can easily be reversed. We have had referendums on what kinds of issues in this province? The Charlottetown Con stitutional Accord-why? Because it has a fundamental sweeping impact on everyone and redraws the rules. What about the Manitoba Telephone System? The minist er himself says 98 percent of Manitobans have a telephone.

We have the lowest rates in North America, some of the best service. We have some of the best employees. This is one of the best telephone companies in the world, and they are going to rip the heart out of it by privatizing it. I want to say, if they are the kind of issues that we are dealing with here, this is the appropriate one for the people to decide because, what if it is not reversible? I hope it is, but what if it is not? What costs would be involved in terms of time and effort of doing that? What right does this governm ent have to sell off MTS in the first place?

You know what amaze s me is, I trust in the judgment of the people. You know what they say when we say, put it to a vote. They say, you know what, if this was a private company, the one issue that would have to go to a vote of the people would be what? The sale of the

November 14, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5015 company. So what on Earth is stopping you from doing thi ? s. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) You are concerned about the session, any of these issues, all you have to do is say, look, we did not realize the opposition that was out there. We will put this to a vote and have a 35 -day campaign. I will tell you what, we will even accept, you can spend whatever you want in advertising. You spent $400,000 thus far and you got up to 2 7 percent of the people supporting what you are doing.

Spend $4 million ifyou want, $40 million, $400 million. An Honourable Member: No, we cannot afford it. Mr. Ashton: We cannot afford it. I know, but I do not think that really impacts on this government anyway. Spend whatever you want. On the other side, I know the coalition that is fighting this has maybe spent $4,000. I will tell you what, I do not think we would have to spend a cent. We will just go to every constituency in the province and do what we have been doing since January of this year. We will face the people. We will answer the questions. We will put our argument forward.

You know what, ifyou do not trust the people, that is fine, but I will tell you, we trust them. I have spent most of these last 12 months fighting to save MTS as has every single one of our caucus members but, you know, if we have a vote on this issue, we will accept the result. I tell you, if you had raised this in the election, we would have accepted the result because you would not be in government today and you know that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not hide behind this bluff. Do not hide behind this, accusing us of hiding behind the rules or wasting the taxpayers' money, by doing what?

Sitting in this Legislature? I say to the Minister of Education, shame on the Minister of Education for discounting the democratic process. She and nobody on that government side has any right to shut down the Legislature. I just want to say a couple of final things on this particular day because there will be many other days ahead when we will have a chance to debate this.

What I found interesting about what happened in the last week or two in this province is the number of people I have spoken to who I do not even know personally who phone me and who have said, one thing that the New Democratic Party has done for the people of Manitoba is given them some hope. There is a lot of cynicism out there. We heard young people come before the committee saying, what difference does it make? That is what people are saying. You know what is sad is that the government itself does not even acknowledge what happened last week.

I cannot believe that they expected us to wrap up this session when we could not technically do it with the bill still stuck in committee stage on Thursday. You know what they have not put on the record is, out of that committee carne some significant amendments to pensions, 6,000 Manitobans whose pensions are greatly improved in the protection today. * (1 450) I have talked to MTS employees who said, I presented to that committee, and I watched what happened to those who did present. I talked to some just this morning, and they said, it gave me some hope for the democratic process.

I cannot believe what the government said and did last week. Did they honestly expect we were going to pass this bill at 3 :22 in the morning on Wednesday? Did they think that it would just magically disappear? Why did they not say, well, let us sit down and give MTS the time it needs, the largest single fmancial transaction in Manitoba history? I do not know anyone, I tell you, I do not know a corner store that would spend less time on the due diligence on the sale of its assets than this government has on the sale of MTS. They have not studied it. They have not done due diligence.

They do not even want to give it time. They wanted to ram the committee through. They brought in 25 amendments, and they expected us to deal with them with virtually no notice. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the bottom line is here. Whether you agree on the principle of the sale or not, this is not the way to do any kind of dealings with the public business in this House. I am amazed at the government. Wake up. See the reality of what is going on. You do

5016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14 , 19 96 not have public support. Do not kid yourself ; you have no public support for this. You have no man date, and you are trying to ram it through. But do you know what? You can run, but you cannot hide.

Even ifyou ram this bill through this Legis lature, you are still going to have to face it, and believe you me, you will be hearing about this issue from each and every one of us, not only in our own constituenc ies but in all 57 constituencies because we are going to go, we are going to tell your constituents, you did not tell them the truth and then you voted against them. I say to the government, come to your senses. You have one chance left. Listen to the people of Manitoba. Withdraw this bill, adjourn the House and put it to a vote of the people of Manitoba. Mr . Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr.

