Manitoba Hansard — 23 June 1987 (Sitting 75, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-75

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 23 June, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Employment Services and Economic Security. HON. L. EVANS: Madam Speaker, I have a ministerial statement.

I am pleased to inform the members of this Assembly that our government will assume responsibility for paying the per diem rates for all women in financial need who use the services of crisis shelters and safe homes. These per diem rates, which are the daily fees for the services provided by a shelter or safe home, will be paid through my department's Social Allowances Program instead of through the municipal welfare system. Even though such fees are cost-shared with the province, the present administrative arrangement has resulted in inconsistencies in policies and procedures which we want to resolve.

We are taking this action, therefore, to provide a more consistent and streamlined service for women in financial need who require access to crisis intervention facilities. Women seeking the sanctuary of a crisis shelter or safe home are in a very stressful situation. Our government wants to ensure that Manitoba women and children receive consistent and considerate access to safety and support.

I anticipa te that we will have in place the mechanisms necessary for our government to assume responsibility for these per diem fees later this summer, and I believe that this action will result in a better service which will reach more women who require refuge from family violence, and support to carry on with their lives.

I'd like to note that crisis shelters and safe homes in Manitoba receive support for their operations from other Provincial Government departments as well, including Manitoba Housing which, in some cases, provi des the physical facilit ies and the costs of maintaining them, and Manitoba Community Services which provides grants to cover program costs for shelter and safe home clients and per diem fees for women who cannot afford them, even though they are not in need of social assistance.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, I might mention that my department's New Careers Program is currently operating a two-year project to train 19 counsellors in wife abuse services who will provide skilled, specialized care to women and children in shelters and safe homes throughout the province. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I do thank the Minister for the statement this afternoon. I think there has been a great deal of difficulty, as I mentioned in my remarks during the Estimates, for municipalities to deal with some of these problems.

They have a great deal of difficulty in establishing whether or not the person is in need of help and they do not have the clerical staff who are trained to do so. So this will be a help to the municipal officials and also, of course, more importantly, a help to women who are desperately in need of help and, through no fault of their own, have to seek this kind of assistance. It has been one of the major problems in billing families for this type of thing that, of course, the person who had been abusing usually got the bill and that added to the trauma of the whole situation.

So I thank the Minister for this statement today. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Moti on . . Introduction of Bills . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 10 students from Grades 7- 9 from the Selkirk Jr. High School, under the direction of Mrs. Pawlychyn, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable First Minister. We have 20 students from Grades 1-6 from Christ the King School, under the direction of Mrs.

Anne Lanthier, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. Vital. And we have 30 students from Grades 7, 8, and 9 from the Oakville Jr. High School, under the direction of Miss Rose Hilliker, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Morris. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MPIC - loss awareness of Premier MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Premier.

On at least three occasions in March I asked the Premier when he was first informed as to the loss of at least $12 million in reinsurance at MPIC. After questions on the 19th of March, the 23rd of March, and finally on the 24th of March, Madam Speaker, the Premier replied: "The knowledg� which I had in 19 84- 3308

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 85 was basically that which is contained in the Annual Report of 1984 where it is indicated to all members of this House, as well as myself, that there was a problem involving the reinsurance business. So in 1984 that was the extent of my knowledge. " Is the Premier indicating that at that time, the fall of'84, or early'85, he was not at any time informed of the loss of at least $12 million on reinsurance at MPIC? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, what I indicated is the fact that at that time the information that was known to me was that which was in the report. MR. G. FILMON: So, Madam Speaker, just to be absolutely clear, he was not at any time, in the fall of 1984, informed of $12 million or more of reinsurance losses at MPIC? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I answered that question. MPIC - reinsurance losses - other Ministers knowledgeable MR. G. FILMON: Well, Madam Speaker, the Premier, I take it is indicating that he did not know about reinsurance losses of at least $12 million.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Premier can indicate whether or not, other than the Member for Gimli, the Minister responsible for MPIC, whether any other members of Cabinet were informed at that time of the major losses of at least $12 million in reinsurance at MPIC. HON. H. PAWLEY: I don't know how the Leader of the Opposition would assume that I would know. The Leader of the Opposition should direct that question to the Minister responsible for the Public Insurance Corporation. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wonder then if I could ask the Minister responsible for MPIC whether or not, in the fall of 1984, or early 1985, when this Minister was very much aware of at least $12 million of losses in the reinsurance division of MPIC, whether he informed any of his Cabinet colleagues about this serious and major loss. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nis ter responsible for MPIC. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker.

As the member, if he has read the Provincial Auditor's Report, will note, there was a discussion with the Minister of Crown Investments in the latter part of October, at which time I discussed the issue from an accounting point of view. MR. G. FILMON: So the Member for Rossmere, the Minister responsible for Crown Investments, at that time the Minister of Finance, was also aware of the major loss at that time. MPIC - ERIC committee informed of losses MR. G.

FILMON: I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether members of the ERIC committee of Cabinet were informed of these major losses in reinsurance at that time, either in late 19 84 or early 1985. MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member that questions should not seek information about matters which are in their nature secret, such as, decisions or proceedings of Cabinet. And we've talked many times about that, including Cabinet subcommittees. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I'm not asking about decisions at Committee of Cabinet, or Cabinet.

I'm asking whether members of the ERIC Committee of Cabinet were informed of a very serious situation, Madam Speaker, the loss of more than $12 million in the reinsurance division of MPIC. MADAM SPEAKER: Was the Honourable Leader of the Oppo sition rephra sing a question or was he questioning my decision? Could the honourable member make clear that he's not seeking information about a subcommittee meeting of Cabinet? MR. G. FILMON: Yes, Madam Speaker, that is clear. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of MPIC. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Again I restate the statement I made a minute ago, that I had a discussion with the Minister of Crown Investments with respect to a question of accounting. The Member for Tuxedo, the Leader of the Opposi tion, continually keeps harping away about massive losses.

When one who looks at the corporation, realizes that we're dealing with budgets of $300 million to $400 million a year, a $12 million loss that was calculated at that time, which management felt could be resolved over a matter of four or five years, was not such a serious matter that would have to be brought to the attention of Cabinet, or ERIC, or whoever else. MR. G. FILMON: Well, Madam Speaker, the Minister has indicated that $12 million was not a massive loss and not a major concern. He has indicated that. Yet, Madam Speaker . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G.

FILMON: . . . when the losses reached 30 . . . I think that that's irresponsible. But, Madam Speaker, how is it that the Minister then decided that $36 million was a massive loss, was a major item and had to be reported publicly earlier this year? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: If we want to get into this, I would suggest that we do have a committee hearing 3309

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 coming up this coming Thursday, we can deal with the figures at that time. I can say at this time that when the potential claims were calculated in 19 84, there were considerable revenues that were going to accrue to the corporation, resulting from those treaties over the next two or three years.

In 1986, when after many months of work by the reinsurance manager and staff at MPIC, a determination was made that the future claims would be much larger than it was ever anticipated, and the fact that there would be no offsetting premiums with respect to those treaties, then the decision was to display that figure in the 198 6 report, as was tabled in this House in the early part of March. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, then $12 million isn't a major loss but $36 million is. That's what the Minister is indicating. MPIC - reinsurance losses - other Ministers knowledgeable MR. G.

FILMON: Well, Madam Speaker, my question to the Premier is: His reluctance to ask for this Minister's resignation - this Minister who has presided over an elaborate scheme to keep from public attention at least $12 million of reinsurance losses that ultimately grew to $36 million of reinsurance losses; this Minister who has indicated that he did not solicit the options that were presented to him by the chairman of MPIC, and also the president of MPIC, a statement that has been denied by both those people - in the face of all this, this Premier's reluctance to take any action to remove this Minister from office, is it because the Cabinet members themselves, many of them knew about these losses and were, in fact, a party to the decision that took place to keep this information from public view?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition would inform us as to what decision he's referring to - maybe he should be a little bit more clear in what he's specifically referring to. MPIC - loss not included in financial statements MR. G.

FILMON: The decision, Madam Speaker, to keep from public attention the loss of at least $12 million, and probably closer to $24 million, according to the document that was tabled in committee, that was not revealed publicly as a result of a decision made by the Minister responsible, the Member for Gimli, that it not be included in the financial statements of the corporation in'84,'85 and '86. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of MPIC. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition continually tries to bemuddle and befuddle what the issues are.

In fact, if the Leader of the Opposition read the statements that were provided 3310 to him in committee carefully, he would note that, in fact, there were $14 million of Tory-initiated losses declared in the 1984 report. Read the report. Madam Speaker , day after day, we are being confronted with innuendo, allegations of coverup. The Auditor's statement makes no reference to a coverup whatsoever. This is the type of innuendo that I'm referring to. I can start off incident after incident when these kind of allegations are being made up.

For instance, I recall that when the offer was made to the Leader of the Opposition to have full and complete access to the board minutes of MPIC, and I quote from the Winnipeg Free Press: "Someone is trying to eliminate, edit or censor information from those board minutes - an allegation that somehow or other senior management or the board of directors is involved in a cover-up, and that has been disputed.

" Incidentally, for the interests of members in this House and for Manitobans, the offer to the Opposition to have full access to the board minutes - and that offer was also extended to the Leader of the Liberal Party - neither one, neither party has accepted this invitation to review the board minutes to find out whether or not this Minister is telling the truth. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, the Minister is questioning where I get the notion that he concocted and, in fact, approved an elaborate scheme to hide from public attention at least $12 million of losses.

Madam Speaker, I'll quote from the Auditor's Report: "The Minister then requested options be developed as to how this matter could be handled. " Further, "He," referring to the Minister, "selected Option 1, not to set up the $1 2.3 million additional IBNR. Further there is no documentation to suggest that the chairperson, the president, or MPIC's management agreed or disagreed with a decision made by the Minister." That decision was to cover up $12 million of losses. Does the Minister now deny that? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is at it again.

Nowhere in the Auditor's Report is there any confirmation or documentation that there was a cover-up. I have clearly said in committee that I had expressed a preference, and that is a preference that resulted in the 19 84 report being what it was. Madam Speaker, this is a continuation of the type of innuendo that has come from that side of the House since this issue was first made public. I just want to give another example, the type of innuendo.

