LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 22 June, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Spe aker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Prese nting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On Friday, during question period, I was . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. This is ... HON. H. HARAPIAK: This is my first opportunity to raise this matter, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Unless it's a point of order about proceedings right at this very moment I would prefer that if you're bringing up a point of order from today HON. H. HARAPIAK: Orders of the Day is fine. MADAM SPEAKER: I would prefer if you waited till Orders of the Day or before Oral Questions, either one, but not under Routine Proceedings. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I beg to present the First Report of the Comm ittee � on Public Accounts. MR. CLERK, W.

Remnant: Your committee met on Tuesday, June 2; Tuesday, June 9; and Thursday, June 11 , 1987 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Report of the Provincial Auditor and the Public Accounts of the Province of Manitoba and Sup plement for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1986. Your committee received all information desired by any member from Mr. F.H. Jackson, Provincial Aud itor, the Minister of Finance and staff from the Department of Finance with respect to matters arising from the report.

Your committee considered the Repor t of the Provincial Auditor for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1986 and adopted the same as presented. Your committee received all information desired by any member from the Minister, the Provincial Auditor and staff with respect to receipts, expenditures and other matters pertaining to the business of the province. The fullest opportunity was accorded to all members of the committee to examine vouchers or any document called for and no restriction was placed upon the line of examination.

Your committee finds tha t the receipts and expenditures of monies have been carefully set forth and all monies properly accounted for. All of which is respectfully submitted. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: I move, seconded by the Member for Morris, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION pr esented and carr ied. MADAM SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ... POINT OF ORDER MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Yes, Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is my first opportunity to raise this point On Friday, during question period, I thought I heard the Member for Pembina say I was lying. I have now had an opportunity to read the unedited version of Hansard and I want to put on the record the member's comments. He said: "The Minister is lying through his teeth. Sonny Arrojado told you that he was there, didn't she? Now you're lying. " I would seek your advice, Madam Speaker. I would ask for an apology, but I would seek your advice to do it because the member is not here at present.

MADAM SPEAKER: I will take that matter under advisement so that I can review Hansard. Order please, order please. Normally the time to raise a point of order is at the moment it arises. I will look at Hansard and I will wait until an opportune time when the member is able to respond. ORAL QUESTIONS MPIC Report - reprimands re annual financial statements MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Oral questions, Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER: Oral questions. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Premi er. 3257

Monday, 22 June, 1987 Given that the Provincial Auditor, in his Report into MPI C, which was released on Friday, has said that mem bers of se nior management with accounting designations fail to carry out their annual financial statement reporting responsibilities with appropriate regard for accounting communications and ethical standards, will he be reprimanding and, in fact, removing th ose officials from th eir positions of reponsibility, who did not do as they were required to as accounting principles, with accounting designations, and failed to carry out their annual financial statement reporting responsibilities?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Sp eaker, that is certainly a matter that the general manager of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation will take under review. He has the Auditor's Report; he will be making the appropriate assessments, based upon the information in that report and I'm sure will take whatever steps are reasonable. MPIC - those responsible for losses no longer in authority MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speak er, given that the Auditor's Report into MPIC indicates that both the vice­ president of Finance and the controller acknowledge that, and I qu ote: "The appl ication of generally accepted accounting principles was not the primary consideration" when the corporation, at the direction of the Minister responsible for MP IC in 1984, 1985 and 19 86, chose not to report publicly massive losses in reinsurance that range anywhere from $12 million to $36 million over that period of time, but rather hide them from the public; what action will he take to ensure that those responsible for this cover-up can no longer be in a position of trust in the Province of Manitoba?

HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I've already, I thought, responded to that. The general manager, Mr. Silver, will be reviewing the findings of the Auditor, the recommendations of the Auditor .

There will be, I understand, a further opportunity, by way of committee hearing this Thursday, in order for a further examination and questions to be posed, but this is a matter that the general manager of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation will be reviewing in view of the comments by the Provincial Auditor, and I'm sure as a result of further discussion that will take place at committee this Thursday based upon the various comments in the report. MPIC - review of Minister in position of authority MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, among those senior officials that I referred to, not only were senior officials at MPIC, but the Minister himself who, in fact, instructed senior officials to come up with a scheme to hide from public view these massive losses in reinsurance of at least $12 million, and closer to $36 million. Is the Premier telling me that the general manager is going to be reviewing the appropriateness of the Minister remaining in a position of responsibility? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the Provincial Auditor's Report certainly does not indicate anywhere within that report that the Minister attempted to hide from public view losses pursuant to the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. There is nowhere in that report where there is any such charge or allegation, or finding by the Provincial Auditor. MPIC - removal of Minister MR. G. FILMON: Mada m Spe aker, jus t for the information of the Premier. On page 19 of the report, in a statement by Olafur Sigurdson, the chairman of the Board of MPIC - politically-appointed by this administration, by this Premier - Mr.

Sigurdson, said, and I quote: "The Minister informed him and the president that it was not an appropriate time to record this . . . " - "this," being a loss of $12. 3 million. The Mi nister th en requested options be developed as to how this matter could be handled. The Premier will recall that previously the Premier MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Yes.

The Premier will recall - I'm just getting to my question, Madam Speaker - that previously we had been informed by the Minister responsible that he chose the option of not showing the losses publicly but, in fact, hiding them from public attention, spreading them out over five years and misinforming . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: . . . the public of the massive losses and risk that the public and the taxpayer were at as a result of his handling of the reinsurance.

Now, Madam Speaker, my question to the Premier is: Given this information that the Minister was responsible for this massive cover-up, will he remove this Minister from his post as Minister responsible? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, it's inde ed a strange circumstance that we have the Leader of the Opposition demanding the resignation of the Minister who undertook steps - the first Minister, in fact, during three administrations - to provide a correction of the problems which took place in the general reinsurance assumed business of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

In fact, it was this Minister, Madam Speaker, who has provided full information all along to Members of the Opposition. It has been this Minister, Madam Speaker, that provided the minutes of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation to honourable members across the way; it is this Minister, in fact, who has already presided through two committee meetings dealing with this subject, and a third meeting which is coming up prior to the completion of this week. 3258

Monday, 22 June, 1987 In fact, it was this Minister in 19 84, after many years, Madam Speaker, of no action having been taken, took action in order to ensure that there be reinsurance expertise within the Mani toba Public Insurance Corporation. It was this Minister, in fact, Madam Speak er, who - (Interjection)- Madam Speaker, the questions were asked; I am giving an answer. MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the Honourable Minister that answers to questions should be brief. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, there was an assumption made tha t is quit e untrue and I'm responding to that. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, it was this Minister who asked for the services of the Provincial Auditor in order to investigate the entire matter. MPIC - how can Premier condone actions of Minister in cover-up MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speak er, in view of the fact that in March of this year, this Minister said, and I quote, he ". . . was not aware of the losses on reinsurance at MP IC," which he later corrected to say he was not aware of the magnitude of the losses at MPI C, which later he then corrected to say he was aware of $12 million in losses, and also acknowledged that he was responsible for approving a plan of cover­ up which he did not request. And now, Madam Speaker, given that the ... MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: . . .

Auditor has clearly indicated that this Minister requested the cover-up plan and, in fact, caused it to come into being so that the public for over two years, was not made aware of all of these losses in reinsurance, how can this Premier condone the actions of his Minister in deliberately covering up from public attention the massive losses in reinsurance at MPIC? HON. H. PAWLEY: This Minister neither approved, nor demanded a cover-up.

Madam Speaker , I could find nothing that would be more idiotic, that in 1984 for this Minister to have ordered any cover-up insofar as losses are concerned because, even if the losses pertaining to reinsurance had been shown there, would still be substantial profit shown in the Annual Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. Secondly, Madam Speaker, I couldn't believe that the Leader of the Opposition would suggest that this Minister would try to cover up, or would command a covering up of massive bungling that took place during the period 1977 -19 81.

Madam Speaker, 25 of the 41 treaties, by which monies were lost massively, were lost while the Leader of the Opposition sat in the government benches from the period 1977-8 1. Why would the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance 3259 Corporation attempt to cover up losses that massively took place during Tory years in this province? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: I am merely repeating the words of the chairman that was appointed by this Premier. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question?

MPIC - will Premier indicate whether chairman was a liar MR. G. FILMON: The chairman, Mr. Sigurdson, of MPIC, who stated that, in fact, the cover-up plan was asked for by the Minister responsible ... MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? Order please. MR. G. FILMON: . . . and approved by the Minister responsible. Will the Premier indicate now whether Mr. Sigurdson is a liar? HON. H.

PAWLEY: My simple response to the Leader of the Opposition: Nowhere in the Auditor's report - and it's wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to attempt to misinform this Chamber - nowhere in the report is the chairman attributed to having suggested that the Minister ordered a cover-up. It is wrong, wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to attribute those statements to the former chairman of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. MR. G.

FILMON: The Auditor's Report says clearly that the Minister then requested options be developed as to how the matter might be handled because it was inappropriate to show $12 million of losses. The Minister is on the record as acknowledging that he approved the plan. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. May I remind the Honourable . . . MR. G. FILMON: He approved the plan; he said it. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Ma y I remind the Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition that question period is not a time for debate.

MPIC - removal of Minister MADAM SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Leader of the Opposition have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that we have confirmed, on the record, by the chairman of MPIC that the Minister requested the plan, the Minister has publicly acknowledged that he appr oved the plan for cover-up of the losses, how can this Premier allow him

Monday, 22 June, 1987 to remain in Cabinet? He's a black mark on this administration and he destroys the credibility of this entire administration. How can he remain in Cabinet? HON. H. PAWLEY: Again, this Minister has never acknowledged any such thing. A MEMBER: Yes he has. HON. H. PAWLEY: Never acknowledged any such thing. What we have had, Madam Spea ker, is a choice that was made by the corporation, after consultation with the Minister as to whether or not the accounting practice that had been followed for a number of years . . . MR. G. FILMON: He has publicly acknowleged it. HON. H.

PAWLEY: . . . whether that practice that had been followed from 1976 through to 1984 would be continued, or whether a different approach would be initiated in the year 1984. Madam Speaker, it was the advice of the Minister, in 1984, that he preferred to see the practice that had always been followed, year after year after year, being continued. Madam Speaker, if there was a cover-up in 1984, there was a cover-up in prior years.

