Manitoba Committee Hansard — 9 July 1991 (Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 2, 35th Legislature, 2nd Session)

35-2-ir2

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Second Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 40 Elizabeth II Chairman Mr. Marcel Laurendeau Constituency of St. Norbert VOL XL No. 2 • 8 p.m., TUESDAY, JULY 9, 1991 Printed by the Office of the 0Uflflfls Printer, Province of Msnitobs ISSN 0713-9608

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature LIB- Liberal; ND - New Democrat; PC - Progressive Conservative NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETI, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOM IAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS,Ciif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAM MER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HE LWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA THLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVElNSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LElS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Vi rden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assinibola River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY.

LIB ND ND LIB LIB ND LIB ND PC PC PC PC ND ND PC PC PC LIB PC PC ND ND PC PC ND LIB PC ND PC ND LIB ND PC ND PC ND PC PC PC PC PC PC PC ND PC ND PC PC PC PC ND PC ND PC PC ND ND

3 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Tuesday, July 9, 1991 TIME-S p.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert) AlTENDANCE - 11 -QUOR UM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Derkach, Manness, McCrae, Praznik Messrs. Ashton, Edwards , Ms. Friesen, Messrs. laurendeau, McAlpine, Mrs. Render, Ms.

Wasylycia-leis WITNESSES: Joan Sellar, Manitoba Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees Judy D' Arcy, Mani toba Div ision of the Canadian Union of Public Employees lilian Bouderlique, Private Citizen Ron Rudiak, Private Citizen Susan Hart -Kulbaba, Manitoba Federation of labour Peter Olfert , Mani toba Gov er nment Employees' Association Vera Chernecki, Manitoba Nurses' Union Ron Mclean , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, local 2034 Bill Featherstone, Private Citizen Robert J. Dooley, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, local435 Robert N.

Kotyk, Private Citizen Jacques Samyn, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 70- The Public Sector Compensation Management Act *** Mr. Chairman: Will the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations please come to order. This evening the Standing Committee will be considering Bill 70, The Pu blic Sector Com pensation Management Act (loi sur Ia gestion des salaires du secteur public).

I would like to point out that this committee will also be considering Bill 70 tomorrow, July 1, at 8 p.m.; Thursday, July 11 at 10 a.m. and 8 p.m.; Friday, July 12 at 1 p.m. and on Saturday, July 13 at 10 a.m. and continuing all day. I would also like to mention, for the benefit of the committee members and members of the public, that Room 254 has been set up as an overflow room. It has a Hansard sound feed and has a video display, so that members of the public sitting in Room 254 can watch the proceedings. However, the video portion is not being transmitted outside of the legislative Building.

It is just a localized video feed. It is our custom to hear the briefs before consideration of the bills. What is the will of the committee? Hear the briefs? Agreed. I have a list of presenters wishing to appear before this committee. All committee members have been provided with this list. Should the members of the public wish to consult this list, a copy is on display on the board to the outside of the committee room door. I will now read the names from the first page of the list. (1 ) Joan Sellar,

(2) Susan Hart-Kulbaba,

(3) AI McGregor or Gord Hannon,

(4) Peter CHert,

(5) Vera Chemecki,

(6) Ron Mclean,

(7) Judy Bradley,

(8) Bill Featherstone,

(9) RobertJ. Dooley, (10 ) Maggie Hadfield, (1 1) George Bergen, (1 2) Blair Hamilton, (1 3) lilian Bouderlique, (14 ) Clyde Huff, (1 5) John Doyle, (16 ) Rob Hilliard, (1 7) Harry Mesman. Should any member of the public wish to make a presentation but is not registered, please contact the Clerk of Committees and she will ensure that names of the presenters will be added to the list. Prior to commencing the presentations, there are a numb er of admin istrative matters that the committee should resolve. First, there are a number of presenters from out of to wn. These names are identified on the presenters list with the

4 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 9, 1991 asterisks. Does the committee wish to hear from those presenters first? Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Chairperson, I note from the list there are a significant number of people from outside of Winnipeg. I do not think that is surprising given the significance of this bill, and we do have precedent on other matters. I think the only parallel to this has been the hearings in terms of the Constitution, and in many ways this is on the same level. It is a constitutional issue for the working people.

I would like to recomm end that we have out-of-town committee hearings in communities where there are a significant number of presenters. I know in the case of my own constituents, I know a number of them have registered for the committee. They work in Thompson. They are unable to be here, Mr. Chairperson, but are very concerned about the bill.

I note that there are many others from other communities as well, and rather than try the impossible, which is for people worki ng, to have them travel-i n the case of some people, several hours; in the case of people in the North, 8, 10 or 12 hours-1 have a motion that I would like to bring to the committee. It would accommodate presenters from out-of-town by holding committee hearings in communities where there are a significant number of presenters. *

(2005) I am not trying to be unr easonable , Mr. Chairperson. If there are one or two people from a certain community, I am not suggesting that we have a committee hearing wherever there are presenters, but I have a motion that perhaps may help deal with that.

I move that the Industrial Relations committee recommend to the House that WHERE AS there are numerous Manitobans from outside Winnipeg wishing to make presentations on Bill 70; and WHERE AS in order to allow these people to make presentations, it would be appropriate to hold such public meetings at such times and places as it may deem advisable to receive briefs and hear presentations. I am willing to explain that. Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I will advise the audien ce only one time that they will not be participating in the events that are happening in this meeting.

Anyone found with any outbreaks will be taken out of the room. Thank you very much. Point of Order Mr. Ashton: On a point of order. We have had many a committee hearing in this building, Mr. Chairperson, and indeed I do not blame members of the public for following that. The practice has been to advise people of our general rules but not to threaten to physically remove them. If we had done that in the past, I think we would have had some pretty vacant committee rooms on some other issues of equal magnitude.

So, I would ask that perhaps the warning suffice, and that I am sure people understand that there are rules here and will follow accordingly. Quite frankly. I cannot blame them for, in this case, simply applauding what I think is a reasonable motion. Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the advice, Mr. Ashton. Order, please. *** Mr. Chairman: Mr.

Ashton has moved that the Industrial Relations committee recommend to the House that WHER EAS there are numerous Manitobans from outside Winnipeg wishin g to make presentations on Bill 70; and WHER EAS in order to allow these people to make presentations, it would be appropriate to hold such public meetings at such times and places as it may deem advisable to receive briefs and hear presentations. To the committee, to explain this briefly, all we are going to do is advise the House as was stated in the beginning of it.

This motion would then go forward to the House because only the House can decide whether the committee will travel or not. Mr. Ashton: I recognize that, but I feel that there is the opportunity for this committee tonight to make a clear statement to the government. The intent of this motion is clear. As I indicated before, it is to allow memb ers of the public from outside of Winnipeg to make their views known on this particular bill.

I want to stress the point again that the only parallel that I have seen in the 1 0 years that I have been in the Legislature to this, in terms of numbers of presenters registered, is the Constitution. I want

July 9, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 5 to indicate that then it was always assumed there would be hearings, committee hearings outside of Winnipeg, in the case of the legislative committee that would have sat last year. There is a precedent in terms of the Constitution, in terms of the task force that met throughout the province and the current task force. There have been two task forces, essentially, that have met with far fewer people-quite frankly, in the case of the latter-than this particular one, than who are registered here today. As I indicated before, this is very much in the same category.

This is a fundamental breach of the labour relations of this province. This is, in many ways, an attack on the very constitution of labour relations in this province, the system of collective bargaining we have. It should come as no surprise that we have 562 Manitobans wishing to make presentations.

On such a serious matter, I think it is only reasonable that we follow a precedent that has existed on previous bills and previous Issues, this being a very important issue, and allow people from outside of Winnipeg to have the equal opportunity to present their views to this committee as people from the city of Winnipeg. •

(2010) Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance}: Mr. Chairman, I would speak against the motion, particularly for these reasons. Winnipeg is the seat of government, and I find curious the rationale used by Mr. Ashton. If indeed the number of presenters were the reason or the determining factor as to whether a bill was more or less important, I would say that would be an easy method by which one then would determine whether or not a bill would leave the City of Winnipeg, the seat of government, for review. Mr.

Chairman, I would make the point that the Workers Compensation bill that is before the House, No. 2, is critically important and is as important as this bill, indeed as it affects potentially every worker in the province of Manitoba. I would submit that the college governance act is a significant bill and, in my humble view, is as important as 811170.

So what the member seems to be suggesting is that by his criteria, if you hit some magic number of presenters, whether it is 500 as compared to 50 or 100 or 200, that in itself becomes the determinant as to whether or not the hearings, the review, the contribution s and the representations to bills should be considered in locations other than the city of Winnipeg. Mr. Chairman, we are trying to accommodate every presenter, and to that end we will sit on the weekend.

I recognize when the member says that may involve long distances by those in number who may wish to make representation, I say to him that we will accommodate to the extent that we can. It would be highly, in my view, improper under the traditions of this House dealing with basic bills-1 am talking now about constitutional resolutions-that it would be highly improper for the government to accede to his request and, therefore, allow the committee to sit in other places other than here tonight and, indeed, many days to come. Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Chairperson, if the minister is worried about any inconsistencies, I can indicate right now that I am sure our caucus would be willing to hold meetings of the committees on Workers Compensation and college governance outside of the city of Winnipeg. H that is his concern in terms of that, I can indicate right now, I am sure, on behalf of our caucus, that we are willing to go out and talk to Manitoba workers and Manitobans generally about those two important issues as well.

I would also point out that in addition to the constitutional items I referenced before, I have travelled on other committees including a municipal affairs committee that travelled through rural Manitoba. We have done it on bills; we have done it on important issues before, and I would challenge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to cite me another bill that has been before this Legislature with 562 presenters as of the first night of hearings.

H that does not indicate to the Minister of Anance and the government how important this bill is and how important it is to get outside of the perimeter of the city of Winnipeg, I do not know what will. Mr. Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question? Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James}: Mr. Chairperson, I think that the Minister of Finance's comments, which I listened to, really do not make sense when one considers the motion before us.

We are dealing here with a very controversial piece of legislation, one that, by the minister's own admission, by his own press statements, is quite dramatic, affects thousands and thousands of people across this province and is really unprecedented in terms of this

6 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 9, 1991 province and its impact on workers. Whatever one thinks about the bill, whatever these presenters will tell us, we have a clear indication that there are literally hundreds who want to speak. *

(2015) We live in a province that geographically is vast and, in terms of population covering that area, is relatively small. We are a few on this committee. We can easily go to those communities where the numbers warrant, and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did make that caveat. He said, where numbers warrant. I do not think he is talking about dozens of stops across this province. I think he is talking about some strategic committee meetings, and I look across me at the table at the member for Brandon. The member for Brandon is here across the table. That seems a logical place to go to.

The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has indicated Thompson as a northern community. I see the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) here. I see the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) here. I see rural members around this committee. Surely, the fact that Winnipeg is the seat of government is not a sufficient reason to not take the members of this committee to areas where we can more easily accommodate those who are wishing to present, who have obviously come to us in significant numbers. Now the minister relies perhaps on the fact that it is not tradition. Mr.