Speaker, I would also rise today on a grievan ce. The reason I rise today, and I have thought about this for a number of years, whether I should at some point in time rise in this House and voice my concern about some of the rhetoric in this building and how we portray our constituents and our constituencies in this building, and how we represent the truth in this building. I want to reflect because I have had some experience on the other side of this Legislative Assembly in a former life, when I was a lobb yist for the agricultural community.

There cert ainly were times when we met with government, and those members sitting as the opposition in the opposition benches today were then, at least some of them, sitting on the government side, some of them in ministerial positions. Yet, when we discussed legisla tion, and when this legislation was put be fore this House, seldom ever, seldom ever were we given notice of more than 24 hours to take a look at legis lation, to analyze legislation and indeed to appear be fore public committee in this building to make our views known as to what we thought of the legislation that was being proposed.

Whether it was agriculture, or whether it was transportation or health care or education, sel dom ever were we given more than 24-hours notice, and most of the time it was not even 24. I can remember a day when a most important agricultural bill was put bef ore this Legis lature at five o'clock. It went to committee, and by seven o'clock, we had to be, or were notified we had to be, in committee to make our views known-two hours. The reason I rise today is because we have had a number of members opposite dec rying the actions of this government in the MTS sale or the proposal for a sale. Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, this government prides itself as being the first governmen t in this province and indeed, I say, probably the first gove rnment in Canada that has in fact put legislation for a proposal on the table bef ore the end of May and given Manitobans a whole summ er to look at all the legislation that was put bef ore this House, and then they stand there and condemn. Secondly, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we have proposed that there be ref erenda periodically on given issues, especially in li ght of our determination to put forward a balanced budget in this province to ensure that our children and their children 's children will not have to pay for the debt that we incur. We said if there is a need to cause increased taxation to meet that criteria, we would be willing to go to refere nda. Yet the opposition members on the opposition benches voted against that proposal. The member for Brandon said you cannot go to ref erenda because it costs too much. The member for St. Johns (Mr.

Mackintosh) indicated it is simply too expensive to go to ref e ren da. Here, today, I am appalled and I am saddened by the fact that those very members on opposite benches cannot get their act together as an opposition party, cannot agree within their own ranks as to what they would want, what position they would want to bring to government on this very issue. It was very evident at the orchestrated proce ss that they, through their CHOICES organization and indeed some of the unions, were orchestrating members to appear bef ore committee in opposition to the sale of MTS, and I respect that. I respect that.

Every organization, regard less of what they are, has the right in this Legis lature to appear bef ore committee, voice their opinion. They have every right to organize against. However, let me say this to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was apparent that members opposite could not get their own act together because they came at the issue from four diff erent angles, and it would appear to me that there are four factions within the NDP caucus today that are bringing forward four diff erent views on the sale of MTS.

I would dare say that there are even those amongst the NDP caucus that would be in support, that would vote in support, were they given the choice, of the privatization of our commun ication system . I truly believe that there are thinkers on that side of the House, and I truly believe that there are those who have enough of an economic

November 14 , 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5017 background to realize that the technology is changing quickly enough that it would be very difficult for a government to be able to quickly enough make the decisions to make the changes in communications that are going to be required. I say to you that there are those members on that side of the House that know this, and therefore I believe would be proponents if they were allowed to be proponents.

Therefore, I think the disunity and the dissension that is currently eminent on that side of the House is where it is and that is causing them a great deal of difficulty. I would suggest also that the one thing that I have been saddened by as a member in this House is people in their questioning during Question Period especially, not all members on that side of the House but some members, walk on the edge of truth constantly. I give you this. There is no other government in this province that has paid more attention to health and health issues than our governm ent, the government of Manitoba has.

Even in spite of the fact that our Liberal government in Ottawa is decreasing spending on a daily basis to health care, we are still increasing health care on a year over-year, line-by-line basis. No other government in this country can make that statement. Yet the opposition is constantly, constantly talking about telling people how badly we are cutting back on the health care system. I say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it saddens me because it is walking on the edge ofhonesty. I think people in rural Manitoba are really questioning the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

I know that I receive phone calls from people that have attended meetings that he spoke at and have asked questions on what he has said. It saddens me when they ask those kinds of questions because we as members of the Legislature are charged with the responsibility of being on the side of the truth. That is why I rise today on a grievance. As I said before, I have thought about this a long time .

Education is a key and an important element of government to provide to our young children, but we as members of the Legislature have a responsibility as well that, when we go out to the general public and we make statements, we had better have the facts and state the facts as they are instead of walking on the edge of truth. * (150 0) I say to you that these things are going to come to haunt the opposition members when we get into the debate of the bill and when a year from now, two years from now, three years from now, the truth finally comes out on what rates in rural Manitoba are really going to do under new technology and how we are going to be affected because they have no way of knowing.

