Manitoba Hansard — 14 August 2000 (Sitting 77, 37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-77

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session- Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. L No. 77 - 1:30 p.m., Monday, August 14, 2000 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

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

50 13 LEGISLATNE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday,August14,2000 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Bi1112-The Public Schools Amendment Act Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Mary Martens, Bill Martens, Roxanne Clark and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell) withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr.

Jim Penner (Steinbach): I beg to present the petition of Esther Giesbrecht, Irma Bergen, Ida Doerksen and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell) withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Peter Plett, Melvin Penner, Raymond Reimer and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell) withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr. Denis Rocan (Carman): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Ernie Kroeker, Helen Kroeker, Brenda Kroeker and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell) withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Melody Jones, Iva Skibitzky, Wendy Levasseur and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell) withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr. Harry Enos (Lakeside): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Cynthia Horst, Dawn Muir, Debbie Wimmer and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell) withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Ray Waldner, Doug Eiose, Pat Friesen and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell) withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Edna Wiebe, Lavina Wiebe, Kathleen Grift and others praying praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell) withdraw Bill 12 , The Public Schools Amend ment Act. Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Maas van Velthuizen, Cora van Velthuizen, W. van Velthuizen and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell) withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Billl2-The Public Schools Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith). I have reviewed the petition. It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [Agreed] Will the Clerk please read.

5014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14, 2000 Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): To the Legislature ofthe Province of Manitoba.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT home education is a viable alternative to public education; and THAT Bill 12 gives undefined powers to the Minister of Education which could adver sely affect the rights of the family; and THAT the convictions of parents/guardians are not recognized and openly supported; and THAT the home-school organizations have not been consulted regarding the best method of facilitating the freedom and effectiveness of home-school families; and THAT new policies and regulations have already come into existence with the apparent anticipation of Bill 12 being passed, which home educators find to be intrusive and intimidating in nature and which potentially reduces the freedoms of home-school parents; and THAT Bill 12 fails to provide a mechanism of appeal for home-school families other than the courts.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUM BLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. *( 13:35) Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Steinbach (Mr. Jim Penner). I have reviewed the petition. It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [Agreed] Will the Clerk please read. Madam Clerk: To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT home education is a viable alternative to public education; and THAT Bill 12 gives undefined powers to the Minister of Education which could adversely affect the rights of the family; and THAT the convictions of parents/guardians are not recognized and openly supported; and THAT the home-school organizations have not been consulted regarding the best method of facilitating the freedom and effectiveness of home-school families; and THAT new policies and regulations have already come into existence with the apparent antici pation of Bill 12 being passed, which home educators find to be intrusive and intimidating in nature and which potentially reduces the freedoms of home-school parents; and THAT Bill 12 fails to provide a mechanism of appeal for home-school families other than the courts.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUM BLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Faurschou). I have reviewed the petition. It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [Agreed] Will the Clerk please read. Madam Clerk: To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT home education is a viable alternative to public education; and THAT Bill 12 gives undefined powers to the Minister of Education which could adversely affect the rights of the family; and

August 14, 2000 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5015 THAT the convictions of parents/guardians are not recognized and openly supported; and THAT the home-school organizations have not been consulted regarding the best method of facilitating the freedom and effectiveness of home-school families; and THAT new policies and regulations have already come into existence with the apparent antici pation of Bill 12 being passed, which home educators find to be intrusive and intimidating in nature and which potentially reduces the freedoms ofhome-school parents; and THAT Bill 12 fails to provide a mechanism of appeal for home-school families other than the courts.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUM BLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Morris (Mr. Pitura). I have reviewed the petition. It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT home education is a viable alternative to public education; and THAT Bill 12 gives undefined powers to the Minister of Education which could adversely affoct the rights of the family; and THAT the convictions of parents/guardians are not recognized and openly supported; and THAT the home-school organizations have not been consulted regarding the best method of facilitating the freedom and effectiveness of home-school families; and THAT new policies and regulations have already come into existence with the apparent anticipation of Bill 12 being passed, which home educators find to be intrusive and intimidating in nature and which potentially reduces the freedoms of home-school parents; and THAT Bill 12 fails to provide a mechanism of appeal for home-school families other than the courts.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). I have reviewed the petition. It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. An Honourable Member: Read. Mr. Speaker: Will the Clerk please read. Madam Clerk: To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT home education is a viable alternative to public education; and THAT Bill 12 gives undefined powers to the Minister of Education which could adversely affect the rights of the family; and THAT the convictions of parents/guardians are not recognized and openly supported; and THAT the home-school organizations have not been consulted regarding the best method of facilitating the freedom and effectiveness of home-school families; and THAT new policies and regulations have already come into existence with the apparent antici pation of Bill 12 being passed, which home

