Manitoba Hansard — 26 July 2000 (Sitting 68, 37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-68

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session- Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hicke.� Speaker Vol. L No. 68 - 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, .July 26, 2000

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARRETT, Becky, lion. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Bon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FILMON, Gary FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LA THLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott STEFANSON, Eric STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. .. -. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Lac du Bonnet Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Ross mere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Kirkfield Park Dauphin-Roblin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C.

N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P.

4491 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, July 26, 2000 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Conrad Santos (Chairperson): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that the report of the Committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to table the following annual reports: The Manitoba Law Foundation Fourteenth Annual Report 19 99-2000; the Chief Medical Examiner's Report, The Fatality Inquiries Act, subsection 43( 1 ), Report for the Year 19 99. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table the Provincial Auditor's Report on Business Planning and Performance Measurement: An Assessment of Timelines of Implementation and Effectiveness of the Process in Departments, in accordance with the provisions of

section 13 of The Provincial Auditor's Act, for July 2000, as required by sections 52.27( 1) of The Legislative Assembly Act. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Minister of Education Conduct Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, last night in committee, as we had the opportunity to hear public representation on Bill 42 and changes that this government is hoping to implement, I saw something that I have never seen in the 14 years of being elected in this Legislature. I saw a minister of the Crown show total contempt and disrespect for one of the oldest organizations.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious issue, and I would hope that members of government would take it seriously. During the heat of debate in this Legislature and from time to time members on both sides of the House get somewhat exercised and we do take shots at each other. That is part of the political process, and we understand that.

But when members of the community, citizens of Manitoba come before our legislative committee, something we take great pride in, and make representation on a bill, many, many times sometimes they agree and sometimes they disagree with the direction that government is going, and that is their right under freedom of speech. They deserve to be treated with respect when they come to committee. It is a process for the people. It is not a process for the politician. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier whether he has reviewed the conduct of his Minister of Education (Mr.

Caldwell), and the arrogant and disrespectful attitude that he took, whether he has reviewed the actions of his Minister of Education and whether he condones those actions. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I was in Brandon last evening. I was not at the Committee. As I understand it, there were a number of presentations made by the members of the public, some obviously opposed to the measures and some in favour and some suggesting some changes.

4492 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 *( 13 :35) Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to respect the views of Manitobans and to respect the arguments in favour of a particular piece of legislation. I think it is important to note I was in Brandon yesterday making announcement about the Cornwallis municipality and expanding the treatment of the municipal tax transfers to military populations so that the Shilo community would not suffer an increase in taxes because of municipal tax-sharing issues. Mr.

Speaker, it is because this minister does care about the fundamental issue of education for our children, hope for our children, hope for Manitoba, that he has embarked on a strategy to train more young people by embarking on a strategy to double the number of people in community colleges, something that is long overdue. The Minister of Education has now introduced a reduction of tuition fees by I 0 percent. That is respecting our youth. We are working on the capital proposals for both the universities and the community colleges.

On the issue of property taxes for municipal taxpayers, this is the first time in the history of this province where we have had a I 0% increase in the municipal tax sharing with municipalities, an increase in education funding at the growth of the economy at 2.6 percent, and a reduction of property taxes through an increase in the property tax credit. That is respect for Manitobans. Apology Request Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): That is leadership at its worst, Mr. Speaker.

By that answer, it is clear that the Premier of Manitoba supports his Minister of Education in his abusive way of dealing with the public and presenters that come before committee. It was shameful. I am embarrassed as a member of this Legislature to have to be associated with that kind of activity by a member of the Crown. Mr. Speaker, will the Premier now stand and take some leadership and some ownership over his office and demand that the Minister of Education apologize to Manitobans and to MAST for his abhorrent behaviour last evening? Ron. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, we respect the right of the public to present its views at committee. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Committee worked into long hours last evening listening to people, particularly people, as I understand it, from rural Manitoba were given a preference in the sense that the Committee did not want the individuals to have to come back a second evening, which I think is appropriate. Certainly you will not find our members reading newspapers. I understand, I recall in- An Honourable Member: Said you were not there; how do you know, Gary?

Mr. Doer: I do not know exactly the tone of last night, but I can recall when members opposite took line employees that were presenting their views, average citizens that were presenting their views, and they were literally in tears at the Committee. I know you can have a feisty debate at committee. To disagree, honest disagreements in a democracy are respectful, if they are debated in a democracy. That is the height of respect when you have honest disagreements about policies, about laws, and you have the courage of your convictions to debate those issues. Mr.

Speaker, I recall a few years ago when not only was the whole Legislature shut down but we were not even allowed to speak on a matter of privilege. Even the separatists in the Parliament in Ottawa were allowed to speak on matters of privilege. We believe in a respectful debate in a committee, and I can assure members opposite that part of that respect is listening to what they say and dealing with those issues at the Committee. Resignation Request Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, again the Premier takes absolutely no leadership and

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4493 no responsibility for the kinds of actions and behaviour that his Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) has displayed to members of the public. I indicated earlier that from time to time in this Legislature we get into heated debate, and it is fair ball when members of this Legislature take each other on in a pretty aggressive way, but the Premier just does not get it. He is missing the point.

What the Minister of Education did last night was treat ordinary citizens, the people of Manitoba who wanted to present their views, they wanted the freedom to speak and present their point of view and the Minister of Education treated them with disrespect and in a very unprofessional manner. Even the Member for Brandon West (Mr.

Smith), who was on the Committee, was shaking his head in disdain at this Minister of Education. * (1 3:40) So I want to ask the Premier now whether he will ask his Minister of Education to step aside and whether he will find someone else within his caucus that can show respect to the citizens of Manitoba who deserve respect from all legislators. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I understand, and I think the key issue here is that other groups and organizations that may have a contrary view to the members that presented last evening, give comparable amount of time.

As I understand it, the Committee went-[interjection] Perhaps the Member opposite would show some respect in this Legislature and stop heckling and listen to the answers, Mr. Speaker. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a point of order. Point of Order Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I wish that you would call the Premier to order. The issue that we are discussing today is the issue- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind all honourable members, a point of order is a very serious matter.

The Honourable Interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a point of order. Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Beauchesne's 417 says: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." Mr. Speaker, the question that was asked was about respect for citizens, people within Manitoba that want to come before committee and have their views heard. They may agree or they may disagree with what the Government is doing.

From time to time, there were many presentations when we were in government that did not agree with the direction that government was taking. But people of Manitoba, through the public hearing process on legislation, have the fundamental right to be heard, and they have the fundamental right to be treated with respect by legislators of all political stripes. The question that has been asked of the Premier, and the question that he needs to answer is not a question that I need an answer to.

It is a question that the people of Manitoba need an answer to, law-abiding citizens that come forward to present their point of view. They do not want to be gagged, and they do not want to be intimidated by ministers of the Crown. Can the Premier please stand up and show some leadership and ensure Manitobans that they will not be treated as shabbily as his Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) has treated them? Mr. Speaker: The Honourable First Minister, on the same point of order. * (1 3:45) Mr. Doer: On the same point of order.

This acting Leader of the Opposition shows absolutely no regard for the rules of this Legislature when she is asking about the rules of the legislative committee. She totally abused a

4494 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 point of order, because she did not have one, Sir. She totally abused that to substitute, in my view, a rambling speech in the substitution of a question. It is quite in order for a member to put a question. It is quite in order for the Premier to respond to the question. It is also in order for the members opposite not to shout down the answers when we are trying to provide them. That is also part of our rules. The Member opposite does not have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Order.

On the point of order raised by the Honourable Interim Leader of the Official Opposition, she does not have a point of order because Manitoba practice has been to allow leaders latitude. I have allowed leaders latitude on both sides, and I will continue to allow leaders latitude unless I am given directions from both House leaders. * * * Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, the Committee went to four or five in the morning last night listening to Manitobans from different walks of life, from different beliefs. That, in my view, is part of the democratic process, which we respect.

As I understand it, the Committee went from presentations of 10 minutes to 15 minutes with questions from legislators to follow. That is certainly, as I recall some of the presentations from members opposite when they were in government, at least as generous if not more generous than in the past, and I think there is a fine line. [interjection] Well, listening to people until 4:30 in the morning is open. Cutting off people in this Legislature, as we had from members opposite, is closed and gagged government. That is the difference.

I know that people, when they present their views in committee, would like a lot of time, and I respect that. But when there are lots of people to present, some of whom have come a long way and would like to complete their presentations before the sun rises in the morning, I think there is a balance on a committee between allowing those presentations. As I understand it, the debate continues. MAST is spending taxpayers' money running ads. That is part of the debate. We respect that, their democratic right to spend taxpayers' money doing that. That is just part of the debate. Minister of Educ ation Conduct Mrs.

Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, a few short weeks ago, the Minister of Education said in this House, with respect to the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, and I quote: We have a tremendous relationship. We have a tre mendous respect for each other. After the events of last night in committee, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees was forced to release this press release. It said the behaviour of the Government members, the Minister, was petty and clearly intended to stifle discussion of this fundamentally flawed legis lation. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

I am having a very diffi cult time hearing the question. Order, please. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry, please put your question. Mrs. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the MAST news release says the behaviour of the Government members was petty and clearly intended- Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Govern ment House Leader, on a point of order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Member already posed I think two or three questions as a

preamble to her question and now is engaged in another one. I draw the attention of you and the Member to Beauchesne's Citation 409: It says a "question must be brief. A

preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence." Of course, that is a citation brought to the attention of the House by the Opposition House Leader earlier this session. * (13:50)

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4495 Also, Mr. Speaker, would you please remind the Member, and if she would please pay attention to the direction from you, you just directed her-[interjection] As I recall, you had just, in the last words that you issued, you directed the Member to put her question. I think it is regretful the Member did not pay attention, did not abide by your ruling. Would you please draw her attention to the need to put the question succinctly. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Could I please remind all honourable members again that a point of order is a very serious matter.

I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members. The Honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order. I clearly heard you in your comment on the previous, when the Member was shortened in her comments by you, Mr. Speaker, rising and saying you were having trouble hearing.