But, no, Madam Speaker, it's this Minister that has been the most open; it was this Minister that took action, first and foremost, to clean up what was a mess at the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation; 25 of the 41 treaties hadn't been written under the Lyon Adminstration in this province under which, as a result, there were massive losses, 21 out of the 41 treaties. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker . . . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, let me correct that: 25, not 21, treaties. MPIC - condone Minister re meeting with Mr. Laufer MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, how can the First Minister condone one of his Ministers publicly lying on the record about a meeting that took place that involved Mr. Laufer? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. As the Honourable Leader of the Opposition well knows, that it is most unparliamentary to accuse a Minister of the Crown of lying. Would the Honourable Leader of the Opposition please withdraw those remarks? MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, three people were at the meeting, two of them have confirmed that this Minister asked for the plan. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I'm quite prepared to withd raw the term "lying, " because it's unparliamentary, not because it isn't the truth. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. That is not an unqualified withdrawal. MR. G. FILMON: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER: Tha t is not an unq ual ified withdrawal. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I will withdraw the term "lying," because it's unparliamentary. MADAM SPEAKER: Thank you. MPIC - Premier condone Minister's statement not in accordance with facts MR. G.

FILMON: How can this Premier condone having a Minister in Cabinet who doesn't tell the truth about an item that's as vital as a $12 million reinsurance loss and the cover-up of that matter? ' MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Not telling the truth is the same as accusing a member of lying. Would the honourable member please withdraw any imputation of intentional falsehood - Citation 322? MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, how can this Premier condone having in Cabinent a Minister whose statement is not in accordance with the facts, and the corroboration of the two other people who attended that meeting with him? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, as I've indicated previously, it's been this Minister that has been the Minister who has undertaken numerous steps in order to clean up a very bad situation that worsened dramatically from 1977 through to 1982. Madam Speaker, I wish that we had dealt with it earlier than 19 84, but credit must, indeed, be due to this Minister for having asked the questions, having put in motion some reinsurance expertise to deal with this particular matter for the first time in many years.

It was this Minister that asked for a full Provincial Auditor's Report in respect to this matter; it was this Minister, Madam Speaker, that has given Opposition members full and complete access to the minutes of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation; it was this Minister, Madam Speaker, that has throughout been quite forthright, quite honest with honourable members across the way.

And I again repeat, why would this Minister attempt for a moment to cover up massive losses as a result of bungles that took place when the Leader of the Opposition sat in the previous government of this province, namely, the Conservative Government of this province, that wrote the majority of the treaties that resulted in the massive losses that we're dealing with here; why would the Minister try to cover up Tory losses in this province? MPIC - removal of Minister MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that we have in Cabinet a Minister who has changed his story three or four times about the events surrounding the cover­ up of $12 million, or $24 million, or $36 million of 3260

Monday, 22 June, 1987 reinsurance; given that he has misinformed the public about who selected and who requested the cover-up plan for this $12 million of losses in the fall of 1984; given that his testimony has now been denied by both the chairman of the Board of MPIC and the former president of MP IC; what does a Minister have to do in order to be removed from this Cabinet? HON. H. PAWLEY: Again, I repeat to the Leader of the Opposition, for I believe the umpteenth time: Neither the former chairman, nor anywhere in the Auditor's Report, is there any suggestion of a cover­ up.

That is corning from the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it is very regrettable that the Leader of the Opposition should try to place words in the mouth of the Provincial Auditor, or in the mouth of the former chairman of the MPIC, because there is no finding of cover-up, Madam Speak er. And again, I repeat, why would the Minister wish to cover up massive losses attributable to treaties written during the former Conservative Government of the province? MHSC - out-of-province costs and accommod ation for radiotherapy MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. Will the Minister consider paying the out-of-province travel costs and accommodations for those patients forced to go out of province for radiotherapy treatments because of long waiting lists here in Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, we've had some concern re the treatment of cancer for some time, in fact, at 3:30 p.rn., I'm meeting with the chairman of the board and the executive director. There has been some concern for quite a while now; new equipment has been approved.

There's an internal concern and at what hospital the facility should be and there was a committee set up to make a recommendation. I understand, I should have this recommendation fairly soon, so we've been looking at the concern that we've had for quite a while now and I hope that this will be resolved fairly soon. Cancer Foundation - plans for replacing of cobalt and linear accelerators MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker, the Minister didn't answer my question, but I will ask him another one.

Does the Minister have any long-range funding plan for replacing those other machines at the Cancer Foundation, Madam Speaker, the cobalt machine and the low-energy linear accelerator, the high-energy linear accelerator, that have already surpassed their normal life expectancy and will need replacement in the near future? 3261 HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I believe I did answer the last question the first time, now I'll answer the first question. No, at this time, we have no plans, other than we're doing now, to cover the cost of people outside the province. MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker, the Minister didn't answer my question. I know they are replacing certain machines, but there are other machines that have outlived their life expectancy, and there are no plans for replacement of those. Long-term plans to expand radiotherapy equipment, etc. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: My final supplementar y, Madam Speaker. Given that the incidence of cancer is rising 3 percent to 4 percent across the country, does the Minister have any long-term plans to expand radiotherapy equipment, staff and facilities to meet the increasing demands? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I have made it quite clear that we were discussing with the Cancer Foundation and the people at both hospitals to see what facilities will be in place, and the actual program. I have also met with different doctors that are involved in that and we're looking at that. There should be an announcement fairly soon. First Minister - definition of ministerial responsibility MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Premier.

Given the fact that the Minister responsible for the Telephone System was not asked to resign, because he stated he was ignorant of the activities of his department; and given the fact that the Minister of Community Services was not asked to resign, despite consist budgetary overexpenditures and a total lack of direction in her department; and given that the Minister responsible for MPIC is not asked to resign due to irreconcilable differences between his statements and that of two of his former administrative staff, will the First Minister please define for this House, and for the public of Manitoba, exactly what his definition is of "ministerial responsibility"?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the Minister of Community Services, the Mi nister of Labour , the Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs, and the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, and I can say to the Leader of the Opposition that I believe that the vast majority -(Interjection)- I'm sorry, not the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for River Heights. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. Madam Speaker, Ministers are not just bounced out of Cabinet, or out of areas of responsibility because

Monday, 22 June, 1987 of unfound ed charges, because of unfounded allegations, just because reckless charges are made. Madam Speaker, I am proud to say in this Legislature that this government, since 1981, probably alone of all governments in Canada, has no Minister that has any blemish, by way of conflict of interest, or otherwise. Ma dam Speaker , I have a government, I have colleagues in this Chamber who have the confidence of the people of the Province of Manitoba.

I believe there's not another government in the whole of Canada where there haven't been Ministers that have been bounced for reasons of conflict of interest and serious allegations. Madam Speaker, we have a government on this side, let me tell you, of competence, no corruption, and integrity. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Ma dam Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier.

Does the Premier accept, as the policy of his government, the definition of "ministerial responsibility," as published in the Canadian Parliamentary Review of 1982 and'83, which says: "Ministers must accept responsibility for any malad ministration by senior officials of his department"? MADAM SPEAKER: Would the honourable member care to rephrase that question, so it doesn't seek an opinion? MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, I asked if it was government policy to accept the definition which says that Ministers must accept responsibility for any maladministration by senior officials of his or her department? HON.

H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, if that was the criteria that was going to be followed, there wouldn't have been a single Minister in the former Trudeau administration that was still serving in 1984. Constitutional authority re removal of Minister MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A final supplementary to the same First Minister, Madam Speaker, and hopefully we can get him to account for his own ministry.

By what constitutional authority does the First Minister refuse to replace a Minister who is clearly, under defi nition of "ministerial responsibil ity," accountable for any interventions he may make in the administration process, when it is quite obvious to all Manitobans that this Minister has very much involved himself in administrative decisions of his department? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the member for River Heights is referring to the Minister responsible for Municipal Affairs, and the Minister responsible for Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

I'm glad that this Minister took action in order to ensure, Madam Speaker, that there were improvements after eight years in the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. It was this Minister, Madam Speaker, who got to the bottom of the problems in the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation; it was this Minister, in 1984, who started to turn around the problems of reinsurance; it was this Minister, Ma dam Speaker , who ceased the exotic adverturism that had got out of control during 1977- 1982 under the former Conservative administration in this province.

Why would I replace the Minister who was cleaning up the mess starting in 1984? Government losses - political decisions that keep knowledge from public MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, with a final, final supplementary to the Fir st Minister. Is it government policy that Ministers are to make decisions which are highly political and which are announced by the Minister to be political, which keep the people of this province from knowing about losses within their department? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, that certainly was not the case here, and I regret that the Member for River Heights has not carefully followed the events of the last few months, because it was this Minister who has taken decisions.

It was this Minister who has provided full information to Opposition; it is this Minister who took the action of calling the Provincial Auditor in to investigate the matters pertaining to reinsurance in the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation; it was this Minister who called into being reinsurance expert assistance in 1984; it was this Minister who caused the cessation of the adverturism, as I mentioned a few moments ago, in exotic reinsurance that had taken place, principally during the period 1977-8 1; why would the Member for River Heights want to replace the Minister who did more than any other Minister in order to remedy the problems that the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation that shouldn't have got out out control in 1978 through to 1982.

Taxation bill (1987) - amendment to reflect federal tax reform MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Early analysis by some suggest that the province will realize some significant windfall as a result of federal tax reform. My question to the Minister of Finance, will he be amending his taxation bill (19 87) to reflect the windfall coming to the Province of Manitoba as a result of federal tax reform? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker The presumption behind the question is totally wrong.

There is no windf all for the taxpayers for the Government of Manitoba with respect to the recently announced White Paper on Tax Reform. In fact, the changes that have been brought in place, or have been suggested will be brought in place next year, would actually result in a decrease in revenue to the Province of Manitoba as a result of the changes. That will not 3262

Monday, 22 June, 1987 take place because the Federal Government is going to accelerate the payments it makes to the province in order to provide a small increase, over and above, wha t is the present ret urns from the Federal Government that is collected on behalf of the province. In any case, that amount is suggested to be about $7 million in the next year. However, we asked the Federal Government for a guarantee that there will be no loss of revenue to the province and they were not prepared to give that.

In any case, Madam Speaker, that will be considerably less than the amount of money that has been taken away from taxpayers of this province, from the lack and the reduction of support to equalization, to EPF for health and post-secondary education. MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker, given that the so-called removal of revenue that the Minister alludes to in his answer, has been reflected totally within the Bu dget; and given that this supposed windfall has not been reflected within the Budget, again, my question holds, will the Minister be amending the taxation bill, or will he be putting forward some guarantee to the Province of Manitoba that whatever additional amount flows into the province will be directed toward deficit reduction and not to increased expenditure? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I think the member is somewhat confused, Madam Speaker.