Chairman, this province is not traditional in Canada. We hold public hearings on every piece of legislation that comes before. We are unique in this country. It would be consistent with that uniqueness, that tradition and that commitment to hear the public, to in fact take these committee mee tings to outlying areas, where numbers warrant, to hear what people have to say. If the Minis ter of Finance (Mr. Manness) really believes in this public hearing process and really intends to give it the full weight it deserves, he will do that. His arguments that he has put forward thus far are not convincing. Mr.

Chairman: The committee is ready for the question? At this time, I would like to advise the committee that only members of the committee are eligible to vote. All those in favour of the motion, say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairman: All those opposed, say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairman: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Mr. Ashton: I would ask for a recorded vote. Mr. Chairman: A recorded count-out vote has been requested. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 4, Nays 6. Mr. Chairman: The motion is defeated.

At this time, we are going to revert to whether we will hear the out-of-town presenters first. Mr. Ashton: I also want to raise another concern, Mr. Chairperson, following defeat of that motion. There were 98 presenters from out of town. I believe that will disenfranchise many of them, but I want to raise the concern as well about the fact that we are going to have a significant number of hearings at some rather unusual times. I think the pattern was set before on final offer selection a couple of years ago. My concern is particularly with the committee hearings during the day.

Many working people will be unable to attend those committee hearings. Indeed there are Saturday hearings, but there are a Jot of working people wishing to make presentations who probably will not be able to make a presentation even on the Saturday. I ask for the assurance from the comm ittee that no one is going to be disenfranchised once again, in the sense of being able to make a presentation, because of the many hearings that will be held during the day. I want to make sure that we make every effort, Mr. Chairperson, to listen to everyone who can be reasonably accommodated by this committee.

I want to hopefully have that understood in advance, because I am concerned that there will be some mornings, once we get into the committee hearings, where there will be many people who will be available perhaps in an evening and who will have their name called out. I want to make sure they do not lose their opportunity. I would appreciate some clarification from you that they would not lose their opportunity, even if they were unable to attend. I give you the example, next week, I understand we have committee hearings, probably Monday morning and Tuesday morning, two concurrent morning sittings.

I would not want someone to lose their opportunity to speak because they could not

July 9, 1991 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 7 attend on Monday and Tuesday mornings but would be available, for example, on Tuesday evening. Mr. Chairman: At this time, how does the committee propose to deal with presenters who are not in attendance this evening but have their names called? Shall these names be dropped to the bottom of the list or shall the names be dropped from the list after they have been called a certain number of times? Mr. Manness: To be fair, I think we should follow the normal practice.

The normal practice is that the names will drop to the bottom of the list and they will be called one more time, and if on two calls the presenters are not in attendance, then they will be struck from the list. That is the way these committees have handled their affairs for some period of time, and I would think that in keeping with tradition of this House, we should follow that method. *

(2020) Mr. Ashton: I can indicate our caucus would not agree with that because these are, once again, exceptional circumstances. I would take the example, say of John Peterson, number 398 on the list. When will John Peterson have the chance to present before this committee? The minister does not know ; I do not know ; I do not think John Peterson knows . I do not think the other 397 people before him know when they are going to present. I am very concerned when you have hearings that are going to be held during the day when a lot of people cannot attend, and I give you the example.

If John Peterson works during the day and he is called on Monday and he Is called again on Tuesday and he is called twice, according to these rules he is dropped from the list. I think that creates a very unfair situation. I would suggest to the minister that the only reasonable thing to do, as we have done in terms of the last period of time, is if people wish to make presentations we do everything possible to accommodate them. What is going to happen if John Peterson shows up when he has been dropped from the list twice? Will he be refused the opportunity to speak?

I think if the minister is going to enforce guidelines such as that, it will essentially prevent a lot of people, a lot of workers from making presentations and would essentially close out their opportunity to present before this committee. So our caucus does not, in any way, shape or form agree with anyone being dr opped from the list under those circumstances. Mr. Chairman: What is the will of the committee? Mr.

Manness: I would move that normal practice be followed in this respect, and if you are asking for me to make it in a form of a motion, I will, but if we all understand what normal practice is, that would be the essence of the motion. Mr. Chairman: As the committee is aware , it is normally a consensus. If there is no consensus we will need a motion to bring this forward, and I am not finding any consensus here among the members. Mr. Manness: Therefore, I move that the process that should be followed is the presenter should be called-Mr.

Chairman, I thi nk-cer tainly the committee, certainly the government members on the committee wish to be flexible so that those individuals who want to make representation and so signify that they cannot be here other than on a Saturday or some evening, I would hope that the Clerk's Office would take that into account and structure the list accordingly. Bearing that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would move that presenters should be called in the order as shown on the list. If they are not in attendance, their names will drop to the bottom of the list and be eligible to be called on one further occasion. Mr.

Chairman: It has been mo ved by the honourable Minister of Finance that presenters should be called in the order as shown on the list. H they are not in attendance, this name will drop to the bottom of the list and be eligible to be called on one further occasion. Mr. Ashton: First of all, Mr. Chairperson, I want to deal with the question of normal practice. I sat through most of the committee hearings a couple of years ago when the same government tried unsuccessfully to get rid of final offer selection at the time. At that time, the list was read a number of times, not once. *

(2025) I have been on many other committees where that is the case, and I want to deal with the question of normal practice. If the minister is so concerned about normal practice, perhaps he would care to drop Bill 70 which has destroyed one of the most normal practices in this province of collective bargaining. -(i nterjection)-

8 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 9, 1991 Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I will put it in a nice way this time. Please allow the committee to carry on, or we will be here for the next year and a half. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I would gladly be here for the next year and a half if it would stall the passage of this bill-anything that will stop the passage of this bill.

In terms of the public hearing process, make no bones about this, because if the minister is going to walk out of here tonight and say, well, we did not put any restrictions on public presentations, this would be one of the most drastic restrictions this minister could possibly put on. It will stop many Manitobans from making a presentation, and I want to indicate again that many of the people who are going to be before this committee are working people. They have to work. They cannot come down here at 10 in the morning on Monday, sit around.

They cannot come again on Tuesday, they cannot come again on Tuesday evening, and they cannot come again on Wednesday morning or Thursday morning or Thursday evening or Friday afternoon or Saturday mo rning and afte rnoon. Besides, they have families as well as their jobs that they have to deal with. All I am asking for is flexibility, so that this government will not say well, you were not here in the middle of the night one night and then ten o'clock the next morning, so you cannot make your pres enta tion. Let us be reas onab le, Mr . Chairperson.

If the minister wishes to move this resolution, we will vote against it, and I hope he will reconsider it, because It will stop many more Mani tobans. We have already disenfranchised many of the 98 from outside Winnipeg. This will disenfranchise many more. It is an unacceptable resolution and is not fair to the people who have registered for this committee. Mr. Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question? All those in favour of the motion, say yea. All those opposed, say nay. In my opinion the Yeas have it. Mr. Ashton: I would like to have a recorded vote.

A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 6, Nays 4. Mr. Chairman: Okay, we are going to revert to this one more time. Did the committee wish to hear the presenters from out of town first? Mr. Ashton: I would suggest, and I am willing to move it in the form of a motion, that we should accommodate those individuals. Many will not be able to attend these committee hearings from outside Winnip eg, but also to deal with the byproduct of this passed resolution, that we also accommodate those who are unable to attend subsequent committee hearings.

The person I mentioned earlier, for example, if he was present and available only on Tuesday night, would be able to attend at that time. It will not deal with the entire problem, because we may end up with a whole series of people on one given night but, if that is understood, priority will be given to those who can attend and those from out of town, I think we are willing to accept that practice. Mr. Chairman: Is that agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Chairman: Agreed. Does the committee wish to impose a time limit on the length of public presentations 7 •

(2030) Mr. Manness: Mr. Chairman, the government at this time, I stress that, wishes not to request a time restraint or restriction. We are hoping, though, that all presenters, taking into account the large number of people who want to give input to this bill, will deal with the principles of the bill and its clauses in an expeditious fashion and make the best use of their time. That is the only request we make of all presenters. It is not the government's intention at this time to ask the committee for restrictions. Mr.

Ashton: The minister is using a phrase such as "at this time.w It reminds me of a few months ago when this government was talking about collective bargaining as being something they would follow on, I think it was, a sacred trust basis.

I am concerned about the minister's comments and, after having spoken in the Legislature I believe for six days, and I lost track of how many hours because there were so many things that could be said on this bill, I would hope this is not an implied threat from the minister that if people give presentations he feels are too long or members of the committee get tired of listening to those presentations that at some point in time down the line a limit will be imposed.

I point out to the minister that the impact of the motion that was passed earlier will be to restrict the presentations, in my view, rather severely. Many people will lose the chance to make a presentation.

July 9, 1991 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 9 By voting against our motion the same thing will happen. So I would hope, Mr. Chairperson, that the min ister's commen ts are taken as his own comments, period. We and the other members of the committee, certainly the opposition members, are willing to listen to people. On a bill such as this, I think the minister has to understand, when you are attacking collective bargaining as fundamentally as this bill does, you are going to hear a lot, because this bill has far reaching implications.

I hope that members of the public will not be indirectly intim idated by the commen ts of the min ister and will not feel constrained in their comments. Mr. Chairman: So it is the will of the committee that there be no time limit at this time. Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Chairman: The committee has a very lengthy list of presenters. How does the committee wish to deal with the list? Shall we hear from a certain number of presenters this evening? Mr.

Ashton: I believe, and I indicated before in terms of the practice, the usual practice is to start with the first number on the list, but early on in the evening to announce to members of the committee who are not able to attend, as I said before, for subsequent hearings or are from out of town to identify themselves with the clerks, so that they will have the full opportunity to get off the fullest extent possible. I would suggest we go through the list but at some point fairly soon deal with that. We might also wish to decide how late we plan on sitting tonight so that members and the public are aware of that.

Mr. Edwards: Just by way of clarification for those who are here and who may not be heard tonight, can you indicate what the role of the clerk is in these proceedings? There will obviously be people who are here and on the list somewhere and throughout these hearings who will then not be heard when they come. Will the clerk be following up with those remaining on the list and the next numbers that have not been heard, contacting those people to advise them of the future sittings? How does that work, and will the clerk be available to advise people on when they might be heard in the future? Mr. Chairman: Yes, Mr.

Edwar ds. The clerk will be available. The clerk will also call everyone who is on this list and advise them of when the committee is meeting. The clerk will be available in the Clerk's Office, not necessarily this clerk. Mr. Manness: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we ask who might be here as presenters from out of town, and we should hear them if they are. I would anticipate there might not be any more than a handful in number, and then after that, that we try to concentrate on the first page of the list. I do not think it is wise to try-1 mean, just calling out 500 names takes a half an hour in itself.