5016 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14, 2000 educators find to be intrusive and intimidating in nature and which potentially reduces the freedoms of home-school parents; and THAT Bill 12 fails to provide a mechanism of appeal for home-school families other than the courts. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUM BLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. * (13:40) Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).

I have reviewed the petition, and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT home education is a viable alternative to public education; and THAT Bill 12 gives undefined powers to the Minister of Education which could adversely affect the rights of the family; and THAT the convictions of parents/guardians are not recognized and openly supported; and THAT the home-school organizations have not been consulted regarding the best method of facilitating the freedom and effectiveness of home-school families; and THAT new policies and regulations have already come into existence with the apparent antici pation of Bill 12 being passed, which home educators find to be intrusive and intimidating in nature and which potentially reduces the freedoms of home-school parents; and THAT Bill 12 fails to provide a mechanism of appeal for home-school families other than the courts.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns). I have reviewed the petition, and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT home education is a viable alternative to public education; and THAT Bill 12 gives undefined powers to the Minister of Education which could adversely affect the rights of the family; and THAT the convictions of parents/guardians are not recognized and openly supported; and THAT the home-school organizations have not been consulted regarding the best method of facilitating the freedom and effectiveness of home-school families; and THAT new policies and regulations have already come into existence with the apparent antici pation of Bill 12 being passed, which home educators find to be intrusive and intimidating in nature and which potentially reduces the freedoms of home-school parents; and THAT Bill 12 fails to provide a mechanism of appeal for home-school families other than the courts.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler). I have reviewed the petition. It complies with the rules and practices

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5017 of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT home education is a viable alternative to public education; and THAT Bill 12 gives undefined powers to the Minister of Education which could adversely affect the rights of the family; and THAT the convictions of parents/guardians are not recognized and openly supported; and THAT the home-school organizations have not been consulted regarding the best method of facilitating the freedom and effectiveness of home-school families; and THAT new policies and regulations have already come into existence with the apparent antici pation of Bill 12 being passed, which home educators find to be intrusive and intimidating in nature and which potentially reduces the freedoms of home-school parents; and THAT Bill 12 fails to provide a mechanism of appeal for home-school families other than the courts.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan). I have reviewed the petition, and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT home education is a viable alternative to public education; and THAT Bill 12 gives undefined powers to the Minister of Education which could adversely affect the rights of the family; and THAT the convictions of parents/guardians are not recognized and openly supported; and THAT the home-school organizations have not been consulted regarding the best method of facilitating the freedom and effectiveness of home-school families; and THAT new policies and regulations have already come into existence with the apparent antici pation of Bill 12 being passed, which home educators find to be intrusive and intimidating in nature and which potentially reduces the freedoms of home-school parents; and THAT Bill 12 fails to provide a mechanism of appeal for home-school families other than the courts.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Education and Training withdraw Bill 12, The Public Schools Amendment Act. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS First Ministers' Conference Health Care Communique Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I have a statement for the House, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table the communiques and other documents which were released during last week's annual Premiers' Conference. The first and foremost of the communiques covered the premiers' consensus commitment to our citizens on health.