The changes that have been suggested by the Federal Government are to go in place for the 1988 taxation year, not the 1987 taxation year. Even at that, as I understand the way the Federal government is going to stage the reductions in income tax, they are going to be put in place July 1 of next year so that there's a doubling-up of the benefits for six months of next year, rather than having the benefits throughout the year.

So any of those increases, if they do materialize, will be after January 1 next year and will have little, if any, impact on the budget this year, which ends in the first three months of 1987. There may well have to be, depending on the reform package that the Federal Minister has placed forward, how it finally ends up into legislation, There may well have to be some adjustments to the legislation in Manitoba next year so that we can ensure that whatever changes are made are fair to Manitobans, particularly those at the middle and lower income levels.

Report as to fiscal standing of the province re federal tax reform MR. C. MANNESS: My final supplementary, Madam Speaker. When will the government be publishing a report as to the implications on Manitoba's fiscal standing, the fiscal order, as to the federal tax reforms. When can we expect, as the public, a report of that nature? HON. E. KOSTYRA: It will be some time, Madam Speaker, before we are able to see the full implications of what is being proposed. The Federal Government has indicated to us, provided us figures, showing there will be a loss of revenue to the province.

However, as I indicated, the Federal Government has also said they were going to accelerate payments from income tax to the province so that those losses will not materialize. We intend to review the changes that have been placed forward in the White Paper; we intend to consult with Manitobans and to provide a timely response to those changes. Regrettably, though, we've only seen one part of the package. As you are aware, Madam Speaker, the changes that are suggested to the sales tax reform are still some time away into the future.

MPIC - contradictory views re 5-year plan MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Earlier in the question period the Premier denied that his Minister was in any way involved in a 5-year plan of spreading out the $12 million losses of MPIC that he first learned about in the fall of 1984.

I quote from Hansard of March 26, 1987, in which the Minister was testifying and he said: "However, as I indicated, options had been developed as to how those claims could be accommodated over a 5-year period." No elaborate scheme was developed by this Minister. A paper was developed unsolicited. Will he now acknowledge, since Mr. Sigurdson, in the Auditor's Report, has said: "The Minister then requested options." It wasn't unsolicited.

He now says clearly: "The Minister requested options to be developed as to how this matter could be handled." It's obvious that this Minister can't tell the truth, and wasn't telling the truth, Madam Speaker, and the Premier can't cover for him any longer. MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. Ma y I rem ind the Hono ur able Leader of the Opposition of Beauchesne's Citation 322 once more, where it says that no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible. On rare occasions this may result in the House having to accept two contradictory accounts of the same incident.

The honourable member cannot accuse a Minister of conveying false information to the House. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that we have two contrary accounts of the same incident; the Premier saying that the Minister was not involved in a plan for covering up or spreading out the $12 million losses over a five-year period; the former president, Mr. Laufer, and the former chairman, Mr. Sigurdson, saying clearly that the Minister indicated it was inappropriate to show those losses at that time and that he wanted a plan developed to hide those losses.

Given that, what is the Premier going to do now, given the two contrary accounts of the same incidents? Is he going to believe his Minister, or is he going to believe two other people, the only other two people who were at that committee, who were at that meeting, one of whom he appointed as chairman of MPIC? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, all we're receiving again is a repeat of question 2 or question 3, that we 3263

Monday, 22 June, 1987 received at the beginning of the question period, because what the . . . Madam Speaker, I again repeat, for the Minister to have indicated a preference to continue the accounting practice that had been pursued for a number of years, if the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to suggest that all the losses in the previous years were shown in the one year, then let him so say that. There were obviously two courses of action that were available.

One was to choose a course of action that would have reflected the practice that had been followed for the previous number of years; the second choice was to restructure the debt, in order to show that debt all in one year. Madam Speaker, the Minister chose the one course of action.

Leaving that aside, Madam Speak er, I again repeat to the Leader of the Oppo sition, because he appears not to have heard my remarks - or prefers not to hear my remarks - it was this Minister that made long overdue corrections; it was this Minister that first asked very serious questions about the reinsurance field; it was this Minister that asked questions why the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation had been involved in, for some six years at that point, assumed reinsurance; it was this Minister that for the first time in six-seven years ensured that there was some expertise made available in order to attempt to place the reinsurance field in the proper way; it was this Minister that said with drawal from reinsurance assumed; it was this Minister that established what is known as the New Book, by which 90 percent of the risks were national, as opposed to the pre vious situa tion during the Conservative period when the unfortunate treaties were being written en masse, when 90 percent of the treaties were foreign, this Minister ensured that 90 percent of those treaties were Canadian.

Ma da m Speaker , rather than to condemn this Minister, it was this Minister, the First Minister in six or seven years that took steps to rectify the situation at the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. MPIC - which account of 5-year plan does Minister believe MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, it's evident that the Premier has studied this matter very fully, and that he knows what happened throughout all that period, because he's now giving us answers about an entire period of time. My question is: Having read the Auditor's Report, in which clearly Mr. Sigurdson indicates that he and Mr.

Laufer were asked to provide options as to how to spread out the loss so it wouldn't have to be shown at a politically sensitive time, all at once, on the books of MPIC; and his Minister has said otherwise, which account does he believe, the account of Mr. Sigurdson, or the account of the Minister responsible? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Would the honourable member care to rephrase the question? The question part. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, the Premier seems to be expert in this whole matter, so I ask him: Which account, the account that's shown in the Auditor's Report, Mr.

Sigurdson's account of how the losses were to be spread out, or the account that the Minister responsi ble has given? Wh ich account is right, according to the Premier? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, in my view, there are not two irreconcilable reports. Madam Speaker, both the Minister and the chairman are obviously dealing with the events of 30 months back in time. But clearly, Madam Speaker, what we are dealing with are questions as to whether or not this Minister had more than one option by way of proposed accounting procedure. He clearly had two options.

One was to carry on the practice that had taken place for six or seven years; or secondly, to restructure the debt and to show it all in one year. That's what the option was. Madam Speaker, maybe it would have been better for the Minister to have shown that loss all in the one year. Then, Madam Speaker, let me tell the Leader of the Opposition we could have pointed to the massive Tory bumbling that took place from 1977 to 1982, by which those losses occurred. I don't know why we would try to cover up for the mistakes and the blundering of the Conservative period 1978 to'82.

I wish the Leader of the Opposition would respond to that question. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. The Honourable First Minister on a point of order. HON. H. PAWLEY: On a point of order. I must draw to the attention that the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that the Minister responsible for the Public Insurance Corporation lied. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition please retract any accusation that the Honourable Minister lied. MR. G.

FILMON: Yes, Madam Speaker, if I may have leave, I will withdraw the word "lie" because it is unparliamentary. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: May I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 50 students from Grade 5 and Grade 6 from the Bannatyne School, under the direction of Mrs. Sylvia Allard. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon.

I would also like to draw the attention of honourable members to the loge to my left where we have visiting with us Mrs. Bettie Hewes, who is a member of the Alberta Legislative Assembly for the constituency of Gold Bar. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. 3264

Monday, 22 June, 1987 COMMIT TEE CHANGES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker, I have some committee changes. Under Statutory Regulations and Orders: Birt for Mccrae. Under Industrial Relations: Connery for Birt; and Olsen for Mitchelson. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On committee changes, I move, seconded by the Member for Elmwood, the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Statutory Regulations and Orders be amended as follows: Hon. M. Smith for the Hon. L. Harapiak.

I further move, seconded by the Memb er for Elmwood, tha t the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Industrial Relations be amended as follows: Hon. A. Mackling for the Hon. Judy Wasylycia­ Leis; the Hon. H. Harapiak for the Hon. E. Kostyra. ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN : Yes, Madam Speak er, first, on a matter of House Business, I note that the Order Paper shows correctly that the Annual Report of A.E. McKenzie Co. Ltd. has been referred to the Standing Committee on Economic Development for tomorrow.

When I had first referred this in my remarks on Friday morning, I had inadvertently referred it to the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources. So I want to correct the record so that my referral and referral standing on the Order Paper are one and the same, and I want to thank the staff of the Clerk's Office for bringing that matter to my attention and making the necessary corrections. Madam Speaker, I also wish to inform you that there will be Private Members' Hour tod ay, and would you please call Bill No. 61 in the interim.

ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 61 - THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. D. ROCAN: Yes, Madam Speaker, standing in my name. Can I keep it in my name? MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave to have it continue standing in his name? Leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wish to stand today to debate Bill 61, the final offer selection legislation that has been introduced to the House by the Minister of Labour. Madam Speaker, this is a curious situation. Final offer selection, a new technique for the Province of Manitoba, in legislation being brought forth by a government against the wishes of all employer groups in society, all business groups in society and against the wishes as well of a significant portion of organized labour groups in our society. Madam Speaker, labour is against it in large measure.

CAIMA W, Canadian Association of Indu strial, Mechanical and Allied Workers Union; CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees; International Ladies Ga rment Workers Union; the Ma nitoba Organization of Nurses' Associations; the Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals; that series of unions, Madam Speak er, represents over 36,000 unionized workers. As well, the Winnipeg and District Labour Council who collectively represent another 50,000 members. All are opposed to this legislation, final offer selection. Yet, the Minister and this government, Madam Speaker, insist on proceeding.

Why is labour against it, Madam Speaker? Firstly, they find it a totally unwarranted intrusion into the free collective bargaining process. They prefer, Madam Speaker , to settle their own differences over the bargaining table. They don't want to have the heavy hand of government with an imposed arbitrator, whether that arbitrator be from a selection list or from the Manitoba Labour Board. They don't want to have that heavy hand of go vernment imposing on them a settlement, particularly a settlement tha t might ultimately contain none of their proposals. Not one. I don't think that's unreasonable, Madam Speaker.

I don't think that labour should be criticized for taking that position. In other words, in a negotiated or a mediated or a normally arbitrated settlement, no side gets everything. Each side bends a little, gives a little, each side gets some of what they set out to achieve, and they at least feel that they' ve achieved a compromise of sorts, Madam Speaker. (Mr. Deputy Speak er, C. Santos, in the Chair.) This system is an all-or-nothing roll of the dice. That's the kind of system that this Minister of Labour and this government wants to introduce into labour relations in Manitoba today.

