Manitoba Committee Hansard — Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 6 (35th Legislature, 2nd Session)

35-2-ir6

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Second Session -Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 40 Elizabeth II Chairman Mr. Marcel Laurendeau Constituency of St. Norbert VOL. XL No.6 -1 p.m., FRIDAY, JULY 12, 1991 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0713-9608

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature LIB - Liberal ; NO - New Democrat; PC - Progressive Conservative NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMIN GS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FIN DLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDR Y, Nell GIL LESHAM MER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MI TCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN , John PRAZN IK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Welli ngton Cresce ntwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste.

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

LIB NO NO LIB LIB NO LIB NO PC PC PC PC NO NO PC PC PC LIB PC PC NO NO PC PC NO LIB PC NO PC NO LIB NO PC NO PC NO PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NO PC NO PC PC PC PC NO PC NO PC PC NO NO

270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Friday, July 12, 1991 TIME-1 p.m. LOCATION-Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert) ATTENDANCE-11 -QUORUM-6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Enns, Findlay, Manness Mr. Ashton, Ms. Barrett, Messrs. Connery, Edwards, Laurendeau, McAlpine, Reimer, Santos Substitu tions: Mr. Penner for Mr. McAlpine (1 837) Mr. McAlpine for Mr.

Penner (01 15 ) APPEARING: Gary Doer, MLA for Concordia Donald Orchard, MLA for Pembina WITNESSES: Cynthia Devine, Private Citizen Lorne Morrisseau, Private Citizen Cindy Terry, Private Citizen Buffy Burrel l, Portage Labour Committee Jim Silver, Private Citizen Kevin Dearing, Private Citizen John Loxley, Private Citizen Clarence Giesbrecht, Private Citizen Rosemary Miguez, Private Citizen Zully Trujillo, Private Citizen Ed McColm, Private Citizen Barbara Jones, Private Citizen Elaine Ducharme, Private Citizen Steve Roznowsky, Private Citizen Robert de Groot, Private Citizen Maggie Ha dfield, Commu nications and Electrical Workers of Canada Emile Clune, Private Citizen Gary Ewen, Private Citizen Sidney Green, Manitoba Progressive Party Ted Yorke , Private Citizen Harry Paine, Private Citizen Joanne Maciag, Private Citizen Written Presentation Submitted: Leona McEvoy MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 70- The Public Se ctor Compens ation Management Act *** Mr.

Chairman: Order, please. Will the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations please come to order. This afternoon the committee will resume consider ation of Bill 70, The Pu blic Sector Compensation Management Act. I would like to indicate that this committee will also be meeting tomorrow, Saturday, July 13 at 10 a.m. and continuing all day. A further meeting has also been called for Monday, July 15 at 10 a.m.

I would like to inform the committee that a written prese ntation from Leona McE voy has been received and will now be distributed to the committee. • (1 305) Just prior to resum ing hearing of public presentations on the bill, I would like to remind the public that the process that will be followed by this committee is that out-of-town presenters will be asked to identify themselves to the committee clerk, and the committee will endeavour to hear from those persons first. Once the out-of-tow n presenters have been heard from, the names will be called from the presenters list in numerical order.

If a presenter is not here the first time his or her name is called, that name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If that presenter is not here the second time his or her name is called, that name will be dropped from the list. However, it should be noted that the committee will att emp t to accommodate those persons, especially those from out of town, who are unable on a certain day but can atte nd it on others.

271 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 12 , 19 91 I will now ask that if there are any out-of-town presenters in attendance at this meeting, please identify themselves to the committee clerk. Pat is coming back there now, and the committee will endeavour to hear from the out-of-town presenters first. At this time, we are going to start on the top of the list. No. 1, Penny Tref lin; No. 2, Peter Vanderelst; No. 3, Doug Vanderelst; No. 4, Donne Flanagan; No. 5, Richard Orlan dini; No. 6, Cynthia Devine. Just one moment, Ms. Devine. Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Even though I am married to a person named Ginny Devine, and somebody has already made a comment about both Grant Devine and Ginny Devine, I am sure Cynthia Devine is not related to either. Mr. Chairman: Anyway, Ms. Devine, do you have a written presentation ? Ms. Cynthia Devine (Private Citizen): No, I do not. Mr. Chairman: In that case , just carry on. Ms. Devine: As Mr. Doer pointed out, I am not related to him by marriage, nor am I related to the Premier of Saskatchewan by political inclination, so I am making my political views clear from the start.

I am here to speak in opposition to this bill. I am a worker. I am a student. In the past, I was a civil servant, worked for the provincial government, so if I was in that situation right now, this would be affecting me very directly. As it is, it is affecting me indirectly in a monetary sense, but certainly directly in terms of what it means to work in this province when the government is saying that my dem ocratic rights are being taken away. * (131 0) I unde rstand that this is the only province where these types of hearings take place, and I appreciate that.

I appreciate that this gove rnment has made an attempt, an invitation to the public to speak to this bill, and I appreciate that very much. Howeve r, over the past 24 hours, I have seen that that process has been controverted in such a way that the hearings are not really open to the citizens of Manitoba, and let me relate to you how that has happened. I came here yesterday after work at 7 p.m. I stayed here last night till 2 a.m. I did not have the opportunity to speak.

This means that my em ployer is suffering, and I am going to be suffe ring this weekend because I am going to be doing my work this weekend instead of today or yeste rday, as I had intended. The problem is that there is really no way of people knowing when they are going to appear on the list. Mr. Chairm an: Order. Just one moment, please Point of Order Hon. Clayton Manness (Mini ster of Finance): I think that the formal point is, I think that you, Mr.

Chairman, should ask the speaker to come to the point, but more importantly than that, I feel badly if the member sat here all last night and did not have an opportunity to present, because I was led to believe that the room was canvassed , and the committee wished not to rise until everybody who was here had an opportunity to present last night. If I am in error in that beli ef-1 was not in a.ttendance here, but certainly I was told that there was an effort to hear everybody who was in the room la st night.

So I apologize on behalf on the committee as a whole because nobody should wait that long and not have an opportunity, given that the committee was prepared to sit to hear everybo dy. Mr. Chairma n: Thank you, Mr. Minister, but you did not have a point of order. *** Mr. Chairm an: Ms. Devine, had you given your name as one of the presenters last night who did not want to stay? We had canvassed the House last night, and those who wanted to make the ir presentations were allowed to make them last night.

We said that we would call the names, and we would not drop them from the list last night, of those people who were here. So if you were here last night, you were not dropped to the bottom of the list and you remained at the top. Were you one of those persons who stated they were willing to come today? Ms. Devine: Okay , I will respond to that by saying that it would have been impossible for everyone who was present last night to speak last night. It would have been physically, logistically impossible because there were approximat ely, I believe, correct me if I am wrong, 20 people remaining to speak at 2 a. m.

It would have been impossible to hear all of those people in the a.m. I chose to speak-

July 1 2, 1991 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 272 Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We can discuss that matter further, but last night, we were willing to sit to any period of time that the members wanted to, and we did not drop anybody from the list. We made that perfectly clear last night. We are trying to draw through and have everyone make their presentations. Anyone who was here last night was not dropped from the list. We canvassed the House, and we gave everyone ample opportunity last night, but I am not going to debate with you. Mr.

Doer: You ruled the Minister of Finance out of order on his point, and he was out of order in terms of raising, as a point of order, the order and the process of this committee, as you have ruled. Is that correct? Mr. Chairman: That is correct. Carry on, Ms. Devine. Ms. Devine: I just want to make the point clear that, yes, I could have spoken last night at 3 a.m.

However, if every other person present here would have put their name on the list to speak last night, it would have been logistically impossible to have all those people speak by 10 a.m. because, up to that point, from 7 p.m. tlll2 a.m., six persons had spoken, so how would it be possible for 20 people to speak in the remaining six hours? Absolutely impossible. I just wanted to make that point, but I have a further point about the process. It is not all right for working people of Manitoba to be expectto be heard at two and three in the morning. That is not reasonable.

If we are going to make this accessible, reasonable and open to the citizenry of this province, then it has to be during hours that are reasonable and accessible to those people; 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. is not accessible. I do not think that giving people an opportunity at two and three in the morning is the answer. I think that is something that this committee should look at. I believe there are still hundreds of names on the list, and if it means stretching this process over a couple of weeks, then I think we are going to have to look at that.

If the government is sincere about wanting to have input into this bill from the people of this province, then I think we have to look at doing that in a real way, and trying to cram it into the wee hours of the morning over a few days is not real participation. That is all I have to say about this point. Excuse me, I have the press release of this in my bag, which I just want to get. Mr. Doer: On a matter of committee business, what is the intent of the committee, the sponsoring minister, in terms of time duration tonight?

Is it the intent to still go through the committee by attrition, or is it the intent to have a reasonable hour for the public? Politicians are used to the process by attrition, but I do not think it is good public policy. * (1 31 5) Mr. Manness: Mr. Chairman, we have been berated for not having -(interjection}- No, no. We have been berated, not by the member. I am not saying by the Leader. I say, we have been berated for not having an opportunity for people to come away from their normal work time so that they will be able to address this question on the weekend.

To me, that means Friday night and as much time Saturday as we can possibly contribute towards that, in fairness to all the people who want to present then and not interfere in their normal work hours. The government has indicated fully that it would like to be able to call everybody first chance as of the end of today. It is hoping that everybody who wants to speak tomorrow will have an opportunity.

If there is an overflow to Monday, so be it; if there is an overflow to Tuesday, so be it, but alii am saying is Saturday is a crucial, critical day, and I would say Friday night also, to maximize the number of people who can make presentation. We will see the number of people who show up. Mr. Doer: I asked a question and I got an answer, but it was not a definitive one for dealing with some of the public concern on the other side. Ms. Devine: I just have to add one more procedural point which I forgot earlier, and that is, when people's names are dropped from the list for the first time, I mean, fair enough.

If they cannot be here, they cannot be here, but I understand that, after they have been not present the second time, their name will be dropped from the list altogether. I think that is problematic for a number of people who simply cannot be here when their name is called.

I do not think it is because these people are lacking in interest or desire to present to the committee, but it is simply impossible for them to be here at that time, so I would ask that perhaps the committee reconsider that procedure and just leave people's names on the list until they have had a chance to speak or in some way have indicated that they are no longer interested in speaking.

273 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 12 , 19 91 Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Devi ne. If you can just carry on now and try to keep it relevant to the bill, please. Ms. Devine: According to the press release that was released by the govern ment on June 3, the purpose of this legisla tion is to "protect taxpay ers, vital services and jobs." That is from the first paragraph of the press release. According to figures I have from the Manitoba Federation of Labour, the real wages in Manitoba are 10 percent lower than they were a decade ago.

In spite of that, unem ployment in this province is over 8 percent, and it is threate ning to rise. Cuts in real wages have helped create more unem ployment by cutting demand for consumer goods and services. What I want to just note by services here, we are not talking about essential services like health care , dental care, child care . We are talking about services like dry cleaning, carpet cleaning, that kind of thing, that people will do without if their wages are cut back or if they do not have as much disposable income.