I recall, so clearly when I found that my 1984 ministerial material had been accidentally destroyed - there's the Leader of the Opposition laughing - do you know what he said in the Free Press? After the Provincial Archivist appeared in the press conference with me, clearly indicating that it was an accident, that I had no knowledge of it, that has been confirmed by the Provincial Auditor's Report, and what did the Leader of the Opposition say? "If you believe that, I've got a bridge I can sell you." I would suggest you owe an apology to the Provincial Archivist and his staff . A MEMBER: Now. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: . . . now, because the Provincial Auditor's Report clearly states that neither

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 I, nor my colleague, nor anyone else, had anything to do with the intentional shredding of that material. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, conveniently, due to this gross coincidence, we can't prove or disprove anything, nor can the Auditor that . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: . . . any involvement that this Minister had in the shredding of those documents. MPIC - access to senior staff at next meeting MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, my further question to the First Minister, given that we're not getting answers and we can't get the answers because of the shredded documents: Will he ensure, because at previous committee meetings we have only had the Minister responsible and the general manager available for questions, will he ensure that we have access to senior staff of the corporation at the next committee meeting of MPIC? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows that the decisions of that nature are made by the committee. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, will this Premier ensure that not only do we have the opportunity to ask questions, as we do for all the other Public Utilities, have opportunity to ask questions of senior staff at MPIC on Thursday, and I talk about Mr. Drebnenky, Mr. Galenzoski, Mr. Dyck, Mr. Dabo . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: . . . will this Premier ensure that his members on the committee will, in the interests of openness, make sure that those people are available to answer questions at committee? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I'm aware of no precedent by which there's ever been any dictation to members of a committee in this respect and my answer remains the same. Decisions of this nature are those that are made by the committee membership. I do not intend to dictate to the committee the rules which they will follow. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, will he assure that his Min isters will not prevent those people from answering questions; that his members on the committee will not prevent them? Inter-City Gas - confirmation of purchase price MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H.

ENNS: A question to the Minister of Energy and Mines, Madam Speaker. Recently at a conference of the natural gas producers, his Deputy Minister, Mr. Gunton, is quoted as having revealed publicly for the first time, as I understand it, the purchase price for the acquisition of Inter-City Gas and its distribution system. The figures mentioned are $87 million of assumed debt and in the range of $10 0 million for the actual acquisition. Can the Minister confirm those figures? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Yes, Madam Speaker, I certainly can't confirm that.

My Assistant Deputy Minister is quoted as saying a number of things in that article, but I have not had a chance to talk to him directly. He was at a conference where the Federal Energy Minister was, as well, but that certainly is not a correct statement as quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, just for clarification on the figures. As I understand, the Deputy Minister indicated the province would assume a total outlay of some $18 7 million - $87 in assumed debt, $1 00 million in purchases. Is the Minister telling me that those figures are not correct? HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, those figures are not the correct figures, in total, and they are not authorized. We are still in negotiation and Madam Speaker, I've learned that I never take for granted anything that appears in the Winnipeg Free Press that would comment on it. I mean this whole province has been led astray time and time again by the Winnipeg Free Press quoting sources that aren't there and doing a number of unprofessional things that I would hate to take time in this Legislature debating on whether in fact the Free Press said something truthful for a change, or not.

NutraSweet - patent extended for 5 years MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. It is my unders tanding that the patent drug, NutraSweet, which is, under aspartame, used widely, where the patent has been extended arbitrarily for five years, which will have some effect, I think, on diabetics particularly who use this drug, I am wondering if the Minister could advise: Has this been looked into and what is his department doing about it?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Spea ker, as I understand it, the Parliament of Canada has extended the patent protection for the drug aspartame to 3311

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 NutraSweet for an extra five years to a total of 22 years. Apparen tl y, without consultation with the diabetics, the Diabetics Association, without any consultation with soft drink manufacturers or all those who use the product, and the product today, Madam Speaker, costs in the range of $200 U.S. per kilogram which is a very expensive item, especially for those who need it.

I have asked my department to determine what the impact will be in terms of Manitoba Food Processing Manufacturing and in terms of what would have been the case had the patent, which we expected was to expire in July of 1987, have been allowed to expire then. I'll get back to the member with further information when the department gets back to me. NutraSweet - cost to individual MR. M. DOLIN: I thank the Minister for that answer.

As a supplementary, I'm wondering if the Minister could also take a look at what will be the effect on those people who medically require a sugar substitute, such as aspartame, what their individual costs - aside from what the departmental costs - will be. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, I'll take that question as notice as well. Inter-City Gas - what Loan Authority for borrowing MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I direct my question to the Minister of Finance, using as the same source the newspaper

article quoting the Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy. Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance - regardless of whether the sale price is $18 7 million or not, or as to whether Mr. Gunton was accurately quoted or not, it would seem to me, Madam Speak er, that the press could not make a misrepresentation as to whether or not a significant portion of this money has already been raised by way of borrowing in foreign markets - my direct question to the Minister of Finance: Under what Loan Authority has this money been borrowed? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In response to the member's question in suggesting that kind of error could not be possible, I would just suggest to him that anything is possible with the Winnipeg Free Press. The comments that are reported are either incorrect or the source of those comments is incorrect. I do know from previous experience that that particular reporter has, on a number of occasions, made errors with respect to financial matters. There is no Loan Authority in place at the present time for the government to expend for Capital purposes with respect to the purchase of ICG.

Any such authority would have to be contained in The Loan Act, which at some point during the Session will be before this Assembly for review. If not, then it would have to be dealt with subsequently with whatever authorities would exist outside of a Legislative Session. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, a further question to the Minister of Finance, because given - again in this

article - the interest rate of 9. 5 percent is quoted, again the question to the Minister: Has Loan Authority been used, or is there in place, to provide for this type of borrowing? HON. E. KOSTYRA: The question is repetitious and I'll repeat the same answer. No, there is no Loan Authority in place. Any such Loan Authority would have to be contained in the bill that will be before this legislative Session at some time in the near future if we are still sitting at that time.

If not, then there would have to be other provisions made for any such authority; but I would suggest to the member, again, the answer is no, there is no such authority; no, there is no money borrowed for those purposes at the present time. ADM of Finance - request for resignation MR. C. MANNESS: A final supplementary, Madam Speaker, though to be directed to the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Taking into account the severity, Madam Speaker, of his Assistant Deputy Minister making some types of statements in the press, will the Minister either censure his Assistant Deputy Minister or, indeed, would he even go further and ask for his resignation? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I find the witch hunting of the Conservative Party on this rather surprising.

One of the people who was involved in the department, who appeared before the Public Utilities Board, who provided testimony which indicated that consumers in Manitoba were being ripped off to the tune of $50 million - $15 0 per family, $1 ,600 for small business - and the Conservatives are now saying that people who fight for Manitoba like that should be fired because of supposed quotes in the Winnipeg Free Press. Which side are they on?

Are they on the side of the consumers of Manitoba or, Madam Speaker, are they trying to undercut anything that might be done of a positive nature to save money on behalf of consumers in this province? I asked the question over and over again: Which side are the Conservatives on, on this issue? St. Hilaire family - removal of names MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Community Services and it's regarding the court case which was just concluded with the St. Hilaire family. 3312

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 Can the Minister say why she made the St. Hilaire family, who had been trying to get their children's names removed from the Child Abuse Registry, why did she make this family spend $20,000, as reported by Mrs. St. Hilaire, on a court case, when the Minister had the children's names removed from the registry five days before the case was to be heard? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, the Abuse Registry had no provision for appeal, and that was a point we drew the attention of all to in the report presented last December.

As we came close to that court case, we had the recommendations for changes in the regulations to permit appeal. We consulted lawyers, yet again, how to handle that particular case with the full knowledge that we were going to recommend an apeal process and they said to us that they thought we did have the right to remove their names at that point. Child Abuse Registry - check for names MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. Will persons now be able to check to find out if their names are on the Child Abuse Registry? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, with the court case the status of the registry is very much in question. We intend to take action to restore the registry and to ensure that all the concerns of appeal, notification, expungement and access, and notification will be clarified and we will be able to make that announcement very shortly, Madam Speaker. Child Abuse Registry - appeal procedure MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. Will the Minister immediately set up an appeal procedure so that persons whose names appear on the registry do not have. only the courts as a method of appeal? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated our will to develop an appeal procedure. In fact, that was what the report that was tabled in December '86 recommended. We've been going through a public consultation on all the recommendations of that report and will very shortly be making recommendations as to how to accommodate those concerns. Child Abuse Registry - legistion re appeal procedure MR. A. BROWN: Madam Speaker , my final supplementary. Will the Minister bring forward legislation during this Session so that we can deal with this situation? HON. M.

SMITH: That is under very active consideration, Madam Speaker. Government losses - political decisions that keep knowledge from public MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Premier.

Madam Speaker, yesterday I asked the First Minister if it was government policy that Ministers are to make political decisions which keep our citizens from knowing about losses within their departments, and the Premier replied, "That certainly is not the case here." How then does the First Minister explain the Auditor's Report and the following quotes: (1) "That it was not an appropriate time to record the losses," and that he, "selected Option 1 not to set up a $1 2.3 million additional IBNR. "? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I'm really surprised at the nature of the question. I was more surprised at the comments from the Member for River Heights outside this Chamber last night in the corridor, which I thought were very, very disappointing coming from the Member for River Heights, besides being completely and totally without any validity, and I need not further emphasize that, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, the Auditor's Report, at no time, indicates that there was any attempt to conceal or to hide information and attempts, on the part of the leader of the Liberal Party, the Member for River Heights, to continue to persist on that just doesn't bear any weight. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker , with a supplementary question to the same First Minister. Madam Speaker, the Twentieth Century Chambers Dictionary refers to cover-up as meaning "withholding information," and by refusing to report these losses, indeed information has been withheld.

In the light of that definition, does the Premier believe this to be acceptable behaviour, and is it a policy of his government to accept it as behaviour? MADAM SPEAKER: The last part of the question is in order; the first

part isn't. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I'm surprised that this question would come from the Member for River Heights, one who had an opportunity four months ago to go over to the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation to examine the min utes of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, was in fact encouraged, along with the Leader of the Opposition to do so, and preferred not to, but to make unfounded and unfair and unsubstantiated and disgusting comments outside this Chamber yesterday in the corridor. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A final supplementary question. Bad word, Mr. Minister.