Instead of a system of free collective bargaining which produces a win-win settlement - and let's acknowledge that neither side is completely happy in a negotiated settlement - each of them has had to give in a little; each of them has had to recognize that there must be some flexibility in order to arrive at the final determination and the final settlement. But it ends up being that each of them gains some of what they set out to achieve, so it's win-win. They're not totally happy, but they can live with it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

This solution, this final offer settlement solution that the Minister of Labour is putting forward produces a win-lose situation in which one side has absolutely none of its proposals included in the settlement. This will lead, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to bitterness on the part of 3265

Monday, 22 June, 1987 whichever side loses everything in that roll of the dice, and the bitterness will last throughout the length of the contract. If mana gement loses all, th ey will be a tyrant throughout the term of the contract, forcing the union to tow the line, enforcing the letter of the agreement, no flexibility, none of the normal give and take that prevails between union and management during the length of term of a contract. If the union loses all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they'll be hard to get along with throughout the contract. They'll make life miserable for management.

They'll grieve everything they can; they'll challenge everything they can. Either way, it will poison the relations between the two sides and it will make for bad faith and lack of cooperation during the length of the contract. Is that the kind of solution that we want for labour relations in Manitoba? I hope not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope not. You know, I am surprised that at least a couple of people in the government caucus aren't speaking out against this. I don't understand how it could have gotten through caucus with a number of people who I know are sitting in the government benches.

I don't know why they wouldn't have been cautioning their colleagues that they were on the road to disaster by bringing in this final offer selection legislation. I'm not surprised that most of the members are totally ignorant of the consequences because I think that most of them have very little unde rstanding of labour mana gement relations and little, if any, labour experience. I'm not surprised, for instance, at the Member for Thompson, who I believe has already spoken on this bill - maybe not, he's going to be speaking on this bill.

I'm not surprised at the Member for Thompson or the Govermment House Leader, the Member for Churchill, because they took out union cards simply so they could have the credibility to get their nominations for the N.D. Party in their area. They're not really union people. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order being raised by the Member for Thompson. MR. S. AS HTON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe it is not in order to cast aspersions on a member of the Opposition.

For the benefit of that mem ber, I was first a member of Steelworkers Local 616 6 in 1973, some full eight years before I ran for the nomination and was elected as the MLA for Thompson. HON. A. MACK LING: A point of order. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order being raised by the Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the rules of this House make it very clear that honourable members are not to impute motives. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition has deliberately imputed motives to two members on this side of the House and I ask him to withdraw. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

While it is the rule in the House that disagreement as to facts is not a point of order, it is also a rule in this House, under 40.( 1) , that no member shall speak or use offensive words against the House or against any member of the House. A MEMBER: What's your ruling? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the Honourable Opposition Leader had used the offensive language against a member of this House, it is his duty and obligation as a member of honour to withd raw such a remark. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't wish to offend the sensitivities of the Mem ber for Thompson and the Member for Churchill.

I believe it is generally accepted that neither of them have any degree of union experience or involvement to give them any experience in which they can speak with authority on this bill, and so be it. I will carry on with that belief which is my belief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. HON. A. MAC KLING: On the point of order, the honourable member said that members on this side joined an organization for the motive, for a political motive, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He imputed motives and he has not withd rawn that statement. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Th ompson had reason because he considered it offensive, and if this is the case, it is a violation of the rules of this House for any member of this House to use offensive language against another member . Therefore ... MR. G. FILMON: I withdraw, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I've withdrawn any offensive remarks, any remarks which the Mem ber for Thompson takes offence to.­ (lnterjection)- HON. A. MAC KLING: Are you withdrawing your earlier remarks? Say so. MR. G. FILMON: That's exactly what I've said. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader has withdrawn and that's the end of the matter. MR. G. FILMON: What I am saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that they have never been true union people who understood the principles and the issues of true collective bargaining. I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many others on that side do understand that.

For instance, the Member for Wolseley - a long-time mem ber of union, actively involved in the union movement, a real committed person to union politics and union issues - I think it's a pity that she wasn't there, in caucus, to caution the members against this ill-considered decision. I'm not surprised that the Minister of Labour does not have a union background. He's not a very competent individual. We've seen that through all of his experiences here, whether it be MTX, whether it be his husbandry of the Natural Resources Department. 3266

Monday, 22 June, 1987 Now he's doing the same thing here, bringing in disastrous legislation, simply a pawn of the power brokers behind the NOP. He listens to and he does wh atever Bernie Christophe and whatever Wilf Hudson say. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's evident even in the way this legislation was orchestrated. The matter was put forward by his predecessor to the Labour­ Ma nagement Relations Committee of this province, a committee that this Minister says he has a great deal of faith in, a committee that he says performs a very useful function.

It gives an opportunity to have any labour legislation reviewed by both sides, labour and management, to see whether or not it's appropriate, to see whether or not it is good for the Province of Manitoba and to have both sides have an opportunity to say what's good about it, what's harmful about it, how it will affect each of their general areas. It was given to them for commentary.

He knows, because I raised it with him in question period last week, that they turned it over to a subcommittee of the Labour Relations Management Committee, which had a couple of members representing management and a couple of members representing the unions. The two representing unions were Wilf Hudson and Bernie Christophe. The group representing management came forward and did their analysis of a proposal on final offer selection. They found many areas of concern. They presented all of those thoughtfully, very carefully, as a package.

The two representing labour refused to make any commentary on it and refused to deal with it in any meaningful way. Those two individuals, Bernie Christophe and Wilf Hud son, would not deal with it. They didn't have to. They knew that all they had to do was stonewall, stall, not report to the Minister because the Minister would listen to them rather than to the Labour Management Review Comm ittee.

Can you imagine what a sham that is, what a hoax it is on the people of Manitoba to put up a Labour Management Review Committee, a non­ partisan, equally balanced group to review labour legislation, and then pull that sort of stunt on them? When you give them something in a perfunctory manner to review, and you know that you're not going to listen to them anyway. In fact, you conspire with the two labour representatives to ensure tha t they never report because you've got your mind made up. That's the kind of relationship that this Labour Minister has. That's the kind of thing that he can be pressured into doing.

Then he goes ahead with final offer selection legislation, so I'm not surprised that he would go forward with this. But I am surprised that a couple of other members would not have issued stern warnings and cautionary remarks. What about the Member for Concordia? What about him? What about the Minister of Finance? What about him? Why didn't they issue stern warning and cautionary messages to their caucus about what this final offer selection legislation could do to labour relations in Manitoba, what it could do overall? Why didn't they?

You know, the Member for Concordia, the super Minister, he has spoken many times in many public forums about the free collective bargaining process. He has certainly talked to me on a number of occasions about the issues that have to do with labour relations, the theory and the practice of labour management negotiations and the ultimate free collective bargaining process. Why hasn't he said anything about this to his caucus? Why hasn't he intervened and told them that they are on the road to disaster? I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What about the Minister of Finance?

The Minister of Finance, he above all should have been issuing stern words of caution about going forward with this legislation. He made his living as a union organizer and as a union leader. He made his reputation, in a public sense, by being a very high profile union organizer and union leader. He built his career ultimately in the labour relations field as a springboard into politics, based on his ability as a union organizer, as a person who could indeed provide that kind of sound, sane, sensible negotiating skill and ability in a free collective bargaining process.

He was senior representative for CUPE before he went into political life in this province. His union here and his union nationally is vehemently and totally opposed to final offer selection. How does he remain silent? How did he get muzzled by this group opposite? I don't know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it's interesting to ask that question. I know that he's surrounded by people who aren't necessarily principled union supporters. They're just people who know that having union support enables them to be elected to the Legislature. They'll serve whoever pulls their strings.

They'll serve whoever is the one who exercises most inflence. In this case it's Bernie, because Bernie lets them use his computer. Bernie gives them all kinds of additional support, so Bernie calls the shots. Bernie pulls the stings on this particular issue. Bernie helps them to achieve their goals, so they help Bernie to achieve his goal. That's it, part and parcel,

chapter and verse, it's all over right there. Bernie lets them use his computer, Bernie helps them with their organization. Bernie, I know, helped the Memb er for Concordia get his nomination, had his people going door to door, had his people utilizing their lists to call people in Concordia to make sure that the Member for Concordia got his nomination, a hotly contested one. So Bernie calls in his IOU. That's what we've got in this legislation.

The Minister has said that this is just one more tool at the disposal of labour and management to settle disputes without the strike lockout provisions and the strike lockout scenario that generally prevails. It's not just one more tool, Mr. Minister. It's an attack on the principles of the free collective bargaining process. It totally replaces that process, that time-honoured, well­ tested system with an entirely foreign concept; a win­ lose, third-party imposed solution to a labour dispute; a settlement that's put in by somebody who has nothing at stake in the issue.

In fact, the bill discourages bargaining because the union can request, between 30 and 60 days prior to the expiry of a contract, final offer selection be imposed. That's just when bar gaining should be coming to a head. That's just when the real give and take should be taking place, that window of between one or two months prior to the expiry of contract. That's when one side, the union, can take a vote and elect for a contract to be imposed. It stifles bargaining, it'll eliminate bargaining in fact if it's used in that respect. I hope that somebody reads 3267

Monday, 22 June, 1987 these comments to the Premier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because he should know what's happening as a result of the action that's being taken under this legislation before it's too late. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) It's a major blunder, being given to him on a silver platter by the same Minister who gave him that major blunder at MTX. It will be negative for labour relations, it'll be negative for the provincial economy, it'll be negative for this administration. I predict that, Madam Speaker.

I've talked only about the labour side, and I want to just finish off by reading a couple of letters from union people, union members who have been writing to me and to members on our side about Bill 61, final offer selection. Here's one that says - and it's not from a supporter, Madam Speaker. In fact it may, Madam Speaker, be from one of your constituents. I recognize that it's in an area close to Wolseley.

It says and I quote: "Due to my great concern over the introduction of Bill 61, final offer settlement, I am writing to you to encourage you to defeat or encourage withdrawal of this regressive piece of legislation. Lockout and strike are the route of a truly free negotiating process. Final offer settlement can only create winners and losers, which creates greater labour unrest which is sure to erupt in other manners.

At some point in time, the Progressive Conservative Party will come to power and this regressive legislation will be more difficult to remove at such time." Well I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, it will not be more difficult to remove because we believe that this is a major error, a major blunder. It is so detrimental to labour-management relations, the free collective bargaining process and the economy of Manitoba that we'll be prepared to remove it. That's what I'll write back and tell this individual, Madam Speaker.