We believe that document will serve as a strong and clear statement of our joint position as we head into next month's First Ministers' meeting with the Prime Minister. The communique sets out our overall commitment to publicly funded and accessible medicare and to the principles of universality, comprehensive ness, portability and public administration. Our health action plan outlines our joint vision for the future, the priorities for action on

5018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14, 2000 renewal and innovation, our proposals for sustaining health care services through the full restoration of the CHST, and an appropriate escalator along with sections on clear accounta bility reporting to citizens and working together through improved co-operation. Full restoration of the CHST will also be important for post-secondary institutions.

The premiers released communiques on progress on social policy renewal, early childhood develop ment, infrastructure and transportation, airline restructuring, agriculture and agricultural trade, environmental issues and northern economic development. We also issued a very important statement on fiscal imbalance along with a paper prepared as a follow-up to the Western Premiers' Conference in Brandon earlier this year. I want to thank all Manitobans and the people of Winnipeg for contributing to the overwhelming success of the 2000 APC and showcasing our province and our city. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mrs.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Premier (Mr. Doer) for his statement and want to indicate that I hope that all who visited Manitoba had an opportunity to see what we had to offer. I believe that the weather co operated in a very significant way to making our visitors very welcome, and I know the hospi tality and the warmth of Manitobans would be something that they would take home as a good memory of the trip.

I understand there were long discussions and deliberations around the issues of health care and certainly some concern that there might not be a consensus among premiers on what should move forward to the Prime Minister and the federal level. I know that when we were in government it was certainly an issue when the federal government reduced transfers for health and post-secondary education to the Canada Health and Social Transfer.

We called very strongly on the federal government to restore that funding that was so very important, and we went through some very difficult times not only in Manitoba but right across the country as a result of those reductions. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that this government certainly seems to be more focussed on the federal government and the restoration of the funding today now that it is in government than it was when it was in opposition.

We saw time and time again this government, who was then in opposition, certainly indicating that all Manitobans had to do was elect them and they would fix the issues in health care. They did not need federal help, they did not need any help; just elect us and we will do it. Well, we are certainly seeing that that- * (13:45) Mr. Speaker: Order. I regret to interrupt the Honourable Member, but Beauchesne's Citation 351 indicates that the Speaker limits the Opposition's reply to a period not to exceed the time taken by the Minister.

I note the Honourable Member's comments are now con siderably longer than those of the Minister, and I would ask the Honourable Member to please conclude your comments. Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will conclude by saying there is much more I could say, but I thought that maybe when the Premier stood up to make a statement he might indicate that he was withdrawing Bill 44. Thank you. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to comment on the Minister's statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member have leave? [Agreed] Mr. Gerrard: Mr.

Speaker, I welcome the statement of the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the positive outcome from the Premiers' Conference. I was disappointed that the Premier did not, with the other premiers, focus at least as much on the cost of health care and making sure that we are going to have sustainable health care as requests for more money to go on spending and spending. I was disappointed that in the Premier's communique the environment did not get more than two words. Quite frankly, the environment is critical to health care. It is the basis or one of the bases for improving health care. Investments

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5019 in the environment can save on the burden of that will be successful both for workers and environmental illness, increase the well-being of businesses to succeed here in our province. our citizens and decrease the costs of health care, and should have deserved better than the Premier Amendments-Wi thdrawal gave it. With those comments, I do think that there were some positive things and certainly a very good Manitoba welcome for the premiers who came here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon.

Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): would like to table the Preliminary Financial Report for the year ended March 31, 2000. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us today members of the Home Schoolers of Manitoba. This group is a guest of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Labour Relations Act Amendments-Economic Impact Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr.

Speaker, in the past weeks, both the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) have stated that the purpose of Bill 44 was supposed to improve the labour relations climate in Manitoba, yet newspaper ads and scathing editorials have shown Bill 44 has accomplished the exact opposite. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry and Trade (Ms. Mihychuk) : Of what benefit is it to our economy to pit business and the labour movement against each other? Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines): Mr.