And, quite frankly, neither do we. We can only go back and look at historically what has happened. I want to talk a bit about rates historically. An Honourable Member: Folks in Ethelbert will not be happy. Mr. Penner: I know the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) does not like what I am saying, but he is one of the members that I have some respect for because he has been very careful as to what he has put on the record in regard to this.

But, looking at rates, looking at long distance charges in rural Manitoba, MTS charged its customers-and I am one of those customers that virtually every time I picked up the receiver of my telephone in rural Manitoba to make a call, I was charged an extra charge. Not so of most of the members opposite that live in this city. They could call anywhere in this city without charge. They could do business with almost anybody they chose to in this province without charge, yet I as a rural Manitoban was asked to pay a fee for every minute that I picked up that receiver.

Whether I wanted to call Manitoba Pool Elevator head office in Winnipeg to do business with my own grain company or whether I chose to call Manitoba Telephone System in the city of Winnipeg, I was asked to pay an extra charge. Do you know what that per-minute charge was in 1986? Mr. Deputy Speaker, $1 a minute. Do you know what it is today? It is 46 cents a minute. It is less than half The rural Manitobans today pay less than half for long dis tance charges than they did in 198 6, when the NDP were in government. They were the government. The honourable member for Burrows (Mr.

Martindale) and some of his colleagues indicated that there were 80 percent of people in north Winnipeg-

5018 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14, 19 96 Point of Order Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Spea ker: Order, please. The honourable member fo r Burrows, on a point of order? Mr. Martindale: Yes. I think if the member for Emerson would check Hansard, he would find that I put no such statements on the record during the committee stage ofBill 36. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member did not have a point of order; it is clearly a dispute over the fa cts. * * * Mr . Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Emerson, to continue. Mr.

Penner: I withdraw the ref erence to the honourable member fo r Burrows, but there were members opposite that indicated during committee debate that there were 80 percent of people in north Winnipeg without telephone service. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who owns today the telephone system in Winnipeg? Is it not govern ment? Is it not a publicly owned utility? Yet they decry the services they get from a publicly owned service.

I say to you that rural Manitobans are better off today , under a competitive system, by better than 50 percent on long distance charges and an additional percentage off of that if you are a large user than they were under the NDP government. Theref ore, I ask honourable members opposite when you walk, walk on firm ground; when you tell a story, please tell it honestly; when you go out and hold meetings, please provide the correct inf ormation, because rural Manitobans in my constituency, the last few days the calls that I have received, are absolutely appalled at what the opposition is up to in this House.

They are disappointed; they are disillusioned; and they want to know the truth. So they called and said, what is the truth? I say to you that there are a very significant number of people that support what we are doing in this government, and the honourable members opposite are right . We will, at the end of the day, have to answer fo r our actions in front of the people, but they have entrusted us with a duty of running government, making decisions on their behalf , and I say to you that I believe the honourable member fo r Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans) is correct that ref erendums will not serve the purpose of providing that honesty and truth in the long term. So I ask members opposite, I ask members on our side of the House, that we truly pay attention to what we say about MTS and how we portray the sale ofMTS. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to rise on a grievance on behalf of my constituents, many of whom have spoken with me about both the process and the content of this unf ortunate and undemocratic decision that the members of the govern ment seem so bent on pursuing.

I want to start first by reflect ing on a comment made by the honourable member fo r Emerson (Mr. Penner), who ju st finished speaking his mind on this issue. He said, and I belieYe I am quoting him correctly, and I hope he will stand up and correct me if I am not, that the honourable members opposite, speaking of us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not know exactly what is going to happen in the future and neither do we. I want to pick up on that conunent to begin with .

Governments have great resources at their command to attempt to figure out what is happening in the future, and this government has made a great point of standing up and saying, in great sweeping generalities, this is indeed what is going to happen. We are going to have increased privatization everywhere. Telecommunications companies are in an unstable tech nological era, and so we cannot take the risk. Mr. Deputy Speaker, they have also said that they have projections of future earnings. The Premier (Mr.

Filmon) in the hall in serums has said, we have hired experts to look into this fo r us and to give us advice. Well, which is it? Which is it? Do they not know what is going to happen in the future? Do they really, genuinely not know? In which case , why in the world would they make a decision to sell the single most important asset in terms of Manitoba's future , our future economy, our future well being, that is, a lever on telecommunications policy? If they really do not know what is happening, why would they have the unmitigated gall to put on the table Bill 67

November 14 , 19 96 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5019 and say, we are going to sell this asset? We do not know what is going to happen in the future. We are going to sell the asset. Well, now, is that not a wonderful basis for making difficult decisions? We are not sure what tomorrow will bring; let us sell it. That is a very strange way to do business. Now the other alternative, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that they do in fact have a great deal of information about the future, and let me speak a bit about that.