And she carries on and says, and I quote: "Please encourage your party to oppose this legislation as, I can assure you, I and my family all oppose this, as do both management and union persons I have spoken with." That's an ordinary individual. Madam Speak er, I know that you would understand her position on that, as somebody who is committed to the free collective bargaining process, who has worked with it, worked with it as a union representative, as a union leader, and I know that you'd be committed to that as her representative.

And it's unfortunate, Madam Speaker, that you're not in a position to be of assistance to her on this. Madam Speaker, I further quote from the Manitoba Organization of Nurses Association, and this letter goes directly to the Premier so he's familiar with their position on it. I know that he's had letters from all of the other unions who are opposing it. But they say, in part, and it's a lengthy letter: "We oppose this legislation because we firmly believe in free collective bargaining and that the best possible mechanism for resolving disputes is strike lockout.

The existence of the unfettered right to strike ensures that the collective bargaining process involves true negotiations. "Final offer selection, where the selector chooses one party's final position creates a situation where one party wins and one party loses. Because of this, final offer selection will lead to a deterioration of labour­ management relations. We want to ensure the collective agreement that is binding on both parties is acceptable to both parties. This promotes harmonious labour­ management relations in the workplace.

"Another serious concern is that the proposed legislation permits the employer to interfere by requesting a vote of the union membership which is now exclusively the union's jurisdiction." I wonder if the Minister has thought about that; I wonder if the Premier has thought about that, Madam Speaker. These are union people speaking out. These are not the kinds of people who they love to rail against, the Cham bers of Commerce, the business leaders, the corporate giants. These are not those people.

These are their own union people putting it on the record that they are totally and completely opposed to final offer settlement. But what about the other side? What about business and employer groups? They are also totally opposed to final offer selection. Why? Well, they see it as a gross and unwarranted intervention in the free collective bargaining process, an opportunity for a non-involved third-party agent to impose a settlement that they might not be able to live with.

I remind the Minister of Labour that when we and many of the groups in Manitoba argued against first contract legislation which the government advertised as just another tool at the disposal of union and management for settling disputes - and I repeat that, because that's what he's saying about this - just another tool, not a major intervention, not a major change in the way in which we'll negotiate settlements on a labour- management basis, just another tool. That's the same as this as being advertised.

When his predecessor was advertising first contract legislation by that same description, people argued that it would allow a non-involved third party to impose on an employer a settlement that they might not be able to live with, and they could be faced with either drastically downsizing their operation or in fact closing their doors. The Eaton's Brandon strike demonstrated that explicitly to everyone in this province. The store operation was to be dramatically cut back.

I believe over 40 jobs, almost half the jobs in that store were to be lost as a result of first contract legislation, a settlement which the Eaton's store could not live with in Brandon. They were going to cut back over 40 jobs, almost half the work force as a result of that imposed settlement. Eventually, the workers themselves prevailed upon the union to accept a different settlement from the one that was imposed by the Labour Board, and the jobs were saved, but no thanks to the first contract legislation of this administration.

In fact, the bitterness and the acrimony tha t developed over that hassle, that first contract settlement hassle, led to the decertification of the very union that had gone in there in the first place. That has been the case in a numb er of instances of first contract settlement in Manitoba, all too many instances in which the contract imposed, the settlement imposed and the bitterness and the acrimony that occurred over that first contract settlement resulted in the decertification of the union. 3268

Monday, 22 June, 1987 But when the employers argued that the prospect of this first contract imposed settlement might give them something they could not live with and it might threaten their operations in the future, they were told by the then Minister of Labour, well, it's only the first year. That's the only time that you'll have to deal with an imposed settlement. You will have the continued assurance after that of a free collective bargained settlement from that point on. Well, what does final offer selection do?

Final offer selection sets up the interesting prospect that an emplo yer in Manitoba could never have the responsibility or the right to a free collective bargained settlement. He could have a first contract imposed on him in the first year of negotiations, and then he could have a final offer selection process triggered on him by the union every year after that so he would never, ever be faced with being able to negotiate a settlement. He would always have an imposed third-party arbitrated settlement. Now that's an incredible prospect, and yet that's what is set up by this legislation.

Members on that side are laughing about it. They think that this is a jokef A MEMBER: No, we're not. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, because of that prospect where the management or the employer could be faced with, year after year after year, getting an imposed settlement and never being able to have a negotiated settlement, they will be faced eventually with destroying jobs in order to respond to this, either cutting back or closing up because, if they can't live with the settlements, they don't have a choice.

They can keep being mounted upon them by an independent third­ party arbitrator who's either taken out of a selected list of people or given to them by the Labour Board. It's bound to discourage investment, the investment that we require to have new jobs in this province. If owners or investors believe that there's a better climate, Madam Spea ker, for management's rights in other provinces, in other jurisdictions - and I'm not talking about weighing things in the favour of management or of employers. I'm just talking about having an equal opportunity.

If they see this, as they do, as imposing one more advantage on the side of labour against the interests of management, they're just simply going to say, it isn't fair. There isn't a sense of equality. There isn't a sense of balance in Manitoba. That's all they're after is a sense of balance and a sense of fairn ess.

But if the y see this as being unreasonable - and every single employer group and every single business group that has commented on this legislation sees it as unfair, unreasonable and one­ sided, an opportunity for their negotiations to be influenced from the outside, again a loss of control over the operation of their own business, they will simply say we won't invest in Manitoba. They'll say Manitoba's a place we're going to have to avoid. We can't create jobs there anymore. We've already seen at least two major employers, one being Pratt and Whitney, a second being United Technologies, by-pass Manitoba.

Now we're not talking about small potatoes. We're talking about Pratt and Whitney, who would have employed 1, 000 people. We're talking about United Technologies, who would have employed several hundred people. They by-passed Manitoba. Where? Pratt and Whitney located in Nova Scotia. The principal option to Manitoba for United Technologies, as I understand it, was again, Nova Scotia; Nova Scotia was their principal option. Why would they choose there? We have a concentration of aerospace in Manitoba. We have all of the opportunities for people to be in similar enterprises.

We have a better workforce; we have lower labour rates than many places in the country; we are more central for the distribution of raw materials in and manufactured goods out. We have all sorts of advantages in Manitoba, but these big corporations are choosing Nova Scotia. Why? Because they already see that the labour climate is not an equal climate here in Manitoba. They already see it as being anti-business, anti-management rights and they also see that they don't have a payroll tax in other jurisdictions, other than Quebec, and they're not considering Quebec as the option.

They don't have a payroll tax in Nova Scotia. This intervention, Madam Speaker, will make it worse. The other point tha t busi ness makes, Ma dam Speaker, is that this legislation gives only one side the right to refuse final offer selection. If the other side decides to apply for it, that is, if by vote of a union, they decide to apply for it, the management has no equal op portu nity to turn tha t down. The union membership can turn it down if either their union leaders hip or management applies for final offer selection. Management cannot turn it down. That's one­ sided; that's unfair.

The irony of this is that the Minister keeps bragging that we have one of the best labour relations climates in the country. Now if that's the case, why do we need this? If it works, don't fix it; don't fix it, if it works. No, it's here for one reason, because this Minister has been told by Bernie Christophe that he wants it and Bernie has a strong influence on this government, and this is the result of his pressure. The Minister says we're leading in the field of labour relations, or we've got the second best or the third best - or whatever he says - record for days lost due to strikes and lockouts.

It's been there before. We've had a good record traditionally in Manitoba. The Minister says that we're always looking for something new and he says that he's being innovative, that this is something that is going to be new to the country. It's not going to be new to the country, Madam Speaker. In fact, I note from the list of people who plan to speak on this bill at committee, that representatives of the University of Manitoba are going to speak. Madam Speaker, they had it for many years in the Seventies, they had it by choice.

It was written into their union agreements that there was a provision for final offer selection, and their experience - and we've talked to many people who have been involved with the University of Manitoba - their experience was that it stopped bargaining. Bargaining stopped because they had final offer selection, in many cases, because one side knew that it would be in their interests not to continue the bargaining. In their case, it was equally applicable, either side could have stopped it, but whichever side decided that it wasn't in their interest 3269

Monday, 22 June, 1987 to bargain, that they could achieve more by final offer selection, stops bargaining. As a consequence, after short experience with final offer selection, the University of Manitoba decided it was a dreadful answer in labour relations and they got out of it. Westfair Foods had it. Now isn't that ironical. Westfair Foods had it voluntarily with Bernie Christophe and they decided that they couldn't live with it, that it wasn't a good system. It created bitterness. It created a situation in which each side came to the bargaining table with an entirely different package.

The package on one side might have involved almost all monetary matters with respect to wages, the package on the other side might have involved all fringe benefits or all working conditions, and they were so entirely different that it didn't make sense for an arbitrator to select one or the other but he had no choice. That's the rules, that's the system. So, Madam Spea ker, there is experience to draw upon. All this Minister or this Premier has to do is go and talk to people who had experience with final offer selection and they will tell you about their experience and almost none of it is good.

So this administation isn't breaking ranks and going into a whole new field, isn't going to impress all of the labour relations people in the country by saying, "Ah ha, like Ford we have a better idea." They are adopting what has been tried and proven by many other groups to be a bad idea and they're not listening to the experience that is there, they are only listening to Bernie Christophe and Wilt Hudson. The Winnipeg Labour Council is opposed to it, representing some 50,000 unionized workers in this city. They, of course, are being hammered over the head by the Canadian Labour Council.

They got a telegram as a result of an intervention by Lisa Donner. I'm not sure whether or not there was an intervention by Mary Eady on this matter because I think she has ties with the Canadian Labour Council. But certainly Lisa Donner admits to having contacted the Canadian Labour Council and told them to discipline, to move in and hammer the Winnipeg Labour Council over the head. Tht:ir� Sl:lems to be absolutely no justification for this legislation.

Surely the Minister knows that if it's only there to help Bernie, the old saying is, "hard cases make bad laws." If this is only there to help Bernie Christophe out in his dilemma, in his problem, it's going to be a bad law bcause all the other people who don't want it, know that it can have other negative applications to their particular interest, to the free collective bargaining process and to everything else that they have to deal with. Both sides ha ve exp ressed concern about the appointment of arbitrators.

Those on the labour side have said what happens if a Progressive Conservative Government takes over and the Labour Board, under Progressive Conservative Government, appoints people as arbitrators who we aren't going to be able to live with. That's what labour people have said.