Further, the press release state s: "'Everyone must share in that goal .' "-i .e., the economic renewal of Manitoba . "'By asking those groups em ployed by the people of Manitoba to put aside their wage demands for one year, we feel we can continue to preserve and protect jobs and services that Manitobans need without putting the burden on the taxpayer of today and tomorrow.'" Well, I do not beli eve that this government * (1 320) Mr. Chairman : Order, please. Just one moment.

Could I please ask everyone who is making presenta tions, as well as the committee memb ers, if you could please speak very clearly and loudly into the mikes. We have someone in the audience who has a hearing impediment, and it would make it much clearer for him in the back of the room. Thank you. Ms. Devine: Am I not speaking loudly enough? Mr. Chairm an: It was not just for yourse lf, it was for the committee as well. Go ahead, Ms. Devine. Ms. Devine: I do not believe that this government has preserved or protected jobs and services.

I am aware of a friend who has a daughter who was going to be atte nding the psychiatric nursing training program this fall, and she will be unable to do that because that program has been cut. I am aware , as a student in the past acade mic year, that I have to buy every piece of paper at the university in my classroom s. Pr ofessors do not even give us ass ignmen ts. We have to pay for those assignments, which is a far, far cry from when I went to university the first time and got my unde rgraduate degree. So I am seeing that on a very direct level. I am seeing the size of classroom s being increased.

The ACCESS program , which was a success ful program to train low-income people for productive careers, was cut by $1 .6 million; $1 million was cut from the seniors 55-Plus program to keep up with the cost of living and support the now defunct RentaiStart progra m; $1 .7 million was cancelled for high school student bursaries; some million dollars were elim inated from community colleges resulting in cuts to programs and teachers; $3.7 million have been cut from student summer jobs through Caree rStart and northern student em ployment programs.

I know from my own classmates, many of whom have a long em ployment history, that they were unable to obtain employmen t in their field of study this summer, which is quite different from the past. In the past, I was an employer for the STEP program , had many students applying for those jobs and was able to provide em ployment for students. Now I am on the other side of the fence . I see colleagues of mine who are students looking for jobs, and they cannot find jobs, people from professional colleges who are unable to find em ployment this summer - Mr. Chair man : Order, please. Ms.

Devine, I have allowed you some leniency here to get started on it, in making your opening remarks, but I must advise you that we are speaking and trying to be relevant to the bill, and it is Bill 70, so if you could bring it around to Bill 70, I would appreciate it. Point of Order Mr.

Doer: On the point of order raised by the Chair, the member is presenting arguments in dealing with the bill and the principles contained within the bill, as articulated in the government's own press release, so I think the memb er's presentation in dealing for the rationale for the bill and the principles contained therein is absolutely necessary and consistent, sir. I think that it is right out of the minister's own press release on the principles of the bill and the rationale for it, and surely the rationale is part of the debate on Bill 70. Is it needed or is it not, and is it consistent or is it not with the

July 1 2 , 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 274 state ments of the government? So I think the presentation is very, very relevant to the issues before this committee. Mr. Chairman: I would ask you to carry on, Ms . Devine, and if you could please make it germane to the bill, I would appreciate it. Thank you. *** Ms. Devine: I just want to add to some of the comments that were made by Mr. Doer. I think, in the examination- Mr. Chairman: Order, please. All we are going to end up with is a deba te between memb ers and the presenters , if this continues.

I would like to remind all honourable mem bers that this is a time for us to be hearing presenters . We are dealing with Bill70. When we are dealing with a bill, we are to be relevant to that bill. When the presenter is finished , you can question the presenter for clarification of he r presentation. I would ask the members of this committee, if we could please adhere to those rules, or we are going to be stre tching this out and some of these members who have said they will not get to speak again will be backed up again. It is not fair to the public that we drag it out this long. Ms.

Devine, if you could carry on, please. * (1 325) Ms. Devine: I think any cogent exam ination of a piece of legislation involves looking at the purpose and the effects of that legislation. What I am trying to articulate now is the governme nt's stated purpose of the legislation, so I would wish to continue. I am nearly finished dealing with the press release at any ra te. The only other cut that I wanted to mention was the $.5 million cut in dental care for children. What I am trying to point out is that the stated purpose of the government, I think, is not absolutely as we have seen reality in the province.

If the purpose is not as state d, i.e., to protect taxpayers, to protect jobs, to protect services, then what is it? This becomes my word against the governmen t's word, so I think we have to look at something else. We have to look at the effects of the legislation, because I can talk to the government and say, well, I think I know wha t your purpose is, but that is really not going to facilitate anything but a confrontation between us, so I want to look at the effects of the legislation. I think the effects will be twofold; there will be two direct effects.

One is to freeze the collective bargai ning process in the prov ince. Now, unhappily, the Supreme Court of Canada does not recognize collective bar gaining as a democratic right; howe ver,

Section 15 of the Charter may be called to bear in this matt er. I think that the government ma y be looking at constitutional challenges of this legis lation, so I would beseech you to take this back to your drafters and have a second sober look at the legislation in terms of its constitutionality. First of all, as some of you are probably aware ,

Section 15 guar antees equality of rights to all persons in Canada. If a piece of legisl ation discriminates against a particular group of people in a particular way, then that legislation may be found to be unconstitutional and have no force and effect . I suggest to you that it is quite possible that this legisla tion takes public sector em ployees and anyone else that the bill may pertai n t�nd the bill may pertain to quite a wide group and treat them in a way that is different from other people in Manitoba. That is what discrim ina tion means in the constitutional sense, so I think you might be looking at a

Section 15 challenge. Further, ther e ma y be division-o f-power argumen ts brought to bear in this. In the past, telephone em ployees, for example, have been seen as part of a national system and therefore fall under a federal jurisdiction, yet MTS employees are contained in this legislation. That may be another point that is brought to bear by the unions, by the MGEA in particular, perhaps by the MFL.

In terms of a constitutional challenge, anyone knows that to take a case all the way to the Supreme Court-and you are going to be looking at taking it all the way to the Supreme Court because that is where these constitutional questions are decided no w-is going to cost appr ox imat ely, conservatively, a million dollars.

If you can anticipa te fairl y clearly that a piece of legislatio n-a nd I say it is not going to meet the purpose that you are saying it is going to, and it is definitely going to bring a constitutional challenge, is it wise, is it prudent to look at possibly a million-dollar expenditur e to have this thing taken to the Supreme Court? I also want to talk about what it means directly and in the long term when people's democratic rights are taken away. You say in the press release: "'Everyone must share in that goal.' "

275 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 1991 "'By asking those groups em ployed by the people of Manitoba to put aside their wage demands for one year, we feel we can continue to preserve and protect jobs and services .. .' ft and so on and so on. It is not true that anyone has been ask ed. No one was asked to put aside their wage demands for a year.

The people, the workers of Manitoba have been told that this bill is in process; this bill has been discussed; this bill has gone through second hearing; this bill is now in committee, and yes, a few Manitobans are going to get a chance to voice their opposit ion, but that is far dif ferent from a participatory process of asking people to put aside their wage demands. I mean, what you are talking about sounds like a very nice situation where we are all in this together and we are all working togethe r, but it is not the reality in this province.

There is a polarity between the working people of this province and the government of this province, and putting a nice sounding, pleasant press release out does not take that away. It is simply not true that workers of this province have been asked to put aside their wage demands. • (1 330) What does it mean in the long term when people's participatory demo cracy rights are taken away? I think, over time, people change.

People's desire to help each other, people's desire to co-oper ate , people's desire to work hard for the pro vince for a sense of commu nity and a larger sense of provincehood is going to be taken away if they feel like they are constantly at odds with the people who are governing the province. I think in the long term you are creating something very, very dangerous. You are creating a population that is going to lose heart and is going to become very pessimis tic, very unhappy and very unwilling to work. Anyone who has children knows that the way to work with children is to involve them in a democratic way.

I am certainly not equating the workers of Manitoba with children; however, you are in a position of authority, but you have to remember that you are in this position because the people of Manitoba voted you here, at least some of the people of Manitoba did, so you have a responsibility to use that authority in a democratic way. You have a responsibility, I think, to work with the people of the province and not tell them this is what is going to happen to you now and just benefit a few people in this province.

Specifically, I had a very nice copy of the bill at tached to this press release, which now has vanished. Does anybody have a copy of the bill? Thank you, that is all right. There are particular sections of the bill that I would like to draw to the government's atte ntion.

Section 2(1 ) says that "this Act applies to every collective agreement with a date of expiry that is on or after September 1 , 19 90 and before Septe mber 1 , 19 91 , or any later date that may be prescribed by the Lie utenant Gove rnor in Council. ft Now the Lieu tenant Governor in Council, I do not have to tell you people, is cabinet. I mean, again, I am just trying to point out that it is a very narrow group of people who are going to be making the decision about the breadth and the duration of this legislation.

Section 4 and

Section 8(4) scare me a little bit. "This Act prevails over every other Act, every regulation, every arbitral or other award or decision and every obligation, right, claim, agreement or arrangement of any kind.ft I am looking at the word "rightft in particular. My worry is that this legislation therefore supersedes any other rights that worker or anyone else who is under this legislation may have . Does this mean that the human rights code is superseded by this legislation? Does this mean that other pieces of provincial legisl ation are superseded by this code? I think that

Section 4 and

Section 8(4), which talks about the regulations having the same power, is a very, very dangerous piece of legislation, and I would like to see, at the very least, that word "right" stricken from this piece of legislation.

Section 8(1 ) deals with the breadth of this legislation and may be extended to anyone who may become payable dir ectly or ind irectly by government. Well, that is just about everybody, is it not? That scares me. Not only are we talking about the entire Civil Service here, but we are talking about anyone who may directly or indirectly become payable. Well, does that mean that -(i nterje ction)- Mr. Chairm an: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable memb ers wanting to carry on a conversa tion to possibly carry it on at the back of the room so we could hear this presenter. We have a number of presenters , and I would like to hear a number of them. Carry on, Ms. Devine.

July 12, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 276 Ms. Devine: It just seems that is very, very wide breadth, and just about anyone in the province could be constru ed to fall under that. Is this really, in sheep's clothing, a wage-and-price-control piece of legislation or wage-control piece of legislation? The press release talked about civil servants. I would disagree with the legislation even if it was that narrow, but in reality we are talking about a much wider populous when you look at

Section 8.1 . Also,

Section 9.1 (

c) and

Section 10 suggest that a regulation, which could be enacted under this legislation, could be enacted as late as December 31 , 19 92, which is the end date of the time at which this legislation can be kind of re-enacted-not re-enacted, but could apply to any particular collective agreement. It suggests that a regulation could be enacted on that date, the end date, to continue the legislation in force for another 12 months. In effect, I think this legislation could go much longer than we have anticipated.

It is not going to end possibly on December 31 , 19 92, but it could be extended another 12 months beyond that, taking us to the end of 19 93. That really brings to a close what I wanted to say. Just in

summary, I think any constitutional look or democratic look at any piece of legislation will involve an analysis of the purpose and the effects of the legislation. As I have tried to state, I do not think the purpose of this legislation is to help taxpayers' jobs and services but rather to hinder workers and will, in the long term, affect services, and it will affect taxpayers negatively. I think the effect of this legislation is going to be probably a worsening economic climate in the province. More importantly to me, it is going to affect the psyche of the people of this province in the long term.