Speaker, the purpose of Bill 44 is to provide more balance to the labour relations climate in Manitoba, one Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, will the same minister break her silence, stand up for Manitoba's entrepreneurial spirit and call on her col leagues to withdraw Bill 44 to determine if it can withstand serious critique? Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines): Mr. Speaker, Bill 44 finally restores some of the equality that was taken away by the previous government. It is about time that the pendulum swung to the middle. Is business totally satisfied with Bill 44?

Obviously not. We are moving into committee, we are willing to listen, and we will present a bill that is good for all Manitobans. Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Industry and Trade believe that terms such as "lunatic fringe" help to do anything but create animosity? Will the Minister now ask her colleagues to simply kill the Bill? * (13:50) Ms. Mihychuk: Heated exchanges, when it comes to something that is very important to both parties, are natural. It is unfortunate that sometimes parties will go and use terms that will heat and inflame the exchange.

I think that could be said for both sides in this situation, Mr. Speaker. We are looking forward to moving the Bill into committee, hearing from the public and presenting a good bill for Manitobans. Labour Relations Act Amendments-Impact on Labour Relations Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Over the last few weeks, several weeks, since the introduction of Bill 44, we have seen this Premier (Mr. Doer) and this NDP Government pit labour against business in this province in a way that we have never seen this happen before, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier said that Bill 44 was going to improve labour relations, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Premier has shown very

5020 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14, 2000 much a lack of leadership, a lack of common sense and a lack of good decision making. I would like to quote from a letter that we received, among many letters that we received, about Bill 44, and I quote: "We accept the right of employees to unionize, but find the removal of the democratic right to a secret ballot totally unacceptable and will govern our future actions based on that view of the balance or imbalance in the law." Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

Will he now admit that Bill 44 was a mistake and commit to Manitobans today to withdraw it? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, seven of the provisions in the Bill have had consensus. There are three areas that have not received a consensus between business and labour. We are listening to all Manitobans, all Manitobans, on ensuring that we can proceed into the future in a fair and balanced way. We have said in the House before that if any provisions of the law tilt the balance, we are willing to listen to positive alternatives. We believe that we saw disputes on labour relations legislation in '92.

We saw a huge amount of advertising in '96. We are hoping that, by being flexible, as opposed to the inflexibility of members opposite in '96, we can have a rebalancing in an appropriate way. Amendments-Secret Ballots Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): But I do not consider the taking away of the democratic right of employees to a secret ballot rebalancing. I believe many would consider it draconian. I will go on to quote from that letter.

It says: "Current labour law is already unbalanced in that unions are permitted to use any means, including intimidation and disinformation to gain signatures, yet the company is at risk simply by communic ating with its employees in a manner that an external party can deem to have crossed some imaginary line." Mr. Speaker, businesses are indicating there is already an imbalance towards the union side of our labour laws. I ask the Premier again: Will he indicate why he believes they are putting more balance into labour Jaw by taking away individuals' rights to a secret ballot on union certification? Hon.

Gary Doer (Premier): I am surprised the Member opposite would quote from a letter that basically said that their legislation was unbalanced. I found it curious. I imagine I have read the same letter from Mr. DeFehr. The allegation that was made in the letter was actually condemning the legislation the former members brought through in '96. Having said that- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. *(13 :55) Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the existing Labour Relations Act,

section 33, makes it illegal for actions that have been purported to take place or purports to take place in the letter. Amendments-Withdrawal Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): So that the Premier does not leave wrong information on the record, I would like to table the Jetter from Palliser Furniture. Given that the letter says, "As Premier, you have the opportunity to provide leadership in matter of policy and legislation on behalf of all citizens.

If this legislation is really required and will benefit the Province and the majority of its citizens, then the introduction and passage in a hurry and during the summer is not evidence of leadership or conviction. I add my voice to others and request that you set this legislation aside to determine if it can withstand a serious analysis and critique."