I am sure that is why the Member was attempting to just repeat the part that the House had not heard, and she was just quoting from the news release that MAST had to put out because of the gag order that was put upon them last night by the Committee and the gag order that the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) made a point of not listening and putting forward his views and disrespect towards MAST. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader, he does have a point of order. According to Beauchesne's Citation 409(2), a

preamble should not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. I would now like to ask the Honourable Member to please put her question. Mrs. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I ask this minister: Is his idea of having a tremendous respect for each other the idea of shutting down the Committee? If you do not agree with me, then I will get petty, shut you down, and scold you in public? Is this his idea of having respect for the Manitoba Association of School Trustees? Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, of course the Committee met yesterday from 6:30 p.m. until 4:20 in the morning, this morning, hardly shutting down debate. Ten hours, a very vigorous session. In fact, I am very proud of the fact that we got through more than 30 presenters last night, most of whom had to travel a great distance to come into Winnipeg to be able to present their views on this bill. We had a vigorous debate last night, Mr. Speaker, which is appropriate for a bill where strong opinions are held. The Committee met for in excess of 10 hours to discuss this matter.

Most of the people presenting were from outside of the city of Winnipeg. Of course, we are very sensitive to people travelling great distances. I have to commend some of the members opposite for spending time with those on this side of the House, for putting in some long, long hours last night. But we will have vigorous debate on this issue and other issues in the future. Public Schools Act Amendment s-Withdrawal Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that MAST's own news release does say the behaviour of the Government members was petty and clearly intended to stifle discussion of the fundamentally flawed legis lation in Bill 42, I would ask this minister: Would he not reconsider, withdraw the Bill, apologize to the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents and figure out some way of bringing both sides, the teachers and the trustees, together to make a more workable, liveable bill for Manitobans? Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, of course, you will note and know that I am a rookie in this House. I have been here for just a little over nine months, but one thing that has impressed me very much about the debate in this House, when we on this side have an issue of contention, is the fact that members opposite tend to ignore the issue and go after the Minister or the individual responsible, or their wives, on a personal attack basis. It is a consistent feature, in fact, of members opposite's tact on this issue. I am pleased to debate the issues revolving around this bill or any bill that we may have on

4496 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 the Government side of the House. I am very pleased to discuss the issues. Members opposite tend not to tread there. I understand why. I note the absence of former ministers of education across the Chamber. There is a reason, Mr. Speaker, why educators in the province of Manitoba have a degree of respect for members on this side of the House, because we place education at the centre of our policy. * (13:55 ) Minister of Education Relations with Stakeholders Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Minister: How can he intend to work with the Manitoba Association of School Trustees after shutting them down so abruptly last night and work with the teachers to enable them, the two sides, to get a common ground to enable them to work together? The teachers have to work with the trustees on a daily basis. After last night's events, I would like the Minister to explain how this is going to happen. Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Of course, the relations between the Department of Education and other stakeholders in the field are very important.

We have made it a practice of seeking advice broadly in developing policy with educators, with trustees, with parents, with children, with other stakeholders. We will continue to do so. We will continue to have disagreements from time to time, but the overriding concern of all stakeholders in the public education system, trustees, teachers, parents, children, is the best interests of children, the best educational interests of the province of Manitoba. And that fact unites us all and will continue to unite all people concerned about public education in this province. Public Schools Act Amendm ents-Withdrawal Mr.

Ron Schuler (Springfield): Last night at committee on Bill 42, there was a unanimous or partial unanimous consensus that Bill 42 either be withdrawn or delayed. The Interlake presentation: Here today in the middle of the summer only reinforces the notion that this government is willing to conduct discussions of important public policy away from the glare of public scrutiny. Will the Minister of Education do what is best for the children of Manitoba and either withdraw or delay Bill 42? Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Edu cation and Training): Of course, Mr.

Speaker, we on this side of the House frame a great many of our principles around educational excellence in the province of Manitoba. We will continue to do so. We see education as being central to economic growth in this province. We see education as being central to the health of this province, to good citizenship in this province. We will continue to work toward that. Our direction will be driven by placing the best interests of children first, in education and in every issue in this department. Mr.

Schuler: I ask the Minister of Education: Did he hear the presentation from Morden last night that said: For the sake of our students, our public schools and our community, do not pass Bill 42? Will the Minister of Education do what is best for our children here in Manitoba and either withdraw or delay Bill 42? Mr. Caldwell: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we in the Committee and on this side of the House listened to all the presentations. There was a very good balance- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Caldwell: There were upward of 30 pre senters last night.

There were very balanced views presented on all perspectives on this particular issue. We listened to all the repre sentations with respect. We challenged, as we should challenge in important pieces of legislation, to get facts from the public, and we will continue to do so. * (14:00) Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Education again: Did he hear the presentation

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4497 from Dauphin which said: The education of our students is too important to jeopardize by moving too quickly to meet a political agenda? Will the Minister of Education do what is best for the children of Manitoba and either withdraw or delay Bill 42, which is in the best interests of our children? Mr. Caldwell: Of course, Mr. Speaker, this issue has been around since 1996 when the former government imposed the ill-conceived Bill 72. This seeks to redress that ill-conceived legislation. It is not a new issue.

It has nothing to do with anything but a commitment to children, a commitment to providing the best oppor tunities for children in the province of Manitoba to have the best possible learning environment. Minister of Education Apology Request Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): My question is not related to the content of the presentations last night, but what I witnessed last evening was an embarrassing moment for not only myself as a member of this Legislature but indeed for all members of this Legislature.

I listened to it until such time that I had to interject with a point of order, even though I knew it was not a point of order, just to save some embarrassment for the Minister of Education and also for the members of this Assembly. Mr. Speaker, last evening, after MAST was cut off in their presentation, the Minister of Education- Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could canvass the Member to determine if he came here today with a question or is he going to continue with endless

preambles. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Russell, on the same point of order. Mr. Derkach: I would try to condense this as quickly as I could, and I do have a question. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader, he does have a point of order. Beauchesne's Citation 409(2): A

preamble should not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. * * * Mr. Speaker: I would ask the Honourable Member for Russell to please put his question. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Education a very pointed question. Is he prepared to apologize to the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, who represent thousands of taxpayers in the province of Manitoba and who yesterday were admonished by the Minister of Education time and time and time again when they tried to present their position to the Committee that was listening to Bill 42? Hon.

Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Of course, Mr. Speaker, a committee hearing, a legislative committee hearing, having people making presentations to the Province of Manitoba, there were many presenters who feel strongly on one side of the issue or the other side of the issue. That is democracy. We sat last night, or this morning, until 4:20 this morning. It was a very long evening, I think a very thoughtful and thought provoking evening in terms of the advice that was given to government on this particular matter.

I think it is important to note though that legislative hearings are opportunities in which to put on the record and challenge assumptions and challenge individual views, both government side and from organizations, and that is what we will continue to do. Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I want to ask the Premier of this province whether he is prepared to review Hansard and to review the arrogant comments of his minister with regard to the MAST presentation, and whether he, as Premier of this province, will apologize to a very important organization in our province, an organization that his government is going to have to work with for the next four years. Will he do the honourable thing?

4498 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the question was would I read Hansard, and of course I will. It is important to read the views of the public that present their opinions to the Committee, and I think that is an important part of our legislative debate. So the answer to the question is yes. I think it is important when one is dealing with the disagreements between an organization and the Government to understand that the organization has its responsibilities to its membership, and we respect that. The teachers will be presenting tonight, as I understand it.

We will respect that, and there should be equity and time for presentations. I would urge the Committee members to have that kind of equity. MAST is made up of a central office, which presented its views. It is made up of constituent parts, which presented its views. The Teachers' Society is made up of teachers, of a central organization, of other organizations in their organizational structure. It is not a one dimensional presentation. There were school divisions that are members of MAST presenting their views, as I understand it, last night.

We know that some of the changes that go back to the laws that were in Manitoba from 1956 to 1996, we believe will be balanced. When we look at the firefighters arbitration or the police arbitration or the arbitration passed by Duff Roblin under The Civil Service Act, none of those acts that provide for the arbitration are as restrictive as even the act that we are presenting today on behalf of students, parents, teachers and trustees. We also have a disagreement with trustees in looking at the amalgamation of school divisions.

There is a very heated argument about the status quo of school divisions versus amalgamation. We have had really positive experience with the Norwood School Division amalgamating with St. Boniface. MAST does not agree with the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) calling on voluntary reviews of school divisions. We believe that voluntary reviews of school divisions is a necessary first step. The bottom line, Mr.

Speaker, property taxes through the property tax credit, the increased funding, more funding, than members opposite made for six years, plus the municipal tax transfers announced yesterday, it is good news for property taxpayers, and therefore good news for all of Manitobans. Conduct Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): The issue is not disagreement. The issue is the way we treat the public. I want to ask the Premier what he has to say to MAST, who in their news release have said, and I quote: Then the Minister of Education and Training (Mr.

Caldwell) monopolized the few minutes allowed for questions with several aggressive queries that were not related to the content of Bill 42. And, Mr. Speaker, he said the behaviour of the Government members was petty, clearly intended to stifle discussion of this fundamentally flawed legislation. What does this Premier have to say to the Manitoba Association of School Trustees about the attitude of his minister? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, again, as I understand it, the presentations were 15 minutes long last night and 5 minutes for questions and answers.

I am trying to recall [interjection} Well, members of the public, I know-I have been in tens of tens of committees where members of the public wanted to have more time than the Committee allocated for them to present their views. I can recall that members opposite always tried to balance off-and as I recall it was even less time than 15 minutes, it was I 0-the desires of organizations to present their views to the legislative committee with the other people that wanted to present to the Committee before five or six in the morning.

I think the fact that the Committee heard views from rural Manitoba up till 4:30 or so in the morning was an open process. MAST was very pleased with the Bill that was passed in 1996 by the former government, and the teachers were not. We are trying to rebalance that effort. Some of the sections in the Act-

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4499 Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. * (14: 10) Mr. Doer: Some of the sections of the Act on ability to pay have been there since 1956 to 1996. This is not new territory for trustees, parents, teachers and the people of Manitoba. A couple of months ago when MAST proposed to go to strike and lockout, this government rejected it. The Member opposite should be very careful. I have a report that was given to him in August 1999 dealing with southwest Manitoba, and he kept it from the people of southwest Manitoba.