You are going to turn the working people and the citizenry of this province into an unhappy lot who is malleable, who lacks inspiration, who lacks enthusiasm because they have simply been told what to do too often without participation. I think you are goin g to be look ing at a constitutional challenge to this legislation--1 hope very much that you do-if it passes.

I will do whatever I can to fight this legislation, if that happens, but I hope that some of what I have said and some of what the hundreds of other people are saying has done something to the consciousness of the people in government and perhaps to some of the Liberal members so that this legislation is defeated. Mr. Chalrman : Thank you, Ms. Devine. There are a number of questions that will be coming forward for some clarification of your presentation. Mr. Doe r : Mr. Chairp erson, I noticed you mentioned clarification as your lead to introducing my questions.

In your brief, which I found very interesting-! thank you for your presentation-you mentioned

Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and the equality rights provisions. How would you equate this case with the unilateral action of the Conservative government in Saskatchewan dealing with the dairy workers' dispute? Have you studied that case in Saskatchewan where the courts have ruled in favour of workers' rights over government action? Ms. Devine: No, I am afraid I am not familiar with that case. * (1 340) Mr. Doer: It dealt again, Ms. Devine, with

Section 15 and raised some of the same points you are raising about a Charter violation. You mentioned that you would see it going to the Supreme Court. How long would you see this taking? How long would it take to have this challenge proceed to the Supreme Court, pursuant to

Section 15 , if that was utilized? Ms. Devine: Of cour se, any co nstitution al challenge or any court case has to go through the lower courts. Initially, this case would have to go to the Queen's Bench level in Manitoba. That, I expect, could take, because it is a constitutional question and perhaps quite complicated, upwards of a year. Then, if it is appealed, it would go to the Court of Appeal, which again I would approximate a year, and then to the Supreme Court. It could take anywhere from one to three years. I think we are looking at, at minimum, a five-year process here. Mr.

Doer: If the Supreme Court rules similar to the decision in Saskatchewan and consistent with the points you have raised on

Section 15 , the only recourse the government would have to implement this bill, if they were unsuccessful in the courts, which I believe they will be, as you do, is the notwith standing clause. Would that be your understanding of the only provision the government could use, therefore, to bring back the autocratic provisions of the bill?

277 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 19 91 Ms. Devin e: Yes, they could use the notwithstanding clause which, by convention or by practice or by tra dition, this government has not used. I think it would certainly be an unpopular move by the government to use the notwithstanding clause. If there was a way that the legislation could be read down so it did not offe nd the Charter, that might be anot her way. I really do not see how it could be read down, because if you read it down, you would be just then confining the pro visions of the act to a smaller group of workers .

That would not take the basic problem away, which is that these particular workers would be treated in a discriminatory fashion. I do not think that would be an option. I think you are right. You are correct that the only option would be using the notwithstanding clause. Mr. Doer: The Premier (Mr. Film on) of the province has been very, very critical of the Quebec governmen t utilizing the notwithstanding clause. It seems to me that this, the use of the notwithstanding clause, could potentially em barrass the province of Man itoba in a very, very extr eme way in a very crucial period of time in our history.

Would you not see the citizens of Manitoba, in order to implement this legislation, and the government using the notwithstanding clause-do you think that would hold Manitoba up to ridicule, given the Pr emi er's comments about Bi11 17 8 in the province of Quebec? Ms. Devine: I certainly do. I am aware of this government's opposition or criticism of Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause and certainly all other Canadians' criticism of that. The notwithstanding clause is a very, very serious

section in the Constitution. It should only be used very, very sparingly and very, very carefully. If this clause was used to, in effect, quash workers' rights in the province of Manitoba, it would do two things. It would hold Manitoba up a s-e xcuse me, but nothing short of fascist, really. Further, it would just be an utter loss, an utter defeat for working people in this province and would do the same kinds of things that I was talking about, talking about the psyche of the people in the province and defeating people. Mr.

Doer: Just so I can be honest with the presenter, I support ke eping the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution until we get a number of decisions out of the Supreme Court over the next 1 0 years, but I do not support utilizing it in any case that I have ever seen so far in this country. We will have to wait for the pornography decisions and some others that I think are very interesti ng over time in the 19 90s, I would suggest. You mentioned the participation rights of people. When they are taken away, people change. This is something we have heard from other committee representatives.

In fact, Hydro em ployees and Telephone em ployees who call themselves very moderate and reasonable people now are saying, you are waking up the sleeping giant or you are forcing us into greater militancy. Can you give some examples or information on that point that you raised? I think it is a very important point.

I think it is again very key in terms of labour-management relations in Manitoba in terms of the labour peace we have had in this province, in relative terms, and what this bill may do in that regard in terms of whether it jeopardizes the labour relations peace or whether it enhances la bour relations peace. Ms. Devine: I think we are actually dealing with two things here. One would be an increasing polarity between the labour movement and between the gover nment. That is one issue.

The other issue is a general decline in the morale of the population of the pro vince that would not be confined merely to people who are in organized labour but would extend to their families and their extended families and their neighbours and so on. So an entire population would be swept up by that. Certainly this legi slation would not be operating in isolation to create that change in morale of the population.

It, along with other pieces of legislation, like Bill 68, like Bill 35, so on and so on and so on, contribute to that decline in fee ling among people that they have any way of any power of any control over what is going on in their lives. When people feel like they have no control on what is going on in their lives, they give up hope and they stop caring and they become less enthusiastic and so on and so forth. I would say that is a long-term process.

In the short term, you are going to find people who have an outlet, a way of working with other people, i.e., in organized labour, become much, much more militant and much more vocal. I met a couple of people here last night who are in unions but who, up until now, have never been active in their unions. These people-1 do not know if I would call them militants, but they were out here last night and they were ready to speak. I think one of them did have the opportunity.

July 12 , 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 278 It is similar to, I think, the frustration and the feeling of being boxed into a corner that aboriginal people in this province and in this country were feeling last summer. It just felt like the democratic tools and the democratic processes that we trusted in and we believed in were no longer av ailable and that there had to be other methods of getting our point across . I think that is exactly what is going to happen in this province and is happening already. I think it is going to mean an increase in polarity between the gove rnment and working people.

It is going to mean an increase in militancy and possibly an increase in violence. Mr. Doer: Again, that is consis tent with, particularly, people in the Crown corporations who have been presenting briefs so far and others as well, generally. You me ntioned the

section that had the overrid ing clause on rights, which would of course be overrid ing provincial legislation of rights. You could not override the Charter, obviously. Your position is the bill should be scrapped on principle . I understand that. If you were looking at that sect ion, have you had any other legal advice that indeed overrides The Human Ri ghts Code? Notwithstanding the fact that you have agreed you, on principle grounds, want the whole bill to be defeat ed, how would you see remedying that Issue of rights, which is a very important fundamental principle issue in this bill? Ms.

Devine: I have not had independent legal advice or opinion on that -simply from my own read ing and seeing that word and knowing that when that word is in a piece of legislation, it means some th ing. In Canada, when any piece of leg isla tion is passed after another piece of legislation, it has more power than the preceding piece. Okay ? Mr. Doer: Yes, that is the judges' decision, I think, on pensions on the Human Rights Code. Mr. Chairman: Is that your answer? Ms. Devine: No, that is not the end of my answer. I would, at the very least, simply strike the word "right" from

Section 4 and from

Section 8.4, but I would not leave it at that. I would want to study the wording of those two particular sections further to get a full understa nding of the meanings of the words "obligation, claim, agreement or arrangement of any kind." I would say right now, on first reading that the word "right" should go from both of those two, but we should not lea ve it at that and take this back for further consideration by the draft ers. * (1 350) Mr.

Doer: One last question , you mentioned again the dates and, by regulation, the ability to extend dates, the date being December 31 , and the ability to extend it gives you a much more broader time frame than the original press release would lead one to believe. Has the government confirmed that

interpretation is correct, or has the government refuted that

interpretation of the abil ity to have sort of the trickle extension kind of process by Order -in-Council? Ms. Devine: I am not aware that the government has either confirmed that is the meaning of those two sections combined or refuted it. However, my reading of it very simply states that it is possible. As long as it is possible for the government to extend the purview of this legislation for another 12 -month period beyond 19 92, then it means that it is possible. If the gove rnment intends this legislation to only go until the end of 19 92, then that should be stated clearly in the legisla tion.

There should not be loopholes like these ones left open to extend it further. Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Chair, I appreciated very much your presentati on. It opened a Jot of issues for me that I had not been aware of. In one point you did men tion, in response earlier to the questions from Mr. Doer, some of the effects of the legislation. I do not believe you were asked a question on when you mentioned in your brief about the division of powers argument and you talked about the Telephone emp loyees.

Could you clarify that particular effect that you see of this legislation, please? Ms. Devine: As well as I can, off the top of my head, there have been ma ny constitutional cases involving division of powers arguments, i.e., who has jurisdiction over various types of em ployees and various types of undert akings that they are involved in, the federal government or the provincial government? As you are aware , both levels of gove rnment ha ve equal power within their jurisdiction, but we have to determine who has jurisdiction over what.

279 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12, 1991 In many early Supreme Court of Canada case s, and even before that Privy Council cases and subsequent ones, there have been many cases involving Telephone em ployees from a number of provinces. Depending on whether the governm ent can see that the Telephone System or the work that the em ployee is doing is integral to the overall operation of the undertak ing, then they will probably find it within federal jurisdiction.

For example, in Manitoba, if the court finds that any particular group of Telephone em ployees are doing something that conne cts them integrally with the rest of the telephone system and the telephone system conne cts to other pro vinces, physically Saskatchewan and Ontario- then that is going to be seen as something that is interprovincial and, therefore , under federal jurisdiction.

I am not absolutely sure on this, but it is certainly going to be a very possible constitutional challenge that, at the very least, the Manitoba Telephone System em ployees who are contained in this legislation may, in fact, sit outside it. It may be unconstitutional to include those people in this piece of legislation, because they may fall under federal jurisdiction and not provincial. Ms. Barrett: Are there other employees? Did you use the Telephone em ployees as an example, or is that the largest kind of group-or just briefly some other kinds of groups of em ployees who might fall under this particular case?

Ms. Devine: It is going to depend on the type of work those em ployees do. If any emp loyee is working within an occupation that is interprovincial in its nature and has in the past been ruled as part of the federal jurisdiction, then they will fall under the federal jurisdiction. Telephone em ployees leapt out at me, but there might be others. If there are interprovincial trucking em ployees, they may fall under federal jurisdiction, so again the pro vince would be illegal in its attempt to limit their wages. Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, would this be a separate court challenge from the potential

Section 15 challen ge? I am trying to get the logical extension or even the illogical extension of the potential court challenges. Could they go together? Could one go and then the other, or would they be two separate challenges going at the same time? Ms. Devine: It is very likely that they would go at the same time. There is no reason why they could not go separate ly. Just in terms of cost, it would be likely that those people opposing the legislation would work together and take this challenge as one package. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James) : Mr.

Chairperson, I want to thank the presenter for her presentati on, which I also found very interesting and provocative . I want to pick up on the last point Ms. Barrett was asking about. Are you aware of any employees covered by this legislation who have ever been covered by the Canada Labour Code or the Canada Labour Relations Board federally, such that there would be some evidence that they may fall under federal jurisdiction? Ms. Devine: No, not offhand.