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5021 My question for the Premier is: Do he and Rob Hilliard consider Palliser Furniture part of the "lunatic fringe" that they have referred to? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): I certainly know the DeFehr family. I met with Mr. DeFehr on a number of occasions both in opposition about labour laws, and he raised the issue of labour law when we were first elected. He raised the issue of a wood supply that he could not get from Manitoba.

He raised the issue of expanding his operations, long before the labour laws were suggested, in Mexico and Asia, which has been confirmed by the media. He raised the issue of the Mennonite college and university. In a number of these areas, we have worked very co-operatively with the DeFehr family. He is a very, very skilled businessperson and a very strong negotiator. As I say, I have a lot of respect for Mr. DeFehr. Sometimes we are able to agree with him on many of the positive suggestions. He had a suggestion about six months ago, again at the meeting, that we have some new ideas on immigration.

We worked with Mr. DeFehr and Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Carr, with the Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) who is also responsible for immigration. We are now, as I understand it, having many meetings with the federal minister to deal with a more improved immigration policy, so there are areas where we are working in a very co-operative way. As I understand it, Mr.

DeFehr is, has been in the past when we were in Opposition, and remains worried about his organization becoming unionized, but as I understand it, the three or four times that there have been attempts to have an organizing drive there, none of these attempts reached the 40% threshold. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Interim Leader of the Official Opposition, on a new question. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, the Premier talked around in circles and certainly did not address the issue that Mr.

DeFehr wrote this letter about, and that was about Bill 44 and the impact that it is going to have on one of the largest employers in the province of Manitoba. Palliser Furniture employs over 3700 people. They have increased their workforce by over 1400 employees since 1996 and over 300 just in this past year under current labour legislation. * (14:00) Palliser Furniture have indicated that Bill 44 is going to have a negative impact on their desire to stay and create jobs and opportunities here in Manitoba. My direct question for the Premier is: What is he going to do?

Is he going to table or set aside Bill 44 today, listen to Palliser Furniture and many other businesses in the province of Manitoba, and review this legislation before it is introduced for any passage in this House, before they make any changes to labour laws? Will he review what businesses are saying, what impact it will have on jobs and job creation, and not move ahead? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would, as I said, point out again to members opposite that under the labour laws that have been in place for a number of years, the 40% threshold has never been achieved. Secondly, I recall Mr.

DeFehr opposing free trade with the United States because it would have a devastating impact on his business. Mr. DeFehr is a very capable, skillful businessperson. He is a very strong negotiator. He is making his opinions known to the Government, to the people, which I respect. Having said that, all the predictions sometimes from people, all of us, do not necessarily flow. The predictions about the impact on free trade did not take into account the lower dollar. The lower dollar has resulted in that company expanding remarkably over the last 10 years.

I believe that the quality of our workforce, the education of our workforce, the immigration policies that we are working on, the total balance, will continue to allow all people to do well in Manitoba, and we mean all people, owners of companies and workers of companies. Mrs. Mitchelson: In conversations with Art DeFehr, he indicates that it is extremely foolish for this government to move ahead, to pay back their union friends at the expense of creating jobs and improving the economic circumstances of our province. Mr.

Speaker, my direct question, again, for the Premier is: Will he withdraw Bill 44 and ensure that there are meaningful consultations in

5022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14, 2000 Manitoba before there are any changes to our labour laws? Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, members opposite, a couple of months ago, were making claims about the Budget, and since the Budget has been released, there have been comments after comments after comments from independent sources indicating that the balance of investment in Health, Education and Training, particularly in our economy, and the tax reductions that have been made in the Budget will help the Manitoba economy.

One of the quotes was: After a sluggish '99, Manitoba will see stronger growth of wages and salaries in the medium time. This will combine with federal and provincial income tax cuts to increase disposable income by 5 percent and 4 percent in the year 2001. That is the positive development that is coming through. With members opposite, the sky-is-falling scenario that they released in terms of the Budget has not been true.