I think we should do two things tonight, concentrate on page 1 , plus try to accommodate those from out of town. Mr. Chairm an: Are there any out-of-town presenters here this evening? The clerk will come out and get your names, and we will get the committee started. I would also like to advise the presenters that if they have a written copy of their brief that these copies should be turned over to the committee clerk, so she can ensure there are enough photocopies made for the committee members. I want to request the first out of towners after I have gone through the first two on the list.

At this time, we would like to call on No. 1. Joan Sellar, President of the Manitoba Division of CUPE, come forward please. Would you have a copy of your presentation for the committee? Just one second. We will just wait until everyone has their copy. Was it your intention to read the whole brief, 25 pages? Ms. Joan Sellar (President, Manitoba Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees): Mr. Chairperson, due to time constraints, what we will be doing is highlighting text of the brief. We will not be reading the brief in its entirety. Mr.

Chairman: It is just so we have clarification, so when we are following. Go ahead then. Ms. Sellar: My name is Joan Sellar, and I am president of the Manitoba Division of CUPE. The Manitoba Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees welcomes the opportunity to address this committee ofthe Manitoba Legislature about Bill 70, The Public Sector Compensation Management Act. CUPE represents over 19 ,000 public sector workers in Manitoba's hospitals, nursing homes, health care units, social services, municipalities and

10 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 9, 1991 school boards. Of these, close to 8,000 will be directly affected by this legislation. We thought that it was important enough to bring in to present jointly this brief to the committee our National Secretary Treasurer, Judy D'Arcy from Ottaw a, who is also a vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress. I will be introducing the brief, and Judy w ill be giving the body.

The basic principles of free collective bargaining, through which millions of workers around the world negotiate their wages, benefits and working conditions every year, apparently mean nothing to the Filmon government. This government has, with one stroke of the legislative pen, succeeded in breaching a long honourable tradition of negotiation in good faith and hammer ing out a mutually agreeable settlement through a process of negotiation, however tough the neg otiations. Mani toba has not see n such Draconian actions by a provincial government since 19 19 .

It seems clear to us that this government has no princ i ples and no honour when it comes to respecting working people's rights in the collective bargaining process. Moreover, a wage freeze at this time does nothing to assist the Manitoba economy in a battle against recessionary pressures. It is decidedly irresponsible of this government to take millions of dollars out of the economy at a time when the economy desperately needs leadership which will boost confidence in the economy and increase consumers' purchasing powe r.

Persistent and deliberate underfunding of social programs through reductions in transfer payments from the federal government has meant that provincial governments have had to assume some responsibility to ensure that social programs are adequately funded. The remainder of this brief will offer a more detailed examination of these points, along with documentation which will illustrate why the Filmon government has acted in a most irresponsible fashion, and why this government should withdraw this legislation at once in favour of a more fiscally enlightened approach. Sister D'Arcy will continue with the brief. Mr.

Chairman: Could you please give me your name? *

(2040) Ms. Judy D' Arcy (National Secretary Treasurer, Manitoba Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees): Judy D'Arcy , National Secretary Treasurer of CUPE. I welcome the opportunity also to address the committee and to lend the support of our national union, Canada's largest union with 400,000 memb ers, to the presentation that Joan Sellar has begun. I would like to highlight some of the issues that our brief addresses.

The first one is the issue of the ability to pay, and I understand that this government and the Finance minister, in particular, have been trying to rationalize the wage freeze by saying that the province cannot possibly afford to pay wage increases for public sector employees. We believe this issue of the ability to pay that is being raised by the government is at heart a political concept, an ideological concept, as opposed to an economic one.

In fact, in our experience, and certainly an experience that the government is familiar with from its own labour relations experience, arbitrators over the years and, in particular, leading arbitrators in the last few years have said very clearly that the ability to pay, when we were dealing with issues like arbitrations for pub lic sector em ployee s, should not be a determining factor.

I want to refer you on page 7, to a quote from one of Canada's most esteemed arbitrators that deals with this issue as it relates to arbitration, but it is certainly relevant I think where he said: I determine that on balance, if the community needs and demands the public service, then the members of the community must bear the necessary costs to provide fair and equitable wages and not expect the employees to subsidize the service by accepting substandard wages.

It is clear that the Almon government has decided unilaterally to place the burden of paying for public services squarely on the shoulders of those who provide those services, and it does fly in the face of considerable experience and considerable long history of decisions by arbitrators. Our members and other public sector workers in this province are being forced, as a result of this wage freeze, to pay dis proportionately for public services in this province. Essentially, what you have is a public employee facing double taxation.

They both pay for public services in this province through the taxes that they pay as citizens; the other part of the taxation is that they are now also being hit in their pocketbooks.

July 9, 1991 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 You certainly know, we certainly know from our own experience that public employees have never backed down from tough negotiations. We have always played by the rules whether or not we like those rules when arbitrators have been called in in order to decide wage increases in interest arbitrations or if we are dealing the final offer selection process. Public employees often do not achieve the kinds of wage settlements that they like, but they take

part in the tough negotiations, and they live with the outcome of it. We want to say very, very strongly that we believe that the Filmon government and Rnance minister Clayton Manness do not understand the processes of free collective bargaining, a bargaining in good faith, and they do not understand the rules of how you play the arbitration game. What is an attack on public sector workers is happening essentially for blatant political reasons. I want to deal now with the issue of whether or not a wage freeze is good economics, and in a word, we would say no it is not. Bill 70 is based on bad economics.

It is the experience of this country, going back for a few decades now, the wage control certainly that we experienced in the 19 70s and the 19 80s, that wage freezes do not foster economic recovery. In fact, wage freezes only serve to keep the economy in recession, and the earning power of Manitoba's public employees is being sacrificed, not for the well-being of all Manitobans but for the good of corporate economic Interest. Some economists estimate that approximately $70.1 million will be taken out of the Manitoba economy as a result of this wage freeze, and that hurts all of Manitobans.

It hurts the Manitoba economy because this is money that is lost to the Manitoba economy. It will never be spent on the purchase of goods and services as it would have been if it had been rightly allocated to workers in the form of wage increases. The wage freeze will have its biggest impact on low-income public sector workers.

Certainly cabinet ministers who earn incomes in the area of $65,000 plus tax-free allowances are only going to suffer a minor inconvenience as a result of this wage freeze while public employees in this province who earn on average $25,000 a year will have to struggle even harder in order to make ends meet.

I think it is very, very important for this committee to put a human face on this problem, to not think about this in terms of faceless statistics, to not try and depict for the public that this is an issue of fat cat bureaucrats who are not going to make quite the high salaries that they usually do, of some paper pushers who are not doing useful work for the citizens of this province. We believe that is the way the government is trying to depict it when, in reality, what we are dealing with here is mainly low wage earners.

In the case of my union and in the case of the other public sector unions, we are dealing mainly with public employees who are women. I want you to take a minute to look very carefully and to read very closely the statistics that we have spelled out that give a human face, not just the big numbers on page 11. Consider the housekeeping aide who works at the Health Sciences Centre and who earns a maximum of $9.99 an hour. As I said, we are not talking fat cat bureaucrats here; we are talking $9.99 an hour, $20,1 30 a year.

As you know, the poverty line in Manitoba for an urban area with a population of 500,000 or greater is $29,494 for a family of four. We have many members who fit that bill, who are women, who are sole-support parents, who are earning $20,000, living far below the poverty line, and you are freezing their wages. The situation in smaller centres is no different. If you look at Portage Ia Prairie, a housekeeping aide earns a maximum of $9.94 an hour or $20,029 per year. The poverty line for an urban centre with a population of less than 30,000 is just over $23,000 for a family of four.

We do not believe, and we do not believe that Manitobans think, that it is too much to expect, in our society, for ordinary working people to be able to receive a living wage, a wage which allows a worker and his or her family to exist above the poverty line. We believe that it is the responsibility of government also to ensure that the people who work for them directly or indirectly are able to live above the poverty line.

The Progressive Conservatives tell us that the wage freeze was introduced in order to reduce the provincial deficits, but have wage restraints ever helped to reduce government deficits or reduce the taxes that were paid by other ordinary workers in the past? The answer is no. The wage control programs at both the federal and provincial level in the 19 70s and the 19 80s only meant that billions of dollars were lost in income tax and in sales revenues. Wage restraints in fact contribute to higher unemployment rates, and they prolong the

12 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 9, 1991 recessionary pressures on the economy. What we really need is to increase consumer demand. We do not need a wage freeze in order to pull the economy out of a recession. I want to touch just for a minute on the loss of purchasing power that this means for public employees in this province. If we use a relatively conservative estimate of 5.5 percent inflation for 19 91 , then the housekeeping aide whom I referred to earlier, who works in the Health Sciences Centre, will lose approximately $1 ,1 07 in real purchasing power because of the wage freeze.

That hurts that person; that also hurts the economy of Manitoba. The Filmon government will not allow this work er, already working at wages below the poverty line for a family of four, to protect his or her wages against inflation. We think it is also very important to underline the fact that wage increases do not cause inflation. We often hear the argument that wage increases are a primary cause of inflation. If you look, for instance, at the province of Manitoba for the period of February 19 90 to February 19 91 , average weekly earnings increased by 4 percent during that time.

They went up from a whopping $453.61 to $471 .60. The consumer price index, on the other hand, increased by 6.1 percent during that same period. If wage increases were a major cause of inflation, we would be seeing wages increasing at a faster rate than prices, not at a slower rate. •

(2050) Wage settlements over the past three years also indicate that there is very little reason to believe that negotiated wage settlements have had a significant inflationary impact. If you look at the table on page 16 , you can see that wage settlements in all agreements trailed the rate of inflation in 19 88 and in 19 89. Settlements were ahead of the rate of inflation in 19 90, not because public sectors settlements were large-and this wage freeze is one directed at public sector workers-but because private sector settlements were over 6 percent.

Believe me, I am not advocating that we bring in wage controls for the private sector as well; I just want to ma ke very clear that what we have happening here is the scapegoating of public sector workers whose set tlements are in no way responsible for inflation. The fi rst quar ter of 19 91 now has wage settlements that are virtually tracking the rate of inflation, but we certainly also know from past experience with other wage restraint legislation that inflation does not necessarily abate because controls are implemented.

In 19 75, for example, wage controls reduced the average Canadian work er's wage by 10 percent, but prices kept on rising until the CPI percentage increases reached into double digits. I want to deal now with some of the broader impact of Bill 70 because, as we know, it freezes much more than wages. I think it is very important that Manitobans understand very clearly that this is not just about freezing wages. Not only are wage adjustments frozen for the 12 - month extension period but so are all other provisions of the collective agreement, including all nonmonetary items.