I would, I guess, throw the ball back to the minister to take this piece of legisla tion back to the dra fte rs and have them do some research on those constitutional questions. Mr. Edwards: I think ma ybe the minister has surveyed this at some point in his drafting of the bill. That may be a question he may want to answer in the fullness of time. la m not aware, I must say, of any em ployees who are covered by this legislation who have , prior to this, been ever covered under the federal jurisdiction. I under stand the point you are making about MTS.

All the same, I have not seen any yet that have come under the Canada Labour Code. As well, you may be aware that there are a number of provinces which have brought in similar legislation to this. Are you aware of any challenges in the courts, as you speak of, that have been launched in any of those other provinces? Ms. Devine: No, I am not aware of any challenges. However , I wanted to point out that even within one em ployer like MTS there may be one group of em ployee who is under federal jurisdiction and anothe r who is under provincial jurisdiction.

So it is quite possible that MTS em ployees as a group may-1 mean, they may all be under federal jurisdiction for the purposes of this or some of them may be. I am afraid that I cannot give you any further specifics on that. Mr. Edwards: That is clear that an em ployer can have em ployees functioning under the pro vincial scheme and some under the federal scheme. That is clear. I am just not aware of any that are covered

July 12, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 280 by this act that have ever fa llen under the federal area. Your argument, nonethe less, is interesti ng. With respe ct to the Charte r, Ms. Barrett mentioned

Section 15, is that the

section you are perceiving a potential challenge being launched under? Ms. Devine: Yes, the equality rights section. That is correct. Mr. Edward s: I am not sure if you are aware-maybe you are, you have obviously done some research-that there is a 19 89 decision of the Supreme Court on

Section 15 . That set the sta ge. It was the first sort of definitive answer on

Section 15 in terms of how to interpret it. It did indicate that the only groups protected by

Section 15 were, in the words of Mr. Justice Mcintyre, discrete and insular minorities who had been adversely affected and, in fact, who had a traditional history of being in need of protection and having been discriminated against. Do you think the 48,000 civil servants , and I am not saying that they are or they are not, I would just appreciate your views, various sala ry ranges, various jobs, are going to fit within discrete and insular minority as a prerequisite for qualification for protection under

Section 15 ? Ms. Devine: I think it is certainly an argument worth making. Certainly, the labour movement, worke rs, people who work for money have historically been discriminated against and have historically bee n oppressed, which is why we have trade unions. Subsequent to having trade unions, certainly the trade union movement has been discriminated against by em ployer s and sometimes by govern ment. I think that arg umen t certainly can be made and could be made very effect ively. Mr. Edwards: Just one final question. I appreciate your comments.

You did indicate in your final stat eme nt, and it obviously stru ck a cord with me, because I represent the Liberal Party on this committee, that you hoped Liberals would be listening to you. I want to assure you, we were. My concern is, how was that provoked that we would be singled out as a party that should be listening to you, in the sense that I think all members should hav e and hopefu lly wm be? Do you have any evi dence or any specifics as to members here in this Legisla ture in the Liber al Party who have not supported the position you take , which is that the bill should not pass? • (1 400) Ms.

Devine: I guess I am not clear about what the Liberal Party position is. I am aware of what the NDP position is. I am aw are of what the Progressive Conse rvative position is. I was not aware of what your party's caucus position was. I was making a point of hoping that the Liberal members at this committee were listening and were taking some of these argument s that not only I but hundreds of other people are making. Ms. Edwar ds: Mr. Chairperson, I can assure the speaker, we have been.

I would also hope that others, when they look at these issues, would consider commen ts ma de the very day the legislation came forward by memb ers throughout, the questions the next day in Question Period, every speech that has been made on this legislation, which has been entirely consistent and has been in opposition to this bill. I would hope that would have- An Honourable Member: Put out a press release. Mr. Edwards: Well, the member suggests putting out a press release. No other party put out a press release except the government. She has talked about that press release much to the disdain I am sure- Mr.

Chairman: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable members, this is not a time for debate. This is a time to get clarification. There are a large number of presentations coming forward , and we would like to hear the m. If you could put your question now, please. Mr. Edwards: The Chairperson and the minister will, I am sure, remember that these questions are directly related to a comme nt made by the presenter. That is what I was talking about. In any event, my final question to the presenter goes back to her question as of rights and whether or not rights are affec ted.

Can you illustrate or paint a picture for us of how rights in the Human Rights Act or others might be affected by this legislation which, in effe ct, puts in a wage freeze ? How would that affect-have you given that any thought as to how that might actually work out in the workplace as a real infringement on a person's, say, human rights or other? Ms. Devine: I have not contempla ted a particular example of where that might happen. On principle, I object to any piece of legislation which-it states

281 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12, 1991 very openly and clearly that it will override any other rights that people may have . So, on principle, I object to that word being used. I am sure if we sat here long enough, we could come up with 15 or 20 examples. Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway) : Could you explain your apprehension about the overriding primacy contained in

Section 4 that this act prevails over any other act, why you feel this is risky or dangerous? Ms. Devine: I think that I partially answered that to Mr. Edwards, justto say that, in principle, I reject any piece of legislation which claims to override other rights. As I also explained to Mr. Edwar ds, I have not, at the tip of my tongue, any examples where that might happen, but it would not take very long for us to collectively come up with a number of ways that that might affect someone advers ely.

I just think that any piece of legislation that says outright this legis lation stands above any other rights that you might have is very, very dangerous legislation. We do not want to be in a situation where we are creating legis lation that takes away rights in this country. I think that this country is all about creating legislation that gives people more rights. Mr. Santos: That is the status of primacy of being an overriding law or statute , is that not normally reser ved to a constitutional documen t or a constitutional provision, not just an ordinary statute ? Ms.

Devine: At the provincial level, an ordinary statute can overrule an ordinary statu te, and our human rights code in Manitoba is an ordinary statute which could be ridden over by this one. It cannot override the Charter of Rights. Howe ver, if my rights are somehow contravened by this legislation, I am not imme diately protected . First, they are contrave ned by the legislation. Then I have to make a constitutional fight to get them back. Mr. Santos: On the same provision, there is also a provision that it can override any agreement, award, arrangement, of any kind.

Is that not also risky and dangerous in your opinion? Ms. Devine: It is, in my opinion. I said I think earlier that I think that the word "rights" should be stricken from both of those sections of the legislation, but also that the drafters should have a second look and this committee should have a -second look at those other words. The word "agreement" is a good example. If, for example, I am one of these people who is indirectly payable by the government of Manitoba; let us say I am doing a contract with the government, and you contract with me to do some kind of consulting work for $2,500.

Towards the end of that work being done, we renew that contract for another year. Well, that means effectively I could not build my costs and so on into that new revised agreement. I would have to be set tling for $2,500 for the second year of work, even though all of my other costs may have gone up. Mr. Santos: Do you think this provision is a prerogative of a settled general principle of law that agreement must be kept, the contract must be abided by Pacta Sunt Servanda? Ms. Devine: I think that is an interesting point in contract law that again people might want to look at. Mr. Santos: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. De vine, for your presenta tion. At this time, I would like to inform the committee that we are going to deal with the out-of-town presenters that the Clerk has brought forward . The first out-of-town presenter is No. 11 2, Lorne Morrisseau. I saw him a minute ago. Do you have a wr itten presen tation, Mr. Morrisseau? Mr. Lorne Morrlsseau (Private Citizen): No, Mr. Chairperson, unfortunately, I do not. I have a verbal presenta tion. I appeared 11 2 on the list, and I happened to come down a little earlier so I was not prepared with a written brief. Mr. Chairm an: Okay.

Just carry on then. * (1 410 ) Mr. Morrlssea u: Mr. Chairperson and mem bers of the legisla tive committee on Bill 70, I strong ly oppose the implementa tion of wage freezes for workers in the public sector or any sector in the province of Manitoba. It was not all that long ago that Prem ier Filmon stated in the Man itoba Legislature his support for the free collective bargaining process by stati ng: We will act in good faith at all times in the open free collective bargaining process with all the em ployees with whom we have to negotiate. Mr.

Chair person and memb ers of the committee, I have been taught that a person's word is a bond never broken. Premier Rlmon did more than break his word, he annihila ted it. The implemen tation of a

July 12 , 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 282 wage freeze on the public sector is the destruction of the free collective bargaining process in Manitoba for the period of one year and perhaps longer. It appears to me that the principles of free collective bargaining are meaningless to the Filmo n gove rnment. The longstanding tradition of bargaining in good faith and achieving settl em ents through a process of negotiations has been elim inated by the stroke of a pen.

It also appears to me that this government lacks principles, and it certainly lacks respect for workers' rights in the free collective bargaining process . This action is neither fair nor reasonable. It is irres ponsible. Freezing wages in these recessionary times has a negative effect on the Manitoba econom y. Re movin g work ers' disposable income, which is probably in the area of millions of dollars from the economy at this time or at any time, is wrong.

What is needed is leadership and a boost in confidence in the economy and increasing consumer purchasing power through fair and reasonable wage ad jus tm ents . The gov ernment has a responsibility and an obligation for prov ision of quality and vital services to the people of Manitoba by the people of Manitoba, its public sector workers.

In ma king reference to the June 3 press release announcing the bill, in the opening paragraph the sta tement reads: In an effort to protect taxpayers, vital services and jobs, Finance Minister Clayton Manness said he will be introducing a bill to maintain public sector wages at their current level for one year. I would like to point out in the area of vital services, one area that comes to mind currently is the situation where vital services in the Parks region where formerly beach patrol, beach safety offic ers, were provided throughout the parks in the province of Manitoba.

That only exists now in one park and that is at Grand Beach. I had a discussion with a former park beach patrol officer yesterday that had discussion with a friend of hers that was a former beach safety officer, and this past weekend there were a couple of near misses. At Winnipeg Beach there is no safety program for the public to go and enjoy the beach. There is potential for unfortunate drowning of some citizen and the potential is greater for children, because they have a tendency to wander off, and these beach patrol officers were on these beaches watching for these occurrences.

That is a vital servic e tha t has been elimi nated by this gove rnment. Another area that has been cut back is in the dental health services that affects all the school-age children in and around the area that I live in, in the town of Selkirk. Another area that the government made refe rence to about vital services was that of mental health servic es.

In the budget exercise on April 16 , they made a drastic move in the area of mental health whereby they elim inated the most prominent and well-known psychia tric diploma nursing program in Canada that had been in the town of Selkirk at the School of Psychiatric Nursing for 70 years. The elim ination of approximately 13 jobs seems to contradict the press release. It was articula ted that there was an effort to protect jobs.

The effect of the declining education programs for the mental health education syste m is going to have far- and long-reaching effects where we need to establ ish a strong mental health program with educ ated professionals to provide that important facet of the health care syst em. Removing that important program from the mental health centre in the town of Selkirk is contrary to what is stated by the gove rnment with its intent. The number of students who have graduated at the mental health centre on average has been approximately 25 to 30.