I believe that they do have projections of earnings for this little company, and I think that the projections of earnings are incredibly rosy. That is one of the reasons they would like to spin it off to their friends . It is one of the proce sses, unfortunately, that happens in an old and tired government as you look for parachutes, and one of the parachutes is a very lucrative stock deal on which great amounts of money can be made trading on margin and flipping stocks quickly .

So it is very valuable to have a $750-million deal out there which is going to appreciate by at least 10 percent, in their view, and probably closer to 20 percent within a year. But what is 20 percent of $750 million? It is $150 milli on. That is the profit that brokers are projecting Manitobans will pocket as a result of this deal in the first 12 months of its being in place. That is not counting the 12 percent guaranteed dividend that each person who buys shares will have. Now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if they do in fact know what they are doing, and they do know that rates are going to be fine, and they do know that this company is in jeopardy because it cannot get access to capital, and they do know that the techno logy problems that it is going to face are going to demand $.5 billion of investment in the next fe w ye ars, why have they not made that public? Simply asserting this to be the case is not making data public. It is not helping the public to make a complex decision. * (1 510 ) My constituents are not d umm ies. The Union of Manitoba Municipalities are not stupid people.

The dele gates at the Pool Elevator are not people without intelligence and without access to computer programs to analyse information. The Manitoba Society of Seniors with the president Dr. Mary Pankiw are not exactly made up of imbeci les. They can assimilate and make clear decisions based on intelligent information. So for these members opposite to say that this information is too complex, you know, it is really a very difficult choice we have to make here.

We are elected with a mandate to do this, and you are not really bright enough, you elected representatives at the municipal level, you city councillors in Brandon and Portage la Prairie and Minn edosa and Neepawa and Morden and Steinbach . You are not bright enou gh. You are not intelligent enough to understand the complexities here. So we have to make this decision for you.

We were elected after all, and even though we lied to you in the election, even though we told you untruths time after time after time, we will not sell this, we do not really need to share the data on which we are going to sell it with you because you are not up to making that anal ysis. That is what you are telling these people. This is what you are telling the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Pool Elevators, MSOS. You are telling them that they are not able to understand a complex issue. Now, there is a third possible reason, Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, why this government will not trust my constituents and your constituents and all of our constituents to be able to make sense out of the data that they have in cabinet and wh ich they used to make this unfortunate decision, and what is that third reason? Well, it is that the data do not support the conclus ion, that, in fact, those who like rea ding balance sheets over there, and I guess the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) has had great sport in the last fe w days, having Barb Biggar write cute spee ches fur him.

I believe he has been a business person, and I think he maybe might like to read the balance sheet of the Manitoba Telephone System . If he did, he would find that this little company which is so vulnerable and so weak has thrown off $75 0 million in internally generated capital in the last five years . They have invested $710 millio n of it in upgrades, including the rural single line system upgrade. If you go over the last five years of the Manitoba Telephone System's bala nce sheet, what you find out is that their debt has only increased by $40 million in the last five years . So what is this crisis?

We have gone to single line service, all digital switching, more fibre optic cable than most other telcos in Canada per subscriber. We finished the single line project in Shoal Lake last week. The Minister of Telephones (Mr. Findla

y) took great pride,

5020 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14 , 1996 and so he should, in that great undertaking well completed. We congratulate him on that. But almost all of the funds required to do that were generated internally. This company is throwing off in excess of $250 million a year in revenues available for either debt retirement, profit or capital investment. Go and check the balance sheet, the member for Turtle Mountain, who is such an expert in this area . Go and check the balance sheet -$570 million in revenue, more than $250 million of it available for the company's own purposes. This is not the mark, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, of a company that is vulnera ble and weak and in debt and at the mercy of the markets . This is the mark of an incredibly well- mana ged, successful, competitive, up-to date, thoroughly modem company. So I think actually of the three reas ons, the reason put forward by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), we do not know what is going to happen in the future ; the reasons put forward by the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), this is confidential, we cannot trust the people of Manitoba with this information, it is too complex for their poor minds-that is the Pre mier's word-this is for the cabinet only, we do not need to share this information; I think the third reason is the real reason, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the third reason is that the data they have do not support their conclusion, so they dare not make public the studies that they have had at cabinet. Now, there are so many other issues about this. I want to move on to the issue of morality.