Madam Speaker, we have - (Interjection)- Madam Speaker, a final supplementary to the First Minister. The Premier has referred to this whole incident as a small matter. Does the Minister truly believe that $12 .3 3313

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 million is a small matter to Manitobans; and is it acceptable government policy that it be referred to as a small matter by the First Minister of this province? MADAM SPEAKER: That question seeks an opinion. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I asked if it was policy. Government losses - small matter MADAM SPEAKER: Would the honourable member like to rephrase her question so it doesn't seek an opinion? MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Yes, Madam Speaker. Is it policy of this government to refer to a loss of $12 .3 million as a small matter? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, what is not a small matter is a 20 percent increase, the gouging by millions of dollars by the insurance industry in "liberal" Ontario. That is not a small matter and the Member for River Heights probably should convey some information to the Leader of her Liberal Party in Ontario, as to the best way to provide automobile insurance. Cancer treatment - two-tiered MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for River East has the floor. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Is it the policy of this government and this Minister to establish a two-tiered system for cancer treatment, where those who can afford to pay travel costs for accommodation and travel can travel out of province, and the poor stay at home and wait and possibly die? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I answered that question yesterday. Certainly it's not the policy; in fact, the policy hasn't changed from the time my honourable friends were in power.

The honourable member knows very well that in certain conditions there has been some reference from doctors here in Manitoba to other areas, and it has been covered at certain times. This is under review to make sure that there's no abuse and the transportation has not been paid. There is no change of policy -(Interjection)- what can't you get? Madam Speaker, I'd like to give a little bit of other information also to my honourable friend.

I can tell my honourable friend that the budget of the Foundation has been from $3. 7 million in 1980-81 when we took over, to $7. 1 million, or 92 percent increase since 19 80- 81. So, I think, that to say we have not done the work and so on, and not provided service is absolutely wrong. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker, maybe the Minister should be looking at changing his policy to provide the same service for the poor as for the rich. Capital sinking fund for radiotherapy replacement MRS. B. MITCHELSON: My second question, Madam Speaker, to the same Minister.

Is there a capital sinking fund in place for replacement of radiotherapy equipment once it is outdated and, if not, why? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, this is ironic that the two-tier system should be brought in by a Conservative party, who certainly have not wanted the program the way we have it now, who have suggested utilization fees and deterrents.- (Interjection)- Yes, yes, that's what you've done. Look at any other Conservative Government in Manitoba, they would like to go back to what it was before.

Look at your friends in the United States, south of us, where there are 37 million people who have no insurance and no coverage at all. It takes a lot of nerve to talk about that, with the increase that we brought in for the service on health, and now my honourable friend, who on one instance is telling is about the deficit we have, who are telling us we are spending too much money and, all of a sudden, now they want more. Well, I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that we have a good policy, that we're doing everything we can to serve the public. We have defended a universal program; we have removed the premiums.

It's an awful lot more accessible than you would have, and so on. And, Madam Speaker, fine, they're the same people also, when we were talking about the Federal Government not living up to their commitment, .. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. L. DESJARDINS: . . . they were suggesting that we were crying the blues too much. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker, with that tirade the Minister did not answer my question; so obviously the answer is no, there is no provision in place, no capital sinking fund.

Cancer Foundation - replacements to board MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Yes, my final question to the Minister is: Can the Minister indicate why seven of the board members of the Cancer Foundation were replaced all at the same time, with no explanation; and could he table the qualifications for those new members appointed to the board? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, people are named to different boards for a number of years. There is nothing in there that says that they have to be reappointed forever and a day.

In fact, in most instances, so there would be new blood, there is prohibition from people serving more than so many years in a row. Now, this is a fact that on this board that has been mentioned, 3314

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 some of the people had been there for 13 , 15 years and there was a change. There was a change to try to get new blood in it and they are extremely well qualified. We've had chairmen, like Dr. MacDiarmid, who I think has the respect of all people in the medical profession and people who are providing services.

Now, fine, there has been a time that some of them were, and that explains why we're in this situation, because the people had probably been there that long, and when there was an effort to replace and get new blood in there that, all of a sudden, there has been criticism from the people who had been there forever and a day. Madam Speaker, it is very clear that we do not want to keep the people there forever and a day. Now there are certain things that I wanted to do, clean our own dirty linen in the department, Madam Speaker, but maybe I should mention - you don't want the answer.

MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: I would like to inform the honourable members that during question period we had 25 students from Grade 5 from the Notre Dame Elementary School under the direction of Solange Balcaen. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. Unfortunately, they weren't able to stay for the whole question period, but I do want to welcome them to the Legislature. The Honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. HON. J. WASV LVCIA-LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I seek leave to make a non-political statement. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minister have leave? The Honourable Minister does not have leave. HANSARD CORRECTION MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Madam Speaker, I'd like to make a correction to Hansard. There's a very horrendously big error made that says on page 2904, "If I had my way, Mr. Chairman, I would immediately hire the Minister from her job ... "- meaning the Minister of Business Development. The word was clearly "fired," Madam Speaker. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: I do presume that was a typographical error. Are we ready to proceed with Orders of the Day? ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker , it's my understanding that there's an inclination on the part of members to proceed with Private Members' Hour today. In the interim, would you please call Bill No. 61?

ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 61 - THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the Debate on Second Reading on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labou r, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. D. ROCAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, before I start on Bill No. 61, I would just like to congratulate one Jocelyn Grenier who was the winner of the Third Annual Cooperative in Our Community Essay Contest. Jocelyn is a constituent of mine and I am very proud of the fact . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Would the honourable members please come to order? The Honourable Member for Kildonan on a point of order. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The point of order is that my understanding is corrections or remarks be relevant to the bill and, as a matter of fact, he was making -(Interjection)- If I may continue with the point of order? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MR. M. DOLIN: Madam Speaker, the Deputy Speaker in the Chair the other day made a similar ruling.

I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the member be advised by the Chair to keep his remarks in order with Bill 61. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Debate on Second Reading, Bill 61, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. D. ROCAN: Madam Speaker , Bill 61, as I understand it, is a final offer selection and, Madam Speaker, as far as I'm concerned, this is a bill that puts down freedom of speech. Madam Speaker, the Member for Kildonan, as far as I'm concerned, is trying to put me down. You talk about putting down freedom of speech! Why is this legislation needed, Madam Speaker?

The late Mary Beth Dolin, when she was Labour Minister, 3315

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 she removed this type of legislation from the Order Paper because she knew or she could foresee that labour and management did not want this type of legislation, and she was right; neither labour or management want this legislation. CUPE does not want this legislation and, Madam Speak er, there are numerous others - the Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals, the Winnipeg Labour Council. However, what do we see in today's media, Madam Speaker?

We see the heavy hand of the CLC coming into this province and telling its regional council to shut up and not to speak on this piece of legislation. These people, Madam Speaker, who protect against regimes such as a Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica, because these countries deny freedom of speech, are themselves denying freedom of speech to their own membership and that is hypocritical and shameful. This Minister is truly incompetent if he believes that you can ram this type of legislation down the throats of both the union and the labour leadership in this province and have them accept it.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain has the floor. If other honourable members want to have private conversations, could they do so elsewhere, please? A MEMBER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: You're welcome. MR. D. ROCAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Spea ker, that isn't democracy; that is dictatorship. What does this Minister owe to Bernie Christophe, Madam Speaker? What does this Minister owe to Shirley Carr? Madam Speaker, I have some idea why this Minister is in such a hurry to have this bill rammed through this Legislature.

He wants this legislation passed in order to solve the Westfair Foods strike which is presently under way. Then this will allow him to go strutting through the province and say look what I did, look what a good Minister of Labour I am. But, Madam Speaker, people in Manitoba are not that naive for they'll see through this Minister as the true failure that he really is. They remember this Minister losing for them, on their behalf, $27.6 million in MTX. They remember this Minister not helping a young girl who is facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit by her union.

He would not intervene to help her even though she was being denied some basic freedoms like freedom of speech and freedom of association, one of the major planks within the NDP philosophy. Madam Speake r, it was just like when I was intimidated by one of these union bullies, a fellow by the name of Murphy. Some of my constituents asked me over one day for coffee, Madam Speaker, and they wanted to know a little bit more about what was happening in the R.M. I went, Madam Speaker, and I talked to them. At no time did we ever discuss the word union and yet these union organizers, they're trying to intimidate me.

I will not put up with that, Madam Speaker, I will not. A MEMBER: You shouldn't have to either. MR. D. ROCAN: No, and I won't. Madam Speaker, the people in the constituency of St. James will remember this Minister come the next election and, once again, they'll throw him out on his ear like they did in 1973. After four years of him being Attorney-General, they saw the disasters that he created in that department and the people of St. James will once again return to this Legislature a fair-minded and caring P.C.

MLA, one who cares for his or her province, one who cares for his or her constituency, and one who wants to stand up for the ordinary citizens' rights and freedoms. Free collective bargaining is a process of negotiation and compromise. It is a practice to which this NDP Government has long claimed commitment. In view of this, Madam Speaker, it is the height of irony that the Minister now puts forward legislation which will be the death knell of the practice of free collective bargaining in this province. Almost daily, unions of Manitoba come forward to voice their opposition to Bill 61.

Their opposition is founded on the belief that the labour relations climate in this province will become utterly hostile and that no side will benefit from final offer selection. Surely, when both labour and management come out in opposition to a bill, the government must realize its mistake. Madam Speaker, healthy compromise is the key to allowing any relationship to continue and strive. Give and take must play a major role in labour negotiations in order for both sides to leave the bargaining table with a feeling of having gained something in the process.

However, under the terms of Bill 61, the vital nature of compromise is wholly abandoned in favour of a selector who may be appointed by the Labour Board, and therefore by the government, having to choose between either the entire final offer of the union or that of management - no compromise. This will obviously produce a sense of ultimate victory in one party and total failure in the other. Such feelings will not be forgotten overnight. Bitterness and negativism will grow. Fairness is completely forgotten in this legislation. Impartiality of the arbitrator is another vital concern.