We need no lectures from the Member opposite. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Member for Russell, on a point of order. Point of Order Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, the Premier clearly pointed at me when he said there was a report that I sat on. I ask him to table that report. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable First Minister, on the same point of order. Mr. Doer: Yes, on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I released the report, that the Minister covered up, yesterday in the community of Melita.

I thought it was kind of ironic on this point of order where he was tub thumping his desk and talking about how concerned he was that a report was given to the Honourable Len Derkach and the Honourable Merv Tweed on August 18, 1999, dealing with southwest Manitoba, the rural task force, and he sat on it. Yes, I will give him a copy of the report. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want points of order to tum into debates. I have heard once from the Honourable Member for Russell.

If you have new information pertaining to a point of order, I will hear you, but I do not want this to tum into a debate. The Honourable Member for Russell, on the same point of order. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, this is new infor mation. If the Premier is an honourable member, which he is, he will admit that indeed the election was called on the 17th of August and indeed that that report was tabled during the writ period of the election. An Honourable Member: On the same point of order. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind all members that points of order should not tum into debates.

I have heard for the second time from the Honourable Member for Russell. I will hear from the First Minister for a second time if it is on new information pertaining to the same point of order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the transition of the Government did not take place till October 5, 1999. Many items were released during the election campaign, including a special warrant for agricultural spending. Members opposite had a choice, and they chose to cover up this report. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

Before I make a ruling on the point of order, I would just like to remind all honourable members of the purpose of points of order. A point of order is to be used to draw to the Speaker's attention any departure from the rules or practices of the House or to raise con cerns about unparliamentary language. A point of order should not be used to ask a question, to dispute the accuracy of facts, to clarify remarks which have been misquoted or misunderstood, to move a motion, to raise a point of order on a point of order. I would just like to remind all honourable members.

On the point of order raised by the Honourable Member for Russell, he does not have a point of order. According to Rule 37, the Premier did not quote from the report nor did he indicate that it was a private letter, so he is not

4500 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 required to table it. He can table it if he chooses to, and which he said he would, so that should take care of the point of order. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Premier's Comments Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of this House for being patient in the interruption of the proceedings of this House to raise this matter of privilege.

I do not think any member on either side of the House could tolerate the Premier of this province standing up and accusing a member, on Hansard, of a cover-up of an issue which is, to be honest with you, very deceitful. If that is an unpar liamentary word, I would withdraw it, but I do not have the word to substitute that with. Nevertheless, it is not a very good way for a Premier to conduct himself in this House. A Premier should be statesmanlike.

When a Premier accuses another member of this House of a cover-up when he knows full well that the report that he has in his hand, I believe, was dated August 16, when the election was called a day later, he knows that there was no time for any government to be able to digest the information that was in that report and then to be able to act on it. If anybody had the opportunity to act on it, it should have been the new government that took office last September and the new minister who took over that report. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Derkach: Mr.

Speaker, we go through a lot in this House. Sometimes we shout to one another across the way here comments that we sometimes find funny, but that is part of the debate. We do not stand in our place and accuse other members when we know better. We do not stand up in this House to try to deflect from one issue by accusing a member falsely of something that we know is not true. You cannot do that. It is uncalled for, and certainly it is not becoming of a leader of a party, certainly not the Premier (Mr. Doer) of our province. This is the First Minister. This is not somebody who has no experience in this House.

This is not somebody who has not been through many incidents in this House. I am totally surprised and astonished that the Premier would stoop to that level to be able to call somebody indicating that was a deliberate cover-up. The Premier knows full well that was not. Let him take a look at the date on that document. I ask him to take a look at the date. I have the document here, and it is clear that it was brought forward to the Minister's office on the 16th of August.

I do not even know if it was brought into my office on that day or whether it was brought in several days later, but there was no time for cabinet, there was no time for the Minister, there was no time for the Department to be able to take a look at this report and then to act on it within that period of time. If anyone had the opportunity to be able to act on that report within the last I 0 months, it would have been this government. I am surprised, I am astonished that the Premier did not know the existence of this document until he went to southwest Manitoba yesterday. It just shows you, Mr.

Speaker, really, how aware this government is of what goes on in this province and in the rural part of Manitoba. I think that the Premier should be apologizing to this House and to Manitobans and to south western Manitoba about the fact that they have a report that he has not acted upon, and he has not instructed his minister to act on it either. * (14:20) This is the first time in I 4 years, I believe, that I have stood on a matter of privilege. I do not do it lightly. It is certainly not something I am comfortable with.

It is not something that I would do every day, but I have never accused a member of the Opposition, a member of the Government, of deliberately covering up some thing, Mr. Speaker, which I had in my hand. That is not the way that I treat members of this Assembly. It is not the way I treat members of government. Mr. Speaker, I know that I could go on for a long time in this regard, but I think it suffice to say that I believe the Premier has erred. I believe

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4501 the Premier has made a mistake. And I think if the Premier thinks twice about this and looks at that document, rather than simply being crassly political, he will take a look at this document and say, well, perhaps I was a little too abrupt and made an error. If he wants to wave that document in front of us and say you did not act on this document, then we could have that debate. I am prepared for that debate, Mr. Speaker.

To be honest with you, when I look at that report, there are good suggestions in that report, and I am surprised that the Government has not really taken it and taken some of those suggestions, perhaps, and worked them into their plan. But for him to stand up in this House and say that the former Minister of Rural Development, the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism deliberately covered up a document is not becoming of the Premier of this province. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for St. Norbert (Mr.

Laurendeau), that the Premier of this province did break the privileges of this member of the House by accusing me as a member for the constituency of Russell for covering up a particular report when such a report was delivered during the election period, and that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for the Committee's consideration. Mr.

Speaker: Before recognizing any other members to speak, I would remind the House that contributions at this time by honourable members are limited to strictly relevant com ments as to whether an alleged matter of privilege has been raised at the earliest oppor tunity and whether a prima facie case has been established. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Rising on the point of privilege the Member opposite raised, Mr. Speaker, one recalls Shakespearean language when he "doth protest too much" in terms of the debate in this House, in terms of his privileges.

I think similar language has been used by members opposite liberally throughout debate and questions in this Question Period. Mr. Speaker, the original defence of the Member opposite was this was released after the election was called. An Honourable Member: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just like to remind the Honourable Official Opposition House Leader (Mr. Laurendeau), you cannot interrupt a matter of privilege with a point of order until after the Member has spoken, then you can raise your point of order. An Honourable Member: Mr.

Speaker, he is the one who is breaking the rules by not speaking to- Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I will hear the matter, the matter of the point of order, after we have dealt with the matter of privilege. The matter of privilege takes precedence over any other matter. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I think if you review and peruse Hansard, you will find that the term has been used on a number of occasions by members opposite in the debate. If the term is ruled unparliamentary by you, we respect that.

The only term that has been used in the debate for the last hour that I recall being ruled unparliamentary was a word that was used by the Member opposite in terms of "deceitful," which you, I believe, have ruled on. In raising a point of privilege and being concerned about the individual's rights, he uses words that have been ruled unparliamentary in the past. The issue of this report, I think, is very important because three weeks ago the southwestern Manitoba coalition asked us to release the report even though they recognized that this report was prepared by Mr.

Rose, as an individual MLA, and given to the previous government. When we were informed or I was asked to release the report because they felt, the community felt, the southwestern Manitoba people felt, that they had presented their views to the former government, a report was prepared and the former government had a report, they asked us to find this report and release this report.

4502 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 That request was made to us three weeks ago. We returned to the community of Melita yesterday and released that report. I regret that members opposite- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The Official Opposition House Leader will have the opportunity to challenge the Speaker after I hear the matter of privilege. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: We may not have agreed with the Member opposite on his point of privilege, but we did have the respect to listen to him.

Responding to the point of order, the report was available, written by a former government caucus member, to the former government cabinet. We had to go back and investigate the ability of a new government then to release a report after the community coalition group met with us. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that members opposite had the opportunity from August 16 to October 5 to release a report that was prepared for them by one of their MLAs. I know members opposite are embarrassed that they did not release the report, but being embarrassed is not a point of privilege. Mr.

Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): I will go by the rules, the rules which you laid out previous to the Premier getting up. Mr. Speaker, a matter of privilege. Members sometimes raise so-called questions of privilege on matters which should be dealt with as a personal explanation or correction. That is what the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) has done. A question of privilege ought to rarely come up in this Legislature. It should be dealt with by a motion, given the House's powers to impose reparation and apply a remedy, which has been done by the Member for Russell.

There are privileges of the House, as well of members individually. Wilful disobedience to orders and rules of parliament in the exercise of its constitutional functions, insults or obstruc tions during debate are breaches of the privileges of the House-that is the issue which we are speaking to today. The Member's privileges have been obstructed when this Premier, this First Minister gets up in the House and says there was a cover-up by the Member for Russell. That is the reason this member has a privilege. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, Beauchesne's clearly says that the privileges of parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers. They are enjoyed by individual members because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to discern where in the motion and the presentation by the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) there can possibly be a matter of privilege raised.

Beauchesne's Citation 31 reminds us that "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." Further, in our own rules, it is important to note, as the Opposition House Leader noted and made the case, I would urge, that members sometimes raise so-called questions of privilege on matters which should be dealt with as a personal explanation or correction, either in the debates or the proceedings of the House.

It goes on to say "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the con ditions of parliamentary privilege," and that is again set out from Beauchesne's. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Russell may feel sensitive and embarrassed by the matter that is raised by the Premier (Mr. Doer), but that does not fulfill the conditions for parliamentary privilege. So the matter of raising it at the earliest opportunity, of course, is not at issue. What is at issue here, this in no way is a prima facie matter of privilege. Mr.

Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Matters of privilege are in fact very, very important. As

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4503 members of this Assembly, we all have the right to be treated with respect by each other, which I admit from time to time gets stretched to limits, but we also have the right not to be falsely accused, certainly by someone as powerful as the First Minister about wrongful acts such as cover-ups of documents. If the First Minister wanted to challenge the reasoning around the timing of this report, if he wanted to debate whether or not the former ministers could have released it during an election or so, yes, he could have discussed that.

But this First Minister chose to use the word "cover-up." He chose to use a word with all its implications that the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) had done something illegal, that he had covered up some act for some terrible purpose. That is the implication of the comments of the First Minister. He made them because he was not able to defend the acts of his own minister last night in committee. Mr. Speaker, we all know that when a writ of election is issued the circumstances around the operation of government change.

If the incumbent government is not returned on the day of polling, the powers of that government, again, not by law, but by convention, out of respect for an incoming administration, change again. Now the Premier (Mr. Doer) got up with the clear implication that the Member for Russell, as a member of the Executive Council, had received a report and had made a deliberate decision not to release it, to cover it up in some way. He talked about dates. First of all, the writ of election was issued, I believe it has been said, on the 17th of August of last year, if I am not mistaken.

The Premier says that the report is dated the 16th. * (14:30) Again, this really begs some questions about the way this Premier operates, because if he has the report he will have the letter of committal that came with it. Do you know what date that letter says? It is dated the 18th of August. So it really begs the logical question: Why would this First Minister, if he was intending to be accurate in his accusations, not have referred to the date of the committal letter on the 18th of August? Surely it was available to him.

I table it now, and because I have one copy I would ask if the pages could make the necessary copies and return one to me, as well. So the letter of committal, which the First Minister obviously had available to him because he had the report, is dated the 18th of August. Yet this First Minister could not be accurate for the people of Manitoba and raise that point. Oh no, he had to deliberately ignore it and leave the implication and imply that the minister had received it the day before the writ.

Well, there are some words that are unparliamentary that one could use, but I will choose to use a parliamentary term that it was less than accurate. In fact, I would even suggest the Premier may deliberately have wanted to be less than accurate. Now this Premier is no neophyte to politics. He served in cabinet and he served in cabinet during a period where, as a sitting cabinet minister, he went into a writ of election, one in fact where that government that he was a part had lost the moral ability to govern because they had been defeated on their budget.

He knows full well that when a writ is dropped, we, as MLAs, have to go back to our constituencies to contest that election. So, first of all, a report arrives in a minister's office the day after the writ; the Minister is off to his constituency. It has to be received and logged. The chances of it even being brought to his attention at that particular time were minimal at best. The Premier also knows that a report such as this requires consideration by the Executive Council and the Cabinet of the Province. If I remember correctly, during a writ period cabinets meet rarely.

They meet rarely, and it is usually only to deal with the routine matters to have government carry on during the writ period, and for a very good reason. Because you are in an election period, the expectation is you will not make major policy decisions in cabinet during that period until the electors, the voters of the province have had their opportunity to cast judgment. So, whether or not the Minister even knew it was there during the election period, the Premier offers no proof, no evidence to support his

4504 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 accusation, knowing full well how the process works. Mr. Speaker, on election day, the party of which I and the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) were a part did not win a majority. The Premier's party received the majority. You know, the Premier should be fully aware that at the moment it became evident that his party would secure a majority in this House, that our ability to govern, our moral right to make anything more than day-to-day operating housekeeping decisions was gone. In fact, by the next morning, his own transition team, headed by Mr.

Schroeder and Mr. Kostyra, were already taking over the operations of government. They were already meeting with deputy ministers. They were asking for briefing books. They were asking for updates on issues. When he met with the former and outgoing Premier, they discussed the transition, knowing full well that every decision that would be put to cabinet in the two weeks before he assumed power, would be vetted by his transition team and that the ability of that Executive Council to do anything more than what was requested or allowed by his transition team was no more.

So here we have a report by its own letter of transmission, Mr. Speaker, indicates that there are still some issues to be worked out, there is not a financial number around it. All of which this First Minister knew and had available to him before he made his accusation. All of those things, there was no ability or power to deal with that particular report. So to get up in this House and accuse the Member for Russell of deliberately covering up this report, that somehow he has breached some rules or laws in doing so, is just outrageous.

It is a challe nge to his honour and integrity as a member of this House, and if the First Minister had any honour himself, he would apologize. It is certainly right to debate whether or not it could have been discussed in the ele ction or put forward. But to imply that the Minister covered it up when his ability to do anything with that report was impaired by the fact we were in an election and then had lost the election is certainly wrong.

If we, as members of this Legislative Assembly, can be subject to having those types of accusations made by the First Minister or any other member, where they are not substantiated, in the circumstances that were made, then it is a sad day for this Legislative Assembly. We would ask that you take this matter under advisement and we would ask that, should you rule in favour of this motion, it go to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

But what is very interesting about this whole matter, what is very interesting is the First Minister who, under attack today, unable to defend a minister who has for the first time in this Legislature, made a major interest group that he must work with so angry that they would issue a press release calling him and his coll eagues petty. To defend him, he lashes out against another honourable member and yet nowhere, nowhere here did he explain why, since the 5th of October, he and his Minister of Intergovern mental Affairs (Ms.

Friesen) have done nothing with that report, nor does he offer explanation why his government still refuses to provide disaster relief to the people of that area, why he leaves them out in the cold. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this. Mr. Ha rry Enns (Lakeside): Mr.

Speaker, just very briefly in support of my colleague's matter of privilege, I am just shocked that, in view of the record of this government about dealing with the outstanding issues of the greatest natural disaster that the southwestern part of this province has suffered, namely the flood, they would use this particular document for a little bit of political gamesmanship here in the House. Mr. Speaker, in August, the former govern ment, the Government that was defeated a few weeks later on September 21, was busy handing out $55-million worth of cheques to those farmers.

This report that was given to this incoming government talks about setting up a modest $4.5-mi lli on business start-up fund with the then-Minister of Industry and the Minister of Rural Devel opment. This report speaks of unfinished business. This government has done nothing, as the Member for Lac du Bonnet said about that, since they assumed office other than hold up and deflect and point the finger at

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4505 Ottawa,

whereas there are certain issues that they could be doing right now. Instead, the document is used in a very petty political gamesmanship playing here in this House, and it does constitute in my opinion a most legitimate matter of grievance as indicated by the Member for Russell. Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I rise in support of the motion of a matter of privilege because, first of all, I find it absolutely astounding that the Premier yesterday would tour or so-called tour part of southwestern Manitoba, and he was on CJOB yesterday indicating that he had met with many farmers.

We know how many farmers he met with because, had it not been for the local member, Mr. Maguire, for that area to organize some farmers to get together to meet with Mr. Doer, there would have been no meeting. We know that. Then he had the audacity to say that there were increased benefits under crop insurance. If the Premier had studied his own Crop Insurance Program he would have told the people: Our Crop Insurance Program for this year is substantively less than it has been until now because of the reduced commodity prices and the basis that the crop insurance coverage is calculated.

That would have been honest. But what I find most astounding is that this Premier will try and put off a report and try and accuse my colleague for trying to hide a report when in fact the report was tabled by our former colleague, who is now since deceased and is not able to defend himself and the author of this report and accusing our colleague from Russell for trying to hide this document when in fact they were the Government; the Premier (Mr. Doer) was elected as Premier of this province a month after this document was reported and not tabled even in this House, this report.

This report identifies clearly what we have been saying in this House constantly. This side of the House has said constantly to the Premier that the business community needs some recognition. They need the same compensation that the business community in the Red River Valley received, the same recognition that we gave to people in the Swan River area when they were flooded, the same recognition that we gave to the people in the Interlake. Yet this Premier has done nothing, and he has sat on this. He was the one that sat on this report because he did not want the people of Manitoba to know what this report said.

This report clearly identifies that there should be $4.5 million spent through Manitoba Education and Training, Human Resource development, who should be partners, and it should be targeted toward business. It should be targeted toward employment within those businesses. It should be targeted toward an interest rate relief program, which would have cost $3. 5 million. It should have been targeted toward property tax relief for those businesses that had a severe decline in their business, and that would have cost a half a million dollars.

This is clearly an indication by the Premier of this province as to how little regard he has for the people who suffered in the southwest part of this province and the business community and all those employed in those businesses and how little regard he has had for the farm community that has seen millions and millions of dollars in losses. Many of those farmers were not even able to put a crop in this year. So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Member to rise today and question the Premier's motives.

We all, on this side of the House, truly are saddened by the tactics that this Premier has demonstrated in this House today, a total disregard for the people of Manitoba and a lesser regard even for those people that suffered in the southwest. I think the tour that he took yesterday was nothing more than a fa():ade to try and gain some media. I think that this should clearly be reflected. An Honourable Member: Point of order. * (14 :40) Mr. Speaker: I cannot hear a point of order.

The Honourable Member for River Heights-before I recognize the Honourable Member, I would remind all honourable members I think I have probably heard sufficient argument. If the Honourable Member is rising because he feels that there is some point that has not been touched upon, I will hear him very briefly. But I think we should move on.

4506 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I rise to speak briefly because I think, from the centre position which I hold, neither one side nor the other, I can provide a view with some level of independence. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the issues here are: Was this raised at the first possible time that it could have been raised? I think here there can be no argument. Yes, it was raised at the first time that the issue had been raised. The second point: Is this a matter of a serious nature that should be referred?

In this circumstance, clearly the circumstances around southwestern Manitoba and what has been done or has not been done are clearly some of the most serious issues that have been debated in this Chamber within the last year. So, without question, we are dealing with a very serious matter. Now I have listened and there are charges and counter-charges. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the issue here is not who is correct but whether the charges are of such a significant and potentially serious nature that they should be looked at by the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

It would seem to me that there is significant complexity and potential seriousness here that that would be appropriate. I mean, it is not easy to judge immediately of what should or should not be released during an election, what appropriate action was or was not taken, but those time lines were. So I would, in this case, support a motion to take this to the Committee on Privileges and Elections so it can be looked at with some care and with some consideration rather than debate it in the heat of the moment here. Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I have probably heard sufficient argument on this matter of privilege.