There are a number of students who had indicated that they had intent to enter the nursing program in Selkirk, and now they are not able to do so because there is no program. That action took a step that does have a direct economic impact on the town of Selkirk. It wipes out a number of jobs. The payroll that was going into the town of Selkirk will now be elim inated from that School of Psychiatric Nursing. It will have an effect on the health care system in mental health because of a declining number of graduating psychiatric nursing students. This has been pointed out in a newspaper

article that the Winnipeg Free Press had on April 19 . Jim Beach, director of the Regina-based Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Sciences and Technology said he is worried Manitoba's health services will suffer as a result of the decision to close the Selkirk School of Psychiatric Nursing. It appears this aspect has not been looked at. What will happen to the present mental health centre in the future? Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

283 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12, 1991 Point of Order Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I am here to listen to the Bill 70, and we are talking about health care. I would ask that you please bring the presenter relevant to the bill, please. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McAlpine. I would ask the presenter if he could try and be germane towards the bill. That is what we are hearing here today, and if the presenter could please direct and be relevant towards the bill at this time.

There will be some questions of you later for clarification of your presentation, if you do not mind. The honourable member did not have a point of order. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairperson, I would hate the speaker to take any indication from your comme nts or Mr. McAlpine's that he is not being entirely relevant. He is. He is talking about the press release-1 have heard him quote it-i n an effort to protect taxpayers, vital services and jobs. He is talking about that comment which was issued by this government with respect to Bill 70. I would suggest to the speaker, I hope he does not think he is not being relevant .

He is. In my view, he is totally relevant. Mr. Chairm an: Order, please. Mr. Edwards, you do not have a point of order. We are discussing the bill and not the press release at this time, and I would ask that we be relevant to the bill. Mr. Doer: The Chair is saying, on a new point of order, that either the press release has nothing to do with the bill which is probably more accurate than not, or that we are out of order talking about the press release if it is relevant to the bill.

So, surely, the government's articulation of the principles contained within a bill is entirely in order for any citizen to speak to, because it is contained within the press release. The minister should stand by his press release and not have witnesses and citizens who are talking about his press release be ruled out of order. I think that you cannot have it both ways. Either your press release was inaccurate to the principles of the bill, in which case the press release should be withdrawn, or the people can speak to it. Mr. Manness: Mr.

Chairman, the great democrat himself, the Leader of the NDP party , knows that we have been called here by the Legislature for a bill refe rred. That bill is No. 70. That is the reason that we are here. We are not here to discuss either the press release of the government, the press release of any other party, but Bill 70. That is the strict reason that we were here. That is the only point that I think has to be made at this time. We welcome all presentations on Bill 70 and its basic principles.

The principles as enunciated in that bill are whether or not there has been an infringemen t significantly on free collective bargaining, to use the words of the members opposite, whether or not the gov ernment has the right to bring in legisl ation of this form, and whether or not the regulations and the powers given to under the bill are ov erpowerful, to use the words of some. I would say, Mr. Chairman, you have every right to call the presenter to order. * (14 20 Mr. Doer: Mr.

Chairperson, surely the minister's pu blic pronouncements on the bill that he is introducing contained within the most public document that is produced on any given bill, i.e. the minister's own press release, is absolutely available to anybody to comment on in terms of dealing with the principles of the bill. The minister's press release articulates the alleged mechanics of a bill and articulates the alleged reasons for it.

When you are taking away the righ ts of free collective bargaining in a bill, and the government has stated the reason for that in a press release, surely that is germane to the debate in this room. Why are we taking away rights? What are the rationales for that, and those rationales are in the minister's press release. I think that it is entirely accura te and relevant for people to speak on the minister's press release dealing with Bill 70. They are not speaking on the minister's press release dealing with The Statute Law Amendment Act or some other provision of the Legislature.

They are dealing with the minister's press release dealing with Bill 70. If the press release Is inaccur ate and therefore leads anybody off the debate, that is a different issue. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Chairperson, I acknowledge that you did not censure the speaker strictly and say, do not say this or do not talk about this. You indicated that you would prefer things to be germane. The indication from that to the speaker and to other speakers who are presently waiting to be heard is that what this speaker is talking about is not germane.

July 12, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 284 Mr. Chairperson, I want an indication from you on that issue, because we have now hear d two speakers who have referred to the press release. The press release articula tes pretty clearly in the opening sentence what this minister feels the principles behind the bill are, and he puts forward the defence for the bill, if there is one-and I do not think there is- but this is the best he comes up with. These speakers are directly commenting on that issue.

There is no other more relevant issue than the principles which the minister articula tes in defence of his bill. This is the most relevant , in my view, documen t other than the bill itself which of course does not deal as straight a principle as such to talk about. If the minister did not want us to talk about whether or not it protected taxpayers' vital services and jobs, what does he want us to talk about? That is his defence of the bill. This speaker should take no indication in any way, shape or form that his comments are not relevant. If the chairperson thinks otherwise, I want to hear that.

I want a clarification of what the chairperson believes is or is not relevant. Mr. Chairm an: I believe we are finished our little debate. I would like to remind the honourable members that we are not here to debate at this time. We are here to hear the presenters. I think we should carry on and hear the presentation from Mr. Morrisseau. *** Mr. Morrlsseau: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. did not intend to focus my comments totally on the mental health centre and the mental health services.

However, the opening salvo in this debate, I reacted to the June 3 news release, and that is where I started gathering my thoughts and was looking at actions that had take n place currently. The reason I speak to the mental health centre situation is because I have a long personal history of having family members who were em ployed there as early as in the early 194 0s and late '50s and '60s, and I worked there myself for almost 20 years.

I know many, ma ny people there who are in the same situation, that the attack at that mental health centre is an attack at their heart strings and their livelihood, and that is why we want to raise that issue when it is deemed appropriate . I thought it was appropriate to raise it because it talks about vital services, and I believe the Selkirk Mental Health Centre is one of the most vital services the province of Manitoba offers in the area of mental health.

It made sense to me when I was putting pen to paper to try and make a connection with this vital services comment that is in the June 3 press release and the relationship to Bill 70. In any event, I was alm ost completed on my remarks on the Mental Health Centre. The only comment that I wanted to make relating to that is that I understand that the town of Selkirk, the mayor and the council have passed a resolution urging the provincial gove rnment to reconsider the closure of the mental health centre and reinstitute the program.

We also understand that the Selkirk district and Chamber of Commerce has also communicated with the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) in the same identical vein that they would like to see that program reinstituted just like the rest of the citize ns, students and em ployees at the mental health centre in and around the town of Selkirk.

Moving on, on a couple of comments relating to Bill 70 and the vital services that it mentions, again, talking about jobs and the intent of Bill 70 to protect the taxpayers and to protect jobs, I had a discussion with a worker who was commenting on Bill70 whose hours of work were drastically reduced. Where he formerly worked as a full -time em ployee for a departm ent, his work is now cut in a number of weeks to 32 and, in some cases, 26 weeks. He said, not only do I receive zero wages through this bill, they also have cut my work in half in some cases.

He has articu lated of different friends who have had their weeks cut in the case of 30 percent. So they have ac tually received a 30 percent or 40 percent, in some cases 50 percent, reduction in their disposable income. We are talking about being fair and reasonable here. All these people want is a basic increase in wages that would keep them up with the current ma rket and the current consumer price index, but they are falling further and further behind in wages plus reduction in hours.

In any event, I just want to go on and say that this burden for all these vital services that are so important to the province is carried out by the people who are providing the servi ce, of course, and it is very unfair to freeze the wages of these workers through this bill. The public sector workers have long been the whipping persons of this government, and it has certainly come to a head with this Bill 70.

285 LEG ISLAT IVE ASSE MBLY OF MA NITOBA July 12 , 19 91 By freezing wages through this bill, we will end up in a situation where workers will be in a situation where they are in a catc h-up situation that will take years to achieve, and equality may never be achieved. All I believe workers have asked for is that they receive a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. My question is, what has happened to fairness? What has happened to equality? They have gone out the window with this Bill 70.

I believe that the gov ernment has made a very grave and serious error in continuing with this strate gy of implementing wage freezes to alleviate the provincial economic woes. This legislation strips workers of their democratic rights by removing their right to negotiate wages, benefits and other terms and conditions that have long been a standing tradition in the province of Manitoba and in Canada. Is this Almon's government's example of fairness? ls this not an erosion of democracy, I ask you? This proposed leg islation will not help the economy. It will only make it worse and worse.

Who is going to fill the void on purchasing goods and services as these workers receive a reduction or zero wage increases, as they are forced to cut back in their standard of living? My question: Who is going to fill the void? Is it ghosts that are going to be buying these goods and servi ces? I urge this comm ittee to review the impact of this bill, both short- and long-term effects , and I strongly urge members of this comm ittee to recommend the withdrawal of this regressive piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. (Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Chairman, in the Chair) The Acting Chairman (Mr.

Reimer): Thank you very much. Mr. Doer: You mentioned your long experience at the psychiatri c facility at Selkirk. I was wondering, how is the morale in the psychiatric facility? A nurses' aide at Selkirk, as I understand it, gets zero percent increase. Mr. Morrlssea u: Correct. Mr. Doer: A nurses' aide working in Selkirk today, as we speak, gets a zero percent increase, and a provincial doctor emplo yed by the Province of Manitoba in the same period of time when the contract expired got a 7 percent increase on about a $90 ,000 salary. I would ask whether Mr.

Morrisseau feels do people feel that is a fair wage control program that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has brought in under Bill 70? * (14 30) Mr. Morrlsseau: In answer to your question, Mr. Doer, I have been asked that question by a number of individuals in the same type of situat ion. That is why I wrote that question to the committee. What happened to fairness and what happened to equality?

I have had discussions with individuals who are psychiatric nursing assistants and they have indicated to me, just like they have indicated to their friends and co-workers , how the effect of the GST and the other problems with the economy are affecting them personally and have noted that when they go through the various check-out stands in stores throughout the province in doing their purchasing, that they do not have a counter that leads for the lower end paid people to go when all the prices are redu ced.

A loaf of bread costs the same for a psychiatric nursing assistant that is making not that high a salary as that of a doctor who received an increase in salary. It is not fair. There is no fairness. Mr. Doer: The gove rnment has a number of nurses working at the Selkirk facility, and it also has settled with a number of other nurses that are working in psychiatric facilities outside of the provincially run gove rnment syst ems.

Am I correc t in my assump tion that a nurse working in Brandon, Portage anq Selkirk in those provincially run facilities would be getting zero, and a nurse working in a psychiatric ward at the Health Sciences Centre or Brandon Ge neral Hospital would get the negotiated increase made by the government? Is my assumption correct on the application of Bill 70? Mr. Morrlsseau: Yes, Mr. Doer, I believe that your assum ption is correct.

I say so with some authority, because my spouse is a psychiatric nurse who does not work presently for the provincial government, and she is active with that organization in dealing with their em ployer and involved with that union and has been in consultation with other facilities. That is the understanding that I have been led to believe through her checking it out with different individuals in the different health care facilities. Mr.

Doer: Do you feel that in talking and listening to psychiatric nurses, will this contribute to the turnover rate in Portage and Brandon, Selkirk, vis-a-vis other facilities, because I would note that some of our most mentally ill people in our society are in those institutions, unfortunately, and therefore will that lead in a drain of the professional people who would be working in those facilities going into

July 1 2, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 286 other health care facilities requiring the same qualifications? Mr. Morrlsseau: Yes, Mr. Doer, I had a discussion with one of the present students at the Psychiatric School of Nursing recently, just as a matter of Information this morning, about their nursing program and their continued fight to try and lobby whoever they can to have the government overturn that decision. We wer e talking about the opportunity for some of the graduating students from the 199 1 class and their potential for employment.