The possible appointment of an arbitrator by the Labour Board is tantamount to a state control over the free collective bargaining process. A lack of bias in a mediator is crucial to the peaceful resolution of labour management disputes. Should the individual in question be biased, then the process becomes a sham and no one benefits. Not only will this legislation promote an antagonistic labour relations climate in Manitoba, Madam Speaker, it will encourage strike action while discouraging ongoing productive dialogue between management and labour.

Unions may not be so eager to bargain if they can exercise their right to strike, safe in the knowledge that within 60 days the dispute can be referred to the appointment selector who will render a decision and end the strike. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair.) Mr. Deputy Speaker, the process of free collective bargaining is just that free. Let the government stand up for the freedom of collective bargaining and let it withdraw this piece of legislatiOI). 3316

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to add some brief comments with respect to this bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I think mainly in two areas. The first would be in the area of the operation and the activities of the labour management committee, because we see once again with respect to this bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the role of the labour management committee has been overlooked and ignored. That's not the first time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we have seen this happen.

We saw that happen with respect to significant labour legislation in the first term of this government and we've seen it again. I think it's extremely unfortunate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because what it ultimately means is the demise of that particular committee. That commitee can play no useful role in the formulation of trying to arrive at a consensus on labour legislation in this province, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when it has once again been ignored by this government.

This government having done that, not just on this one occasion, but on the previous occasions, it is difficult for me to see in the future any future government allowing that committee to play a significant role in developing a consensus on labour legislation in this province. I think that's extremely unfortunate - particularly when we have heard from one of the members of the committee who resigned that the management

section of the labour management committee had prepared a position paper, had provided it to the employee representatives on that committee, and were waiting for a response so that they were obviously working to attempt to develop a consensus on this final offer selection legislation which they were not allowed to do, and they were ignored by the government. I think this legislation marks the demise of that committee and with this particular government in government, we cannot look forward to continuation of obtaining anything positive or useful from that committee. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, members on this side of the House have spoken about a number of aspects of this bill. I do, without getting into them, want to indicate that I share the concerns expressed by my colleague, the Member for Pembi na, with respect to the responsibility and discretion in the hands of the Labour Board to decide on who will do the actual voting, and the people who vote, and who is eligible, will actually be determined under this legislation because there's a great deal of discretion, which should not be the case.

But having said that, I want to point out to these members what I consider to be the most significant aspect of this bill, because they should, in bringing forward this legislation, consider that the selector will be appointed by the Labour Board. And it may be fine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for this government to have confidence in that system when they are in government, but are they doing their constituency any favours by having this legislation in place when they are not in government?

It is interesting to note that the New Democratic Party in British Columbia over the past few months has been extremely concerned and opposed to the establishment of what they have called the "Labour Czar" in British Columbia, who will be an appointment of the Social Credit government, who will have a great deal of discretion in labour matters in the province of British Columbia. The NDP in British Columbia have been adamantly opposed to the legislation there. We have similar legislation that probably doesn't go as far, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

What it does is it puts a great deal of discretion in the hands of the selector to be appointed by the Labour Board, and that selector will be appointed by the Labour Board as long as the parties do not agree. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when one looks at where the bias is in our labour relations under this government, it is obviously in favour of the employee side, and has been ever since they're in government. So what is going to happen under this legislation?

The labour unions are not certainly going to feel compelled to agree with management on the appointment of a selector, because they know, in the final analysis, the board - with a tendency to support labour - will support someone of their liking, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that the eventual decision by the board will be very favourable to the labour side. Now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I think what the unions are saying - those who oppose this legislation - they are saying, very maturely, that we recognize that the New Democratic Party is not always going to be government in Manitoba, and that at some future time another party is going to be in government and they may not be as much disposed to favour labour as this government is, and if they are choosing a selector and have the influence to choose a selector, they're going to be appointing people who are not very favourably inclined to us at all. They're saying then, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that our best protection is simply to rely on free collective bargaining between the parties, because in the long run, that's what protects us best. It's the same way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the first contract area can be very much influenced if there is a change in government and a change in philosophy of the people who are appointed to those ministerial positions and appointed to those Labour Board positions. What labour is saying, at least those who oppose this legislation, and I think quite correctly, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in the long run, our best protection is to maintain a tree collective bargaining between labour and management, and not to have decisions imposed by someone who may or may not have a bias towards us and they recognize that, at some point in time, they're not going to have an NDP Government in power and they're not going to have someone who is favourably disposed to them, making those decisions. I think - (Interjection)- Pardon me? HON. J. STORIE: You don't have to choose to win . MR. G. MERCIER: That's right, the Minister of Education is saying they don't have to choose.

Well, there can be a simple amendment to the bill by a future government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that could say that 3317

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 the members of the union don't have a say, it would simply say either the union or the management can, at any time, say we want final offer selection; and the other party will have to accept it. A future government could say that quite easily, and then the union would be subject to the bias of the selector and the bias of a future government. So what I'm saying to these members, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, they may think that they have designed a quick-fix solution to an immediate strike that is before us, but people, in both management and a significant number of people on the labour side, are saying that we have to look at the long term and we have to look at the situation that will benefit us best in the long run. The best that they can rely on, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is to maintain free collective bargaining and to avoid any situations where government or labour boards will be appointing people with a particular bias towards one or the other sides. That, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I think is the most serious criticism of this bill because, by passing this bill, what is happening is that both labour and management are saying we're only going to do as well as the bias of the government in power at the time of any particular strike. So, rather than dealing with a bill like this on a short term basis as a quick-fix solution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe, as both management and labour unions have said, the best protection that they have of their positions is to maintain the free collective bargaining process.

That's my main concern, and I think it's the main concern of most people who are opposed to the legislation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I simply wanted to put those remarks on the record. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Riel. MR. G. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like to also give a few brief comments in regard to this particular bill. I know my colleagues have covered the waterfront very well. However, because of my previous role in labour relations and for the sake of good relations, I wish I did not have to speak on such legislation.

I think probably what offended me quite greatly because of my involvement was there was a question brought to the Minister of Labour on Friday, and the question that the Minister brought forward, and I'll quote from Hansard of Friday, 19th of June, was the question by the Member for Brandon: "In view of the fact that first contract legislation, combined with final offer selection, in fact, will amount to total state control over labour relations in this province; and in view of the fact that is a very negative signal to send to potential investors in our province, will the Minister now reconsider his stand on this issue and withdraw Bill 61 before it wastes anymore time in this House"?

And what really bothered me as a member sitting over here who understands negotiations and a believer in negotiations, one word or one, two, three words in his answer was: " ... and to be experimental. " Well, isn't that something? Now, we've got a Labour Minister who wants to be experimental with a program of negotiations that's been going on in this particular city for many, many years and is very successful. No one has found a better method, and now this particular Minister wants to tinker with that particular negotiation process. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in my experience in negotiations, I find that this is a one-sided bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I was on the school board, my first experience with negotiations, my six years, I had the pleasure of negotiating with the teachers and CUPE. We found through negotiations that we did come to a settlement. Sure, there were some who would go to conciliation and then go to arbitration but, more likely, there were two sides at the table. Most people who know labour and who are involved in negotiation respect each other to know that you do leave the negotiations at the table.

Normally, you do come to some consensus. At the city level, we dealt with seven unions. Unfortunately at the city level, as my role of executive chairman, we normally did not get involved in the direct negotiations. We were normally the carrier of the message, not like on school board where, school board, you sat across the table from the employees and hammered it out. Most people who didn't know how to hammer it out normally did not last on either side in negotiations and probably did not return to negotiate the next year. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the mystery to it all is that, as I mentioned, the negotiating process has worked. Why are we now interfering with it? Mr. Deputy Speaker, as mentioned earlier, I have been involved in the labour relations field in my former capacity as a school trustee and city councillor for approximately 12 years. Although I have always, Mr. Deputy Speaker, represented the employer because that was a position I was put in, however, I always considered the other side. I have always recognized and respected the role organized labour plays in a democratic society. Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, the proposed legislation regarding FOS arbitration is, I believe, unwise, but aspects of it are total ly, I believe, unfair . The underpinnings of our labour relations system is that it is a two-party system, each with the ability to employ economic sanctions against the other as a last resort. For the union, it is the strike; for the employer, it is the lockout. The lockout is more commonly manifested, and could be characterized as operating in the face of a strike. The use of the lockout, as I am sure you, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, are aware, is usually a response to a job action and rarely used as an offensive weapon. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I understand this legislation to provide is a situation where the union - and a union is its membership - can impose arbitration by a vote of its membership on the employer. However, if the employer wants to go to arbitration, the union can veto the action. This is grossly one-sided, as I previously mentioned, and unfair.

Wh en there was an attempt to introduce this legislation in 1984, proponents of this legislation argued that it wasn't really one-sided, that the union was not given the power. They were giving this power to the membership characterizing, and I quote: ". . . the membership as some kind of third party." I repeat, a union is its membership and vice versa, and to characterize it in any other way is, I submit, very misleading and incorrect. There has been considerable experience with interest arbitration, particularly final offer selection. It has never 3318

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 been found to work in practice the way the theory suggests by this particular Minister. Bargaining at its best, anybody who's been involved in the negotiating process, is difficult. FOS arbitration has been found to be a disincentive to serious bargaining. Any of us who have been involved in negotiation know this is true. Arbitration is an imposed solution that creates, Mr. Deputy Speaker, winners and losers. In the long term, I believe it undermines labour relations. Negotiated settlements generally are, on the main, not seen as having a win-lose outcome.

For arbitration, there's always a win-lose outcome, and with that kind of attitude . when we have arbitration. To be honest with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my experience with arbitration has been largely negative, and I do not believe such legislation will improve labour relations in Manitoba. A far greater concern to me is the notion of enabling one party to impose it on another and not have a quid pro quo. This is blatantly one sided, self-serving to labour, and it has a potential to make a mockery of our labour relations system. All the choices belong to labour. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, everyone knows and even labour on the other side when they're negotiating, knows that they probably have, most of the time, the trump cards. If a union wants to resort to economic sanctions, it can strike; if the union wants arbitration, it gets it. If the employer wants to resort to economic sanctions, the union can veto it by applying for arbitration. If the employer wants arbitration, the union must agree. What could be more absurdly and blatantly one-sided or unfair? Mr. Deputy Speaker, I argue against the application of different rules and standards to one party over the other.