In other wor ds, all terms and working conditions are frozen as well. Moreover, any term or working condition which contains an expiry date in the current collective agreement is not automatically extended for the 12 -month period, but it expires on that specific date. We believe that this total and absolute suspension of free collective bargaining is not merely unfair, it is an unconscionable act which demonstrates this government's complete disdain for its own employees and the employees of boards and agencies that are funded by public monies. -(i nterjection)- Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

I would like to remind the members of the public in attendance, under the rules of decorum the general public should not participate in committee proceedings. This includes applauding, cheering, heckling and booing. Thank you. These are the rules of the House. Ms. D'Arcy: With respect, sir, I did not feel they were taking over my presentation, but you are the Chair. I would ask this committee and I would ask the gover nment to consider very seriously how employees can gain satisfaction out of providing services to a deserving public when the ir government and their em ployer has such little regard for them.

I want to touch just for a minute now on the impact of cutbacks in federal transfer payments. Yes, it is certainly true that the federal government is offloading its responsibility for social spending onto the provinces, but the provinces in turn and, in this

July 9, 1991 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 case, the Manitoba government are offloading their responsibilities onto municipalities, hospital boards, school boards and other social service agencies. While the provincial government may use the cutbacks in federal transfers ·as a convenient justification for harsh economic measures, it remains nothing more than that, we believe-a convenient justification. The very same fiscal policy and political ideology which has driven the federal Conservatives to cut transfer paym ent s is driving the provincial Conservative government to duplicate those cuts.

In short, we can only conclude that the provincial government is not interested in providing quality services to a deserving Manitoba public any more than the federal government is. Let me talk just for a minute about the issue of whether there was a choice for this government. Is there any other alternative? We certainly are all too well aware that the federal Conservatives, that Mr.

Crow, have been pursuing a fiscal policy which has kept Interest rates high and the value of the dollar at an unacceptably high level and that these policies, in combination with the disastrous effects of the Free Trade Agreemen t, have resulted in an unnecessary made-i n-Canada recession. Hand in hand with that has come the attempt to blame public sector wage increases for Canada's economic problems.

The federal government introduced wage controls in the federal public service and hoped, and unfortunately their wishes came true, that provincial governments would fall in line, and the over whelm ing majority of provincial governments have fallen in line. All reports on the Canadian economy indicate that we are now at least poised, and I do not want to make too much of this, but we are poised to break out of the recession. We have seen the beginnings of some modest economic growth. The gross domestic product grew by .9 percent in April, its biggest monthly gain since March 19 88.

This economic good news has absolutely nothing to do with wage restraints on public sector workers at either the federal level or the provincial level. One factor certainly is the easing of the government's high interest rate policy, which is a major contributor, but I think if you look at when most of those wage control programs have come into effect, they were not in effect in April, which is when the economy began to show signs of recovery. So, is there an alternative to a wage freeze?

We would say, of course there is, and we would ask that this government have the courage to pursue an option besides a wage freeze. There is an alternative. The Filmon government could have declined to march in lock step with the federal government in blaming public sector workers for the recession. They could have made a commitment to the Manitoba public to find funds to provide quality public services with adequately paid employees, not to ask public employees to subsidize those services with real cuts in their purchasing power. But they did not.

Instead they decided to listen to their corporate friends and to the Mulroney government and to punish public employees. The government could have and the government should have sought revenue from those who can afford to pay and from those who benefit most from government subsidies and from low tax rates. The corporations and the wealthy must pay their fair share, through a fair and equitable taxation system.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that the Canadian Union of Public Employees believes very strongly that this government has made a serious mis take in pursuing a mi sguided strategy of introducing this wage freeze to deal with provincial economic problems. We believe that Bill 70 is a denial of justice and a gross infringement on the rights of public sector workers. This legislation demonstrates very clearly the Filmon government's complete disregard for those rights and their disdain for workers who provide valuable public services to the citizens of Manitoba.

Bill 70 is not the foundation for sound economic policy which will lead to a recovery in Manitoba's economy. On the contrary, it can only worsen the situation. We believe there is only one inescapable conclusi on for this comm ittee and for this government. The members of this committee must recommend the withdrawal of this regressive legislation. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Ms. D'Arcy. There may be some questions from the committee. Mr. Manness: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Ms. D'Arcy and Ms. Sellar for a very concise presentation.

In my view, certainly they have addressed many, if not all, the relevant issues and although I ma y dis agree wi th some of the conclusions, certainly in my view the relevant issues have been addressed in their brief.

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANIT OBA July 9, 1991 I wonder if I might ask these questions. My deficit this year was $325 million. I am not very proud of it. Should it have been larger? Ms. D' Arcy: I do not believe it is our responsibility to answer whether your deficit is larger. We believe that if you were prepared to take

part in consultations with unions and with community groups and citizens in this province that you might have been able to find some solutions that were amicable solutions. We believe that if you take

part in negotiati ons , if you respect free collective bargaining, that unions also recognize that we live in tough economic times. We have certainly had local unions, including some of our largest local unions, who have been through extremely difficult negotiations, who have had to make tough choices, who have not achieved everything they wanted in the collective agreement, but who have recognized that there are times when it is tougher to get good wage increases and times when it is easier.

We are suggesting that if you took a more consultative approach, you would be able to avoid the kind of confrontation this particular piece of legislation is provoking from public employees and unions in this province. Mr. Chairman: Order, please. At this time I would like to advise members of the committee that I would appreciat e if you kept your que stioning as clarification of the presenters' briefs. Mr. Manness: To that point, in the brief on page 23, Ms. D'Arcy indicated that we listen to our corporate fri ends, suggesting that there are significant tax reductions.

I would ask her if she were aware that the corporate revenue In the province of Manitoba for my last budget is dropping 50 percent from the year before, and whether or not that has any relevance. h is not because I have decreased the corporate tax rates. The reality is profits by many of our companies are just not there to be taxed. Does that have any relevance to the presenter at all, that fact? Ms. Sellar: Profits will continue to go down as long as you are taking the spending power away from the members I represent. If they do not have any money to spend now , then how do you expect them- Mr.

Manness: I said corporate, corporate profit. Ms. Sellar: Their profits come from the money that my members spend. * (21 00) Mr. Manness: Mr. Chairman, I would ask, on page No. 8, two concepts are used within the same sentence almost. They are in the same sentence: collective bargaining and the arbitration game-to quote from the report. I would ask whether or not, in concept, these two points are in conflict at all in the min ds of the presente rs-free collective bargaining and arbitration? Ms. D'Arcy: With respect, sir, I do not understand the question that you are asking. I think that there is certainly- Mr.

Manness: Mr. Ashton is on the record, for instance, for saying that arbitration in itself is in-and I am paraphrasing and I will let him expand it-conflict with free collective bargaining, and free collective bargaining is not arbitration. I would ask you whether you would concur with that or, indeed, is there any conflict between the two concepts? Ms. D' Arcy: With respect, sir, I do not think we are here to discuss whether all public employees should have the right to strike or whether there should be compulsory arbitration.

What I was referring to, which I do believe is relevant, is the issue of ability to pay and whether or not it is a legitimate criteria for gove rnment to use as one of the main underpinnings of a wage controls policy. I referred to what very respective arbitrators have had to say on that issue, because it does affect the issue of compensation for public sector employees. I think you will have to deal with Mr. Ashton and with the unions in Manitoba. Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I think the minister, if he wants to play some debating games, should understand the issue here is not a question of arbitration or final offer selection or negotiations. It does not ma tter if someone received an award under final offer selection, arbitration or -(in terjection)- Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The honourable minister on a point of order. Point of Order Mr.Manness: Mr. Chairman, I referred to a specific sentence in the brief, as is my right to do. I am not debating with the member for Thompson. I will do that in the House. I drew something out of the brief.

I am trying to get a deeper understanding of whether or not they are consistent with each other, and for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) to now

July 9, 1991 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 berate me because I drew his name into my question, I say, is very much out of order. Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point of order, but Mr. Ashton should be presenting his question towards the presenter. *** Mr.Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, my apologies. I was merely responding to the points raised by the minister.

I want to ask the presenter, specifically, and this was raised in the brief, but it relates to the Minister of Finance's point, and that is currently under this bill it does not matter whether you ne goti ated a contract, received one under arbitration or received one under a selection award , that is null and void. Do you believe that it is good labour relations, and do you think that is consistent with the system of free collective bargaining we have had in Manitoba for more than 10 0 years? Ms. Sellar: That is not free collective bargaining, and it is-1 mean, that is alii can say about it.

It is not free collective bargaining. You are nullifying free collective bargaining in this province. What they are doing has nothing to do with free collective bargaining. They are dissolving it. Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Chairperson, I also want to deal with the implications of this, because one of the facts of life for Manitoba in labour relations in the last number of years-you probably have to go back to 19 19 to see any differences in it-is in terms of the fact we have the second lowest strike rate and one of the more harmonious climates of labour relations in the country in large part because we have one of the more progressive sets of labour relations that does not implement the law of the jungle, as we have seen in B.C., in Alberta and Saskatchewan, but recognizes the collective bargaining process and the rights of worke rs.

I would like to ask you what you feel the implications of the passage of this bill are going to be? Do you feel it is going to lead to greater labour unrest in Manitoba? Ms. D'Arcy: I can certainly speak from our experience in other provinces and certainly our experience when wage controls were introduced at the federal level in the mid-'70s. There is more labour unrest happening with public sector unions in this country at this particular point in history than--1 have been involved for 19 years-! would say perhaps in the mid-'70s we had the kind of labour unrest at the same level as we are beginning to see now.

In every single province where wage controls have already been introduced, we have demonstrations, we have picket lines, we have disruptions of government proceedings, we have a great deal of hostility and anger on the part of public sector workers towards the government, towards their employers. We believe that it can be avoided. In the mid- '70s, when we had wage controls at the federal Ievei-I think we all know the history of that-we saw at that time the only general strike on a Canada-wide basis that this country has ever seen.

What we also saw was that for many, many years afterwards the work ers who were affected by that legislation were doing their darndest to try and make up for wages lost to inflation at the time that wage controls were in effect. Yes, so I think that there is absolutely no doubt that what we are going to see is an intensification of labour unrest in this country . Ther e is an alternative ; free collective bargaining is an alternative. Mr. Ashton: Indeed, Mr. Chairperson, it has been working in Manitoba up until this point in time. I find your comments very interesting.

I have another question related to the part of the brief where talked about the impact on people, because that is really the bottom line here, the impact on people whom you represent, the people whom many other people represent, many of the private citizens we are going to hear from, I am sure, throughout these hearing who are going to be directly affected. I want to give you the opportunity to give members of the committee some idea of who are the members of CUPE in Manitoba.

You have mentioned one particular classification of employee, and I think it is horrifying when you look at someone making $9.99 an hour that they are going to lose $1 ,10 0 a year because of this bill. What I want to ask is, if you can give members of this committee some other idea because, quite frankly, some of us feel that the government is trying to paint public sector workers as fat cats. I have listened to some of the comments in the Legislature and I do not think that will be an exaggeration. Incidentally, some of the fat cats, the real fat cats, have been exempted from this legislation.