If the Honourable Member is rising because he feels that there is some point that has not been touched upon, I will hear him very briefly, but I really think we should be moving on. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Highways and Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I think it is very important to note that if this had been a matter of order, I think there could have been some debate. The word "cover- up" appears on both lists, both parliamentary and unparliamentary, obviously depending on the particular circumstances.

In fact, if you look at Beauchesne's Citation 31, subsection (1 ), I think probably best describes what we have here, which is a disagreement over the facts. I would also point out that I believe the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns), who is more experienced in this House than I am, probably used another phrase that could be used, the mechanism to describe this kind of dispute, and that is a grievance. But having raised grie vances-and by the way, Mr. Speaker, I am always glad when we can debate privilege matters in this House fully and openly-I would suggest it does not meet the prima facie case.

A matter of order perhaps. You would then make a ruling on that. It might be the subject of a grievance, but I do not believe it is a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, I will recognize if he has some point that has not been touched. Mr. Glen Cum mings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a serious matter, and as the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) said, it is the first time in 14 years that I have risen on a matter of privilege in this House. I consider what has happened here today, and the reason I want to speak to it, as an ongoing situation.

It was referenced earlier, but it seems to me that there has been given a serious development of planning into the situation that we now find ourselves facing. First of all, there was the disagreement that arose in the House the night before last about whether or not pairs were being legitimately asked for, for a tour of the southwest. Then, behold, later in the day, I heard the Premier (Mr. Doer) on the radio saying that he had released a report, much to the pleasure of the people of the southwest, which the previous government had been suppressing, I believe was the word he used.

Now, he comes into the House and he accuses my colleague of a cover-up. It follows on the same line of thinking. It tells me that there may well, and I know you are going to rule the word "deliberate" out of order, so I will choose my words more

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 45 07 carefully, but it does to me represent actions that have followed one upon another, either accidentally or with very serious intent. That now causes me and others in this House, who have never used our opportunity to speak on a matter of privilege, to rise today and bring to your attention that this Premier needs to be called before the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Mr. Speaker: I think I have probably heard sufficient argument. The Honourable Member for Wellington (Mr.

Santos), if you have new information dealing with the prima facie case of this privilege. Mr. Conrad Santos (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, a matter of privilege concerns obstruction of the rights of a member or the rights of the Legislature. The issue now before us is whether the two essential conditions are satisfied or not. Is the matter raised at the earliest opportunity? is the first condition. The second condition: Is there prima facie or sufficient evidence of the alleged breach of privilege? Unless these two conditions are satisfied, we cannot proceed debating this endlessly. That is the point I want to make.

Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Minnedosa, with new information? Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Yes, Mr. Speaker. During the Premier's (Mr. Doer) response to this issue, and it is a very important issue, he was trying to make the point that the Government was still active during the writ period and the period immediately after. One of the examples that he used was that a special warrant was passed.

This, in fact, is true, but he also knows it to be true that the special warrant consisted of expenditures that were taken to the transition team and taken to him for his approval and the transition team's approval before cabinet passed that special warrant during the time after the election and before he took office. I would like him to recognize that, that this was a legitimate act of government, expenditures that had to flow.

I do not remember who was on his transition team, but I know that the Clerk of the Executive Council at the time ran all of the details of that special warrant past the transition team and presumably past the Premier-in waiting. It was approved. It was approved by them, and thus the special warrant was passed. So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, using that as an argument that the Government was still active during that period before the swearing in is partially true.

It is partially true in that some of these activities had to go on, but all of them, virtually all of them, I believe all of them, were run past the transition team, and the Premier I think should acknowledge that. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, do you feel like there is some point that has not been touched upon? Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. I will make my comments very brief, but I just want to raise the issue of the fact that the Member for Russell (Mr.

Derkach) and myself were both mentioned in the Premier's allegations, and I would say they are allegations. I think I am not the world's best rule-maker nor understanding of the rules. I have had to apologize for things I have said in this House before, and I have stood and done it because I recognized that what I had done was wrong. I think for the Premier to make the allegation today on anybody, that a cover-up was ever meant or ever placed or ever thought of is absolutely shameful.

I think it casts aspersions upon all members of this House, and I would ask him to reconsider and withdraw those remarks, because I think he has insulted and hurt all MLAs and probably all politicians in Manitoba with the net that he has cast. * (14:50) With that, Mr. Speaker, I am offended by those remarks. I can assure him and I will assure all Manitobans that there was never talk of a cover-up; there was never talk of anything but doing what was right for the people of southwest Manitoba. Mr. Speaker: A matter of privilege is a serious concern.

I am going to take this matter under advisement to consult the authorities and return to the House with a ruling.

4508 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 Are there points of orders? Some Honourable Members: No. * * * Mr. Speaker: We will revert back to Oral Questions. The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, with his first supplementary question. Standing Comm ittees Public Presentations Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): No, Mr. Speaker, I think it is my first question. If you check the record, you will discover I have not- Mr. Speaker: It is the first question. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First Minister, and I want to get back to the issue of what happened in committee last night. Mr.

Speaker, the First Minister sets a tone for a government and administration in the way it interacts with its citizens, and I would like to ask the First Minister if he is prepared, even privately, to seek the advice of the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who served as his House Leader for many years and always advised government particularly to not sit past twelve o'clock, that it was not conducive to good public hearings, that on some occasions to waive the fifteen-minute rule to allow larger groups to finish reading the three pages of their report.

I would ask the First Minister, given that he is setting a tone for the future of his government, if he will consult with the Member for Thompson and accept the advice of the Member for Thompson that I learned as a Government House Leader was good advice and how we tried to operate our committees in our latter years for the productive use of those committees. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I am glad the Member opposite used the term "latter years," and we will have to check the latter years after September 21, 1999, in terms of committee meetings. I think it is an important issue.

I consult with all members of our caucus, and I know that any committee of the Legislature is made up of all members ofthe Legislature. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the speaking time was expanded by members of the Committee. I also understand that I am one of these people that believe that trying to amend legislation at four or five in the morning is perhaps not the best practice, but trying to accommodate people who have come in, particularly from rural communities so that they do not have to come in twice, is a good idea. That is what we tried to do.

If it meant sitting in opposition until late in the evening so people that have come long distances with sincere feelings, personally speaking, I would rather stay a couple of extra hours, even if it was four in the morning rather than come back a second time. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, a number of people were given the choice, I think, to present last night. They chose to exercise that right. Those who chose not to exercise that right are choosing to come back this evening. I believe we are starting at 6:30 . So, yes, I think we have to listen to Manitobans.

We have to listen to each other and we have to listen to all members of our Government caucus, including our House Leader and our Deputy House Leader. I think how we are trying to proceed is we are dealing with a shortened calendar in the sense that when the Government changed over last October, we have tried to restrict the bills. I think we are under 50, even though we have a lot more that we think are in the public interest and the issue of the public presentations I think it is important.

I do not believe we should try to amend legislation at three or four in the morning because those are the rules under which we have to live, but I think listening to people and giving them the right to come back I think makes sense. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, the Premier's words seem to be lost on his backbenchers. I have to ask him then: Would he condone what happened in committee this morning where a presenter came all the way from Montreal on the railway bill, his own minister was prepared to give him leave for more than I 0 minutes, his back benchers cut him off? Does he condone the Minister of Labour (Ms.

Barrett), who last night said, with reference to the head of the Manitoba Teachers' Society,

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4509 "shut her down" because she disagrees with her? Is this what this First Minister condones? Mr. Doer: No. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier says no and really means it, will he then commit to this House today to discuss with his back berichers and make a commitment on the part of the party he leads that they will no longer sit committee past midnight, they will allow a certain leniency in presentations beyond 10 or 15 minutes?

Will he commit to do exactly what he suggested a few minutes ago, to have those meaningful hearings and not shut down people as his own backbenchers have done now on several occasions in the last few days? * (15:00) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I will peruse Hansard to see last evening if in fact the situation was as I understand it, where people that came from distances, particularly outside Winnipeg, were given the choice to present last evening as opposed to coming back.

That is the kind of flexibility I think people from outside of the city of Winnipeg would want to see. As I understand it. that is a common-sense way of dealing with it. Personally, if I was presenting our views in another forum, I would prefer, for example, a committee in Ottawa, I would prefer to stay out late, late, late, late at night to try to deal with the matter rather than having to come back a second or third time and being away from my family. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, that is the way in which the Committee operated last evening.

You know, I will respect the Speaker's ruling on the matter of privilege. I respect the views of all members on the motion of privilege just a few moments ago. But I hark back to the days when we wanted to stand on a point of privilege on the Manitoba Telephone System and, as Leader of the Opposition, I was not allowed to speak. Members opposite, when they talk about "democracy," some of us have the scars from members opposite. Mr. Speaker: Order. The time for Oral Ques tions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Neighbourhoods Alive! Mr.

Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Last month our government launched Neighbour hoods Alive !, a major new initiative designed to enhance Manitoba neighbourhoods in need. One of the key strengths of the Neighbourhoods Alive! program is the co-operation of community-based organizations undertaking housing, employment, and community economic development initiatives.

Today I want to highlight two such organizations: the Mennonite Central Committee and the North End Community Renewal Corporation. * (15:10) The North End Community Renewal Corporation was founded in 19 98 by several community-based groups such as the Mennonite Central Committee. Through neighbourhood consultations, they came up with four priorities for the area: safety, housing, economic and employment development, and culture. Cur rently they are involved in projects to address these priorities.

Recently the Mennonite Central Committee bought a building in the north end at 509 Selkirk A venue to house community-based organi zations such as the North End Community Renewal Corporation. Funding for the purchase and upgrading of the 400 0-square foot former store came from the Mennonite Urban Renewal Program. The purchase of this building reflects the Mennonite Central Committee's commitment to urban renewal and revitalizing the north end.