I argue for the maintenance of the integrity of our labour relations system. One side is totally disenfranchised about what is proposed. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I fear the long-term effects for our labour relations system. I also wonder how the government plans to fund - and it hasn't been brought to their attention - the shortfall of the funding in the public sector of arbitration awards that exceed the current level of funding by government. In both B. C. and Ontario, arbitrators made awards in the 19 percent to 20 percent range for some employers.

Approximately four to five years ago, these awards occasioned legislation in both jurisdictions, most notably, as mentioned earlier, the B. C. Stabilization Act. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think probably one of the questions to my mind that bothers me is mentioned on page 8, 82. 3(8), where it mentions the "Factors to be considered in making decision. " - the first one being: "(

b) the terms and conditions of employment, if any, negotiated through collective bargaining for employees performing the same or similar functions in the same or similar cirumstances as the employees in the unit;" - and I'll get to that in a minute - "(

e) where, in the opinion of the selector, the employer has provided sufficient information in respect thereof, the employers ability to pay;" - Mr. Deputy Speaker, how can this relate in the public sector to the ability to pay? Another related issue is the arbitrators have consistently in the past refused to pay any attention to the ability-to-pay arrangements of employers in the public sector. Arbitrators argue correctly, I would say, that governments or their dependent agencies do not go broke like private companies if they overspend.

They do not go bankrupt because governments have the ability to keep them going. Therefore, in this situation, the ability-to-pay concept arguments are meaningless. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as we are allowed quite a bit of time to go through each particular bill, however, because my members have probably made many of the points very, very clear, I would though at this time like to read some into the record because we are being questioned in regard to the arbitration. The commissioner, Edward R.

Peck, who is actually a commissioner in B.C. for the Stabilization Program, and I'd like to quote: "Perhaps the single most contentious issue which has arisen in the administration of the program," or the Stabilization Program, "is the concept of ability to pay. Prior to the Stabilization Program that was brought in because of the previous bills passed, arbitrators generally dismissed ability to pay as consideration in determining public sector compensation settlements. Some paid lip service to the concept by regarding it as relevant, if uncompelling.

However, the popular approach was to award the wages and working conditions enjoyed by persons employed in similar or comparable jobs in the public sector, where those wages and conditions had been established through the collective bargaining process. "The rationale was that labour is a market commodity and a fair return for labour services is best measured in the market wherein the rate is fixed. But in ignoring ability to pay, arbitrators also ignored important distinctions between these private and public sector employers. In the private sector, a true competitive marketplace exists.

Consequently , it is entirely appropriate for an interest dispute arbitrator to ascertain the prevailing wage rates sustainable in that market. "However, application of the same test to determine public sector employees' wages is fallacious, as arbitrators assume a single, bottomless revenue fund provided by government taxing power. That is the key in a process characterizing the government as a real public sector employee.

"No true marketplace can be said to exist, as there are no other benchmark providers of public services with which to compare wages and working conditions." That is the second part, or the first

part I read that in this particular final selection the selector is asked to determine fair share pay and make it equal, we know that in the marketplace how do you compare the public sector? How do you compare the public sector to this marketplace? I know at City Council you always usually compare a lot of times to the benchmark of other provinces. The same thing would apply provincially. You usually apply it to the benchmark probably throughout other provinces and then take into consideration the cost of living.

I feel that in the public sector the factors to be considered in making the decision as mentioned in the bill are ridiculous. Arbitratrors feel that making determinations about ability to pay in the public sector has the same effect as determining public spending priorities of government, a job reserved for a representative of the people. If you accept this notion, then through this legislation the government is abandoning its responsibility and ability to control expenditures in the public sector. 3319

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 Mr. Deputy Speaker, there'll be other members from this side of the House expressing their disappointment in this particular bill. I've tried to give a couple of points that I feel, through my own negotiation process and through the experience that I've been able to develop, and I must say, experience that I probably enjoy and experience that I know that I came out of the bargaining tables probably respected by the people on the other side of the table.

For all the reasons that I have stated and constructive criticism, I believe I must add, I urge you for the future of labour negotiations, I ask all members to oppose this legislation to their utmost. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: I rise this afternoon, Madam Speaker, with considerable concern and regret about the intent of this particular bill and its further erosion of the free collective bargaining process in our province.

It is a bill that's not going to affect only the workers that we have in the work force of the province at this time, but I wonder how it's going to affect the young people who are not yet in the work force. People like the young Jocelyn Grenier that my colleague from Turtle Mountain mentioned in his speech a few moments ago, how will it affect the freedoms of this young person who so nobly did express her views on a particular topic and went on to win a contest? I'm sure that members of this House will all join me in congratulating the efforts of this young individual and young student.

This government has continuously tried and in fact has intervened in the relationships between employees and employers. To this government the employer has always been the evil-doer in society. The employer is the person who, or the corporation who supplies the jobs for people in our society, he is the individual or the corporation who creates jobs. It 's not the government that creates jobs. It is people who venture into business who create employment within our province. But this legislation is not only bad for employers, it is also being rejected by the employees of this province.

There is a marked difference between the union bosses and the employees of our province. MR. D. ORCHARD: There sure is. Mackling doesn't recognize it though. MR. L. DERKACH: But why does this government so suddenly announce legislation of this type? Why did the Minister come to the Legislature with Bill 61? Well, I think the answer is very clear when we take a look at the situation of the Westfair workers. It is to protect the interest of people, namely, Bernard Christophe.

It is not to protect the employees; it is not to protect the employers; it is to protect those individuals that this Minister takes his direction from - the union bosses - Bernard Christophe, Wilf Hudson. The Premier along with Ministers, and in fact this particular Minister, has come before the House and has talked about freedom and fairness. They talk about how important fairness is in our society. Well, Madam Speaker, I submit that they don't know the meaning of fairness.

They have made a mockery of the word and of the term, and of the meaning of the word through the legislation that they have come with before this House. The Minister of Education earlier this year, or last year, tried to interfere in the collective bargaining process between trustees and teachers, and he did this by offering a carrot, so to speak, into a situation whereby the bargaining power and the strategies would be severely handicapped.

He said to the teachers, if you will accept a zero percent increase for this coming year, then we will give you this amount of money which will be able to be administered, not by yourselves, but in conjunction with the trustees. Now what has resulted out of this, Madam Speaker, is that we have had much bad feeling between not only trustees and teachers, but between communities and teachers; because in small communities everybody knows the teachers.

The teachers are a part of the community and now, as a result of the request by the Minister, teachers were seen as insensitive, unreasonable, demanding requests of the trustees that, in the Minister's eyes, were not logical. But the trustees rejected this also. The idea of the Minister was not rejected only by the teachers, it was also rejected by the trustees, because they understood and they saw that this was a direct interference in a collective bargaining process which has been established in school divisions across this province for a long time, and trustees rejected it on a different basis as well.

And they rejected it because it was an underhanded way of this Minister to intervene and to attempt to put some of the management controls in the hands of the employees as well. Now we have the Minister of Labour presenting a bill to the House that will virtually destroy the good faith that has prevailed in the free bargaining process between employer and employee. The government now, through the Labour Board, will have the power to select the person that it deems will be the good person to settle the agreement.

And given the track record of the Labour Board and this government - and I name those incidents of the Sooter Studio case where we had employees who requested of the Labour Board to hear their case where the Labour Board rejected it because the Labour Board, too, is being controlled by union bosses. We have the situation of the young woman, Jennifer Campbell, who was attacked because she was expressing a freedom of expression. This is the kind of attitude that we are being exposed to by this government and through it, the Labour Board as well.

The point has been made on several occasions that at present nothing prevents the union and the employer from mutually agreeing to use a process of this type, but not anywhere in this province have we seen this kind of approach used, and one has to ask the question why. Well, the answer is very simple. It is not used because it is unfair and because it does not work. It simply does not work for the benefit of either the employer or the employee. It cannot be fair because there is a winner and there is a loser; there is no in between. 3320

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 We have in place in our society an arbitration process and some segments, and I go back again to the teachers' and the trustees' relationship in free collective bargaining and the arbitration process. I have personally been involved on both sides as a matter of fact. I negotiated on the side of teachers for about six years and then I negotiated on the side of trustees for another five or six years. So, therefore, I saw both sides of the fence. Madam Speaker, when we go through the free collective bargaining process, there is no winner and there is no loser in many instances.

A comment was made to me that oh, the arbitration process - and this came from the government- a member said to me that the arbitration process doesn't work, because what the arbitrators do is they take the two sides and they cut it down the middle and that's what the settlement usually is. That is not really how arbitrators view their tasks at all. They weigh the pros and cons of the presentations that are made to them and then they come up with a solution that is, first of all, taken back to either the teachers' association or the trustees and it's accepted on that basis.

But before we get to the arbitration process, we go through the conciliation process which is one step before, and if you can't arrive at a settlement in a conciliation process, then you proceed through the arbitration process. In this particular instance, all of that is removed, all of that is destroyed. What we have is a selector choosing either one presentation or the other, and we have a winner and we have a loser. This government has heard what people in our society think about this process and we have read about it as well.

Working groups in our society have made their views known, and yet we hear nothing from the Minister in terms of whether he's prepared to make any amendments to this particular bill. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.) An

article in the Winnipeg Free Press, which I know members opposite don't pay too much heed to because they'd rather have something like the Pravda, I suppose, says that the Winnipeg Labour Council recognizes final offer selection for what it. is, an attack on free collective bargaining. Wh at it does is it dr ags unions and companies into a perverse form of arbitration. They are bastardizing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I might use that term , the arbitration and the free collective bargaining process. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, those few brief comments are what I wanted to put on the record in terms of opposing this particular legislation. We oppose it because it is not fair; it creates a winner and a loser. I wonder what will happen to the labour relationships in the future. What will happen a year from the time this particular process is completed? What kind of attitudes will prevail between management and labour after a settlement is imposed upon them? I submit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this province will suffer a serious setback between employer and employee.

The only winners in this particular situation will be the union bosses - not the employees and not the employers. I must say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is my hope that this Minister will find it prudent to bring in amendments to this legislation. We believe that this legislation is dangerous and is contrary and it destroys the good will and the respect that has been built up in the free collective bargaining process in this province. Thank you very much. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNES$: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It's a pleasure to rise and debate this most unglorious bill - Bill 61 - Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'd like to ask the question - the rhetorical question almost: Why will members opposite not debate their own bill? Why will they not stand in support of something they claim is so badly needed and wanted, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I think their silence says many things, and although, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I listened while you made your address yesterday with respect to Bill 61, still I'm intrigued by the fact that there are many members on the other side who have seen fit not, at this point in time, to support the government bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't bring an awful lot of labour expertise to this debate, and I won't try and pretend that I have had a lot of experience in labour negotiations over the years.