Some of the higher wage earners-the head of MTS, who was hired two months ago, received a $20,000 raise and I believe is now currently, apparently, on holiday-they are exempt. But I want to ask you:

16 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA July 9, 1991 Who is going to be impacted by Bill 70? Who are the real people who are going to pay the price? Ms. Sellar: The kind of people I represent who are going to be affected by this bill are health care aides in nursing homes throughout this province; they are people who work in kitchens in hospitals; they are people who drive school buses; and that is going to affect them, ultimately, as well. It is going to affect every Manitoban. They are single-parent families-just to bring it home to you-we are not talking about freezing somebody's wages at $40,000.

That is a lot money to the people I represent; that is a lot of money to me. I make half of that. You take somebody who is ma king $20,000 a year, and that is before deductions, okay, take away on a conservative figure a quarter of that, one-quarter of those wages of $20,000 in various taxes and deductions that come off your pay check before you even see it, take away another $550 or so for rent or mortgage payments a month, take away another $550 out of that for food to feed a family, and you get left roughly with about $2,000 a year.

We have not talked about bus passes, we have not talked about lunches, we have not talked about clothing, we have not talked about hydro or water or any of those things that are necessary for people to live. We are telling them that they have to do it on $2,000 a year. There is no such thing as savings to the people I represent. How much money can you save when, after you have paid all of the necessities for an entire year, you have $2,000 leftto payoffthat other whole list of things, and now you are telling us you are going take away over $1 ,000 of that now.

You tell us you are not cutting my wages, you are not cutting the wages of 8,000 CUPE employees in this province. I mean, how more real can we get? * (21 1 0) I would like to see any one of you sitting at this table survive on the wages that my members earn. You could not do it, but we are doing it. We have been doing it for years, and now you are telling us we have to do it with less money. Mr. Ashton: I would like to thank the presenter. I think she has said it better than any of us can, and that is the real bottom-line issue, the people who are being affected. Thank you. Mr.

Edwards: I want to thank the presenters, as others have, for a very cogent and, I think, very persuasive brief. Page 16 of your brief sets out the graph, and I found it quite interesting, in particular, the public sector statistics for the first quarter of this year which suggest a 6.5 percent average increase. We are told that a number of other provinces have invoked similar types of legislation and, in particular, the presenter who is from out of the province, I understand, and has a national perspective.

Given that the other provinces have gone-m any others have invoked a zero percent, what are the wage settlements that are being reached in those provinces with public sector employees where similar legislation has not been put in effect or come into effect? Is it indeed 6.5 percent, or is it higher than that? Ms. D' Arcy: I cannot give you a province-by province breakdown, but I know that the average settlements in the month of May for all public sector workers across the country was 3.1 percent.

Some of the wage controls involved, for instance in Quebec, freezes for six months and then let the previously negotiated wage increase. They varied very much from province to province. The place where the settlements have remained the highest are Ontario and Prince Edward Island. In Ontario, howev er, the public sector settlements are falling. They are not at 6.5 percent any more. Our biggest municipal locals in metro and the City of Toronto have just settled for just under 5 percent, between 4.5 percent and 5 percent.

Public sector settlements are falling by virtue of the pressures that are happening in the economy. In general, they are not falling as quickly as they are with wage controls. There is a reduction, but it is part of the free collective bargaining process. It is about decisions that are made as a result of long, tough negotiations and settlements freely entered into by both parties recognizing some economic realities. There is a huge difference between that and having your hands tied behind your back and being told free collective bargaining does not exist any more. Mr.

Edwards: I see 6.1 percentfor 1990, and I take your point that it is full1 .3 percentage points above the public sector which fairly well, I think, destroys the vision of public sector compensation which has been put forward by this government, which is that not only are they massively overpaid but they are consistently given these large settlements which has driven the province into bankruptcy. That is the position which is taken pretty consistently in the

July 9, 1991 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA 17 House by the government, and you have heard it here tonight. Are the private sector settlements in your experience, again, recently, are they equivalent to or similar to some of the settlements that are being reached in the public sector through the free collective bargaining process? Are we seeing both the private sector pulled back and the public sector or, Indeed in your experience, is the public sector still lagging behind private sector in free collective bargained settlements? Ms.

D' Arcy: The figure that I cited for the month of May for public sector settlements, which was just over 3 percent, the private sector settlements-th is is across the country-we are still over 5 percent. I believe it was 5.6 percent. Mr. Edw ards: Very interesting. One further question. In your national experience, and we are told about other provinces that have come in with similar pieces of legislation.

Are there other provinces that have come in with this type of legislation after many, many months of going down a road of arbitration, of negotiations, of some bargaining units actually going on strike for periods of time, and retroactively nullified all of that, in effect, changing the rules and pulling the rug out long after the road has been chosen, which strikes me-the legislation's effect is dramatic and quite Draconian, you have pointed that out.

A point which you made earlier on, which is very important to me, is it is fundamentally bad faith, it seems to me, to go down a certain road and then change the rules which, of course, only the province as an employer has the ability to do. They are in a unique position, and they have abused that, at least in my view. Are there other provinces perhaps that I am not aware of that, in your experience, have gone that far, that have done that type of retroactive changing of the rules halfway through the process? Ms.

D' Arcy: I would love to tell you that Manitoba was the only one that has been as horrendous as this, but in all honesty there are some others that are just as bad in certain respects. That does not make it any better. The workers in those provinces are very, very upset with what has happened to free collective bargaining.

They are also very disenchanted about what it means about politicians and governments and the entire process, because it is about having a signature on a collective agreement which our members believed means something, and they believe that when government directly or indirectly has its signature on a collective agreement, they should respect it as well. Mr. Edwards: I take your point. Do you believe, and you have just touched on it-what strikes me about this is that it is fundamentally dishonest. It is not hard bargaining. It is beyond that.

It is fundamentally dishonest, and that to me will strike a chord not just for this set of negotiations this year. This will have an impact on the future, in my view, and on our cynicism rate amongst the general population about politicians. It is hard to blame them, it seems to me. Do you have any comment from a national perspective about what civil servants and, indeed, working people generally are thinking about politicians who use their legislative ability to, in effect, get a result that they were not managing to achieve through the bargaining process or even through the arbitration process? Ms.

D' Arcy: As I said before, I think that this attack on free collective bargain ing very seriously undermines the morale of people who work in public service, whether that is in hospitals, whether it is provincial government, because it says something about the lack of respect that is shown for them by their employer. Yes, it certainly does undermine their faith in the political process. There is no question about that, and I think as citizens that is something we all need to be concerned about.

We know that there is very, very strong mistrust in this country for politicians at all levels of government and much less faith in our democratic institutions than there has ever been in the country's history, and this certainly serves to undermine what little faith is left. Mr. Edwards: One final point, and I do think it is worth men tioning. You have men tioned our salaries, salaries of cabinet ministers. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has mentioned this.

You may have wanted to put in your brief, had you known about it, a more, I think, cogent example, that just two months ago we hired the executive director of MTS at $1 50,000 a year and gave him a $20,000-a-year salary increase to boot, which equates to 15 .4 percent. If anything leads to cynicism, surely it is that. Thank you very much for your presentation.

18 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 9, 1991 Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): I just have two quick questions in relation to what we all consider to be an excellent brief. Two points I am interested in relate to what your brief is suggesting in terms of the impact of Bill 70, in terms of entrenching inequities in the health care system and also entrenching inequalities between women and men.

A (212 0) I am wondering, just in terms of those two points, what percentage of your members affected directly by Bill70 are in the health care sector, and ofthese, what percentage are women, and generally the impact that you see in terms of Bill 70? Ms. Sellar: At least half of those people are in the health care sector-we are talking about half of the 8,000 people affected-and probably 75 to 80 percent of those are women. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Thank you very much. I also appreciated how you showed the real human impact of Bill 70 on women, families and work ers.

I wanted to ask you, how will you explain to the housekeeping aid at the Health Sciences Centre who is getting zero percent on $20,000-if she is lucky-a year, that this government saw fit this year to Increase the salary of the deputy minister of Health by 20 percent bringing him up to over $92,000? Ms. Sellar: I wish I had the answer to that. I wish someone here could give me the answer to that.

How do you explai n to someone that the ir government, the government that was elected-- not by me-thinks so little of them that they are willing to hire one person in this province for a salary that would hire, what?-six and a half health care aids in a hospital for people who are already so overworked and so frustrated. I mean, how do you explain it to them?

There is no explanation, except that they were lied to and that the government that is representing them thinks so little of them that- well, it just reminds me of an old cartoon, a political cartoon and it said, if you were a chicken, would you vote for Colonel Sanders? Mr. Chairman: If there are no further questions, thank you very much. At this time, I am going to advise the committee that was one of the out-of-town presenters. We now have two further out-of-town presenters, No. 13 , Lilian Bourderlique, and No. 35, Ron Rudiak. At this time, we will call Lilian Bourderlique to come forward, please.

Do you have a written copy of your presentation? Ms. Lilian Bouderllque (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairman: If you could just supply one to the clerk, she will-if you could just give us one minute to get it passed around. Order, please. Go ahead. Ms. Bouderllque: To quote a fellow countryman, can you see me? I am a little short. Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Lilian Bouderlique and I am a clerk in the Civil Service. I am also a taxpayer and an ordinary citizen. I also exist outside the boundaries of the city of Winnipeg.

I appear here tonight because I am a frustrated, disillusioned civil servant and a skeptical ordinary citizen. I am bein g bom barded by the media and politicians as to how bad the economy is and how I am supposed to, as a civil servant, share the bad times. Yet I see millions of dollars being handed to private corporations, politicians' expense accounts and management pay scales. Doctors, nurses, teachers, municipal workers all seem to warrant a raise in pay and it seems there is money for them but for me there is none.

Nor, it seems, do I have the same rights as doctors in that I am not allowed to go to arbitration. It also seems to me that there is money to hire friends and workers of the Conservative Party In the Civil Service under the guise of affirmative action. As one of the first and still a member of an affirmation action committee in the Civil Service, let me tell you that the appointing of affirmative action members was never supposed to be tokenism, but equal opportunity based on competition for a position.

This government, how ever, has taken a perfectly good concept that, while being equal to all, will also right some of the historical wrongs, and changed it into a political opportunity to pay off some debts to their friends and supporters of their party. Ladies and gentlemen, I come from a country that has a class system. When I grew up, we knew our place. We were poor and working class, and were expected to remain so. I came to this country because you had no class system. Everyone was considered equal. The promise was work hard, get a fair remu neration and take advantage of opportunities when they arose.

Please, ladies and

July 9, 1991 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 19 gentlemen, do not start a class system here in this country by restricting some people's salaries while not restricting others. Ladies and gentlemen, my parents raised me to believe that, if you did not work; you were a bum. Now I keep hearing how lucky I am that I have a job. I am not lucky, ladies and gentlemen. I applied for a job 18 years ago along with five others and was considered the best candidate suited for that posit ion. Lucky to have a job -what a sad testimonial to a country when one is lucky to have a job.