You know, many people have said to me, and of course they would say it to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), as well, and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) and other members who sat at the committee hear ings, were you not bored? When you sat there for 81 hours, most of us sat there for 70 of those 81 hours, and I know the Deputy Speaker was there, too, a great number of eveni ngs and so was the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), I do not think we were ever bored. The quality of the presentations was superb at the hea rings.

Oh, there were a few that one might say were not absolutely wonderfu l, but, by and large, I think you would agree that the quality of the presentations was superb, and one of the themes that came up over and over and over again that the Deputy Speaker will confirm was the concern of young people about the morality and ethics of this particular decision. I know that the honourable members at the committee from the government 's side were upset with people who raised the question .

For examp le, I think what was probably the most poignant moment, when a young woman said, you know, even Brian Mulroney had the guts to run on the free trade debate . Even Brian Mulroney's ethics included nmning on an unpopular issue and taking the chance of being def eated. You as a government, she said, cannot even jump over the standards set by Brian Mulroney--could not even manage that.

I guess I did not ever think, and I am sure that members of the committee never thought, that the ethi cs of the Mulroney government would have been held up as a standard for this government to attain but, unfortunately, to fail in attaining. The substantive reaso n that this bill failed to make this House on time was very clear. It was that the government had fur too many amendments to be dealt with in a short time. Again, the Deputy Speaker sat through most of this, and he will know the complexity of the amendments in the bill.

But, in particular, the unions and the retirees had tried and tried since May to get a fair agreement on pensions. What produced the fair agreement on pensions , which, by the way, is not completed yet? What produced it was the fact that this committee was still sitting and the government was under pressure to finally do the just thing and give retirees some control over their pensio ns; give retirees the rights to the pension surplus and not, in fact, as they were planning in their draft prospectus, to give the pension surplus to the new company as a free gift. What a shame . What a lack of et hics.

Finally, by virtue of a process which the government itself mismana ged, the workers began to get some justice in their pensions. That is why that committee did not get any further than it did. The House leader (Mr. Ernst) knows that. The members who sat on the committee know that. At 10: 30 at night they were reading into the record a memoran dum of agreement which still needed to be backed up by amendments which were made the next day. The process of that committee could not be

November 14 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 502 1 completed in the evening because the government itself was not prepared to do justice by its retirees or its workers and to have its amendments in order. That is why that committee was not able to report-and justly so. It should not have reported until it had completed its work. Finally, on the issue of rates. You know, we have asked the government to table some data on where rates are going as a consequence to privatization. They will not do so. They have the data.

I am sure they have investigated because, if they had data to prove their case, surely they would not be so silly as to not make it public. But in fact I think they have data, and the data agree with the data put forward by Econalysis in Toronto, which says that the rates are likely to rise by at least 1 0 percent simply as a consequence of privatization. People only have to look at the balance sheet of the Tellus Corporation in Alberta to find out what happens under privatization.

In a very short four years, revenues from long distance calls in Alberta have fallen by about $20 million, but revenues from local rates have doubled. Local rates have doubled. Now, partly a consequence of privatization? Yes. Perhaps a consequence of some other features such as the same things that CRTC has ruled on for MTS for $2. But the $6 increase, which is shown in last year's annual report, is going to be doubled by next year so that private phone rates, residential phone rates in Alberta, will have more than doubled simply as a consequence of privatization over the last four years.

That company is the model for this privatization, Mr. Deputy Speaker. * (152 0) So if in fact this government has data on rates and on the issues of privatization, let the government make it public. Let them share their information on scarce capital. What scarce capital? This company generated all the capital it needed in the last five years from its own internal operations. What information can they put forward that will guarantee that this company will stay in Manitoba and be owned and managed here?

None whatsoever, because their own legal counsel has said, those promises are shams, as confirmed today by the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay). There can be no such guarantees. This entire bill is a tissue of deceit. It is a tissue of deceit. It cannot produce and deliver what it claims to promise and deliver, which is protection, Manitoba ownership, Manitoba board of directo rs, fair rates, et cetera. It cannot do that. As its own legal counsel and its own minister confirmed in committee, these promises are shams and they will be seen by Manitobans as shams. Thank you. Mr.

Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, on a point of order. Point of Order Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I usually would not rise on a matter like this but, after listening to the remarks of the member for Emerson going on about the issues of morality and truthfulness, he did in the course of his remarks, I understand, say that I had said that referendums were too expensive to hold. I believe those were the words that were used.