I, however, enjoyed the comments made by my colleagues who, in various endeavours, whether it's been part of school board activities either as trustees or as representatives of their local association of teachers, have found themselves in that position. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I don't have that background and, in an academic sense, I do not have that background either, and I sense that you do, given the speech you made yesterday.

I, though, however, would like to make some very general comments from somebody who has now watched this introduction of final offer selection for two times in the space of some three or four years, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask the Minister in charge of Labour basically one question: Does he believe that all things that are great in principle, does he believe that they all can work in practice? Because, to me, that's what's at issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It's whether or not this new approach of trying to prevent so-called labour disruption which appears so wonderful in principle, whether or not it can work in practice? Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence and the indulgence of the House, I would like to use a couple of examples. I had the occasion this past winter, on a holiday to California, to go to the southern part of Los Angeles, Long Beach to be exact, and I saw the Spruce Goose. Some people may ask, well, what was the Spruce Goose? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it was Howard Hughes' plane, and I know you know that, the largest flying machine yet devised by man on the face of the earth. Mr. Deputy Speaker , it was developed by that industrialist for the purpose of winning the war more quickly, moving military people to the theatres of action in Europe and Africa, 700 men at a time. It was going to have, supposedly, in principle, the ability to move from this continent to the theatres of war. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you know, it did leave the ground and it did fly. It flew for one mile.

It flew at an altitude of 70 feet and then it was put down and never 3321

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 to be flown again. In theory and in principle. it was supposed to work. In spite of the fact it had six of the largest engines ever yet made - and I think they were in the area of 1, 200 or 1, 400 horsepower each, or maybe it was 8,000; I can't quite remember the figure - Mr. Deputy Speaker, that plane couldn't fly. I'd like to bring you one more example, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The last time that agriculture prices were so low about 15 years ago, when I was a new farmer, I wanted to move into some exotic crops. One of them was called adzuki beans.

You may know what they are, I've seen them, many members won't - grown in Japan at the same latitude that we have here in southern Manitoba. And the proponents that brought over the seed and were contracting those of us who were trying to give ourselves a greater return said that they would take 90 days to mature and that fit well into our growing seasons, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that they would produce bountifu lly. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we planted those and after 130 days of frost-free they were nowhere in sight of maturing and they grew to one-quarter of the size. Mr.

Deputy Speaker. the point I'm trying to make is in principle it was supposed to work -(Interjection)- oh, I planted them upside down? You're right. I may have planted them upside down. But, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make, and I thank the Minister of Education for helping me make it, because you see you can't always make what would appear to work on paper, in principle, in practice it doesn't always work. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, just like those two situations where I am telling the Minister of Labour, the sponsor of this bill, that final offer selection, the way it's being described at this time, the way it's been embodied within this legislation, will fail. And it will fail for the many reasons that our critic, the MLA for Brandon West has indicated in his speech Friday last. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this will not work in practice. And members will ask, well why won't it?

I'll tell you why it won't work, because it puts all the power, the power of selecting between one proposal and another in the hands of somebody who has human failings, somebody that has political biases. Somebody, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who cannot give clear objectivity to the decision that must be rendered. And that's why it will fail as sure as I'm standing here. It has no hope, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and I would think you particula rly, who I know understands human nature, I would think that you would realize that, and that's why it will fail because just mere mortals are going to have to sit singularly in judgment of one offer versus another. My colleague has addressed the area of the veto given to one side. I find that reprehensible. I don't know how, in using the terms used by the MLA for Thompson when he says, "this will bring greater fairness, more fairness and equality as between employer and union," Mr. Deputy Speaker, how do you create greater fairness when you give one party a veto?

How do you do it, or are you saying yes, there will be fairness but there will be a first amongst equals? There is no way you can give one party a veto as to whether the process is adopted or not. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the Minister, in his closing remarks on this bill, to tell us how pure objectivity, first of all, can be rendered by the selector, given that this person in almost all cases will be politically appointed? Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, of course that person will be politically appointed; and I don't care how many boards, I don't care how many commissions one attempts to launder that, but that person will be a political person as sure as I stand here, and that's where the whole system will fall down - right there. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I couldn't also help but hear the Member for Thompson, because he's one of the few people that I've heard speak on this bill, used as a supporting argument as to why we have to begin to look at different systems and particularly this one, he used as supportive argument, material, the fact, and he brought in the Supervalu, the Westfair dispute, and he used the figure that there are employees there who are only working 12 hours a week.

The Minister of Community Services, who doesn't throw her comments across the floor easily and doesn't interject often, said, "What would you think of that, if you had to keep your family on 12 hours a week employment?" Mr. Deputy Speaker, I couldn't do it and I don't know how anybody can do it. But don't let that be the reason that Bill 61 is brought forward, because if that then becomes part of the rationale for supporting final offer selection, then what the Member for Thompson is saying - he's saying one or two things.

He's saying firstly, we will legislate that Westfair will, and it will be a government edict, they will employ these people, the same number of people and they will be given 30 hours a week. If he's not saying that, then he's saying, well, there is some significant portion of those people who will have no work. And you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I find striking in that, using his argument? What would the Minister in charge of employment statistics be able to say if indeed these people showed up on the unemployment rolls, these people who now were not given 12 hours a week work, indeed were given no work?

It begs the question, doesn't it? I wonder why that maybe we haven't been more diligent in trying to dissect the employment figures to see how meaningful the work is, to allow the government in this province to go forward and say we have among the lowest unemployment level rates in the land. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I digress, but I thought I had to comment on the statement made by the MLA for Thompson. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, one couldn't help also last night notice, if they'd watched the news, that the Federation of Labour, the Manitoba Federation of Labour, had called that press conference, inviting the media to be there to show the public that they were not disunited, that they were not different in their views on this particular bill, an orchestrated press conference, to show that the labour movement in this province indeed is not divided. I question what is really happening within the Labour Councils.

We seem to think from our vantage point there are major difficulties with this bill, and I wonder, and I guess the last question I have for the Minister of Labour, and I think it's sort of been overlooked through all the discussion. At least, that's what I've heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Why final offer selection at this time? You know, every time our critic, indeed any one of us ask a question, a labour question to the Minister of Labour, three-quarters of that response is 3322

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 directed to addressing the climate of labour management within this province. He can do nothing - I'm talking about the Minister - but boast as to how well that climate has been since the Pawley term of government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the Minister then, why is final offer selection so necessary in this province, which he deems to have very little labour dispute? Why do you fix something if it's working well, Mr. Deputy Speaker? And why do you do it when there are many people, many constituents of the NOP government who do not want it?

It causes a great curiosity in the mind of somebody like myself who, quite frankly, and as I said earlier on, doesn't fully understand the labour environment, its history or its existence at this point in time. Mr. Deputy Speaker, why? Why is it needed? Is it to pay off some promises? Is it to give somebody a guarantee of some sort? Is it to safeguard the powers of somebody?

I think those are very legitimate questions because I can remember being a new member in this House, that the Government of the Day, when it brought forward the same regulation in the form of an amendment, brought forward by a former Minister, that it didn't take an awful lot of discussion, it didn't take an awful lot of pressure from within the community, to have that amendment withdrawn. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that the Minister of Labour, again, is going to have to tell us why it's so necessary that final offer selection is brought in.

And why it is to be brought in, in the fashion that will give one party a veto. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me conclude by saying to the Minister of Labour that I will not taunt him if he pulls this bill. I don't think members here pressured the former Minister of Labour when she wisely withdrew the amendment calling for final offer selection. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I just think that it's, at this point in time when there are so many people lining up in opposition to this bill and given, and again my main point, given that this so-called principle, in my view, cannot work in practice because, again, it has the failings of human subjectivity in the form of a selector, that person having to decide between one option or another. It's impractical, It will not work. Members on this side have said it will not work. People within the business community, people representing labour, say it will not work. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask the government to withdraw the bill.

MA. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MA. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in opposition to this bill. This is probably the one piece of legislation which is being discussed most in the rural areas, this and the bill on human rights. This is causing the most concern of all the bills that we have before us this year.

I have a number of people who say that there is no way are they going to be expanding in Manitoba, and as a matter of fact one firm already say that they are working on an expansion in Alberta - they already are in Alberta - but all expansion from now on is going to be there because there is no way are they going to be subjected to this type of legislation. And, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I may, there is no way, no way, that this province will be able to attract industry into this province, with this type of legislation hanging over management and the owners' heads.

There is just no way ownership is going to be standing for this type of legislation. The Member for Kildonan the other day stated that he had been in management side, that he had negotiated with labour, and my gosh, you know, really, he couldn't see anything bad with this bill. He'd been doing great; this is a great bill; he had absolutely no problems. I tell you something, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It's an entirely different thing when you are negotiating with your own money or with Klinic's money. If it's your own money, then you become concerned.

If you're negotiating with somebody else's money, then you don't really care how much and you can afford to be amiable, because you know very well that the dollar that's going to be lost at Klinic is not going to be coming out of your pocket. I know the dollar that's being lost in my business is coming directly out of my pocket; and, therefore, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, this is absolutely ridiculous, this type of legislation that's going to ruin this province forever. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in our area, we don't have too many unions, but I must admit that they are coming in slowly.

We have a number of unions now as where a couple of years ago we didn't have any. But the firm that I'm in partnership with, we have 30 employees and we have a good relationship with our employees. Sure, things are a little difficult at times when it comes to negotiating salary, but we do make a point of it and every Monday morning, before we start work, we take off one hour and we discuss the problems that we have between management and labour so that labour can air whatever their concerns are and we can react to these concerns.

On top of that, they have their own association when we start negotiating with wages for the year, that we can sit down, we don't have to negotiate with everybody separately, and things work out fine because we can sit down and work this thing out as friends because we really have been negotiating all year round. Every Monday morning we have been ironing out whatever difficulties there were. Mr. Deputy Speaker, those are the kinds of things that can be done, but those are the kinds of things that will be done if they are being done voluntarily.