But we wouldn't do that, we wouldn't appoint people who are knowingly one-sided about it, but we may not appoint people who are as partisan to the union interest as this Minister of Labour might appoint or his Labour Board, and in that case, unions are now concerned as to what might happen if an arbitrator who they aren't very happy with could be appointed. Employers, of course, are concerned with what happens if an NDP­ appointed labour person becomes the arbitrator. Everyone has their biases and this Minister knows how that can happen.

He knows, for instance, about giving the power to appoint an arbitrator to somebody who disagr ees with your point of view. This Minister was involved, as I understand it, in the appointment of Bob Mayer in an arbitration on a Westfair case a couple of years ago. He should know, because I know that there's a lawsuit that might be involved in the situation that in fact the union had contacted Mr. Mayer even before the Minister appointed him. Both sides have too much at risk, Madam Speaker. No one is unbia sed .

Unions, tho ugh tful union leaders and thoughtful union members are saying they'd rather settle their differences over the bargaining table. They don't want to take a chance on the bias of an arbitrator. At one time, Madam Speaker, I thought that maybe there was some merit when I first read about final offer selection.

I thought that maybe it had some merit, that if both sides had an equal opportunity to agree or disagree with going into the final offer selection process that maybe it would make them more responsible, that maybe they would get down to presenting packages that were very close together, and one or the other would ultimately be selected.

But you know, when I've talked to all of the people who have an interest in this, whether they be union people, whether they be labour-relations experts, whether they be the employers and the unions who have dealt with final offer selection in Manitoba at the University of Manitoba, at Westfair and other places, they all tell me that final offer selection doesn't work. It's a bad idea, they say. It's bad legislation. They say it attacks the principles that the NOP and the union movement say they support. So, Madam Speaker, I won't even be judgmental.

I won't say whether the reasons given by organized labour are the reasons we should reject final offer selection, or the reasons given by management and employers are the reasons we should reject final offer selection. I' ll say that both of them have good and valid reasons why we should reject it. Madam Speaker, they all make good sense. The only one who makes no sense in this headlong rush into adopting final offer selection and legislation is this Minister, and we have to worry about that, because he's the same Minister who fouled up MTX. He's the same Minister who fouled up the Natural Resources Depart ment.

They were smash ing barbeques, they were doing all those things under this Minister. Now he's going to foul up the free collective bargaining process in Manitoba. The labour-relations climate and the investment climate are both at risk as a result of this final offer selection process. The job creation climate in Manitoba is certainly at risk as a result of final offer selection legislation. So I say, Madam Speaker, this Minister has to come to his senses. If he can't come to his senses, his colleagues around him have to bring him to his senses and tell him that he's got to withdraw the legislation.

Mada m Sp eaker, we have to defeat or have this legislation withdrawn, or we have to fire this Minister. It's one way or another. This legislation is bad legislation. It will poison the climate and it, indeed, will destroy 3270

Monday, 22 June, 1987 jobs and the free collective bargaining process. Madam Speak er, I'm totally opposed to this legislation, as are my colleagues, and I hope that somebody on the other side of the House will listen to common sense and withdraw the legislation. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to start my remarks today by saying that once again the Leader of the Opposition I think has demonstrated his inability to deal with an important matter such as this without falling into the same tactic that members of his caucus fall into whenever they have an inability to deal with fact and principle in this House, and that, Madam Speaker, is to raise the issue of personalities, to resort to personal attacks.

I remember, at the beginning of this Session, I reminded members of a quote made in 1911 by Stephen Leacock, who I believe was actually a Tory, who said, Madam Speak er, tha t Tories, when the y fail the principles, fall on to personalities. And we've seen here again in 1987 how little Tories have changed over that period of tim e. It shows, Ma dam Speake r, how continually desperate they are in attempting to deal with issues such as this without dealing with the true principles and true arguments.

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, Madam Speaker, that I am proud to have worked at INCO in Thompson and been a member of Local 616 6 of the Steelworkers. I was a member of that union well before I ever ran for political office. I worked at INCO, like most people, because I needed the money; I needed to work, and I'm proud, Madam Speaker, of what I learned from my fellow workers and from many people who have been involved in the labour movement for many years, many years certainly more than I have, much greater experience than I have, and I'm proud of that association that I had, Madam Speaker.

And I resent the kind of comments made previously by the Leader of the Opposition, comments which I think are totally unworthy for someone of his position, in this House. Let him slick to the issues. I want to say also, Ma dam Spe ak er, that I'm particularly bothered by some of the attacks that the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Brandon West make on members of the public here in Manitoba who have no opportunity to defend themselves. I at least have the chance to get up and point out the complete idiocy of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to myself.

What about the many people who have been maligned by both the Member for Brandon West and the Leader of the Opposition? I know many of them personally, Madam Speaker, and I want to say that he can attack such union leaders as Bernie Christophe, Bruno Zimmer or Will Hudson - Wilf Hudson, who I've known for many years, a former constituent of mine, for example, and I can tell him that he should talk to their union members and he will find that they are universally respected within their respective unions and within the labour movement in Manitoba, so he should not resort to such cheap attacks.

The Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Brandon West also refer to Bob Mayer, Madam Speaker, 3271 who is a constituent of mine, and somehow I think he is attempting to malign the integrity and credibility of Bob Mayer. I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Brandon West that, yes, Bob Mayer is a New Democrat and he's very proud of it.

He's a former president of this party, but if he cares to come to Thompson - the Leader of the Opposition or the Member for Brandon West - either of them will find that Bob Mayer is respected in Thompson by New Democrats, by Conservatives and by Liberals alike. And that was testified to, Madam Speaker, by Bob Mayer's long service on the city council in Thompson. And we don't need the kind of insulting personal attacks that we've seen in this debate against members of the public, such as Bob Mayer, who don't have the chance to defend themselves in this Legislature.

Madam Speaker, that was the first thing they did and there was something else they did too which was equally predictable, Ma dam Speaker , and equally despicable. You may remember last week - I'm sure you will remember it well - the Member for Brandon West got up and made some reference to the Soviet Union, because we had referred to our excellent climate of labour relations in this country. That's another typical Tory tactic - redbaiting - they always fall back on that when nothing else is there, in their arsenal of arguments.

Well, Madam Speaker, would the Member for Brandon West care to check the record in terms of labour relations records? If he did, he would find many countries, and particularly many socialist and social democratic countries, have among the best labour records in the world. And why, Madam Speaker? I would suggest that there's a very good reason why, and it is because, in those countries, workers don't have to fight for their very right to organize as they still do in Canada.

They're in countries where governments do deal, th rough the legislative process, with many of the concerns of workers so that workers do not have to fight for basic rights through using their option of the right to strike, Madam Speaker. So let not the Member for Brandon West get into that despicable form of redbaiting, Madam Speaker. Let him deal with the facts. And let's deal with the facts, Madam Speaker.

We saw today the Leader of the Opposition all of a sudden, I think, for the first lime, probably, in his life, get up and talk as if somehow he was concerned about the labour movement, Madam Speaker, the working people in this province. My god, Madam Speaker, I really couldn't take it when I heard it. Where has the Leader of the Opposition been when his labour critic, obviously with full support of his caucus, has gotten up in this House and opposed some of the basic tenets of labour legislation in this province?

Section 62 of The Labour Relations Act, Madam Speaker, which protects workers against unfair labour practices, a

section that was brought in in 1976 and was kept by the Conservative Government when they were in power for those four long dark years, where's he been standing up to the right of workers against unfair labour practices? Where was the Leader of the Opposition been when his labour critic has launched an attack on the certification procedures which were passed by this Legislature in 1984? Certification procedures, Madam Speak er, which reflect the principles in place in many jurisdictions in this country, many provinces. Where has the member been?

Monday, 22 June, 1987 Where has the member been when his labour critic has launched an attack on the concept of pay equity which the Member for Brandon West likened to pay apartheid, Madam Spea ker. Where has the Leader of the Opposition been speaking up, Madam Speaker, for the rights of women in this province in the work force? Where has the Leader of the Opposition been? I could continue, Madam Speaker, to outline the various items that we've heard from the labour critic for the Conservative Party in this Session.

I think the message should be clear, and that is clearly, Madam Sp eaker, the Conservatives, if they were to form office, would launch an unprecedented attack on working people and the labour movement in this province, and let there be no doubt about it, when they shed crocodile tears over this issue. I want to deal, Madam Speak er, with some of the supposed objections that the Member for Tuxedo, the Leader of the Opposition, referred to.

I want to deal with it, Madam Speaker, because I think he's indicated, by his comments, as did the Member for Brandon West, that they do not understand this bill, that they haven't taken the time to look at this bill. They clearly haven't looked at the experience of final offer selection in jurisdictions where it has been used, Madam Speaker, in New Jersey, in Ma ssachusetts, in Wisconsin, in Oregon, in Michigan, and Canada as well, in various locations, including Ontario, and also in a number of examples within this province.

If they had, Madam Sp eaker, I think they would have had a better understanding of this concept. They, for example, Madam Speak er, I think clearly would not have referred to final offer selection as stifling bargaining. Madam Speaker , that is what the Leader of the Opposition suggested. The experience with final offer selection, Ma dam Sp ea ker, in any of the jurisdictions where it has been used, is not that it stifles bargaining, but that it promotes bargaining because both parties do have an incentive to move towards an agreement.

And I think if the Conservatives would look at this particular piece of legislation, they would see that the principle of continued collective bargaining is built in. Collective bargaining does not stop, Madam Speaker, if the employees select the final offer selection route. Far from it. And the scenario where that was selected, Madam Speak er, collective bargaining would continue and the experience has shown where final offer selection has been used that that continued collective bargaining more often than not leads to a settlement of the dispute.

So let's not talk about it's stifling collective bargaining, Madam Speaker, and let's not talk about it affecting the free collective bartering process. This is an option. It's an option available to the employees. It does not in any way, shape or form take away from the employees the right to strike, Madam Sp eaker. If it did, I can assure the members of this Legislature that I would not support it because I believe that that right, Madam Speaker, has to be maintained, clearly mainta ined , and it is mai ntained in this legislation. So the process of free collective bargaining continues.

But let's deal with some of the comments that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition about this process of collective bargaining. You know, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, Madam Speaker, I've had some exposure to collective bargaining. I've been through two strikes. Many people in Thompson who work for lnco, the members of Union 616 6 of the Steelworkers, have had tha t same experience.

You know what I found particularly ironic about the comments by the Leader of the Opposition - I think comments that show clearly how little he understands about the sentiments of workers and the process of collective bargaining - was the suggestion that final offer selection leads to win-lose situations and that collective bargaining leads to win-win situations. Well, Madam Speaker, I wish the Leader of the Opposition would take the time, since he obviously has little or no experience with strike situations, to talk to some people who have been through strikes, talk to some people who are on strike.