It would seem to me that our politicians are lucky they are not politicians in one of the third world countries where they probably would have been assassinated by now. At the beginning of my presentation, I said I was a skeptical private citizen. A few years ago, we were all told by politicians and the media that we were going to run out of oil, that we should conserve, but now all of a sudden there is a glut, there is no shortage. Will this be the same with the economy? Will there suddenly be a surplus of money? Around election time, coincidentally, of course.

I would like to just elaborate on a couple of points and deviate from my presentation here, if I am allowed to. I would like to expand on the issue of decentralization and selected early retirement. I say selected because, although there were certain criteria that had to be met to take advantage of the early retirement, in reality, deals were made for some and not for ot he rs. As far as the decentralization issue, in my capacity as a union stew ard, I became aware of how Idiotic and what a waste of money the decentralized policy is.

As a result of a fellow clerk's position being lost in the town of Steinbach, she was offered a position in Vital Statistics in Winnipeg-note , not from the city to a rural area, but from rural to the city. This position would ultimately then be transferred to Dauphin. In reality then, that position went from one rural area to another, at the taxpayers' expense, of course.

Finally, ladies and gentlemen, if there is no money, stop spending millions needlessly moving civil servants around the province, stop giving money to a few selected civil servants to take early retirement, stop giving money to corporations like Pine Ridge, and if you are going to freeze my salary, then freeze yours, all other workers' and prices, too. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Bouderlique. There will be a few questions. Mr. Manness: Jus t one short question, Mr. Chairman.

I would ask the presenter if she was aware that all members of this Legislature did take a wage freeze, also, with respect to the constituency allowances, took a reduction that indeed the net effect in this present fiscal year to all members is a reduction in their take from the public purse. I just wanted to make that correction. Ms. Bouderllque: Sir, I believe-and you will have to forgive me, being an or dinary citizen and not being aware of what does go on in cabinet, having a family to raise, a job to perform-there was some

article in the media, I believe, last week regarding that some cabinet ministers did take advantage of some increases. Mr. Manness: Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to correct the record. I will not correct the record; maybe the House leader of the NDP might like to correct the record on that one. * (21 30) Mr. Ashton: Well, if the Minister of Finance wants to talk in terms of impact of his actions vis-a-vis others, cabinet ministers are paid $63,000, and without asking you to give away your salary, are you paid that amount for your job on the Civil Service? Ms. Bouderllque: Sir, I am a clerk.

That should be answer enough. Mr. Ashton: I want to ask you again-and I really appreciate, by the way, your comment on being lucky to have a job because some people who phoned to express their concern on Bill 70-and I know people who phoned the Minister of Labour's (Mr. Praznik) office have been told that by staff in the department in his office. -(int erjection)- Well, the minister says, not quite. I talked to people who have received that comment.

I appreciate for correcting that, but I want to ask you, in your circumstances as a clerk in the government, what is the impact of this going to be, because obviously prices are not being froze n? How is this going to im pact on you economically as an ordinary Manitoban? Ms. Bouderllque: Sir, I hate to say it, but I seriously am considering shopping across the border. That takes money out of the economy. It does not give the corporations my money. It does not give the Manitoba government my tax dollars. Surely, giving a simple raise-and we are not talking percentage. We in the clerical do not talk percentage.

I would love to have 3 percent of some of my managers' salaries. We are talking 3 percent

20 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 9, 1991 of the average clerical, being in the $20,000. Three percent of a packet of gum is negligible; 3 percent of a car is a lot of money. That is what we are talking. Mr. Chairman: No further questions? Thank you very much, Ms. Bouderlique. No. 35, Ron Rudiak. Do you have a written copy of your brief, Mr. Rudiak? Mr. Ron Rudiak (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. I have copies for the Legislative Committee. Mr. Chairman: If you could supply them to the clerk, please. Just give us one moment to get it presented to the committee. Mr. Rudiak: Mr.

Chairman, memb ers of the Legislative Committee, I am taking this opportunity as a private citizen to voice my concern and displeasure regarding the proposed legislation now before this provincial administration, which would extend current collective agreements in the public sector for another year. I have been em ployed with the Manitoba Telephone System since 19 57 and feel that I have contributed to the success of that organization.

In the 199 0 Annual Report, acting MTS president, Dennis Wardrop, said that the quality of the service MTS provides to its customers is built largely on the competence of its employees. Tom Stefanson, MTS chairman, announced in the 19 90 report that MTS had net earnings of $39.456 million in 19 90 on total revenues of $541 .708 million. He wrote in the report: "I join the other members of the Board in expressing our appreciation to all of MTS' personnel for their contributions to the accomplishments of 19 90.

With their continued support and a dedication to the responsible management of its assets, MTS will continue to be able to offer exemplary service to its customers and rewar ding opportunities for its employees." Membership in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 435 has been a part of my life for almost as long as my service with the Manitoba Telephone System. We have mutually solved problems as they arose between the local union members and the employer with assistance being required only occasionally from any third party.

One of the most important things that we have as employees is a negotiated contract. Its pages reflect the needs of both the employer and the employee and state conditions of employment, wages, benefits and mechanisms for settling disputes. It is not an easy job to work within a negotiation committee, but has its reward when problems are solved in a manner that serves both parties. Locking both parties into an existing contract that may be outdated by business cycles, costs, technology, service demands and changing labour laws benefit neither the company nor the employee and can be termed at best shortsighted.

As the figures in the yearly report show, MTS has improved its financial status in 19 90 and is in a favourable financial position to negotiate contracts with its employees without interference imposed by Bill70. Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rudiak. There will be a couple of questions. Mr. Manness: Mr.

Chairman, I would ask the presenter whether those employed In Crown corporations, Crown corporations that are in essence owned by the people of the province, the trusteeship of which is vested in the government, should be treated any differently-! am not suggesting for one moment that you would agree with any portion of the bill-whether or not they are employees of a Crown that has a bottom line profit, again, wh ether they should be treated any di ffe rently than a dir ect employee of the government. Mr.

Rudiak: I believe we should continue, as we have done in past years, to negotiate our differences whether we belong to CUPE or any other public service union or union that is in the public service representing public service employees to negotiate in good faith, to iron out our differences and come up with a contract that benefits both employer and employees. That is what negotiation is all about. In that way I feel we should all be treated the same. Mr. Manness: Mr. Chairman, there are many-1 share the sentiments of the presenter very strongly.

I guess then I would ask him how then the remaining vestiges of final offer selection and arbitration itself would be- whether or not they would be in conflict with negotiation and bargaining. Mr. Rudiak: Final offer selection was not something we looked forward to. It was an option provided by the legal provisions of this government. We were moving forward to final offer selection because that was what the law provided for, and we

July 9, 1991 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 intended to use it before we were cut short by the introduction of Bill70. Mr. Ashton: Indeed, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) himself had agreed to allow final offer selection to stay in place. It was taken out when obviously he was afraid it might result in some fair settlements; it would not result in a wage freeze. • (21 40) I ask you, and I am asking from your own personal perspective-you have a long record of service with MTS. You pointed out that there has been a pretty harmonious climate of labour relations at MTS.

I want to ask you, what is the reaction of people you work with, people you know throughout MTS, in terms of this bill? Do they think it is fair that the government unilaterally, with the Crown corporation making significant profits, with a CEO that has a salary that is 15 percent higher than before-do you think it is fair to have their wages frozen? What do you think the impact is going to be on the climate of labour relations with MTS in the future? Mr. Rudiak: I have only talked to one employee who applauded the appointment of our new chief executive officer. I have talked to many employees.

I work with approximately 10 0 people in Steinbach, and I have talked to many employees and I have gotten nothing but negative reaction to the wage freeze and nothing but negative reaction to increasing salaries of higher executives within our company. Mr. Ashton: Thank you for your presentation and, noting you are from Steinbach, I might suggest you encourage those other 1 00 tele-workers of yours to phone your MLA, who is a Conservative member, and encourage him to vote against Bill70. Mr.

Edwards: It is very interesting that you, as a presenter with employment experience at MTS, come before us because, of course, we have already raised this here tonight, and Mr. Ashton has raised it wi th you. One of the glarin g inconsistencies in this government's approach has been the exemption of certain high-ranking, highly paid civil servants, including Mr. Pedde, who is receiving a 15 .4 percent increase to join the corporation. What was the past history of- 1 see the minister querying that. I hope maybe he will defend that; he has not yet. I hope he will defend Mr. Pedde's increase in salary to $1 50,000.

Wha t was the pas t comparison, in your experience in being involved with labour relations at MTS, between the union negotiated settlements and the management settlements? Can you tell us, on a year-to-ye ar basis, were they relatively close? Were the unionized workers receiving, to your knowledge, relatively the same as management employees, or do you know that? Mr. Rudiak: Well, over the years the management sector has gotten increases. They just got a large increase a couple of years ago when they became organized.

The front line managers, of which there are a fair number, became organized with an association, and at that time they did get a substantial increase. They had fallen behind our wages slightly, not to the point where they were getting Jess money than we were, but the difference was becoming less and less, as we continued to negotiate in good faith a worki ng contract and they had no bargaining power whatsoever. Since they formed an association they have managed a little better. Mr. Edwards: One further question. I do not know, I do not expect-1 do not see it on the list-that we will hear from the CEO of MTS.

He is on vacation, and I do not expect we may hear from some of the other Crown corporation heads as well. What is your experience of managemen t's response to this? Are they talking about it or are they apologetic about it? I mean, you are involved in negotiations. What are they saying about Bill 70? Mr. Rudiak: Well, the management I have talked to are not happy about Bill70, because it affects the majority of managers because of their association in their group called TEAM, and they are painted with the same brush. Their wages are frozen and they would also like to have an increase. Mr.

Edwards: Just following up on that, have you had any discussions or any reason to believe that management, those even nonunion positions at the upper levels, is concerned about the morale effect of Bill 70 on the work force and generally on the labour relationship between management and unionized workers at MTS? Is there a concern that you know of at MTS about that? Mr. Rudiak: Many of the upper managers I have talked to are very concerned about morale. We had a chief executive officer previously who was a morale builder. Floor Comment: Reg Bird? Mr. Rudiak: That is right, Mr.

Reg Bird, and he did build a corporate image and the employees were

22 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANIT OBA July 9, 1991 quite happy with falling into that corporate structure. Since he left, we have become a little bit like a ship with a lose rudder and the morale is not what it was a year ago. Mr. Chairman: No further questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Rudiak. That was all I had at this time for out-of-town presenters. Were there any further out-of-town presenters who have come in since the last call? If not, we will revert to the top of the list. No. 2, Susan Hart-Kulbaba, Manitoba Federation of Labour. Just one minute until we distribute. Ms.

Susan Hart-Kulbaba (Manitoba Federation of Labour}: I would like to say that I appreciate the opportunity to appear before committee tonight and that I represent not only the Federation of Labour and Its 90,000 affiliated members at this meeting, but I am also the spokesperson for a coalition called the Coalition for Fairness, which represents more than 17 0,000 work ers. It is the MFL's responsibility to offer advice to government on matters important to workers and to oppose those things which threaten their well-being and security.