We believe, by rebalancing, the situation in Manitoba will have the advantages of increased investment and more disposable income for average families in Manitoba who will buy their products in this province. Mrs. Mitchelson: It is interesting to note that the good news in Manitoba is a result of many years of balanced labour laws and balanced budgets in this province of Manitoba Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Those comments were written based on the labour laws that are in place presently in the province of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, again to the Premier: Because we see a hidebound ideology by this government that is very focussed on payback to their political supporters and not on what is in the best interests of the province of Manitoba, I again will quote from the letter from Palliser that says: "I am personally saddened in that this legislation will undoubtedly cause us to act in a manner that is designed to protect our business and to ensure alternatives - actions that may not be to the benefit of the province, the community or potential Manitoba employees." Mr.

Speaker, again, I would ask the Premier to withdraw this bill, kill the Bill, and ensure that Manitobans are consulted before any changes to labour law are implemented by this government. Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of meeting with Mr. DeFehr on Friday morning after the Premier and I received his letter of concern about Bill 44. We had a frank and open discussion about his concerns, and the major part of his concern, as I understand it from my discussions with him, was that the majority wishes of his employees about unionization be respected.

I assured him, and the Premier today has assured Mr. DeFehr and Manitobans as a whole, that the majority wishes of any employees will be respected. Unless you get at least 40 percent of the workers signing a union card, there is not going to be a vote, and unless you get 65 percent, there will not be a certification. In between there will be a vote, and in the events-the union drives that have taken place at Palliser in the past have not even gotten to the 40% mark. We assured Mr.

DeFehr that we, in the legislation that is in place now and in Bill 44, will continue to ensure that the wishes of the workers are met in fairness. Labour Relations Act Amendments-Impact on Business Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): I spoke to Mr. DeFehr on the weekend, and what he wanted is a democratic, secret ballot. That is what he is asking for. In his letter, Mr. Speaker, he stated: "I am personally saddened that this legislation will undoubtedly cause us to act in a manner that is designed to protect our business and to ensure alternatives - actions that may not be to the benefit of the Province ....

" With almost 4000 employees in our province, 367 more today than at the start of this year, I would like to ask the Minister of Industry and Trade (Ms. Mihychuk): Why is she failing to do her job and represent the interests of Manitoba's business community by opposing this bill?

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5023 Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): The former, former, former Minister of Labour, the current Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), on May 13, 1992, during the discussion of Labour Relations Act changes in 1992, said in Hansard, where a significant number of people sign cards, that is a sufficient enough representation of the will of the majority of that bargaining unit to certify. The management position was that there should be a secret ballot. We did not accept that.

We accept the argument that was made by labour that where you have 70 percent-plus, 65- * (14:10) Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): If the current Minister of Labour is going to put on the record statements that I made, I would also ask her to put on the record the fact that I voted to give working people the democratic right with a secret ballot to choose their unions, and I stand by that. Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Govern ment House Leader, on the same point of order. Hon.

Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): It was not a point of order, it was a point of embarrassment, significant embarrass ment, of course, Mr. Speaker. It is well known to the Member that an interruption like that is terribly unparliamentary. There is no departure. The only thing that we note here, the embarrassment, is that they are flip-flopping on this one like bass in a boat. Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Mr.

Speaker, Beauchesne's 417: "Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." Mr. Speaker, if this honourable minister is going to be bringing forward quotes, then she should bring forward the entire motion and also speak about what the Minister stands for. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, he does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. * * * Ms. Barrett: Mr.

Speaker, I will continue my direct quotes from Hansard of May 13, 1992, by the then-Minister of Labour, the Member for Lac du Bonnet, when he said: We did not accept the management position, because we accepted the argument that was made by labour that where you have 70 percent-plus, 65 percent-plus of people signing cards, that is truly representative of the majority. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Minister of Labour back to the year 2000 where business is becoming increasingly mobile.