He could talk to the employees of Westfair Foods, as I have done, on the picket lines. He could talk to the inside employees of the postal union. I wish he could have talked to many of the people in Thompson in 1981. His predecessor, Sterling Lyon, didn't even have the courtesy, during that election, to come to the City of Thompson. I wish he would talk to people, and he would have found unanimously, Madam Speaker, that employees only use the right to strike as a last resort. In doing so, often they feel they have no choice.

They would be the first ones to say that perhaps they might not win out of this situation, but, Madam Speaker, they will often argue that they have no choice. If they are to protect their basic rights, their right to earn a decent living, that the right to strike is the only weapon they have to fight with.

Many of them, I think - if you talk to many of the employees, Madam Speaker, currently on strike with Westfair Foods - would prefer if there were other more fair ways of settling disputes - the same thing, I think, within lnco and Thompson - but they were willing to take the stand because they felt they had no other choice. There was a cost; there is a cost in any strike. There's a cost to the employees, often a cost to the employers as well. In many cases, there are situations where I would suggest there is not a win-win situation. In fact, there's probably a lose-lose situation.

That is not universally the case. There have been clear cases where emplo yees have won major concessions from management, and other cases, Ma da m Sp eaker , where du ring a strike situation management has crushed the employees, crushed their unions, forced them to decertify. Those are clear win­ lose situations. But, Madam Speaker, there are many which fall in the other category. That is where final offer selection comes in. Final offer selection does not say to the employees: You have to take this route. Final offer selection says: There's an alternative. It is an alternative that is fair to both parties.

Where final offer selection has been used, Madam Speaker, as I said, the majority of contracts have been reached through agreement, but in cases where final offer selection has been implemented, it has favored neither employees nor employer. In fact, it's been virtually identical in its impact on both sides. So, clearly, Madam Speaker, there is not this anti­ business bias that the member suggests. There is not this erosion of the free collective bargaining situation whatsoever. What there is is another option for workers. 3272

Monday, 22 June, 1987 want to deal a little bit further with some of the suggestions put forward by the Leader of the Opposition because I think later in his speech he tended to give away his true agenda. He talked about labour legislation in Manitoba being anti-business. He talked about it being one-sided, that it was anti-management rights. What, Madam Speaker? The protection against unfair labour practices? The certification procedures? What is he talking about? Well, I would suggest to you, Madam Speak er, that it's quite the opposite. Talk to the workers on the Westfair picket line today.

They see a company, Madam Speaker, which is faced with a strike situation - a lockout actually at the beginning of the dispute - they see their having taken that choice to strike because they had no other choice. You're talking about employees who in many cases work as few as four or eight hours a week, single parents who cannot make a living on four and eight hours a week, who have no other way of fighting for what is an accepted standard in the industry, whether it be with Safeway or other food companies. So they've taken that route, Madam Speaker. They would prefer not to have to go that route.

They would prefer to have a fair contract but that has been denied to them by Westfair Foods. What do we see, Madam Speaker , in terms of the balance? We see the employer has the right to lock out. We see the employees have the right to strike, but over and above that, employers also have the right to hire replacement workers and they're doing that and hire some of the employees who are themselves on strike, Madam Speaker.

I don't think that is fair and I echo the sentiments of the Member for Kildonan, in saying that I hope one day in this province we will have protection against that - protection against replacement workers, which will allow a fair and equal balance of the right to strike and the right to lock out. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.) I'm talking about situations such as Westtair. I'm talking about situations such as the Gainers' strike which we saw so tragically take its course only a few months ago. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is to be true balance in the labour relations climate in this province.

I hope that we will one day reach that point of having legislation against the hiring of replacement workers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is often known as anti-scab legislation. But we don't, and that's a separate issue, a separate debate, and it's a debate that will continue in this province, certainly will continue as long as I have the opportunity to participate in public debates. But what we're talking about here, I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker , is basic fairness. Basic fairness for the employees.

We're talking about an option, an innovative one certainly, one that has caused some concerns to be expressed, but I would suggest to the members of the Opposition, that if they were to truly look at this in the so-called spirit of fairness, quality and balance that the Member for Tuxedo talked about, Mr. Deputy Speak er, that we might see some greater support for this. And I want to say too that I do listen to the concerns that have been expressed by many of the unions that do have concerns about this particular piece of legislation, and yes, by management as well.

I think it's important to deal with those concerns. But I think in particular, in looking at the legislation, I think people will see that many of the concerns are not present in the specific form of this legislation. In fact, I had a recent dis cussion with someone who had the opportunity to discuss this legislation with someone from British Columbia who is quite familiar with the labour movement. The first reaction of that individual from British Columbia was to say, "I'm not sure I like this concept." When that individual from British Columbia, remembering, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, the terrible climate of labour relations they have in that province, when that person from British Columbia had a chance to look at it, that person said, "You know, this is fair. It's an option and it's good legislation." And I'm convinced that when people do have the opportunity to look at this particular legislation that that will be the reaction they will have. As I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's an option. The right to strike is not eroded and yes, perhaps unfortunately, the ability to hire replacement workers still continues. Much of the dynamics will continue. In fact, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, despite all the protests of members opposite, even with this legislation, I will say that the vast majority - I'm positive - of contracts will be settled without the use of final offer selection - a vast majority of contracts - and even where the final offer selection route is adopted, many of those contracts will be settled. I suspect that final offer selection will, in many cases, hardly be used at all in this province. But you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the whole point of the matter. That is the whole point of our collective bargaining system.

You know, we have a system that does have the built­ in guarantees of the right to organize and the right to strike with whatever limitations, but that 98 percent of the time can produce a settlement. I think that we will continue at that level, in fact, increase and improve our standing, and that is what the Minister of Labour has been referring to when he refers to our fine labour­ relations record in this province. He's saying it's good, but it can get better. I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, totally agree with those comments. Now there may be some who will disagree. I will suggest to you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there may be some unscrupulous employers who wish to attempt to break unions by forcing them into a position to strike; that has happened. The Leader of the Opposition defended one earlier in this House, Eaton's, a company, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that has one of the worst labour-relations records in this country. I had the opportunity to work for them briefly, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and I saw what they did to their senior employees, who without any protection in terms of seniority, were turfed out many times only a few years before their retirement or, when they retired, had nothing more than a watch for their 20, 30 and 40 years of service with that company. So we've seen, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there will be the Eaton's and there will be other unscrupulous employers in our society. And yes, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, they will probably oppose final offer selection vehemently because, using their abilit y to hi re strikebreakers, they probably do have a better chance of "winning." What winning, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it when the union is crushed, when employees are kept 3273

Monday, 22 June, 1987 out for six months, a year, eighteen months because of the unfairness in our system that allows the employer to do this? Is that what the members opposite wish to support? You know, all final offer selection does is give each party an equal chance. The unscrupulous employers will have an equal chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at a contract that reflects their proposition under final offer selection, as well as the employees. So let's not lose sight of the fact, yes, there will be people who will oppose this particular

section because of that particular reason but I think, in the interests of fairness, we should reject that approach. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I tried in my speech to add ress some of the principles of the bill. I believe this is a good bill. I think it will build greater fairness in labour relations in this province. But I want to say publicly today that I'll be the first one to admit that I was wrong in my judgment if that is not the case.

I think any member of this House supporting this bill will be in the same position, but that is something else that I think has to be addressed, and that is that this particular piece of legislation has built into it what is commonly referred to as a "sunset clause." If this legislation doesn't work the way it has in other areas where final offer selection has been implemented, this bill will no longer be part of the law of the Province of Manitoba, and I'm willing to accept that. I'm willing to accept the experience over the next number of years and see, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, whether my suggestions and ideas and views of this issue are correct or not. I want to make it clear that this is not some experiment. This does have a clear track record. It has worked in other areas and it will be used only sparingly in this province, but in some very vital situations. So we're not moving ahead with something that's totally untried, but, yes, it is innovative and I'm proud of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel very proud of this Session as a whole for that same reason.

We have an innovative approach in this Session, and I think that it's going to make this the most significant Session in 15 years in this province, the most significant Session in terms of progressive change that will benefit the average Manitoban. Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do talk in those terms in this particular case.

I think if you talk to most people on the basic principles of this legislation, the average Manitoban - and you used on the one hand the arguments used by the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Brandon West and lined it up against the argume11ts used by this side of the House, the experience with final offer selection, the basic principles it represents, I have very little doubt that they would pick our views of it. Not, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, because of the ridiculous suggestions by the Leader of the Opposition, but because they can see the value in trying another mechanism, having another option, that could lead to even greater labour harmony in our society. So when we bring in this particular legislation I have no doubt there will be concerns. I am willing to deal with those concerns. I think the concerns can be allayed, the fears can be allayed by many of the employees groups and unions that have expressed them. Although I would state for the record, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the vast majority of unions in this province do support this final offer of selection legislation, but I'm willing to deal with the concerns of those who don't. I respect them for stating it, and as well, the concerns of management in this province. I think they're going to have to accept that there will be some changes, that we believe to achieve fairness there has to be changes. But I think we can deal with a large number of the concerns that have been expressed. That is how I wish we would approach this debate.

In closing, I urge us once again, to reject th e personality attacks that we saw earlier, the redbaiting. You know, that really has no place in this debate. This is a very serious piece of legislation. If people have concerns, this is the place to express it. If the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Brandon West have alternatives, this is the place to express it. But let's stick to that level, the basic principles, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That, after all, is what I was elected for - I know that from talking to my constituents.

I'm sure tha t is what most of th e constituents of all members of this House expect out of us. Let's deal with the principles of this piece of legislation, which I feel is good legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and deal with it in a manner which reflects the views of average Manitobans. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPE AKER: The Memb er for River Heights. MRS. S. CA RSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I wonder if we could have th e agreement of the House that the gentlemen in here who are suffering from the heat could remove their jackets and their ties. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I think the final offer selection bill is an unfortunate bill to have been introduced at this particular time. The question has to be why; why final offer selection and why final offer selection at this particular moment? The Minister has said that it is merely another vehicle for solving labour disputes. He has also indicated that it will have a shelf year, if you will, of only five years. We'll see if it works. If it doesn't work, then we will put something else into place, which is a bit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like hedging one's bets.

He has also said that in 1984, this legislation was introduced and it was withdrawn because there seemed to be a lot of differences about the legislation between labour and management. But at no time has the Minister indicated if those differences have been resolved. In fact, it would appear that indeed they have not been resolved, that there are still many unions opposed to this legislation.