I want to take this opportunity to con gratulate the Mennonite Central Committee and the North End Community Renewal Corporation on all that they are doing to help make the north end a safe and vibrant place to live and work. Our government looks forward to continued co operation with organizations like these as together we build healthy neighbourhoods throughout Manitoba. Thank you.

4510 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 Russell Constituency Events Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make members aware of some very successful events that have been occurring in my constituency over the past number of weeks. The constituency of Russell has been a very busy place over the last number of weeks celebrating homecomings and the millennium celebrations, as many of the rural communities are.

I had the pleasure of attending homecoming activities in the town of Russell, the town of Erickson, the village of Oakburn, the town of Miniota, the towns of Shoal Lake and Hamiota. It seemed like every rural community in that part of the province was celebrating this summer, celebrating the millennium. Indeed, when you looked at the quality of the parades and the activities that were going on, it certainly made people come together, share their experiences. I have to say that I even enjoyed pitching some sheaves with the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) at a threshing display in the community of Ham iota. Mr.

Speaker, the homecoming events were held in the communities, and all of them brought back people from all over North America, for that matter, indeed, who came back to look at their home communities, communities that they were born and raised in, communities where they attended school, and to re-acquaint themselves with colleagues they had gone to school with and many of the neighbours that they had who used to live in that part of the world. Mr. Speaker, the community of Oakburn, as an example, I think has about 150 or 200 people living in the community.

I believe that there were somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1200 people at the opening ceremonies on Saturday, which just shows you the activities that were going on in that part of the world. I attended four communities that day, and every community was just bursting with people. I want to congratulate all of the organizers in all of these communities for the very successful events that have been held over the last two weeks. Triple A Hockey Challenge Mr. Scott Smith (Brandon West): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today after a long evening last night and obvious confusion by members on the opposite side.

I know the Interim, short-term, Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Mitchelson) had mentioned actually quite a bit of confusion about shaking heads and the such. In fact, I was shaking my head at the unruly and poor behaviour of the members opposite when we were trying to establish rules for Manitobans last night. Even though she was only there till I might suggest maybe early in the evening compared to most of the rest of us, she seems to be very tired and quite confused on the issue.

Brandon hosted an extremely successful event, the Manitoba Sports Excellence Triple A Hockey Challenge, in which there were some 1600 players from all across North America. There were over 80 teams, and the amount of people that came into Brandon and the event that was put on was extremely well done. Darryl Wolski, in fact, from Westman hockey management, believes that this tournament could quite easily become the largest tournament in North America.

It has rated second in the top five tournaments in Canada, in fact in North America, and he believes that another three or four teams will, in fact, put it in first place across Canada to be a national event. The economic spinoff from a tournament like this to the city of Brandon is in the area of somewhere over $2 million. It was an extremely good tournament that was put on. It was hosted by a number of volunteers and people who became involved in the community, as always seems to happen in Brandon.

I would like to commend all the people who came on board for this tournament, the volunteers that came on board for the tournament. Mr. Speaker, tournaments like this are always supported by the local community and business community, and those people should get good recognition for it. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4511 Point of Order Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just ask for clarification on a matter here. Is it the right of a member to refer to the absence or presence of a member, be it here or in committee? Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Official Opposition for clarification, in committees there are 11 members of the standing committee, and there is no such thing as absences in committees because the members are allowed to come and go in committees and the other members are not part of those committees.

So there is no such thing as absences in the Committee. That is for clarification. Citizens On Patrol Program Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I rise today to congratulate the many volunteers in the Springfield area who participate in the Citizens on Patrol Program. COPP's dedicated and hard working volunteers help local law enforcement personnel by providing a valuable observation and reporting system. Citizens in our community can gain a sense of purpose and satisfaction by improving our quality of life through COPP.

They are able to play a prominent role in reducing the level of crime in our communities by fostering closer ties between law enforcement officials and the RCMP and ordinary residents. COPP is forging a community spirit in Springfield that we all should be proud of. On behalf of the grateful residents of Springfield, I would like to extend sincerest thanks to all the volunteers who participate in COPP and their community sponsors as well for their generous support.

Without the support of Oakbank Family Fare, Irene's Restaurant in Anoia, Oakbank RCMP, the Dugald United Church and the Immaculate Conception Church in Cooks Creek, this valuable addition to the Springfield community would not be possible. COPP recently held a very successful fundraiser in Oakbank that will allow them to purchase equipment to assist them in their efforts. On behalf of this House, I wish COPP and its members all the best in the future and thank them for their immense contribution to the quality of life in Springfield. Standing Commi ttees Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, I rise to speak about the procedures used for committee hearings in this Legislature. Last night the Committee dealing with several bills, including Bill 42, started delibera tions about 6:30 p.m. Because there was not a

schedule of presenters and a time frame for the Committee meeting decided ahead of time and all informed, there were far more presenters who arrived than could be accommodated in a reasonable meeting, lasting, for example, until eleven o'clock or midnight. * (15: 20) The result was a mob of people amvmg about 6:30 p.m. The result was the Committee met until after four o'clock this morning. I know. I was there the whole nine hours. Speakers at the end admitted to being very tired. Some had to travel a long distance after presenting in the early hours of the morning.

Quite frankly, the deliberations after midnight were less than satisfactory for all concerned. It is time to consider changes to the procedures in this Legislature to improve the convenience to citizens and to allow a fair hearing for citizens at a time when legislators are not quite so fatigued and more able to engage in useful and pro ductive question-and-answer dialogue. There were presenters last night who were cut off. There were many questions which the members of the Legislature would have liked to ask but were not permitted to ask because of time limits.

I suggest it is time to change the Committee procedures to improve the demo cracy and the nature of citizen input, the quality of citizen input into our legislation. Committee Changes Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay), that the com position of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for July 26, at 6:30, be amended

4512 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 as follows: Springfield (Mr. Schuler) for Morris (Mr. Pitura); Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith) for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik); and Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Faurschou) for Southdale (Mr. Reimer). Motion agreed to. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Wellington (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: St. Vital (Ms. Allan) for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh); Riel (Ms. Asper) for La Verendrye (Mr. Lemieux); Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell) for Interlake (Mr.

Nevakshonoff); Brandon West (Mr. Smith) for Wellington (Mr. Santos); Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for Assiniboia (Mr. Rondeau). Motion agreed to. House Business Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources that was meeting this morning will be meeting this evening at 6:30 to resume consideration of the following bills, and that is for clause by clause, I understand: Bills 6, 7, 14, 16, 21, 29, 31, 3 7. Mr.

Speaker: It has been announced that the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will be meeting this evening at 6:30 to resume consideration of the following: Bills 6, 7, 14, 16, 21 , 29,3 1, and 37. Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, I wish to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to vary the sequence for Estimates consideration to consider in the Chamber the Estimates of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs to follow the Estimates for the Department of Education and in Room 254 to consider the Estimates for the Legislative Assembly. These changes are to apply until further notice. Mr.

Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to vary the sequence for Estimate considerations set out in Sessional Paper No. 138 and subsequently amended to consider in the Chamber the Estimates of the Department of Intergovernmental Affairs to follow the Estimates for the Department of Education and in Room 254 to consider the Estimates for the Legislative Assembly until further notice? [Agreed] Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to call debate on second readings for a bill.

Would you canvass the House to determine if there is unanimous consent to interrupt the proceedings at 4:30 p.m., at which time I will move the Supply motion? Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to interrupt proceedings at 4:30 p.m. for the Honourable Government House Leader to move the Supply motion? [Agreed] ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call debate on second readings, Bill 44. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 44-The Labour Relations Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Speaker: To resume the debate on second readings, on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett), Bill 44, The Labour Relations Amendment Act (2) (Loi no. 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur les relations du travail), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Springfield. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, we would open up the debate on Bill 44 on this side of the House. Personally, I do it with, I guess you would have to say, a heavy heart. This is probably one of the most substantial bills that the Government has brought down. It is a very difficult bill for a lot of Manitobans. We wish to move the Legislature through many points, but we are going to preface the whole debate. We have to look at this whole bill basically with a question. The question that has to be posed is: What is it that the Government is trying to fix?

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 45 13 We look at Bill 44, and it is with great surprise that we see, after 11 years of hard work, the payoff has started to come. We are starting to see a phenomenal payoff in the province of Manitoba. What we see is a great economy. We see an economy that is growing. Probably more important than anything is the confidence that people have in the economy in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. You have no unemployment. What that means is you have a lot of people who are working. * (15:30) Mr.

Harry Schellenberg, Acting Speaker, in the Chair You have jobs basically going begging because there are not enough people to fill jobs. You have people taking home paycheques. It builds on self-worth. It gives them purpose. It gives them an ability to participate in the economy. The economy takes on its own life; it builds a head of steam; and it moves ahead. It is the confidence in the economy. It is the confidence in the policies and the decisions that were made in the last 11 years that drive the kind of investment we have seen in Manitoba.

I do not believe we have seen a time, certainly not in the last while, where so much investment has taken place in Manitoba. We see companies coming from outside, not just outside of Manitoba, but outside of Canada coming to Manitoba and investing. That is something we have seen over the last years. We see a good feeling. Certainly the province came out of the Pan Am Games and we changed the whole feeling that Manitobans have toward their province from a "we cannot do, have not" province to a "we can do, have" province. Mr. Acting Speaker, that is good for Manitoba. That is good for Manitobans.

When the Minister got up the other day that the unemployment rates came down even further, yes, we applauded on this side of the House because it means Manitobans are working. It means that Manitobans are taking home a paycheque, that Manitobans are happy, that they are participating in the economy. Mr. Acting Speaker, that is good for our province, and that is good for our country. So what is it that this government is trying to fix? The whole attitude towards the economy, the whole attitude of the Minister towards what she is trying to change here, we found in the Estimates process.

Certainly everything that we do in the next year or this year, until we have done a full cycle, is new to me. So I walk into all these new experiences. I do not really know what to expect. I always find I am on an incredible learning curve, but, more importantly, I am surprised what I learned. What I found out was that in Estimates it was not that we saw a co-operative minister. In fact, we saw a minister who probably took a little bit of advantage of a rookie MLA, certainly was not co-operative, certainly did not help this new member along.