My under stand ing is that there is a possibility for an on-call casual position that is being bulletined, and there is a board being set up to interview applicants at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre next week. However , the other individuals who are there are, for the most part, young individuals, and their basic comment is, to hell with it. I am going out of the province. There is no future here In the very short term, and the long term does not look any bett er.

They want to go and try and esta blish a career that provides them with an adequate standard of living for the profession that they have chosen to work in. The Acting Chairman {Mr. Reimer): Thank you, Mr. Morrisseau. Thank you very much for your presentati on. I would like to now call on No. 257, Ms. Cindy Terry. Do you have a written presenta tion? Ms. Cindy Terry {Private Citizen): No, it is oral. The Acting Chairman (Mr. Reimer): You may proceed, please. Ms. Terry: My message today is one of loss, but before I start to talk about that I would like to say a word about how inaccessible this was for me today.

I live in The Pas, and you are not leaving Winnipeg to talk to anybody, as far as I know, out of the city of Winnipeg. It makes it very difficult for those of us who live out of Winnipeg, especially this far away, to talk to you. It was very difficult for me to even get on this afternoon and, thanks to the Clerk, we have that done. I would just like to express that. I tried phoning as of Wednesday to get on, and finally now, this afternoon. As I said, my message is one of loss. I have lost much since this gove rnment has come into power. Mostly I have lost my security.

Many people in my workplace do not know if they have a job from one day to another. I will talk when everyone is quiet. The Acting Chairman {Mr. Reimer): You may proceed. Ms. Terry: It is very difficult to work with people if they are constantly insecure about whether they have a job or not. I am a psychology major, and those of you who have take n psychology know about Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Maslow says that you need to have security. You need to have food; you need to have shelt er; you need to have a sense of where you are and a sense of security.

This Filmon government has taken away my sense of security and has taken it away from my fellow workers. They have basically taken away the essence of people, that bottom layer. What this gove rnment does not realize is that when you take away their sense of security, their sense of belonging, and they are too worried about whether they are going to have a job from one day to another, they do not work to their potential. If you want people to work, you have to give them security. You have to give them a reason for wanting to work, and you have taken that away.

You have taken away people's sense of security, of where they are. I think another major area of loss is in the area of education. I come from the community college syste m, and in that system you have wiped out 17 6 SYs. The Acting Chairman {Mr. Reimer): Ms. Terry, I would just like to remind you, as we have been reminding the other members, if you could bring your presentation relevant to 8111 70. Ms. Terry: I will, but I also have the right to-1 will. It all comes together, believe me. You have taken away all of these positions. You have taken away educational opportunities.

You have taken away the abil ity for people to go to school. I am now entering into university programs. You have raised the cost of tuition by not funding the colleges and the universities. So there again is another loss. Each time this government acts, we lose. I am a single parent. I have two children. I have lost in the daycare . I have lost my sense of security. When I want to go to education there is nothing but losses with this government. There is nothing for me to be happy about. Now, to Bill70- this continues on my field of loss. I have now lost my right to collective barg aining.

I have lost buying power. You have taken away my

287 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 1 2, 19 91 cost of living. You have taken away things that I had previously. * (1 440) The Acting Chairman {Mr. Reimer): Ms. Terry . Ms. Terry: Am I not important enough to be listened to? An Honourable Member: I am listening, too. The Acting Chairman (Mr. Reimer): You may continue. Ms. Terry: My cost of livin g has increased substantially as a single parent. My daycare costs have gone up. My Hydro has gone up. My telephone has gone up. My Autopac has gone up, but my wages are frozen.

You have taken away my right to buying power, my right to support my children, and probably my right to a job. I find it very strange that you have money for Ducks Unlimited, but you take away jobs from natural resources workers; you take away water resources workers. I find it very strange that you can give money to the MTS chairperson but you cannot give money to ordinary people. Tell me, am I less important than those people? It seems like it. I believe in equal ity and this government is anything but fair or treats people with equality. This gove rnment uses coercive power, the power of the worst type.

You can see it in all forms as we look at their legislation. This government makes it very, very difficult for single parents to make it from day to day, never mind try to improve yourself. By cuttin g jobs, by cutting daycare , by cutting educational progr ams, by cutting things like ACCESS, which are really important to people in the North, it is very plain that this government wants to keep single parents, especially single moms, down in the gutter. Then do you know what they do? They st omp all over them . That is what is happening to us. Thank you very much. The Acting Chairman (Mr.

Reimer): Thank you very much, Ms. Terry . Any questions? Ms. Ba rrett: Ms. Terry, I ap precia ted your comments. They clearly are heartfelt and come from your own experience . I am wondering if you could expand a bit on your use of the term "coercive power" as it relates to Bill 70 and how you see the implic ations for people in your situation and the workers of Manitoba? Ms. Terry: To me the term "coercive power" means that you have no participation in the decision making. You are told what to do, and if you do not do it this way, then you are in extreme jeopardy.

I know people in my workplace who are scared to death of this gove rnment. They are fearful for their jobs. They are fearful for their right of being. That is coercive power. That is no exaggerati on. It is out there. My friends, they are afraid to speak because of what this government may do to them. You read about it in the history books and you think, well, it can never happen to you. Believe me, I have experienced it daily. Ms. Barrett: They are scared and fearfu l. Can you give us a sense of what kind of thinking or what kind of background Bill 70 is coming from? Ms. Terry: Where the bill is coming from? Ms.

Barrett: Yes, you are talking about the effects of the bill. Can you speak to what you think are the c auses of the bill? Ms. Terry: I have great trouble with the causes of the bill, because I do not believe the ideology behind what this government says the causes of the bill are. I believe that we need services in this gove rnment and in this society. We need daycare services; we need dental health ser vices; we need educational services.

We need to be able to have a secure job, and when this government takes that away, the secure jobs, and freezes what you do have and what some unions and some groups have gone out and worked for, already have achieved, and takes that away, people are really shaken. They are left with nothing and their whole inner being is insecure. That is what this bill has done. It has made people so afraid and so insecure. Mr. Doer: Thank you very much for provid ing us the opportunity here-one of our first northern perspec tive s. I guess it is very difficult to be before this committee.

The North, of cour se- the Golden Boy faces the North in this building. If I remember Eddie Johanson's words of Vive le Nord ringing out in The Pas always , it is, I think, an important vision for all of us in this committee room. Northern commu nities sometimes have more diffic ulty in attracti ng people to their commu nities in both the private and public service. Has there been any discussion in the commu nity of The Pas about whether this will have a situation where people are not able to be attracted to cert ain jobs over a period of time, because of the recruitment implications of a

July 12 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 288 wage freeze and collec tive bargaining freeze? What impact will that be, would you think, on the citizens in the North, generally, and in The Pas specifically? Ms. Terry: I can tell you that a number of people are already leaving the province. I myself am leaving this province at the end of August. I cannot su rvive in this syste m. It is too oppressive. It is too coercive , and I have no security. I cannot work, and I cannot allow my children to be raised in a system that is so insecure.

If I am insecure about what is happening in my work force , that directly affects them. So, yes, people are leaving this province because of this. Mr. Doer: We ll, I am sorry to hear th at. Notwithstanding partisan politics, I would like to see as many people as possible stay in Manitoba-! think all of us would- and be attracted to our province. You mentioned you have worked in the public service and are working in the public service. How long have you worked in the public service, and is this the worst that you have seen this situat ion?

It is a very serious situation that you are outlining for us on the comm ittee today. Ms. Terry: I have worked for 16 years, 15 of the last years I have been a co mmu nity college instructor. I have never seen the devasta tion, I have never seen morale as low as it is at this point, and I keep a pretty close eye on what is happening around. Mr. Doer: I have heard other people in prior days. It was my own biased asse ssment that there were all these notions about the St erling Lyon years . In fact, presenters have even pointed to the pictu re, I think, on the wall.

Are you saying, for us today, something that we have been saying, and I think this is serious, I really do, that people are more worried, scared , frightened and the morale is so low now as a result of Bill 70 and other issues, not just Bill 70, than it has ever been in the last 15 years that you have worked for-ob viously three or four Premier s in three or four governments? Ms. Terry: It has never been lower. I want to raise a point that you keep saying to each speak er, do not talk about anything but Bill 70.

The point is that everything this government has done, leading up to Bi1170, affects how it affects people. If you had not laid off 1 ,000 people, and if you had not taken away daycare, if you had not taken away ACCESS, if you had not taken away education programs; it would not be as devastati ng. It is still a very, very devastat ing bill but you keep dumping and dumping and dump ing on people. They cannot handle it. That is why it is so devasta ting. The Acting Chairman (Mr. Reimer): Thank you very much, Ms. Terry. We are conti nuing calling out-of-town presenters. I would like to call now on No. 271 , Mr.

Darrell MacKenzie. We will then call on No. 87- " (1 450) Point of Order Mr. Doer: If he had to go get his family he has already been noted as once called. This would not be the second, and he is out, is it? The Acting Chairman (Mr. Reimer): I believe this is his second cal l, yes. Mr. Doer: He is being called a second time because he is out of town and you moved him up, not because of going on the order of the list. The Acting Chairman (Mr. Reimer): I believe the clerk had already canvassed him. He was only the third out-of-town one to be called. We will now call upon No. 87. Mr.

Doer: I would really strongly recommend, if Mr. MacKenzie is from out of town and was picking up his family, that the minister would not throw him off the list today. I just leave that with the minister. The Acting Chairman (Mr. Reimer): If he is coming back, well then we will consider him. *** The Acting Chairman (Mr. Reimer): We will call on No. 87, Buffy Burrell. Do you have a written presentation? Ms. Bufty Burrell (Private Citizen): No, I do not. I am sorry, I did not have time to do a written presentation. The Acting Chairman (Mr. Reimer): That is okay. You may proceed then. Ms. Burrell: Good day.

I am here representing the Portage Ia Prairie and District Labour Co-ordinating Committee. We represent 2,700 members and their families in the Portage Ia Prairie area, of whom many are affected by this regressive piece of legislation.

289 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 19 91 Firstly, on behalf of our membership and all rural and northern citizens, I want to express our deep disa ppointment in this com mittee's and the government's lack of commitment to rural and northern citizens. By holding hearings only in the city of Winnipeg, this government is showing its lack of concern for all citizens in this province, citizens which I remind you, you profess to represent.

By holding hearings in rural and northern Manitoba, you are precluding ordinary citizens from partic ipating in the process, a process whic h is supp osed to be for the people, which is supp osed to be guaranteed in a dem ocratic society. We believe that every citizen whether they live in Winnipeg, Thompson, Flin Flon, Swan River or Portage Ia Prairie should be given the same opportunities to express their views on Bill 70 or any other issue. We believe that, as citizens of Manitoba, we should be allowed to speak. Is it not our democratic right?