There are still many employers opposed to this legislation, and there has been no consultation, it would appear, between 19 84 and 1987 to have worked out those differences between the individuals and the groups which opposed it even in 1984. So one must now ask: Why has it been introduced at this particular time?

Well, unfortunately, and I think tragically, both sides who oppose this legislation keep raising the spectre of one union organizer who appears to be the rationale for why this legislation has been introduced, and I think that's very unfortunate that it would be or would appear to be the whim of one individual. Therefore, I propose today that, since it is bad for the government to be in an appearance of collusion 3274

Monday, 22 June, 1987 with one particular individual, we introduce a simple amendment to this bill, one which would say that any strike which is currently in progress would not be affected by this legislation. That would give back to the Minister his integrity as having introduced this legislation because he was committed to the principle and not because of any pressure that had been laid by any one individual or any one labour group at this particular time. The criteria by which this legislation should be judged is: Is it fair?

And that is the premise by which I would like to go through this legislation and ask if it is fair. Is it fair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have winners and losers, which is the effect of this legislation. And what effect will that have on the long-term relationship between the employer and the union when the employer has perhaps won, or the employee has perhaps won? How will that affect the day-to-day goings-on between these individuals? How would it affect the spirit and the letter of the agreement between these individuals?

This all or nothing philosophy which is inherent in final offer selection makes it very difficult, I think, for good relations following the selection. What happens in this final offer selection about issues which appear to some to be on the fringe? For example, some unions have negotiated very hard and very long for issues that affect minorities, women perhaps in the work force, day care for the work force situation. Will they become the easy throwaways in a final offer selection presentation?

Will a final offer selection be rejected by a selector because those things are included and they don't appear to be an important or significant part of the labour decision? Is it fair for the government to be able to choose the final selector?

What about an amendment which says that the list of selectors should be chosen by an all-party legislative committee, so that there would not be any thought or consideration given that the government party would always be choosing the selectors, so that maybe we would get a situation in which the selectors, when an NOP Party was in power, would all have a labour bent, or selectors when the Conservative Party was in power always had an emp loyer or management bent or hopefully, if the Liberal Party was in power, a little bit of each. Is it fair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have two windows in this legislation?

Is it fair, for example, to have a 30- day before ability to go to final offer selection? What does that do to the negotiations that could take place in those last 30 days? You know, there is a certain rhythm to labour negotiations, a rhythm that frequently, as we get closer and closer to a strike deadline, intensifies. But if we have a 30-day period as the first window, do they stop negotiating? If they do, I would indicate that I think that would be unfair to both parties.

The same thing applies, however, to the 60-day window because, if those individuals who make a choice to go on strike know that they only really have to be on strike for 46 days, where is the tension in that situation to come to a settlement when you know that you're guaranteed at the end of 60 days and 46 working days that you can, in fact, demand final offer selection? Where does the tension occur and does it not break down and does that not create for worse labour relations rather than more positive labour relations?

Is it fair, as I think this legislation does, to give large employers and large unions much more power than small unions and small employers? I say that because the preparation of a final offer selection is a very concentrated effort. It requires frequently the use of legal time; it requires strong negotiating abilities to draw that kind of FOS. Yet the large union would have an advantage in this situation. So would the large business that has in-house legal counsel, for example.

But the small union, who might indeed be up against a very large management scenerio, how are they going to be able to prepare their offer so that it will be on an equal footing with that prepared by management or, likewise, the small management group up against a very large union. Is it fair, for example, that the final selector does not have to state his reasons for making the decision? The losers never do know why they've lost. The winners, presumably, know why they have won but the losers cannot learn from the experience.

The loser, if it happens to be a labour union, doesn't know how to prepare a final offer selection better the next time because they're not informed as to why they have indeed not won the choice of the selector. Is it fair, for example, that if the selection results in wage settlements which forces management to lay off employees, where is the fairness for those employees who get cut as a result of this final offer selection, which is an all or nothing scenerio?

Is it fair that an employer who asks for a final offer selection, cannot attempt to persuade the employees of the validity of a final offer selection without being accused of an unfair labour practice but, if the emp loyees request it, management has no choice but to accept it. Conversely, is it fair for management to be able to test the militancy of a union by demanding a vote on final offer selection? What if we have a situation in which management asks for the vote and discovers that the vote is 52/48?

He knows that he can place just a little bit more pressure on the union and the employees will probably capitulate. I'm not sure in some circumstances whether we want management to be in that position to test the waters at any given time. Is it fair to the public tha t FOS might indeed encourage more strikes because they are guaranteed to only last for a 60-day period.

We know, and it has been pointed out in the House before that it has been tried and it has been rejected in this province by the University of Ma nitoba and also by Westfair as unworkable, that it didn't solve the problems and didn't create a dynamic between labour and management for a possible solution. Is it fair that final offer selection has been proven in jurisdiction after jurisdiction to work best only when there are small issues at stake.

If it is just a money issue or if it is just an hour issue, final offer selection appears to work under those circumstances, but when it is a much more complicated package, final offer selection does not seem to work and, indeed, it leads to much greater dissatisfaction between union and management. Is it fair that this government has a right to dictate to unions and emp loyers who do not want this legislation? Is it not more paternalism on the part of this particular government who, without consultation, without consideration, has, on its own initiative, decided what is best.

This whole concept that seems to pervade tragically this government, that they - 30 members - 3275

Monday, 22 June, 1987 know best what unions, what employers, what child care workers, and so forth, require in this society without consultation is one that I think leaves many Manitobans very fearful of their own rights and freedoms for the future. Is it fair, Mr. Deputy Speaker , that this legislation upsets the traditional strike, lockout equation? Giving unions the right to take away management's right to lockout may for a short term be a wise concept, but what happens when a government changes and a government might have a much mor e rig ht-wing attitude?

Do they then decide to equal the equation, once again, by prohibiting strikes, so that you again have a more equal equation? This government, not in this Cham ber, but outside, has been highly critical of Bill 19 in British Columbia, and I think with a great deal of justification, because I think what has happened there is that there is some alteration going on with the fundamental rights of employers and employees. But I think that we have the same kind of alteration of fundamental rights going on with this particular piece of legislation.

I would ask this government to seriously look at what's happening with Bill 19, read its philosophy, read what it is doing to those rights and then look at their own legislation to see if perhaps they are not doing some of the same thing. Above all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there appears to me to be a great deal of naiveness to this bill - the theory that final offer selection will force management and employees to be more reasonable. Why do they think they will be more reasonable? Simply because one will be chosen over the other? That is not the history of negotiations, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Just because it would appear they should be, doesn't necessarily make it so and that, I think, should be given more consideration than has presently been given. What is to prevent both sides from making an unreasonable final offer selection? - the reply is nothing. If they think th ey'r e right, th ey will make an unreasonable offer and so too will the other side.

So what you will find is a selector is forced to choose between two unreasonable offers, and one of those unreasonable offers, under this legislation, will win because the final selector has no choice of choosing the more reasonable position of one along with the more reasonable position of the other. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this legislation unfortunately is being imposed on both employees and employers. This government is not listening to either side. If it was listening, then this bill would not be on the legislative agenda at this particular time.

The motives of the government are suspect and that is very unfortunate and as a result neither side trusts them to do the right thing by this legislation. Let us turn this piece of legislation into a White Paper. Let's give both sides the opportunity to study it. If it is good legislation, if it has validity for both the employer and the employee, let's ask them to make suggestions which would enhance the legislation and then let us reintroduce the bill with those changes in the next Session of the House. If it is a good concept, Mr.

Deputy Sp eaker, it will still be good next year, but I believe that this government must do the consulting, the standing up for Manitobans, the listening to Manitobans that it prides itself on. This time they are unfortunately listening only to a very vested interest. They are squelching the rest and I challenge this government to be more open-minded and to withdraw, designate it as a White Paper and allow free and open discussion to take place and then, when we have achieved some unanimity from both sides, introduce it and make it the law of this province. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. J. ERNST: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also wish to rise and participate in the debate on this bill, claiming no vast experience in labour relations or labour management relations, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think perhaps a little common sense and a sense of fairness as to what should happen between any group of people who are coming together to decide upon conditions under which they will work. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that sense of fairness isn't imparted in this bill as far as I can understand it. It would appear, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that in fact there are prejudices built into this bill, prejudices in favour of one group over another, and I think on that basis I would have to oppose the bill. Fairness in my view ought to be the one thing that governs the entire process. The NDP have claimed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for years that they have been the one to protect the working man in this country and in this province. It has been protection of the workers and fairness to those people that have been their claim to fame over the years. Therefore, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, it's not uncommon or not surprising that you would expect a bill such as this to come forward from the members opposite. They're closely allied to labour; that's not a secret. As a matter of fact, many of them are very proud of the fact that they're closely allied to the labour union movement in this province. We know that there are dues' check-offs taken from labour unions to support in part at least the operation of their political party that fund election campaig ns, tha t fund constituency operations and a variety of other party-related activities. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it's not surprising that this government would introduce such a bill. Presumably it's because they're interested in the well-being of unions. Mr. Deputy Speaker, many members in the ranks of the members opposite come from a union background. They have in fact had their training within that union movement. There's nothing the matter with that. That's a very legitimate process, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this province. Where it breaks down though, I think, is we have to understand it boils down to

definitions. I had a conversation with the Minister of Labour the other day just outside the House with respect to this whole issue of final offer selection. Now, I always thought in labour -mana gement relations that there were two parties to this situation - presumably management and labour, as "labour­ management relations" says. But the Minister of Labour told me that I was wrong - that there weren't two parties to this agreement. There weren't two parties to labour­ management relations. There were three parties to labour-management relations. I said, "Well, for heaven's 3276

Monday, 22 June, 1987 sake, you'd better explain this to me." I always assumed that were only two parties, but no, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He indicated that there were three parties. There was management, there was the union, and then there were the workers. I said to the Minister "Well, aren't the union and the workers the same?" It seemed to me tha t in fact the workers elected their union representatives, they all belonged to that union and therefore that formed, collectively, the union. But, the Minister of Labour said no, that wasn't true.

In fact, he told me the workers and the union and management were three separate and distinct parties as far as he was concerned in dealing with this legislation. So maybe we're seeing for the first time, by that statement, the true motivation behind the Minister of Labour bringing in this bill, perhaps the true motivation behind the government. Maybe it's that they're not supportive of the workers, but they're supportive of the unions. Now there's something - that the unions and wo