When questions were asked in regard to what the direction is that the Government is going to take, what is going to be the policy of this new government, it was very interesting, it was quite telling what the answers were. I will just lift a couple of quotes out of Hansard. May 30, and this is from Estimates, I asked the Minister and I quote: "The Minister has also announced that there are going to be some labour changes coming.

Has the Minister instructed the Labour Management Review Committee to have a look at these changes that are being proposed and come back to her with advice?" Minister: "Not yet." I then asked: "When does the Minister see this taking place?" Minister: "Soon." Then I asked: "I am really glad the Minister narrowed that down for us. I guess that is sooner than later. Could she quantify soon, or is that just a soon soon?" Minister: "How about in the fullness of time." Clearly what you have started to see developing was a Minister who was going to play cat and mouse with a very, very serious issue.

Over the last couple of years, certainly over the election and the time proceeding after the election, the NDP had convinced a lot of Manitobans, had convinced a lot of businesses that what they were going to be was a Tory government with a shade of orange. This was going to be a basic Gary Filmon government with a tweed jacket. This was going to be

4514 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 business as usual. On some issues, they were going to out-Tory the Tories. What they actually did is they lulled the business community, they lulled the citizens of Manitoba. You can see by the answers, not really forthcoming, just kind of smooth everything over, do not let people see what is coming, and they actually lulled people to sleep. Certainly the business community, now after having seen the Bill before us today, realize that they were snookered in this. They are absolutely horrified at the Bill that was presented.

Again, you can see what was coming out of the Estimates process. On June 8, again, from the Minister, and I take the last sentence: As I have stated to the Member before, I am looking at all pieces of legislation. It may tum out in the fullness of time that-and then she goes on. These were the kinds of games that were played, basically, to lull everybody to sleep. What was interesting about the whole process, and the Minister and I certainly spent a lot of time together, is what they were waiting for was for the heat of the summer to appear. They were waiting for people to go on holidays, and then, Mr.

Acting Speaker, introduce these very, very draconian pieces of legislati on. I found it very interesting that, it was soon after the Estimates process, the Minister waited a little bit after that, and then she introduced it. Basically what we see on this side of the House happening was that the government's intent was to introduce this in the summer, as they intended with a few of their other controversial bills, some of which we saw last night in Bill 42. What they wanted to do was to try to catch people off-guard.

You know, again, they were going to be on holidays or doing all the other things that Manitobans do in the summertime, and these bills would sail through. I do not believe that this Minister, I certainly believe that this Premier never expected the kind of outcry that they actually did get on this particular bill. They certainly did not see individuals cancelling their holidays. We had a presentation last night, the individual drove back from holidays, got the briefing, and walked in committee.

I do not believe that the Minister and certainly not her boss, the Premier, saw the kind of overwhelming opposition that we have seen in the last couple of weeks. The strategy was wrong. It was flawed and, frankly, I think it is good that Manitobans have seen through that particular process. So we went through the Estimates process and then we saw the introduction of the bill. We got the bill presented by the Minister and then we started to ask some questions. The answers from the Minister were not really clear on it when we started to ask, what was the report like from the LMRC?

There is a new euphemism that seems to have come into this House. The Minister calls it unanimous or partial unanimous consensus. That is probably one of the most intriguing terms we have heard here in a long time. Basically what it says is they agreed to disagree, so that means there was a consensus. That is good enough for this minister to go out and herald how she feels the communities were all supportive and all onside. Fortunately for us on this side, we were brown-enveloped with the report that was submitted to the Minister.

It was then that we realized how deep the divisions between management and labour actually have started to go in this province, the wedge being driven by this particular government between management and labour, Mr. Acting Speaker, when we started to read through it, and then we gave the media and the public an opportunity; certainly we gave a lot of organizations the opportunity, the citizens of Manitoba the opportunity to have a look at the kinds of disagreements that were taking place. Unfortunately, Mr.

Acting Speaker, when we got that particular document, what we did not instantly get, or get right away, was the letter that went to the Minister, and the letter is very, very telling on the approach that labour and management were taking. What I should first of all state is that there were 11 items that were sent to the LMRC. The 12th item on how disputes can be resolved between labour and management other than by strike was actually not one of the 11 items sent. It was actually sent as a brainstorming kind of issue which management would not participate in.

They indicated that they would feel more comfortable giving their

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 45 15 opinion on it. They did not believe that they were there as a fishing expedition for the Minister. The 11 items did come back to the Minister. At the end of the meeting of the LMRC, the labour caucus indicated they did want to talk about the dispute-settling mechanism and what other means could be looked at to settle disputes.

Management indicated that they were not interested in looking at it, but if the Minister wanted an opinion of the LMRC, that is exactly what she should ask for. *( 15: 40) Labour went ahead, the labour caucus, and submitted their feelings and their recom mendations on that particular point. LMRC did not actually take a look at that particular issue. The Minister has indicated in many quarters that that was the case. but from documents that we have seen, we cannot find that. Again, labour presented the submission by labour re: Minister's Requests for Recommendations for Collective Agreement Resolution.

In that letter to the Minister, when we finally did get a copy of it, there is a paragraph that is very telling, and I quote from page 2: With regard to the specific labour proposals to help resolve collective bargaining disputes, manage ment expressed a general caution that there may be a potential risk to the provincial economy if the traditional dispute resolution process under the law based on strike-lockout provisions is altered. In management's opinion, the traditional process for dispute resolution has proven to be highly successful. Keeping in mind, Mr.

Acting Speaker, that in a letter like this, everyone tries to couch their words and be very careful. They have to work on other issues, so they do not exactly walk around poking sticks in each other's eye, so when you hear this particular paragraph, it is very deep and it is very serious, and it shows the divisions that have taken place in this province between labour and management since this government has come into office. Mr.

Acting Speaker, it has been from the process that I have explained to this point that the opposition has grown and grown, and certainly we will be dealing with that a little bit later on. I do want to go through a few items within Bill 44 to point out some of the issues that we think have the potential of being problem areas for this province, that will address issues that did not need to be addressed. In fact, I have said to the Minister often that it seems to be the motto of this minister that if it ain't broke, break it, and that is clearly, clearly a concern of workers.

It is clearly a concern of the business community, and it is a concern of the Opposition. In the House on July 12 , the Minister stated that the NDP made an election commitment, restated that commitment after the election that all pieces of labour legislation would go to the Labour Management Review Committee. As already mentioned, Mr. Acting Speaker, we know that did not quite happen.

The LMRC was given three weeks to review the proposed amendments and a letter to the Minister dated June 21, which I have already quoted from, indicated that the Committee would have preferred to have had more time to study the matters more thoroughly and to consult more broadly with their respective con stituencies. It is clear that had the Minister wished to truly effect balanced changes with the input of all affected groups, rather than merely to repay her union bosses, the supporters who helped this particular government, these amendments could not have been rushed through the Committee.

Again, it is unfortunate that just like with the LMRC report, just like with Bill 42, with Bill 44, and it seems to be with a lot of the bills, people are saying this is being rushed through; you are not giving us the opportunity to fully look at the ramifications of this. Through Question Period today, we quoted all kinds of presentations, Mr.

Acting Speaker, and I have a whole series of them here from all over the province, from Dauphin, from Interlake, from Morris, where they have said on the particular piece of legislation: You are pushing this too quickly; why are you in the heat of summer trying to ram this through? Supposedly this government has extolled the virtues of co-operation and working with both

45 16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 business and labour in order to build a better environment within the province. It is unclear how the fairness and balance that the Minister speaks of in relation to this labour legislation are being carried out when only five of the eleven amendments were agreed upon by both labour and management. This is that bizarre statement by the Minister, the partial unanimous consent, when we know there were only five areas where there was actually agreement. Over the remaining six, the Minister sided with labour's recommendations.

Indeed, why bother having a committee at all if only one side is going to be listened to? That is one of the comments we keep getting from a lot of the groups within our society. It is interesting that even on labour's side, there are a lot of concerns that they felt were not properly heard, certainly not on stripping workers of the right to a secret ballot. The flawed process is best illustrated by the fact that the proposed

section 23 of the Act was not even referred to the LMRC, which I just indicated a while ago. It is most unfortunate because that particular piece is ending up to be one of the most contentious issues that the Minister has had to face. It probably would have been in the best interests of the Government and certainly of the Minister and of the business involved if that particular piece would have gone properly to the LMRC. In regard to

section 23, the 60-days binding arbitration, the NDP Government has proposed an amendment to The Labour Relations Act which drastically tips the balance of power in the favour of the union bosses when it comes to the bargaining process. Again, Mr. Acting Speaker, in the eleven years that we were in government and the nine, ten months that we have now been in opposition, we have stated that it is the right of workers to unionize. Clearly that is something we have always recognized, and my honourable colleague from Beausejour is a great supporter of that right.

We felt that the 40% sign-up of cards and the secret ballot is the legitimization of the sign up. The system worked. It was accepted, and finally we had given the workers the right to a secret ballot. The proposed

section 23 provides that in the event of a strike or lockout following the expiration of a collective agreement, either party may apply to the Manitoba Relations Board to have the board settle the dispute or go to binding arbitration. However, the unions essentially hold the power in their hands as a result that to settle the dispute, it must be ratified by a vote of the workers. Again, Mr. Acting Speaker, here we go.

What we have always wanted to do was have a level playing field, and that is certainly what we created with our latest amendments in 1996, that neither management nor labour should have a clear advantage, that workers who wish to have a union, 40% sign up, they go to a secret ballot and the results we all have to live with. This particular piece is clearly one-sided. You have two groups, management and labour. If one side has the right to vote or decide if they want to go to binding arbitration, then both should.

Why is that one has the exclusive right to decide if either of them wants to go for binding arbitration? Again, Mr. Acting Speaker, it speaks to the flaws that are in this particular act. In effect, the workers are given the unilateral ability to determine how the dispute will be solved as they can veto management's request or refer the dispute to the board or arbitration. Management is unable to reciprocate if the union makes the request and the workers vote to ratify it. Again, we have this spin, and we have talked about it on a lot of occasions.