You try to force that on us, and I tell you something, you're going to have a hell of a time on your hands making neighbour or making management heel to that type of dictation. Voluntarily, people are willing to do almost anything in order to create a harmonious relationship, but you force people into that situation, I tell you, then you get an entirely different reaction.

There are very many associations, of course, unions who have come out in opposition to this bill, and it's to their credit that they do come out, because they can see the harm that is going to be done in this province if we have this type of legislation. We have the Canadian Association of Industrial Mechanical and Allied Workers, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Manitoba Organization of Nurses Association, the Winnipeg Labour Council, the Manitoba 3323

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 Association of Health Care Professionals, and others, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These people realize that great difficulty is going to be created in this province if we force people into the ki nd of settlement, final offer selecti on. This is something, to my knowledge, that no other province has. And why do we have to try to make it difficult for business to come in and create the type of jobs and the prosperity which all of us desire within this province? I tell you one of the reasons why the unions are concerned, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is they know that there is going to be a change in government and they know that maybe during this period of time when this government is in power that the choice of selector by the Labour Board is probably going to be somebody who is going to be siding with labour, and they will feel quite comfortable with that; but with a change of government, I tell you things could be entirely different, and don't you think that the unions don't know this. They absolutely know this and it scares the living daylights out of them because the shoe could be on the other foot.

So they would much rather have the type of legislation that we have before us now where it's management and labour that are bargaining and they are bargaining in good faith. Sometimes we have walkouts in order for them to prove their point. If we have to have this, regrettably, we have to have this situation sometimes in order for labour to make their point; but, by and large, we've been able to resolve these problems without too much difficulty. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would just like to make those few points. I can certainly speak as an employer and to me this is absolutely unacceptable.

I hope that the Minister of Labour is going to wake up and find out that this type of legislation is probably going to be the most harmful piece of legislation that this province has ever seen. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, rise in opposition to Bill No. 61, final offer selection. Wh enever a government starts to play favourites when bringing in legislation, you know that they're bringing in poor legislation, and this is the best example of a piec e of poor legislation that this government could bring in.

Now, in the short term this may work well for certain members of the labour movement - they think. But I say that this bill will not help labour or management or business in general in Manitoba. This is the time when, because of one strike in Manitoba, the strike involving Westfair Foods, we have the government, the Minister of Labour, leaping in to the defence of - not the union - but of the union leaders. It's not the worker they're thinking of, because if they had been thinking of the worker, they probably wouldn't have been in this position. They would have been negotiating in good faith.

But always at the back of their mind they were able to know that this Minister of Labour and this government were going to bring in legislation that would bail them out. They didn't have to negotiate in good 3324 faith. So what we have here, we have people - women, men, out on strike, very little money coming in all because we have a union leader who wants to prove a point, who wants to look like he's strong, but at the same time he wants the backing of the government to make sure that if this thing doesn't work out we've got a bail-out - and that is exactly what this type of legislation will do.

When governments try to be cute in any way - and this is what I would call this piece of legislation - there's a sunset clause, "five years." Now why would you have that if it was a piece of legislation that was worthwhile? Because if it's worthwhile now, surely it must be worthwhile for time on end. Mr. Deputy Speaker, any time that you have one party who has the upper hand, and not only has the upper hand but has the provincial government backing it, then you have a natural winner. But who is going to win if you have an employer having to accept something that was not mutually agreed on?

You are going to end up with employees who will have no jobs at all. When you can work out an agreement between two parties fairly, as has been happening in the labour movement, then you have an agreement maybe everyone is not particularly happy with, but they all can live with it. Now what we have done, what this government is doing, and this Minister of Labour, is bailing out a friend. And talk about a friend in need, that's what the union that this is brought in to protect is now - a friend in need. The members of the New Democratic Party, this government, are bailing out their friends.

This is the payoff for the support they get during the election. All the phoners, all the people that run around and put up signs, the members of these unions, all the money that they will put in, the number of people that donate to different constituencies - this is their payoff - this piece of legislation - this bad piece of legislation. Wh en you have members of different labour movements at odds, then surely you would take another look at the legislation that you're bringing in. If it was good legislation, every person in the labour movement would be for it. Now what do we have?

We have the members of the - is it the Canadian Labour Congress - saying to the Manitoba Federation of Labour, or whatever it is, that they cannot go against the government, stand up publicly against the government on this piece of legislation. This is the kind of democracy that we're seeing with the unions. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) Madam Speaker, I want to bring up the point about the choice of the selector that will be made by the Labour Board if both parties can't agree. Well, it will be a very simple matter for both parties not to agree.

If the members of the unions decide we won't agree on any name because we know that there's a name that we really want in the background, and that the selector will be chosen by the Labour Board - the Labour Board is chosen by the government - what kind of fairness do we have here for the employer? Madam Speaker, there are some employers that need unions. I don't doubt that for one minute. But at the same time, there never, ever should be a case when there isn't the balance between labour and management. When you take the balance out of this,

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 when you make it so overwhelming, when you bring in legislation that is really a sham, and that's what this legislation is - it's a piece of legislation, it's a payoff to certain unions in this province - Madam Speaker, when governments bring in legislation because of payoffs, because of what they owe, we know it to be wrong. I can't state that more often. This piece of legislation is wrong. Final offer selection should never have been brought in by this government or any government. I ask the Member for St.

James, the Minister of Labour, who, and as the Member for Pembina pointed out, is the sacrificial lamb in this particular piece of legislation - I don't imagine that he has the choice to withdraw this particular piece of legislation because he's being dictated to by other members of his caucus, by members of Cabinet and by the labour unions - so, Madam Speaker, although it is my hope that this will be withdrawn, I don't believe it's within the purview or that this Minister has enough clout to even make a single change in this legislation. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. D.

BLAKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thought we might hear some defence of the legislation from members opposite, but they appear to be not disposed to speak on Bill 61, the final offer selection bill, that's being pretty commonly known now as the "Bail out Bernie Bill," Madam Speaker. I don't want to take too much time in going over ground that has already been covered by members on this side so many times, but I think many of the objectionable clauses in this bill bear to be repeated, Madam Speaker. The present strike going on at Westfair Foods is causing quite a bit of concern.

It's evidence of what destruction and what feelings can erupt from a labour dispute that I suppose in some way this Minister feels the final offer selection legislation is going to prevent. But I don't think he's fooling anyone with that type of proposal that he's holding out in this particular legislation, Madam Speaker. Because, in this legislation, the final offer selection, if one is finally made, the workers get a chance to vote on it whether they're going to accept it or whether they aren't, and the employer who has all of the investment in plant and equipment is pretty much left out in the cold.

I think with the amount of opposition that is building to this legislation, Madam Speaker, the Minister should be getting a pretty clear answer. But we know from his previous actions and some of the previous portfolios that he's had, that really each one of them has been disastrous and he's just had to keep moving on from one portfolio to an oth er. Now with the predicament that his friend, Mr. Christophe, has got himself into, it looks like this legislation is just simply designed to help him out of a pretty tough spot. Madam Speaker, I think the Minister has been fooling the unions.

Some of the union bosses have certainly been led down the garden path into thinking this legislation is going to provide some labour peace. It couldn't be further from the truth. When you get opposition to the bill from some of the strong union representatives, Madam Speaker, I don't know why the Minister of Labour refuses to listen to them. The Canadian Union of Public Employees, one of the first ones off the mark to oppose it, represents some 16 ,000 members. There's 10 ,000 members in the Manitoba Organization of Nurses.

MONA has opposed it, to say nothing of the Win nipeg Labour Council, the unions they represent, there's about 36,000 workers. And to say nothing of the City of Winnipeg and the concern expressed by the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the towns of Brandon and Swan River and various other places that maybe haven't communicated with the Minister but have expressed concern at the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, who are having their regional meetings throughout the province this past week or so, have expressed strong opposition to it.

Madam Speaker, I don't know what more force we can bring to bear on the Minister to get him to withdraw this particular section. Really, I don't think he can clean up the bill without withdrawing the whole bill and coming back with something that's a little more acceptable to management and labour. The Minister talks in grand terms about how much labour peace that we have had, but we've seen plants close, and I think, Madam Speaker, we're going to see an awful lot more plants close, because under final offer selection, you're going to have winners and losers.

If it's the employer, the person who has the money invested in the plant and equipment coming out a loser and having it flaunted to him to some degree, if the workers feel that they have received the benefit of an advantageous offer, that he's not going to be long in looking for another location or even closing the plant all together and looking for a buyer.

So I can't see any possible benefit in attracting business to this province and attracting more investment and more people to provide the jobs that we so desperately need, Madam Speaker, because the application can be made by either party for final offer selection. As I mentioned, the workers get a vote on it, but the management or the employers do not get a vote on it at all, so there's no fairness in the bill from that point of view.

The selector or the person who's going to choose the final officer is selected by the Labour Board and there's always going to be some suggestions that the selector has been biased, whether it's favourable to management or favourable to the employees. There's no ratification of selected contract. There's no reason that the union wouldn't request this after striking for some time, because after a certain period of time, a decision is automatically imposed on them and there'll be no hesitation to go to the final offer selection.

I think it will disrupt to some large degree the bargaining and good faith that has been so prevalent in the management, labour disputes. When you take away that right to free collective bargaining, I think you're supplanting it with something that, by the opposition that it's gaining, is not going to be fair to either party, either labour or management. The Minister has been urged, not only by members on this side of the House, but strong union members who don't necessarily support our political views, but have been strong supporters of members of that side of the House.

I don't see how the Minister can continue 3325

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 on the path that he has chosen, flying in the face of the strong opposition that he's receiving from those that he purports to be trying to help and trying to bring in labour peace in to settle some of these labour disputes. As I mentioned, Madam Speaker, I think he's been fooling the unions; I think there have been some pretty forceful representations made from supporters of the Labour Minister in some of the labour movement that has convinced him that he's on the right track. I'm not too sure there's a great concern for the workers involved.

I think the concern there is for some of the union bosses that we've said before. I think his friend Bernie has got himself into a jackpot with the existing strike that's going on now, and he's here to back him up and to provide some solution that will bail him out of a tough spot. So, Madam Speaker, without repeating many, many of the statements that have been made on this side of the House and thrashing old straws, as it were, I just wanted to add my voice in opposition to this legislation, which we've told the Minister over and over again is bad legislation, should never have seen the light of day.