I just want to draw the House's attention to the words that actually were used in my debate on October 17 of '95, where I said, now, it is interesting that even if a government runs in an election on increasing revenues, increasing a certain tax, it still must, on attaining office, go back then to the people with an expensive referendum. I do not know where the sense of that is.

I ask this member who, of all ironies, gets up as a member of the most deceitful, dishonest caucus we have probably ever seen in the history of this province saying something like that, I ask this member to withdraw the comment and apologize for misleading this House. An Honourable Member: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Is it on the same point of order or on another point of order? An Honourable Member: Take your pick. Mr. Deputy Speaker: On another point of order. Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order.

It is a dispute over the facts.

5022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14 , 1996 Point of Order Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member for St. Johns, in raising his point of order, made certain allegations and impugned certain motives against the caucus of this side of the House. That certainly is unparliamentary. He ought to withdraw and he ought to apologize. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order . Mr. Ashton: I think the term that was used was, the most deceitful caucus in the history of Manitoba, which was not a reflection on an individual member.

Also, I would point out that deceive, which is the root of deceitful, does appear on both lists. I would suggest that perhaps if that allegation had been made against any particular member it might be considered unparliamentary but, given the fact it is on both lists and was made in reference to a deceitful caucus, I suggest that that is not unparliamentary and perhaps you may wish to take that under advisement to ascertain further details. Mr. Ernst: On the same point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not the words but the impugning of motives. That is what is \\Tong here.

All members in this House are supposed to be honourable members and to impugn motives not just to one member but to every member on this side of the House certainly ought to be withdrawn. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable members for their advice on this matter. The honourable minister did not have a point of order . The member for Thompson is quite correct. It was not directed towards an individual member of the Chamber so it would not then be a point of order. * * * Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I too would like to speak in relation to the grievances that have been put forward today. I sit and listen to the debate back and forth and certainly had the opportunity to sit in a lot of the committee discussion on Bill 67. I can remember actually the frrst night, a cold night. The wind was howling; the storm was just coming into Manitoba, and the committee sat.

As we began on the proc ess, it came to our attention and, I think, the understanding of all the members of the committee, that due to the circumstances, we would certainly make the understanding, and I believe it will show in the record , that there was agreement that everybody unable to attend that particular night because of the weather conditions that prevailed would have an opportunity to speak to Bill 67.

The list of names was called, and as I recollect, certainly the agreement was made with the members of the committee again that we would call the out-of-tov.n presenters fust and give them the opportunity to get home before the storm got any worse, or if it were to continue, they would certainly have the opportunity of getting home as early as possible With the storm conditions that prevailed, there were certainly a lot of people that were unable to attend that frrst meeting, and again, with agreement of the committee and in discussion, we agreed that not only would we let their name go to the bottom of the list and be called again, but that we would do it a third time and ask for those people to come forward, thus giving them the opporturuty of-being unable to be there that particular night, they would have the opportunity to do it at a further date.

We listened to a lot of presentations, and I am sure the members opposite v.ill rally with the numbers if I happen to make a mistake, so I v.ill just speak in the generalities to the people that made the presentations. (Mr Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) We certainly heard a lot of commentary in regard to the bill itself, but we also heard a lot of commentary in regard to the actions of the government of the day, and, I guess, added to that was the spice of the members opposite who took every opportunity and every liberty in those committee hearings to put forward their position I guess it is probably famous now throughout, at least this Chamber, I am not sure if anywhere else, but the member for lbompson in his lengthy speech in regard to the bill itself There has been lots of reference in regard to the campaign that we ran, and I can remember one of the candidates in the campaign who brought forward the idea at one of our meetings that if you could not say it in 15 minutes or less, you should shut up and sit down I thought about that commen t as we were listening to some

November 14 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5023 of the oogoings of the members opposite but recognizing the impo rtance that they felt with this issue. I believe it is imp ortant to all Manitobans, and we certainly as a commi ttee and, as members of this side of the House, I would say, listened very patiently, listened with attentiveness, and took the committee's commitment to be there and to listen to the people of Manitoba very seriously. I think it is a little unusual, again, I listened very attentively to the member for Crescentwood's (Mr.

Sale) speech just prior to me standing, and he talks about referendum. Again I would refer back to some of the disc ussion that we have had earlier this week and that took place earlier in the spring and even up, I would suggest, to the passing of the balanced budget legislation. * (153 0) There is a mixed feeling, I would suggest, Mr. Acting Speaker, comin g from the other side in regard to where they stand on referendum, and I would suggest that I have put forward this past week some of the concern that I have.