It is clear that our responsibility is to oppose, as vigorously as possible, Bill 70 in its entirety. On June 3, 1 991 , a government news release was ma de pub lic ann ouncin g the gove rnmen t of Manitoba's intention to table and to pass Bill70, The Public Sector Compensation Management Act. We call it the public sector destitution act. The news release stated that this was an effort to protect taxpayers' vital services and jobs by freezing the wages of some 48,000 public servants at their current level for one year.

The most obvious indicator of the gap between what th e governm ent says and wha t the government does is the fact that the wage freeze, which is meant to provide relief to the taxpayer, covers a large number of workers not paid by the public Treasury. These include employees at the Crystal Casino, Man itoba Hydro, Manitoba Telephone Systems, the liquor control board and the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. In fact, this bill accomplishes much more than a wage freeze, in itself an unfair attack on the men and women it affects.

It is a suspension of collective bargaining rights in that it extends without change the collective agreements it now targets. In some circumstances, this could even amount to eroded benefits, in effect, concessions. The potential impa ct on be nefit pro visions in collective agreements which require periodic enrichment to maintain the level of benefits may affect dental care for employees and their children, or pension plans, as well as other benefit provisions common In collective agreements.

If collective bargaining, including the fundamental right to strike, is destroyed by Bill 70, how will changes to collective agreements to meet the changes in parental leave pro visions in The Employment Standards Act be accomplished? The news release goes on to lecture the people of Manitoba that the provincial government cannot provide the foundation for economic renewal of this province on its own. Everyone must share in that goal. Well, that is interesting.

This brief will have more to comment on these particular points later on. * (21 50) For decades, Conservatives and their supporters in the corporate sector have chosen to malign and discredit the role public enterprise and public services have played in our economy. One facet of this attack has been to create a myth in the public's mind about those men and women who work hard to carry out this enterprise and these services.

Using the big lie, and repeating it at every opportunity, the Conservatives have been quite successful in making the average citizen believe that civil servants are overpaid, underworked, secure for life, and contemptuous of the public. This tightly woven fabric of lies has made it possible for Conservatives and some elements of the private sector to blame just about every economic ailment or service frustration on the so-called lazy civil servant.

This and other circumstances have made it possible for Conservatives to underfund and understaff important services and enterprises, eroding the benefits to the general public, while blaming it on publicly paid workers. Ultimately, it has been possible for Conservatives to shut down or privatize these valuable services and enterprises ma de un popula r by un der staf fing and under-resourcing, without complaint from the general public. Examples that spring to mind are CN passenger services, its successor VIA Rail, and Canada Post.

In this cir cums ta nce, the gove rnm en t's communication strategy is to term Bill 70 as a wage

July 9, 1991 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 freeze for those overpa id, u nderworked , secure-for-life, contemptuous civil servants. Who in the general public would complain about that? That is your story and you are sticking to it, but in fact Bill 70 is much more than that. On many occasions, Rnance Minister Clayton Manness has outlined what he perceived to be his options: increase taxes on low- and middle-income earners, lay off employees thereby cutting the level of services, or a wage freeze. At budget time, he chose to lay off a substantial number of employees.

We suspect more layoffs will be announced this fall. Now the Filmon government is adding a wage freeze and the removal of collective bargaining rights. Mr. Manness should have had the integrity to lay these plans out in his most recent budget. The Filmon government claims the wage freeze is necessary to address imm ediate fiscal problems, that it is responding to trends in the private sector as it struggles to deal with the recession .

Presumably, the government is trying to make a case for the analysis that inflation, high interest rates, and the recession itself, is linked to workers' wages, both in the private sector and the public. In fact, wages in both sectors have lagged behind the CPI increases for many years. While corporate profits have galloped ahead, the cost of living for the average citizen and their real earning power has been in a state of deterioration since the 19 70s. Wages have no t led to the recessio n . Conservative government trade and economic policy have done that quite effectively.

Howeve r, if you are suggesting that the wage freeze is necessary because the low- and middle-income classes have reached the taxation saturation point, then there is room for discussion. The MFL agrees that worki ng people are overtaxed, but freezing wages is not the answer. Instituting a fair taxation policy is the answe r. Just a few decades ago, federal government Income tax revenue was nearly equally derived from individuals and corporations. Today, less than 10 percent comes from corporations, the balance from individuals. In Manitoba, less than 12 percent of income tax revenue comes from corporations.

The payment of wages to a Civil Service structure that is too small to meet our needs is not the driving force behind tax pressur e on low- and middle-income earners. It is that too little of the tax revenue that is paid to civil servants and used for vital services and progr ams com es from corporations. If the government wants to address this deficiency, then do it through implementing a fair taxation policy, one that sees all pay their fair share of taxes. Do not do it by bludgeoning your workers with a blunt instrument like Bill 70.

The immediate effect of Bill 70's wage freeze is to increase the financial penalty to one in 1 0 Manitoba workers, that is, lost wages in addition to excessive taxes. Earlier, reference was made to a Clayton Manness quote inserted in the news release which announ ced Bill 70. It went: The provincial government cannot provide the foundation for economic renewal of this province on its own. Everyone must share in that goal. Exactly. That means it is high time that everyone, including the wealthy and profitable corporations, paid their fair share of taxes.

Almon may not be able to provide for the foundation of economic renewal on his own, but he is doing a great job destroying the economy and workers rights. Striving for a zero tax load on corporate Manitoba while overloading low- and middle-income earners with taxes is not the base of a promising future for our province. Tories are fond of saying that if we do not give business the same tax environment as an underdeveloped country has, then they will relocate there. Well, there is more to economic policy than that.

Get serious about the challenge of maintaining and improving our standard of living and our quality of life through a fair taxation policy. Invest In our education system to lure business here with a highly skilled work force. Prom ote the lifestyle advantages of Manitoba. Exploit our central geographic location. Develop an industrial strategy beyond calling the private sector the engine of the economy and then sitting back and waiting for it to do something besides pump profit margins up and then take the profits out of Manitoba. Who is affected by Manitoba's wage freeze?

Almost all of the workers in Manitoba who are paid from the public purse, including the single mother working as a hospital worker to support her children on wages that are below the poverty line for a family of four. Who is exempted from his wage freeze? The government news release indicates the highest paid, including government-employed doctors and judges. The head of MTS takes over his new job

24 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 9, 1991 after the government sweetens the salary by 20 grand. The Conservative's political staff and stooges received their big increase last year. A wage freeze this year has remarkably little sting. Bill 70 is a vicious attack on the collective bargaining rights of workers in Manitoba. Premier Gary Filmon has chosen to sell this attack to the people of Manitoba by draping it in the big lie again.

Government has removed the right to bargain collectively from 48,000 working men and women im media tely and has built in the necessary provisions to extend the net even further with a back-room decision. Gary Filmon, Clayton Manness and the rest of the Tory Caucus have resorted to a back- alley mugging to win the goals they could not win at the bargaining table. When the law of the land frustrated their atte mpts to have their way, they turned the Legislature into a tool of political terrorism by proposing to pass laws that suit their purpose. We call it the second club of the employer.

Objective, independent, third party observers have noted the near complete absence of good-faith bargaining with government employees in handing down their decisions in final offer selection applications. These are the same FOS decisions and arbitrations government proposes to reverse with Bill 70. They refuse to bargain, then they strip away workers rights when it backfires on them. Had the government any interest in collective bargaining, it would have realized that unions have responded to difficult conditions in the past.

Unions have agreed to zero per cent increases both in the public sector and the private sector when conditions warranted it. The fact that the Filmon government abandoned good-faith collective bargaining in favour of this legislative assault only confirms the absolute contempt it has for a good labour relations climate and for the men and women who work for them. Clauses 1 (g), 2(1 ), 9(1 )(

b) and (

c) and 10 make it plain how much scope the government feels it needs. Under these clauses they can pick and choose just about any group of working people to attack. Their statements that this is not their intention are just more examples of their ability to say one thing, when it serves their purpose, and then do the opposite. The Filmon government has made a political career of doing just that. The Premier has said he supports free collective bargaining, and then he introduces Bill 70 to begin its destruction.

He tells doctors they deserve binding arbitration, then Bill70 is broad enough to cancel that arbitration decision if he does not like it. He cuts funding for public education because he says the people cannot afford it, and then he boosts private school funding at St. John's Ravenscourt and Balmoral Hall because now we can afford it. *

(2200) Child care goes begging while corporate taxes go uncollected or forgiven. Gary Filmon even campaigned in a borrowed canoe to convince us of his deep and abiding concern for the environment. Now he presides over the development of Oak Hammock Marsh by his well-heeled friends. Well, the people of Manitoba have learned some hard lessons. They know they cannot trust this government; they cannot trust Gary Filmon or Clayton Manness; an d they cannot trust Conservatives.

After riding roughshod over the rights of work ers, this government has the nerve, the absolute gall, to build into this fascist document-and I am serious about that, I very seldom use that word, it is a fascist document-a clause that enables them to expand on their attack through a Cabinet decision-no legislation, no debate, no public accountability on the floor of the Legislature. Let me read out loud

section 9(1 )( f): The Lieut enant-Governor-in Council, that is Cabinet to my understanding, may make regulations respecting any other matter considered necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this act. Lovely, absolutely lovely. Another sterling example of the arrogance and excessiveness of the Film on government in this bill is the clause which makes all other legislation subservient to Bill 70, just in case there may be a measure of fairness available elsewhere in our legal code. What is the purpose of making human rights legislation take a back seat to Bill70?

What is the purpose behind suspending the right to collectively bargain nonmonetary clauses in collective agreements, such as language dealing with sexual harassment, work scheduling, seniority rights, employment equity?

July 9, 1991 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 This is legislation written by a government which has nothing but contempt for the rights of every working Manitoban. One of any gove rnmen t's strongest moral responsibilities is to behave in a· manner that can serve as an example for the rest of society to follow. When private sector, unionized employers see their government engaged in a vicious assault on its employees, what are they to think? They will think that it is open season on worke rs, on their unions and on anyone who complains.

After all, there is the government using its power to destroy collective bargaining and force workers to pay the cost of its morally bankrupt and inept policies. There is the government gutting its own regulatory agencies so that enforcement of even basic rules is nearly impossible. That is the legacy of Bill 70-confront ation, bad faith bargaining, a soured labour relations climate. That sur e sounds like a gre at place for out-o f-province investors to bring their money, does it not?

In addition to the impact on labour relations, the small business sector will be under even greater pressure as publicly paid men and women plan their next year's spending with even less disposable income. How is that going to improve the province's economy, facilitate its recession recovery and attract new investment and new jobs? Bi11 70 has managed to create a pandemonium in some of the workplaces that it covers, particularly where some members of the bargaining unit are covered directly by the bill, while other members of the same bargaining unit are deemed uncovered by the press release.