I'm surprised the Member for Kildonan hasn't been a little more apprehensive in his strong support for it, because it was attempted a few years ago and it was realized by members on that side that it was bad legislation and it was promptly withdrawn. But we all know the present Minister of Labour doesn't really concern himself whether he gets into hot water or not because he's been in it with every portfolio he's had. He sort of lurches from one disastrous portfolio to another, and I think this time he's proven that he's becoming more adept at it with the more practice he gets.

So I just want to add more of my voice, Madam Speaker, to those who have spoken before me, and urge the Minister to withdraw this bad legislation and try and let the free collective bargaining process carry on as it has done. Hopefully, we will have continued labour peace and not settlements that have been foisted on workers or on management, whichever way the final offer selection is brought down. So with those words, Madam Speaker, I will let those on that side of the House try to convince us that it is good legislation.

I know the Minister when he closes is going to try and do that, but we would like to hear from some of those who have had some experience in union-management negotiations and let them express their views. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today, Madam Speaker, and join with those on this side of the House to oppose Bill 61, and would encourage some of the members opposite to maybe have a little closer look at this legislation and reconsider their position.

I feel, Madam Speaker, that with the hearings that are coming up, there may be some of those over there who may just see the light and change their minds and support those of us in the Opposition who are definitely opposed to this bill. Madam Speaker, I really don't know what the rationale or reasoning is for this Minister of Labour to introduce 3326 such absolutely rotten legislation - rotten! The business community doesn't want it and labour doesn't want it, so what purpose is this legislation going to serve, Madam Speaker?

The Canadian Association of Industrial Mechanical and Allied Workers doesn't want this legislation; the Canadian Union of Public Employees doesn't want this legislation; the Winnipeg Labour Council doesn't want this legislation; the Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals doesn't want this legislation; the Manitoba Organization of Nurses Association, Madam Speaker, doesn't want this legislation. As a registered nurse, Madam Speaker, I'd like to put some of their comments on the record.

I know that members opposite have all been informed and have all received correspondence from MONA indicating their disagreement with this legislation. I'm sure they're going to be quite disappointed when members over there should so choose to vote in favour of it against their wishes. MONA states very clearly that they oppose the legislation because they firmly believe in free collective bargaining and that the best possible mechanism for resolving disputes is strike-lockout. The existence of the unfettered right to strike ensures that the collective bargaining process involves true negotiations.

MONA also believes that collective bargaining under the threat of final offer selection would lead to negotiators striving to impress the selector rather than working towards an agreement acceptable to all parties. And, Madam Speaker, this is a union speaking. Final offer selection, where the selector chooses one party's final position, creates a situation where one party wins and the other party loses. Because of this, final offer selection will lead to a deterioriation of labour management relations, and this again is a union making these comments, Madam Speaker.

"We want to ensure the collective agreement that is binding on both sides is acceptable to both parties. This promotes harmonious labour-management relations in the workplace." Another serious concern of MONA is that the proposed legislation permits the employer to interfere by requesting the vote of the union membership which is now exclusively the union's jurisdiction, and they urge this government, Madam Speaker, to withdraw Bill 61. What's their response, Madam Speaker? Their response is to push this legislation through.

Well, I must say that I don't believe that the Minister of Labour or the present NOP Government has the best interests of nurses at heart, not at all, when these people that this government proposes to be introducing this legislation for is opposed to it. I can't understand the rationale of the Minister of Labour or members opposite in their reasoning. This bill, in my opinion, Madam Speaker, is a blatant partisan intrusion into the free collective bargaining process. It's been rejected by management; it's been rejected by labo ur, except, of course, for Bernie Christophe.

Clearly, right from the beginning, this bill has been introduced no more or no less than to bail out Bernie Christophe, whose union is failing miserably, might I add, in its strike with Westfair Foods. It's not proper for the Minister of Labour to introduce legislation for the sole purpose of helping one particular union in one particular situation against the clear

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 opposition by much of the labour movement in Manitoba. Madam Speaker, it's quite ironic that the Minister of Labour would not listen to the employees in Neepawa when the vast majority clearly indicated that they were not in support of one specific union, and now he pretends that he's bringing in this legislation to benefit the employees of unions that don't want this legislation.

The Labour Board, Madam Speaker, took no action on behalf of employees in Neepawa, and what would make us believe that now the Labour Board will take any action on behalf of employees that opt for final offer selection? Surely , Madam Speaker , this government has done enough to damage the investment climate in this province with high corporate taxes, payroll tax, high Workers Compensation fees, and now the risk of being nationali zed.

This Minister, Madam Speaker, must realize that any prospective company even thinking about locating in Manitoba would have serious concerns about the prohibitive labour legislation, along with the poor investment climate here in Manitoba. Madam Speaker, hasn't the government yet got the message? Canada Packers has moved out of Manitoba, Swift's killing plant has left the province, and the Westfair head office is talking about moving their corporate head office out of Manitoba. How many jobs are we going to lose as a result of Westfair moving their head office out of Manitoba? A MEMBER: A long list of them. MRS.

B. MITCHELSON: A long list, agreed. Madam Speak er, between the nationalization of individual businesses and companies leaving because of unfavourable business climate here in Manitoba, it won't be long before everyone in this province is working for this provincial government. How many companies have to leave Manitoba, Madam Speaker, before this Minister realizes that there are some problems with our labour legislation? -(Interjection)- This province is booming, I hear a member opposite say. It's booming to the point of blowing up, Madam Speaker. Everybody's leaving. A MEMBER: That's right. MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: It won't be long before it's bust. Madam Speak er, the introduction of final offer selection indicates, or says, in this province both sides will not win. There will be a winner and there will be a loser, and there will be sore losers, Madam Speaker. It just makes for really bad labour relations in this province. The Labour Board, Madam Speaker, is the board that is going to choose the selector if both parties should not agree. Will this decision not be biased, Madam Speaker, with this NOP Government that has appointed members to the Labour Board? I have serious concerns about that.

Final offer selection, Madam Speaker, will cause strikes. Unions, knowing final offer selection is available after 59 days, will be more likely not to bargain in good faith, to call strikes and to have them settled by final offer selection. The parties will hesitate to refer innovated or complicated issues to final offer selection. These types of issues should always be resolved by collective bargaining. A MEMBER: That's the way it's always been, should be. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker , the legislation allows parties to assume there is a dispute even before the expiry of a contract.

Bill 61, Madam Speaker, would allow application for final offer selection any time between 60 and 30 days before the expiry of a contract. A MEMBER: Makes for really great good faith bargaining, doesn't it? MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker, there will be no good faith bargaining. On the losing side, Madam Speak er, there will be no commitment to the administration of the terms of the contract because the contract is imposed by the selector. The winning side has a clear advantage and it will not make good relations, good working relations, between the winning side and the losing side.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that we on this side of the House and those that will come to committee over the next few days to listen to - and as we listen to their presentations, I believe members on the opposite side of the House, on government side of the House, will have to take a close, serious look at either throwing this legislation out the window, out the door ... A MEMBER: . . . and take the Minister with it. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: ... or making some constructive amendments, Madam Speaker.

Yes, and I believe that the Minister probably will go out the door, out the window, with this legislation, because I believe he' s made a wrong decision and he's convinced members opposite to go along with his wrong decision against the wishes of the many unions and labour organizations that are opposing this legislation. I believe that the time will come, Madam Speaker, in the very near future, where this Minister is going to go down the tubes along with this legislation.

So I want to say, Madam Speaker, that we on this side of the House are opposed and I'm hoping that with some persuasion from those in the community that come out to speak against this bill, the government will see the light . . . A MEMBER: Listen to reason. MRS, B. MITCHELSON: legislation. and get rid of this MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I also rise - basically it should be more called a grievance speech, but seeing I've had mine for this Session, in opposition to Bill No. 61, this final offer selection - Madam Speaker, the Minister who is bringing 3327

Tuesday, 23 June, 1987 this bill before this House, we know his incom petence. He's taken us through MTX, a $28 million loss to the Pr ovince of Manitoba. What will this loss be to the Province of Manitoba? Will it ever be able to be registered?

Will we ever be able to have a balance sheet to indicate what this Joss will be, because there's no question in our minds that a bill of this nature will definitely keep people, industry from locating in the Province of Manitoba; and like so many of the members from up North would like to see all industry move to the North, you can well imagine what this will also do to some of your northern areas, and I think you should take very close, serious consideration and you should also consider the record of the Minister that's bringing this bill before the House, his record, before you go along and decide, as a block, that you'r e going to vote in favour of a bill of this nature.

It seems to me that we're facing though head-on toda y with government versus priv ate enterprise, government going into business, Crown corporations, and this is all basically a part of it, and whenever there's been any wrong doings or anything where the government can, it will blame the Federal Government for Jack of funding. It never shoulders the responsibility; it never takes resp onsibility for its own mismanagement, and I can see again where a government of this nature, bringing in this final offer select ion, have they had public hearings? Have you had public hearings throughout the province?

You'r e going to have public hearings in respect to Meech Lake where, after signing, you're going to have public hearings. Why don't you have public hearings to see what the general public, what business is going to say toward this? A MEMBER: We're having one tonight MR. H. PANKRATZ: That's right, so why don't you have public hearings before you bring in a bill of this nature?

You'r e going to have a lot of opposition to this bill when you're going to have the public hearings. - (I nterjection)- No, but I'm referring to throughout the province, in different commu nities, different areas, all over, to see what the private sector and what Jabour feels, thinks about this bill. Madam Speaker, we know previous members, other members who have spoken before me, they've indicated and they've documented which unions are opposing this.

I'm not going to take a Jot of time in respect to that because it's all documented alr eady, but I believe we must seriously consider what this bill will do to the business cli mate in the Province of Manitoba. I think this government should look at what they can do for Jabour as a total, not only a few specific people who are basically supporting them for elections. You have been elected to govern and make policy for the total Province of Manitoba and protect all people in Jabour, not only a few union suppor ters. So naturally our concerns have been raised in respect to the 59 days and I'm not going to go into

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-75
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 75.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	48e4a6546647972f9d163a9cb88668519f38080e

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