I think, just for the reassurances of the members opposite, I will put some of those back on the record again just to make sure that I have an understanding, and that I am not judging them based on my own opinions but actually on the comments that they make. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) I do fm d it interesting when the member for Crescentwood talks about the government and how we are reluctant to go out and talk to the people of Manitoba, suggesting that they would not understand what we were trying to do and that they would not be able to grasp the direction we are trying to take.

But I would suggest that it is actually the opposition that would make those statements and have made those statements , particularly in dealing with the balanced budget legislation where a referendum becomes a part of the process of the government if they want to increase taxes to the people that they represent. I think that is a very fair approach in particularly today's economy in the sense that we are not going to the people of Manitoba with a tax increase; we are taking a direction that we see as beneficial to all Manitobans. As government, we have, I believe, the ability and the right to do so.

I do like to just again suggest a couple of the referendums, and I will suggest that the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), during the same debate on referendum in regard to the balanced budget legislation. suggested or actually questioned whether Manitobans could understand the complexity of referendum issues. I would say that sums it up very concisely, very clearly for a lot of the people in this House and a lot of people in Manitoba It is her words, not mine, so I presume that at that particular time that may have been their under standing of what a referendum was and what it should do.

It was quite interesting to sit in the committees as a relatively new person to the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I would suggest that it has been a very enlightening experience for me to sit in on the committ ees. I fm d that the work time certainly has not changed from the private industry, but the rate of successful completions at the end of a day is probably a little bit less than I had hoped for. Nevertheless, it is certainly an interesting process that we go through. I hesitate to say this, but I probably suggest that everybody in Manitoba should have the same opportunity that we have to sit in the House.

It would certainly open up the opportunities that are out there and basically present the opportunity that are often made available to people in Manitoba that we know so very little about. I think that the meetings that the members opposite talk about-! refer back to when the bill in regard to MTS was introduced, I believe it was in the spring and believe it or not, and I am sure the members opposite would question it and that is their ability to do so and they have that right, but I would suggest to you that it is true, that I spend a considerable amount of time in my constituency.

We discuss many of the issues that affect them directly and indir ectly. Some of the decisions that I was not aware of how governmen t decisions affect a lot of people. I was concerned that some of the things that we do that it has enabled me to go out and get a totally different perspective on what the people of Manitoba are saying. I know, in my particular area, Mr. Deputy Speaker, hi ghways is certainly a big issue out in my area, something that we discussed in long hours during the campaign to the election.

It is something that I have continued to follow up. and I would suggest that the experience has taught me a lot more about the transportation system in the province of Manitoba than I

5024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14 , 1996 knew bef ore, and I certainly hope to continue to be able to ride this learning curve. Some of the other things that I have learned from my constituents is the fact that I think if we were to prioritize concerns of all Manitobans, I would dare anyone to suggest that health care is not the most important issue. I think that far beyond anything else that we do as government, I think health care in the people's minds, the people of Manitoba's minds, is by far the most important issue.

I have certainly had the opportunity to discuss that with not only the people that actually run the hospitals but the people that work within the hospitals. I was unfortunate enough to be a patient of the hospital system in the recent past, and I can certainly say that it comes to the lips of every Manitoban when you talk about the priorities of all Manitobans. I think that during this particular sessio n we have also-not that we did not know it bef ore, but I think from my perspective education has come to the highlight of all the people of Manitoba.

There has certainly been some discussion in regard to the direction of education and I think that people are on the record in those committees too. I have to say that I had the opportunity to sit in on several committees to discuss several bills, and the one common stream or the one common thing that I noticed in a lot of the committees that I sat in was that a large number of the people made pres entations to several of the committees that I sat on.

Whether the time it took to get through the committee on MTS or whether it was the time that we sat in on the education or other bills, we almost developed a bit of a friendship with some of the present ers. I know that I sat on the committee that sat three nights consecutively and I had the opportunity of meeting the same people several times over that same period of time. It is inter esting because now the committee is out of session and we are no longer sitting in committee, I have kind of missed that opportunity to visit and chat with those people and get more of an understanding ofwhere they are coming.

But I do think that that is important to put on the record was the fact that-and I will certainly check the names on the lists of the people that made presentatio ns, but I would certainly suggest to you that they have a lot of concerns in regard to the direction of Manitoba These people expressed their concerns in not only one committee but in two, three, perhaps four committees, and it is very nice to see people in Manitoba that concerned about the issues that are dealing with the province. As I said earlier, I certainly think it is a wonderful opportunity for them to make those presentatio ns.

The one thing I would like to suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker-and one of the members opposite and I had the opportunity to travel out of province during the committee hear ings. We were in a group of people, politi cians, from all parties, from all over Canada, and they were quite amazed that we were the only province in Canada that would offer the opportunity for people to come in and put forward discussion and debate and suggestion in regard to the governmen t's direction and offer amendments to the bills that we were making presentation to.