Bill 70 raised many questions in the minds of those outside of government circles-and, we suspect, wit hin the mi nds of ma ny in side government circles. For example, what is the intent of clause 8? There is reference to any agreement, not only collective agreements, where payment is made directly or indirectly by government. If, as the government maintains, Bill 70 is not meant to apply to the private sector-or is this another case of saying one thing and doing another?--does this indicate that Bill 70 covers private contractors delivering highway maintenance services?

Does it mean that contracts between the government and Pitblado & Hoskins are covered? The MFL is not clear on why the government would want to create a two- tiered contract system within the health care system which is precisely what happens when nurses represented by the MNU are exempted from the provisions of the act and nurses represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada are covered by it. Manitoba Telephone System may come under federal jurisdiction by as early as this fall. How will Bill 70 interact with the Canada Labour Code?

The Film on government has deliberately masked its antiworker intentions with uncertainty and ambiguity in Bill 70, and devised a wage freeze communications strategy to sell it to the people of Manitoba through the big lie. It confirms that no one, absolutely no one, can trust this government. Bill 70 is completely without merit. It must be withdrawn. If the Filmon government has any interest in good faith bargaining, it would sit down at the bargaining table and lay their cares out. They should make their case for a negotiated zero percent increase.

Choosing the back-alley attack over good-faith bargaining is a dangerous path to tread. The casual destruction of rights for one group of Manitobans should be viewed by the rest as a dangerous development. Many democracies have slid into right-wing police states through government attacks on the rights of individuals in an identifiable group, and it has always been in the name of the greater good. The Manitoba Federation of Labour is concerned th at the Dr acon ian appr oach to imp osing gove rnment will that Bill 70 represents Is a disturbing glimpse into the future.

The erosion of worke rs' rights and anti-union legislation is exactly what the Conservative Free Trade Agreement needs to operate fully in Canada. Bill 70 is the opening crack in the door in Manitoba to enact more free trade legislation. There are other equally disturbing manifestations. The Tory butcher job done on The Workers Compensation Board Act and the government discussion paper on the future of private sector pension plans are plainly not in the interest of workers. Is that what we have to look forward to when the Conservatives sharpen their knives and review labour legislation next session?

If that is indeed your plan, be advised that you will have the fight of

26 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 9, 1991 your political lives on your hands, both during this process and in the next election. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Kulbaba. I do believe there are a few question for you. Ms. Hart-Kulbaba: Oh, I am not surprised. Mr. Manness: Your biting attack on Bill 70-ca n I ask you, at the bottom of page 2- Ms. Hart-Kulbaba: Certainly. Mr. Chairman: I am going to ask the members of the public to please remember that there will be some decorum in this meeting. Mr. Manness: Mr.

Chairman, I would ask the presenter, at the bottom of page 2, and I am quoting from the brief: "In this circums tance, the government's communication strategy is to term Bill 70 as a wage freeze for those 'overp aid, underworked , secure for life, contemptuous' civil servants." Whose words are you purporting those to be? Ms. Har t-Kulbaba : Those are our wo rds previously in the brief. Mr. Manness: I see, so they are your words and quotes, and n ot anybody in government's, no communication of government, is that correct? Ms.

Hart-Kulbaba: The communication strategy all along has been to build in through the big lie theory that all of these government employees are, in fact, dispensable, disposable and overpaid. We have heard remarks about how they can afford to have wage freezes while others cannot, and that is the kind of argument being put forward . We have heard discussions about the services that they have provided and the general theme over the past few years has been, in terms of a communication strategy, to lay that kind of a theme out about public sector workers .

Then you can go forward with this big lie believed by many people and expect very little ramifications from legislation such as this. I am sure that is what the pollsters said, and I am sure that is why we were getting remarks about this is only the union leadership complaining, that no one else cares and that only 13 people would show up at a rally, that no one else really cares. We have news for you. A lot of people really care. Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Chairman, I echo what the presenter said.

I mean, this is a very important issue and, as the government said in bringing it down, it did not do so with pleasure or great satisfaction. Let me ask Ms. Hart -Kulbaba this question. Page 3 in the presentatio n, the presenter calls into question I guess my integrity, by not providing an indication before the budget as to what our position was with respect to offers. Is it not a fact that before the budget I had laid out our ability-t o-pay option,

part icularly to the Governm ent Employees' Association, at zero and 2 percent, and a guarantee of job security in some fashion? Was that not laid out, because I know it was- Ms. Hart-Kulbaba: Not yet. Mr. Manness: -and can the presenter indicate to me why it might have been rejected, given that it was attempted to be offered through a collective and negotiated basis? Ms. Hart-Kulbaba: Since I was not a party to those discussions, I can only presume what happened through secondhand information. I have heard secondhand from you and I have heard secondhand from other individuals available on the other side.

In fact you did, at that point in time, suggest that there was a problem and that is why you were laying off up to 1 ,200 civil servants, and you did that in your budget. The staff years that you cut in your budget were as a result of your discussions about ability to pay. * (221 0) Now, the discussions that I am aware of about job security, any job security offer in negotiations in fact came after the cutting of staff years in your budget. So there is little good faith in saying: Now that we have cut all your jobs, we will promise you job security until the next budget. Well, excuse me, it was already done.

In terms of the zero percent offer, as you call it, it was taken to the membership, as far as I know . I am sure the president of the union here, the MGEA, will be able to articulate that further, but to my knowledge that was in fact taken to the members. They voted to go to arbitration after that because, as we have seen through other documents with other bargaining going on with civil servants and public sector workers, bargaining-and I am not sure, maybe you do not understand what bargaining is.

I mean, I think that is really naive and I would hope that you are that naive, because otherwise I would really start to be cynical about the behaviour of this government. I am perturbed if you do not understand that bargaining means you go in with a position and you

July 9, 1991 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 have both the desire and the ability to move on a position. It is not a decree from on high where king Gary Filmon says to the serfs: You will have not hing. Bar gaining is the ability and the willingness to move and try to come to some agreement on how we can best accomplish what we both need. Now what we clearly saw from David Bowman's award with the operating engineers, and he states it very clearly, is that there is no evidence whatsoever of collective bargaining on behalf of the government as an employer.

Well, it is no wonder they choose arbitration and final offer selection if you will not talk to them, if you walk in and say no, this is it, no, no discussion, nothing. I mean, there is no bargaining. So perhaps what we need to do is have the Federation of labour sit down with the Tory caucus and do a collective bargaining course over a weekend for you. I do not know. Mr. Ashton: I like that comment, because if the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) feels that it is collective bargaining to put a gun at the head of public sector workers and say: Here is an offer, take it or leave it; if you do not take it, we are going to legislate it-t hat is not collective bargaining. I want to deal with some of the comments pr es ente rs made in te rms of the way this gove rnment has sold this parti cular item of legislation. When the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) says they had no great pleasure in bringing this bill in, I am sorry, I have debated this bill in the House, as have many members of our caucus, and I have seen the smiles on their face, I have seen the hoots, the derision. I had Tory members singing "Solidarity Forever," they thought ·it was rather funny, and I was quite insulted by the attitude. (Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairman, in the Chair) I want to tell you what they have been saying and ask you directly whether this is in fact the case.

They have been saying, it is the union bosses-and these are direct quotes-it is the leadership that is concerned about this. I have heard from ministers, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) said in this committee room several weeks ago that he talked to some people who liked it, I believe it was two or three people, and in fact it was not a major concern. I think he also indicated he had not received many phone calls. That I believe has since changed. Mr. Acting Chairperson, I have the quotes for the minister if he conveniently forgot that.

The minister responsible for Hydro, in the House said that Hydro workers were overpaid; the minister responsible for Hydro said that Hydro workers were overpaid. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) both trotted out statistics. I noticed the Premier yesterday, when he was appealing to the Tory caucus, was talking about civil servants- well, indeed it is a question for clarification to the Attorney General, because this is what they have been saying in the House.

I want to ask you first of all, you mentioned that you are the spokesperson for the Coalition for Fairness, and I am wondering if you can give this committee some idea of how broad that coalition is and, in particular, in terms of the labour movement, is that strictly, for example, unions affiliated with the Manitoba Federation of Labour and, if not, could you outline for the committee what that coalition represents. Ms.

Hart-Kulbaba: This coalition represents many of the employee representatives who are covered by this legislation as well as those who are not covered by this legislation, who fear what this legislation could mean to them down the road in terms of expansion of the legislation and who fear the precedent in the attack on collective bargaining.

It certainly does not take in only our affiliates, it takes in the affiliates of the Canadian Federation of Labour, the Manitoba building trades; it takes in many of the independent unions, including the Nurses' Union and the Teachers' Society; it takes in federal Civil Service unions as well, who happen to ha ve some member s working in pro vincial jurisdictions, so it takes in the Public Service Alliance and PIPSC; we have CAIMAW at the table with us, traditionally a relationship that has not been what I would consider the strongest.

All of those groups, some of whom have considered themselves professionals, many of whom consider themselves blue-collar workers within the Civil Service, within the public sector and outside of the public sector are all in this coalition. It is very broad and they are all very concerned about the first step in the destruction of labour relations and, for lack of appropriate terms, what is better known from the U.S. as right-to-work legislation. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I want to go one step further, because the suggestion has been made by the Conservative government that

28 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANIT OBA July 9, 1991 somehow there are a lot of public sector workers out there who support this. I found it interesting earlier that we had a presentation from a 34-year employee of Manitoba Telephone System saying that in his area, out of 1 00 people-this is in Steinbach perhaps one person at most had indicated anything positive on this particular bill. As the head of this coalition, what is the message you are getting from the organizations that are represented In the 17 0,000 Manitobans? Are they for this bill in any way, shape or form, or are they opposed to it? Ms.

Hart-Kulbaba: They are absolutely opposed to it. They find that there is fear within some ranks about repercussions if they become public, so they are asking their representatives to take forward their message for them that they are opposed to this bill. They feel that there are other ways of being able to make funds accessible to pay them, and they just feel very unfairly treated and targeted by this government to shoulder the burden of the recession and the economy. Mr. Ashton: I want to ask a further question, too, in terms of the impact this is going to have on labour relations. I referenced this earlier.

We have had the second lowest strike rate in the country in this province traditionally because of the kind of labour legislation we have had and also the attitudes built up between employer and employee. What is your analysis of this government, using its majority, pushing through this bill? What is this going to do to labour relations in Manitoba? Ms. Hart-Kulbaba: It has already fractured it severely.

It is going to be a very, very long time, I think, before there is sufficient trust within the labour relations community, within labour management government relations to be able to come to some positive and progressive steps. We are seeing within the private sector already ramifications of this at the bargaining table. We are seeing zeros in profitable corporations coming up requesting that private sector workers now do their bit to help shoulder the economy. The government was saying it is time for public sector workers to do it because the private sector ones have already done the suffering.

It is going to be a downward spiral. Small business is going to take the heat and so are we, and we are not about to sit back and take it any more. Frankly, we cannot. When you have nothing left, you might as well fight. Mr. Ashton: Indeed, as

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-2-ir2
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 2nd hansardpdf ir2.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3417b7ed8301bf31dd6403f3287dfdea50b9f137

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