The Portage Ia Prairie and District labour Committee is opposed to Bill 70 and the Filmon gove rnment's continual attack on the working people of this province. Si nce Filmon and his Tory gove rnment achieved a majority government, they have mimicked their federal and provincial Tory cou nterparts in their attacks on public sector workers and antilabour actions. These attacks on ordinary working people in Manitoba have escalated to the point that we have lost all trust of Mr. Rlmon and his government. As workers and citizens of this province, we have been subjected to lies, lies and more lies from Mr.

Filmon and his cabinet. When Mr. Man ness introduced his budget and laid off hundreds of workers and cut or abolished many programs, he said he had no choice. We believe he had other options. He could have introduced fair taxation in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Film on, during the 1990 election campaign, in a response to a qu estion from the Manitoba Government Employees' Association replied: Any further significant changes to the Manitoba labour laws or The Civil Service Act would only be undertaken after consultation with the public, business and labour.

We believe the Manitoba labour laws and The Civil Service Act should reflect the legitima te needs of the public at large as well as the view of management and em ployees. Where was the consultat ion? Where was the dialogue prior to introduction of Bill 70? Perhaps they used the same process as Mr. Man ness used in Portage Ia Prairie when he consulted on the budget with his friends, the Chamber of Commerce and business, but no labour organizations or workers.

Rlmon's total disregard to working people and ordinary citizens of this province has gained him and his gov ernment a reputation of not caring for all Manitobans, of being untrustworthy and a detri ment to this province, just like Mulroney is to Canada. It is our belief that Mr. Filmon is following closely behind Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Devine in his attack on working people of Manitoba. To quote Mr. Filmon again: a Tory is a Tory is a Tory.

Bill 70 was introduced in the legislature without any consultation or dialogue with the 48,000 workers affected by the bill, nor with the organizations who represent these workers another show of the Filmon government act ing in bad faith. Bill 70 is not the answer to the problems of this province. Mr. Filmon has expressed that we want to have a clima te in Manitoba that would bring business to our prov ince. What he has created is a market which is either limited in its spending power or has no spending power left whatsoever.

Bill 70 completely wipes out the collective bargaining process for large sections of workers in this province, a process that has worked for decades. Bill 70 gives Rlmon and his Tories the power to extend legislation to more jurisdictions or for an unestimated time without discussion, no debate , no accountabil ity to the people. This in itself makes this government comparable to gove rnments in South Africa, Chile, El Salva dor, Iraq, et cetera, and their attacks on the rights of their citize ns. It sure builds trust in the people. It leads one to think what is next.

Perhaps they will pass legi slation to bring back child labour or abolish arbitration, the right to an education, the right to vote for certain citizens, the right to anything the Tories dislike. It is our belief that if Bill 70 is enacted we are allowing Filmon and his government to act without any accountability to the people of this province. Is this not contrary to all the principles of dem ocracy ? Bill 70 not only freezes wages for a year or longer, depending, it freezes the working conditions and the benefits of the agreement. To what purpose I ask?

The Tories are not satisfied with freezing the public workers' spending power. They want to ensure that any new or improved benefits they might

July 12 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 290 be entitled to under law or that they might negotiate are withheld. Why a single mother might be allowed to stay home with her child a little longer. Bill 70 is regressi ve. It is an attack on the public sector workers in this province. It allows Almon and his Tory government to incorporate any group into the legisla tion. Bill 70 takes away our right to collective bargain in good faith. Bill 70 gives Filmon and his cabinet the rights to which only fascist dic tators have given themselves. Bill 70 is a detri ment to this province and its citizens.

It must not pass. It must be defeated. The Portage and District Labour Committee is totally opposed to Bi1170 and to the antilabour antics of this gove rnment. We believe there are alternativ es. We believe that resolutions can be achieved through bargaining in good faith through discussion, through consultation of the citizens and group. We believe in this province and its citizens. Unfortunately, we do not believe in Film on and his gove rnment who have lied to us too many times. We have lost all trust in this gove rnment to act fairly, in good faith or in the best interests of its citizens.

We believe that we can expect more antilabour legislation from this government. We want to say to you that we will fight you, your attack on workers and the labour laws both during this process and other processes and du ring the next election, and we will win. Thank you. The Acting Chairman {Mr. Reimer): Thank you very much, Ms. Burrell. I would ask the audience for proper decorum and dignity with regard to spontaneity, if you would not mind, please. Mr. Doer: I am sorry, I clap every day. I hope it does not-1 always thought clapping was a dignified response.

I have even clapped for the members opposite from time to time. I have some questions. Portage is a vital com munity and there are a lot of public services in Portage, one of the most essential services in our province, I would think, and one of the toughest places to work. If I was to subjectively look at where there is a tough place to work in the public service, it seems to me, and challenging place, based on my experience as a volunteer with Special Olympics, it is the Portage Developmental Centre. Those people who work there are very dedicated to the people who are in the centre .

I am just worried that they have hacl-1 think they have had a period of time of being strike-free forever, since labour laws were established in this province. Is this law, this freeze , in the developmental centre , is it in your opinion going to contribute to any loss of morale, increase in militancy because of the anger that is being felt by people, that do not feel appreciated for a job well done in that centre ? • (1 500) Ms. Burrell: I do not think the morale in the Manitoba Developmen tal Centre has been any lower than it is right now. I am not sure it could ever get lowe r.

We have people there who are working, who are supervising other people who are being paid less, and they are told that there is nothing that can be done about it, that they should hav e-when we first tried to bargain it, they were told that it was not a bargaining issue, it was a pay equity issue. When they came to deal with it under pay equity, they were told it was a bargaining issue, and they should deal with it at the bargaining table. Well, they have had that right taken away from them. They can no longer deal with it at the bargaining table because everything is frozen.

Yes, there are those groups who are angry in there. They are having problems hiring nurses right now, because of the fact that there are nurses there that again in that parti cular series that the su pervisors are making less money than the workers. It creates problems there. The workers are becoming more militant. At one point, they had a demo nstration at MDC this winter where they had a record number of people out. They had a local meeting of the health component alone at one point during bargaining where they had well over 500 people at the meeting. That is a record .

Their meetings are usually 15 , 20 members. Yes, the morale is low. It is going to affect the workers and, yes, we may lose people to the point where we are going to have a hard time running the place the way it should be. Mr. Doer: I just want to pass on to those people working there our appreciation and dedication to their job, a very diffi cult job. Provincial gover nment doctors have not been included in-both the fee-for-service doctors and the provincially hired doctors-have not been scoped into this bill for purposes of zero percent, a prescribed zero percent for one year or longer.

Again, you have a situation where a nurses' aide in

291 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 19 91 the Portage Dev el opmental Centre under this bill gets zero, and a provincially hired doctor gets 7 percent. Is that having any effect on the morale of the staff at the Portage Developmental Centre? Ms. Burrell: I think it is having a great deal of effect. Maybe Mr. Connery would like to comment on that one, too. I think a number of people were at his house the second day after we heard about the bill being instituted, picketing his house, because he chooses not to have a constituency office, so we took it to his home.

Secondly, a smaller number but a majority of the people who were at the second picket where Mr. Connery was speaking to a powwow of the friendship centre, I believe it was, on a Saturday, a number of them met him in the parking lot to express some concerns. A number of them will be again approaching Mr. Connery to sit down and have some dialogue that, unfortunately, did not take place while I was away. They are very upset, not only the Manitoba Developmen tal Centre-the Agassiz Centre, the staff there are very upset.

Almost every civil servant and public sector worker in that town are upset and concerned and ready to do something. We get calls constantly, every day, wanting to know what we are willing to do. The militancy in Portage Ia Prairie from when I moved there two and a half, three years ago, has gone from alm ost zilch to a great higher degree. I am not saying it is 1 00 percent, but we are getti ng there. If this gov ernment keeps enacting this type of legislation, we will be on the streets a lot in Portage Ia Prairie. Mr.

Doer: I am sorry to hear that this bill will precip itate that kind of feeling, but I am very del ighted to hear that you are working on the member for Portage. I can encourage you to keep working on him. We hope to persuade him at this commi ttee, and other activity in the community of Portage, to vote with us and vote for free collective bargaining. We have not been successfu l in the Legislature. I think you will be more successfu l in your community. One of the only strikes that I can recall in the provincial public service was in the jails of Manitoba in 1977. Portage has a correctional facility.

I think it is the women's jail at Portage , if I recall correctly. I do not know whether that is the right term now. Ms. Burrel l: It is now called the Portage Correctional Institute. Mr. Doer: Okay. I was wondering, people who work in security positions like that are often under a lot of stress, a lot of pressure. Do you see this precipitating any action in the Corrections system based on your experience at the Portage centre ? Ms. Burrell : Yes, it has already created some very angry people.

They, again, knowing the meetings and types of meetings that they have with their union, normally do not participate in union meetings. The other day on a Sunday afternoon, a majority of those people met, because of the fact that not only are their wages frozen and their benefits, but now their em ployer has decided that they can no longer work 12-hour shifts, that they are going to put them in unsafe working conditions by taking away the third person on the midnight shift. These people got together and met with management and have changed some of the things.

They will again be working with the rest of the people out there, because they are angry. They are upset. They are being cut back. They cannot perform their jobs the way they like to because of the fact that there are not enough em ployees there. The other centre that we have in Portage Ia Prairie under the correctional facility is the Agassiz Youth Centre, I believe it is now called. We have a large contingent of our membership there through the MGEA, and they are also very angry. They are starti ng to build up again to start some type of job action and are requesting that their union do something.

Not only again are their wages being frozen but, because of the cutbacks in the gove rnment, they no longer have nursing staff that is ad equate and almost lost a child because of an overdose of medication that was given to them the other day. Mr. Doer: Well again, I do not know whether it is germane to Bill 70 in terms of recruitment or other factors so I will ask the question. If they are short of nursing staff, is the Portage Correctio nal facility and the Agassiz Centre breaching the Narcotics Act of Canada in terms of distribution in Canada of drugs? Ms. Burrell: They very well could be.

I am not sure of all the details as yet and I intend on working on that over the next week with the local, trying to find out exactly what happened. I have just found out about it, that they almost lost a child because of inadequate application of administering drugs.

July 12 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 292 Mr. Doer: I am sure the government will want to be posted on that, and so will the MLA, and so will all of us on our side as well, and I hope the child is- Ms. Burrell : The child is fine now. Mr. Doer: Thanks. The issue of negotiating, and you mentioned the 12-hour shift and it is a very important issue, the law prohibits any negotiations on anything for a period of a year, or a period of time extended by Order -in-Council for an undefined period of time after December 31 , 1992, for one year.

Does that mean that ma nagement is now using that provi sion of the act to stop their negotiations on items like 12-hour shifts which, of course , are very important for people? Shifts are obviously very important and usually have been determined at the workplace , consistent with certain paramet ers. Ms. Burrell: I am not sure if I can answer that, totally, Mr. Doer. I have been out of the prov ince for four weeks and I have just gotten back and have not got a total handle on everything that has been going on, but what the management of the Portage Correctional Institute did was just serve notice of a new shift

schedule abolishing most of the 12-hour shifts and leaving some people on 12-hour shifts, but a majority of the people working 8-hour shifts . It is my belief, but I am not 100 percent sure, that there is still some dialogue going on about 12-hour shifts, but I am not at liberty to say for sure if it is still going on or if it is not. It could be stopped by now. Mr. Doer: One last question.