I am not sure whether they were saying that we were right in doing so, but they certainly expres sed an amazement of the fact that we actually did. I think that speaks very well for the government of the day, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

We listen to people, and quite often we listen to the same people on different bills, and perhaps, as I stated earlier, with the opportunity of every Manitoban to get the opportunity to represent, we will see some of those people in this Chamber to bring forward some of their ideas in a more representative way, and I look forward to that. * (1 540) I think that as things change, so too will government and the direction that we want to go in. I think that the opportunity for a peer person to appear before a committee, make presentation to the government is something that we can be commended on.

I think both sides as far as their actual presentations and their work in committee are to be commended . It is a lot of hard work. It is very time-consuming but also very educational, and I would suggest that that is a positive thing for all Manitobans, and I think that that is their right and should continue . Thank you. Mr . Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I am very pleased to rise today to speak on my grievance for this session.

I, too, wish to deal with the travesty of this government, that of Bill 67, the MTS bill in which they are ignoring the will of the public in trying to sell this corporation to the detriment of the people of Manitoba.

November 14 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5025 This corporation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was formed by a Cons ervative government as far back as 1908, and it has been with the people of this province all this time delivering good service at reasonable rates.

This government's action, while it took a little while to develop, has prompted people who were not that politically active or interested in politics to come forward and align themselves with our party in this cause, and I am talking here about Conservative supporters and Conservative members of long standing who cannot understand why, who actually, I believe, think that this government has lost leave of its senses in trying to divest itself of this, the telephone company. In fact, I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has a lot to do with the fulfillment of their long-term ideology.

The ideology that they were not able to develop and fulfill in their first term is now being developed and fulfilled in spades in their second term. I think what we are seeing here is if they are successful, if they are successful in their attempts to privatize this company, then we know what logically follows from that is that the liquor stores and Manitoba Hydro and MPIC and others will surely follow. It is on that basis that we have decided in our caucus that we must do everything possible to stop the sale of this asset, one of the Crown jewels of the people of this provmce.

I want to deal with the broken promise because we have made this point many, many times, and this government has managed over the years to fmesse the previous broken promises. In all elections, this Premier (Mr. Filmon) has managed to weasel his way out of promises that were made and this time we have caught him . We are not going to let him get out of this. We have candidates, we have Tory candidates on the record promising that this corporation would not be privatized. We have the Premier promising not to privatize it and actually misrepresenting the case.

In fact right to this House, right in this very House when he was asked time and time again by our members in Question Period as to whether or not the corporation would be privatized, they responded no. In fact at the very end of the day they announced the privatization just days after they promised they would not. So all the while the sham that we see here, all the while that they were publicly promising that this corporation would not be sold, what has in fact happened is that they were secretly preparing the groundwork, they were preparing the groundwork to sell it. The brokers were being lined up.

The justification was being made. Barb Biggar was being recruited to be given another political plum, the Premier's former press secretary, and with her record on this case, I do not think the government will be wanting to hire her again because they have dumped some good money after bad here. They dumped $400,000 on a slick PR campaign to try to convince people that it was a good idea to sell the corporation and it did not work. No more than 30 percent of the people support it. On the other side of the coin, there has been no $400,000 campaign to save the corporation.

It is maybe a $400 campaign, and that $400 campaign, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has generated 67 percent support. The government, if it wants to lapse back to the good old days where it bought itself back to popularity with its million-dollar advertising campaigns in advance of the last election, if it wants to go back to that tried-and-true formula which I think it was trying to do, it is not working this time. You see, there comes a point where the old system does not work anymore, the old formula does not work anymore, and I see a look of fear.

Every day, as I look across during Question Period, I see a look of fear on the eyes of the tired old warhorses over on that side of the House, and I never used to see that. There used to be some youth over there. There used to be vigour. There used to be confidence, a sense of purpose as to what they were doing, but that has all evaporated. That has all evaporated. There is that fear in their eyes. They know we have them on the run, and we are going to run them out of town.

If they decide that they want to move closure then that will just help our cause even more so, you know, all their options, all the roads are leading to oblivion for the governm ent opposite. No matter what road they take, if they try to go east, it is bad news. If they try to go west, it is bad news. If they sit where they are, if they stay put, bad news. So they have a very difficult problem here. The heart of the support for the telephone system happens to be in their strong areas, in the country, so they are losing the support, antagonizing the very people whom they count on to support them.

I mean that cannot be a comfortable position for people on that side.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-81
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 81.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2bee76c2926e774c9a935ed59aa121e74e4a938b

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