The spin doctors go out and they spin a story, but that is actually the crux of it. No matter how the Minister tries to say this is levelling the playing field, clearly it is not. Clearly this is not an attempt by the Minister to make this a level playing field. Rather than helping to eliminate the problem of prolonged work disruptions, this provision may well serve to increase the number of work disruptions occurring in the province.

Indeed, this system provides little incentive for the unions or management to bargain in good faith, as they need only strike or lock out and wait for the 60-day period to run out before they can ask for, in the case of management, or force the matter into binding arbitration on behalf of the other side. As stated by Dave Angus, President,

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 45 17 Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, in the Winnipeg Free Press, July 7, 2000: "Under the new scheme, if workers feel they can get a better deal by going to the Labour Board or to an arbitrator, there is little incentive for them to negotiate." * (15 :50) Again, Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not saying that this will happen. What we are saying is that these are potential risks that the Bill puts forward in Bill 44.

How can this minister say with a straight face that one of the three principles which they have tried to achieve with their proposed reforms is that of fairness, that the law should balance the needs of workers and employers? We hear that spin, and we hear it; it is over and over again. In the Winnipeg Free Press, Saturday, July 22, it says: When clearly her government has placed the desires, and I am quoting, of their union bosses ahead of sound policy initiatives in consultation with all facets of the community.

In a report from the Labour Management Review Committee, the report of June 21, management indicated that the matter of protracted work disruption was an impor tant concern and indicated that the issue, and I quote, deserved to be reviewed in a thorough manner to identify the range of possible options and an assessment of their implications.

Again, what communities are asking this government is why the haste, why are you trying to ram this through, why this public policy by the heat of the summer without really looking at, without having the possibility of looking at options and assessing the implications, but rather just ramming the legislation through. They recommended that the matter be evaluated over a six-month period. Once again, the Minister flouted process and showed her true colours by moving ahead with the drafting of

section 23 modelled on one of labour's three recommendations on how to deal with the work disruption issue. What the Minister could have done was to solicit the opinion of management on the three proposals before she drafted the amendment to the Act. Again, what she could have done is given the three proposals to the LMRC, in fact, for both sides, to give an opinion of what they feel the ramifications would be. Again it would have taken a little bit more time, but I do not think there was that big of a pressure for this bill come through. It could have come through in fall.

There was no reason to ram it through right now. It could have gone through the proper process. It is nice to talk about co-operation and working together, but it is obvious how little value this minister actually places on the views of the business community. But why should she, when she is not making policy decisions that are necessarily the best interests of the province but rather she is paying back the union bosses? Mr. Acting Speaker, that does not necessarily make the best public policy. I would like to move on to the item 3, certification, denial of workers' democratic rights.

What we had previous to this was that if workers felt that they wanted to proceed to go to a union, you needed 40 percent of the workers to sign cards and then it went to a secret ballot. I have stated probably twice already, that is one of the best systems that you can go with, because then you do not have the coercion, you do not have the intimidation, you do not have the strong-arm tactics of either side. It is a simple 40 percent sign-up and you go to a secret ballot.

What this actually does, the NDP Government's amendment, is strip workers of their democratic rights to vote in a secret ballot for or against union certification. Again, what it does is when you have a secret ballot, whether it is in a general election, whether it is in a community club, whether it is with a sports organization or with a church, it does not really matter what organization, what you do is you give legitimacy to the process. That is what the secret ballot gives. We have seen democracy work for over thousands of years. I mean, it has come and gone.

Secret ballot is still the best system for giving legitimacy to a process. The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce president, Dave Angus, asked: How can you argue against the democratic process of a secret

45 18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 ballot vote? That was in the Winnipeg Sun of July 7. This is a question that we would all love to hear the Minister answer. One of the thing the Minister does not do well is answer questions. Certainly we would love to have her answer on this. Why is it that we have gone in the last hundred years? We have actually changed how we define democracy. Actually hundreds of years ago, you used to have, in Britain you had to go to the ballot box, you declared your intention who you would vote for, and that is how you voted. We moved to a secret ballot.

It was in the early stages of the 20th century, the long overdue right for women to vote was extended. It was I believe in the '50s that the vote was extended to the First Nations or the aboriginal people, long overdue. In 19 96 a government finally had the courage, and it is astounding that it was a Conservative govern ment, it really was cutting edge for a government in Canada to do this, to say, we will give the same kind of treatment of a secret ballot to the working men and women of our province. It was a right move, it was a smart move. What it does is it is a forward move.

What we hear from this minister is the policy of looking backwards. I have spent a lot of time in Estimates and I seem to spend a lot of time in Question Period and at committee meetings. This minister has a great love of history. In fact, I sometimes wonder if this minister does anything else but live in the past. It is not good enough to be a student of history. You also have to live in the present and you have to look forward to the future.

The way that certification took place was a forward-looking way of dealing with certi fication and not taking the Minister's approach of going back I 0 years, 20 years, 30 years. I think she has us back to 19 46. She proudly proclaims how this legislation takes us backwards, takes us back into 19 46. You know what? That is certainly not what Manitobans would like to see and it is certainly not what the workers want to see. The Minister and I were on several radio shows. She fared very poorly amongst her own colleagues.

The workers would call up and say: I am an NDP supporter and I am an NDP worker and I am a union organizer and I think we should have the right of a secret ballot. You know what was interesting about it? It was so interesting, the one woman called us on CBC, and she said, because in the end when you take it to a secret ballot, win or lose, you do not have the bad feelings.

You do not have the bad feelings that exist when you have this 65% automatic certification, because when you have that 65% certification, there is the chance and the possibility that people will say, well, it was not done without coercion; well. it was not done without pressure; well, I did not really know what I was signing, because when you walk into the ballot box, the question is very clear, it is very easy. It is you, a pencil, a piece of paper, and you decide right there.

This particular union organizer said to the Minister: Minister, it builds better relations in the workplace when it goes to a secret ballot. That is why you see workers, men and women, the business community, the pro-worker Progressive Conservative Party standing up for the workers and their democratic right. In fact, we have heard in this House that perhaps the acronym NDP should now either stand for non democratic party or no democracy please. Graham Starmer, President of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, calls this provision a regressive step.

That comes from the Winnipeg Free Press of July 7, something backed up by the Minister's own words over and over again in the House when she indicated that this provision was a return to the way things had been in years previous to the 19 96 amendment. Mr. Acting Speaker, again, so much for Today's NDP. All this government seems to be doing is reaching into the past. Small-business owner Dennis Tanguay of Tanguay's Hardware store in Souris was quoted in the Winnipeg Sun July 25 as saying: "If you want to form a union, you should be able to sit down and mark a secret ballot.

Otherwise we are getting back to the Jimmy Hoffa days when they walk out there with baseball bats and intimidate the"-I will edit this part-heck out of people.

July 26, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 45 19 * (16: 00) That is what small business feels. That is what workers feel. Certainly we hope the Minister, who is listening attentively to this debate, will see the kinds of things she has put in here, that the workers would like to have a free vote, and she will put it back in again. The other issue is issue No. 4 that was placed before the LMRC. That is the amending

section 12 (2) of The Labour Relations Act. This government is supporting implicitly by changing the Act the potential for violence on the picket line. Under the old legislation, which this NDP Government is intent on bringing back, the Manitoba Labour Board forced employers to hire back employees who were convicted of criminal activity for their conduct during a strike. This is very serious. If the Minister and I have a business and our employees-which I think would be very good for this minister if she had some business background.

But let us say she and I had a business and the workers decided to exercise their right to go on strike. As happens from time to time, passions get heated up and things get warmed up a little bit. One of the workers decides to bum down the business. That in itself is a criminal act, and if caught and taken to court and charged, that individual gets charged with arson and can, in fact, end in jail. The person can come out and can apply to the Labour Board to be hired back.

Basically, the business then is forced to hire that individual back, even though this act of violence was clearly against this particular business, and in this case the owners would be the Minister and me. I would say to the Minister, through you, Mr. Acting Speaker, this is again one of those issues that probably would have been best discussed out in the general community a little bit more. I think the Minister was very hasty on this one. It is poor public policy. I think we are seeing a society that wants zero tolerance. We see the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Mackintosh) getting up, talking about zero tolerance when it comes to violence, and we support him on that. When I was on the school board of River East School Division, we brought in zero tolerance toward violence. What the Minister does with this is sa ys: We accept violence. You can go and bum down the business. You can go and commit acts of violence on the picket line and your job is guaranteed. As long as it was during a labour dispute, you were on legal strike, you got your job back. Labour Board can force the business to hire you back.

I guess the question then has to be posed: Does the NDP Government support for picket line violence match up with their election commitment favouring safer work environments, because certainly that is a real dichotomy; you certainly cannot have both of them. Does this government not realize, another question, that a strike is not a shield or an excuse for criminal behaviour and violence? A strike is a way to settle a dispute. It is a right of workers to go on strike, as it is a right, in the case of business, to do a lockout. That is what the right entails. It certainly is not a shield for criminal behaviour.

It is truly unfortunate, Mr. Acting Speaker, that in the 21s t century we see the Government of Manitoba is now enshrining violence as an acceptable form of behaviour in Manitoba law. Again, it is going backwards. That is not something that we are comfortable with. We thought we had dealt with this, and we thought we had dealt with it in the right way. So, first, Manitoba workers lose their right to a secret ballot, and now Manitoba workers are losing their right to a safe working environment because the NDP Government is supporting the return of brutality and violence on the picket line. Mr.

Acting Speaker, in fairness of time, I had better speed up. There is so much in here; 40 minutes is hardly enough to do justice on this, but I had better proceed. I want to deal with No. 5, and that is on the political advertising. There is a lot of confusion on the part of the Minister. She confuses two or three different issues when she gets up and answers questions on this. So I think it is important that I clarify this for her.

4520 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 26, 2000 This NDP Government seems to be very confus

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-68
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf 68.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4184184d2088d166f081b3fc2a4aff95fe53279d

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