We have heard from repres entatives from a group of trades organizations, Highways, Telephones, Hydro, right across Crown corporati ons, et cetera, who have said that they have never gone on strike before but, in the words of Hydro employees, woke up the sleeping giant. Telephone em ployees say, I never wanted to go on strike but you are making me militant now, et cet era, Highway em ployees the same thing. Just what is the perception of workers in Portage that tra ditionally have gone about their business, negotiated a mode rate increase and not withdrawn their services?

Do you see the psychology in the atmosphere changing in Portage and adjacent areas with those public sector employees? Ms. Burrell: I see two things happening with Bill 70 and other things that the gov ernment is doing. I see those workers becom ing very, very militant that two years ago were not militant. They are taking the attit ude, well even if I am not militant and I mind my own business, they are going to wipe me out anyway so I might as well become militant and be noticed. If I go down, at least I am going down fighting. That group of people is becom ing greater and greater all the time.

The other group of people, to quote Ms. Terry who spoke just before me, are very fearful and want to just hide in a corner and do whatever they can not to be noticed so that they are not the next ones that are being cut from the payroll of the government, or by redundancy of spin-off services to the com munity when the gove rnment jobs are gone, so there is twofold- A(15 10) Ms. Barrett: I have one question of a more general nature that also deals with Portage .

It, arguably even more than other com munities in Winnipeg, has been hard hit in the last few years and is reeling from decisions made as a result of federal and provincial governmental, financial, fiscal and monetary policies. Two parts: Can you tell me what the percentage of the em ployees in Portage are public servants, i.e., are affected by Bill 70, and secondly, what the impact of Bill 70 is going to have , in your opinion, on the economy and the environment in Portage which, as I have said, is already reeling under Tory policies? Ms.

Burrell : I would say that a majority of the workers in Portage Ia Prairie directly, or indirectly, but mainly directly, fall under the auspices of Bill 70 tha t will be hu rt by it. The spin-off in our community-one person said to me the other day that she does not believe that there is a family in Portage Ia Prairie that is not affected by Bill 70 and what it is going to do to our economy. It is probably going to hurt us a great deal, much more so than other communities because of the fact that we are already losing our base from a Tory policy.

We are losing Campbell Soup because of the free trade bill-we have lost it. There was talk, although it may be slowed down because of the fire that they had in the Maritimes but during the free trade debate , McCain's have said that they would eventu ally have to leave the Portage Ia Prairie area. We have been waiting for that doom to fall on us, as well. So with all of these things together, for the economy it is not great . A group of us got together a couple of months ago at a conference to talk about the economy and we count ed up, amongst

293 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA July 12 , 19 91 ourselves, at !east 30 to 40 businesses in the last year and a half that have closed down, small business, medium- sized businesses that have either closed down completely in the commu nity or have been moved out of Portage Ia Prairie. There are a few businesses opening up. I noticed last night in the paper that our Keystone Sports Centre was having a liquidation sale, bankruptcy sale, that they had received goods from another sporting goods company in Portage Ia Prairie that had gone bankrupt. A major furniture store overnight was closed down. It was gone.

Florist shops have closed down, small businesses, family businesses are gone that can never be replaced. So our economy is going to hurt probably a little more than a lot of other rural communities because of these things that have happened to us. What I see for Portage Ia Prairie In the next little while is something that probably they have never seen before, and that is a lot of labour unrest. Like I said in the first week that we knew that the bill had been introduced In the House, we had people out on the streets demonstrating twice, and that is unheard of in Portage Ia Prairie.

Labour has never really gone out and done much of that. We had a major demons tration in the spring over colle ctive bargaining because they were going nowhere. So the labour unrest in Portage Ia Prairie, I assure you, is going to become worse. It is going to grow and it is going to grow. Ms. Barrett: Just one final question then.

Would you suggest or recommend that people who are interested in seeing what the effects of Bill 70 and other provincial and federal gove rnment policies are having on Canada, sort of look at the Portage area as a microcosm and that the spotlight should remain on Portage in the near future? Ms. Burrell : Very definitely. Mr. Edwards: I want to ask the presenter-a very interesting presentation. What I glean from it, you made one com ment about em ployees who I think you said were somewha t fearful of coming forward- Ms. Burrell : That is right. Mr.

Edwards: -with a condemnation of this bill and had some fear of recrimination. Can you illustrate on that, I mean, can you indicate what numbers might be feeling that? Is there a general consensus amongst workers that you know of that they do not like the bill but some are just not coming forward? Is there indeed fear of recrimination in the workplace ? Ms.

Burrell: One of the roles, other than being the President of the Portage and District labour Co-ordinating Committee, I also happen to work for the Manitoba Government Emplo yees Associat ion, and the first two days of that bill being introduced, the first week- then I left town for four weeks and I am just getting back in-the fi rst week that the bill was introduced in the House, I must have had 150 to 200 catl s telling me that they were really concerned about this bill. I said, well you will get the opportunity. Well, no, no, we want you to speak on our behalf, we want the union, we do not want to be noticed.

They come to you with grievances and you say, well you are going to have to file a grievan ce. Well, no, no I do not want to do that because I do not want the government to know me. If I am just a number they are not going to know me, they will not lay me off, they will not do anything to me. So, yes, they are afraid to come forward because of that; they think something else will happen to them. Mr.

Edwards: Do you think that the fact that the gove rnment laid off 958 civil servants just weeks before they brought in this legis lation had something to do with the fact that people understood very well that their jobs may be on the line and that the government would not hesitate to cut jobs? Ms. Burr ell: Most defi nitely. Thr ough our leadership of the MGEA, at a meeting with the Premier and some other people, he was asked whether or not, if the MGEA achieved during bargaining a wage Increase, whether or not there would be more layoffs in the Civil Service, and they said most definitely.

So of course these people are scared and they feel there are more layoffs coming, that it is just that they are biding their time. So they are keeping their heads-1 should not say their hea ds-b ut they are keeping what they feel is a low profile so Clayton Manness will not see Randy Porter' s name go across his desk and fire him, that is what they are feeling. Then there is another portion of them , not as great a portion as those, who are saying, I do not care if Clayton Manness sees my name, he can fire me because he is going to fire me anyway. Mr. Edwards: Just one final question.

Is there any fear you have that employees may work out the frustration they must fe el, and in particular if they do notfeel comfortable coming forth publicly with it, that

July 12 , 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 294 they will work tha t out in the workplac e through-and you have already mentioned lack of morale-just a general slowdown, just not going the extra mile which they might otherwise do because they feel not appreciated in their jobs? I am not suggesting that any worker would endanger safety or not to ma ke sure that the job was done, but just a feeling that the extra mile will not be gone because of a general lack of morale in the workplace ? Is that a possibility in the workplaces that you know of? Ms. Burrell : Most definitely.

Right now there are people-w e will use the Manitoba Developmental Centre for an example- who used to take their own time to take, and I do not want to call them kids, the residents out into the commu nity to take them on special outings. Well, they do not do that anymore. They used to take them out for lunch on their days off, take them home, do special extra things for them. They do not do that anymore because they do not feel that they are appreciated . They do their jobs at work, and please do not ever think that they are not doing their jobs properly.

They get frustrated and they may take out their frustration on their co-workers. Hopefully, they will not take them out on the people who they are servici ng, but occa sionally that does happen, that people do, for some reason, break down and take that out on the people they are supposed to be looking afte r. Of course the labour relations process does fall into place.

The more these things happe n, the more and more we are going to have cases like that happening of abuse, more and more cases where they are so short staffe d, where somebody is, because one hand does not know what the other hand is doing, where a child is given an overdose of whatever medication he is taking and almost dies and is run back and forth to the hospital three or four times in the back of a van. Like I mean those are things that should not be happening to people but because people are not there, their morale is low, they do not have time to record everyth ing.

They just do not have the time anymore and their morale is such that maybe I do not stay the extra half hour to do the things that I might have done a year ago. So these things are not being done and, yes, it is going to affect the service that the people are giving. Mr. Edwards: One more question I wanted to put to this presenter. You say you had a whole host of phone calls when this first came in and you have obviously spoken to many of your member s in the wake of it.

They have known for many, many months, as you have , thatthe government's position was zero and two as a negotiating position and I think that was articu lated some time ago, certainly before this legislation came in. Are the people you know of, the emp loyees, are they more frustrated about that, about the actual wage freeze as such, the position of zero percent and two percent, or the process that the government has led them down and then changed the rules halfway through? Ms.

Burrell: Our mem bership feel betrayed , they feel that they have spent thousands and thousands of their dollars in collective bargaining that was totally us eless because they feel that this gove rnment had the intention of introducing this bill before we even started collective bargaining and felt that if they had to do it, they should have done it way back then so that would not have been a process that they felt totally-during the whole process of bargaining, they also felt very disgruntled, very upset and felt a lack of trust in the people who were-not the union- representing them as the gov ernment.

When this bill has been introduced, after they have gone through a whole year of bargaining and getting absolute ly nowhere and then this bill is introduced, of course their dismay is much greater. They have lost whatever faith they had in the people who represent them and I do not know what you can do that would perhaps bring that faith back. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I could not, not ask a question to a former constituent and good friend. I am sorry I missed the first part of your presentation- Ms. Burrell: I will share a copy with you. .. (1 520) Mr. Ashton: I appreciate that.

I am sure you pulled no punches and expressed your views very directl y. You always have, and I can imagine what your views, as they were expressed earlier, were. One question I have asked of people-it is interesting in this case to ask this directly of you.

I find that these comm ittee hearings are fine as a formal process, and perhaps the closest thing some of the government members are going to get to hearing directly from real people as to what is going on out there in terms of collective bargaining and the real chaos this bill is going to cause, and just how angry people are and frustrated , but I want to focus in slightly a different way to end off. If you could talk

295 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 12 , 19 91 to somebody who might be thinking of voti ng with their conscience, might have an open mind on this and recognize that it would only take one or two members from the government side to either not even vote against the bill but abstain, and noting that your MLA has abstained on other bills, or not been present to vot e-- Ms. Burrell: We are working on him. Mr. Ashton: I know you are probably working on him. I have been working on him as well.

I have been reading the Portage Daily Graphic editorial of a few weeks ago and the comme nts of four out of six Portage residents in the Portage Daily Graphic saying they were against the wage freeze . Have you had the chance to talk directly to your MLA, the member for Portage (Mr. Connery)- Ms. Burrell: Yes. Mr. Ashton: -or any other gover nment member who might be thinking of voting with their conscience on this, might still have an open mind, might be willing to listen? What would you say to them more on a personal level, on a one-on-one basis, rather than in the context of a formal presentation?

What would you say to them to get them to either abstain or vote against Bill 70? Ms. Burrell: I would probably say to them that as of- Mr. Acting Chairman (Mr. Reimer): Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Burrell. Ms. Burrell: Oh, I have not answered the question. I was waiting for Mr. Manness to quit talking. The Acting Chair man (Mr. Reimer): Go ahead. I am sorry, Ms. Bu rrell. Ms. Burr

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-2-ir6
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 2nd hansardpdf ir6.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	456ff31d07cb283943e193da8114507cae7d8a20

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