I would ask the Minister of Industry and Trade: In the year 2000, when business is as mobile as it is, why is this minister risking the loss of thousands of quality jobs for Manitobans who may become, and I quote from the same letter, "the unfortunate victims of your sup posedly well-intentioned policy"? Why is she on that side? Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines): Mr. Speaker, Manitoba's economy is flourishing. It continues to do so.

The forecasts for Manitoba's economic growth are higher than projected; the number of situations where businesses are coming forward with expansion plans are increasing dramati cally. Manitoba's business community has strong confidence in Manitoba's government and the future here in our province.

5024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Industry and Trade whether she will finally stand up and represent business, denounce this bill that threatens investment growth and job creation in Manitoba? Will she denounce it? Ms. Mihychuk: I stand here trying to present a bill that is both balanced, that is good for workers and good for business, ultimately will be better for all Manitobans. We will all profit from this type of bill. Labour Relations Act Amendments-Binding Arbitration Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr.

Speaker, since the Minister of Labour is so fond of quoting my remarks as Minister of Labour in 1991, my question then is to the First Minister (Mr. Doer). I would like to ask the First Minister: If he is so fond of taking my advice, why will he not accept all of my advice in 19 91 and do away with his proposal for binding arbitration and return to free collective bargaining in this province, which working people have spent decades fighting for? Why is he giving that up? I would like the Premier to answer. Is he afraid? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr.

Speaker, the issue of binding arbitration which the Member is referring to is actually a misnomer. The alternate dispute resolution mechanism that is in Bill 44, and that has been in discussion with members of the business community, members of the labour community and individual citizens for several months now, is designed to enhance the collective bargaining process. It reflects only those very, very few cases where an intractable impasse has taken place, and it will enable either side to access the alternate dispute resolution mechanism.

This will, we believe, have a strengthening of the labour relations climate because it will help those intractable disputes to come to resolution through the intervention, through the mediation and conciliation of a third party. It has been very successf ul in first contract legislation. We expect it to be at least successful here. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my supplementary to the First Minister, if he has the courage to answer. I want to ask the First Minister (Mr.

Doer): If he believes what his Labour Minister said today about that mechanism being balanced, why then did he allow it to have a one-sided veto for labour? What kind of balance is that, Mr. Premier? Please answer. Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the concerns raised about the alternate dispute resolution mechanism trigger, if you will, and are preparing to make amendments in that regard when it goes to committee. Mr. Praznik: Mr.

Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Labour, then, since she is announcing amendments today: Is it her intention in those amendments to propose that the veto be taken away from one side, and this will be a compulsory arbitration if either side requests it? Is that the essence of the amendments that she is proposing today? * (1 4:20) Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first

section of that question is yes, we will be removing the ability of employees to vote on whether the alternate dispute mechanism goes to the Labour Board or not so that it can be just as it is in first contract legislation, accessed by either management or the workers. Then the process goes to the Labour Board, but it is not necessarily, as it is in first contract legislation, binding. The Labour Board has the deter mination to say to both sides you carry on and negotiate, just as in the first contract legislation. It has always been thus in the amendment to Bill 44.

It has never been designed, nor does it say in the legislation that it will be binding. The opportunity is there for conciliation to take place, for mediation to take place, and for the Labour Board to determine when and if the situation is to the point where it cannot be mediated any longer. Post-Secondary Education Capital Funding Ron. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, on May 12 in this House the Minister

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5025 of Education said, in response to my question about the tragic circumstances of our post secondary education institutions with their leaking buildings and huge capital deficit, that he would "aggressively address the capital deficit that exists within the system . . . . " Day after day has gone by, week after week, month after month, and no action. The Minister is a tame tiger. He has no aggression. He has no plan. Will the Minister now admit that he has failed completely to deliver on one of the central promises he has made solemnly in this House? Hon.

Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Of course not, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary. I ask the Minister again to admit that he has totally failed to deliver on his promise of many months ago, that he has displayed an incredible lack of incompetence in failing to address the leaking buildings and the crumbling infra structure, and at the very least give us a date when he is going to deliver the long-term plan. Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for River Heights for noting my lack of incompetence in this regard.

We are, of course, working very aggressively with our partners in the post-secondary sector to address the disaster, frankly, that is the legacy left by the members opposite in terms of capital infrastructure at universities. Minister of Education and Training Resignation Request Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): My second supplementary to the Minister. I ask the Minister to admit to students who are planning their courses and their attendance at post-secondary education institutions this fall that he has failed the students of this province, including the home-school students.

Will he now admit his failure and tender his resignation? Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the Member for his comments because it gives me an opportunity right now to discuss the fact that in Manitoba there has never been a better time to be a student in post-secondary community colleges of this province.

We have bursary programs in this province for the first time in the better part of a decade, tuition cuts across the board to help students attend post-secondary institutions, a very aggressive program in partnership with the federal government with the Millennium Scholarship programs and student aid programs. This year is the best time for young Manitobans to return or attend post-secondary education institutions in the province of Manitoba. Foster Parents Government Support Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, there are many dedicated Manitoba parents who are fostering children on behalf of our society, an invaluable labour of love. Due to decisions of the previous government, they are carrying on this difficult task without a supportive organi zation. Can the Minister of Family Services tell Manitobans, and especially foster parents, why and how our government is going to increase training, support and advocacy for foster parents? Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Family Services and Housing): Mr. Speaker, about 3700 children at any one time are in the care of Manitoba's 2350 foster families.

Unfortunately, due to the actions of the previous government, those foster families have been without any kind of mentoring, training, support, respite, any kind of advocacy, any kind of representation when it comes to difficulties that foster parents frequently encounter. Since October, when this government was elected, we have been working with a group of foster families to understand what would be the best form of an association that would best meet their needs. We have taken our time to do it right, because they have come to us and said: We do not want a top-down Province-imposed system.

We want grass roots, locally based associations to be able to form a provincial association which will in tum then provide support to foster families. I was delighted today to announce a $45,000 grant to start this process. In the Estimates for next year, there will be some additional

5026 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 resources to allow them to really become the effective advocates for foster families. Labour Relations Act Amendments-Secret Ballots Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question again is for the First Minister, for the Premier (Mr. Doer). I would like to ask the Premier what he is afraid of. If he believes that a sign-up by 65 percent of employees is good enough to unionize a workplace, what is he afraid of in removing the ability for the democratic process and a secret ballot for those employees?

Is he afraid that the 65 percent is not going to stand up when people are given the opportunity to vote by secret ballot? Ron. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House agree with the former Minister of Labour who, on May 13, 19 92, in the House said: We accepted the argument that was made by labour that where you have 70 percent-plus, 65 percent-plus of people signing cards, that truly is representative of the majority. Mr. Speaker, we have had some form of automatic certification in this province since 1947.

For 50 years we have had some form of automatic certification in The Labour Relations Act in this province, in Manitoba. We are simply restoring that balance. There will be a vote if at least 40 percent of people sign up and under 65 percent. We are not getting rid of the secret ballot vote in those particular frameworks. That . is the same framework that was in place from 19 92 to 19 96. Mrs. Mitchelson: If that is the best this government has to offer is to go back to the past, there is serious concern. Workplaces like Palliser have legitimate concerns.

When everyone is looking to move forward, the NDP Government today is still living in the past. My question again for the Premier is: What is he afraid of? What are he and his government afraid of? If a 65% card sign-up cannot be supported and endorsed by a secret ballot, I think maybe this government should reconsider. What is the Premier afraid of by not allowing individuals the democratic right to a secret ballot upon unionization of their workplace? * (14: 30) Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, one has to hearken back to, I think it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who said, the only thing we have to fear is the fear of fear itself. We do not have the fear of fear on our side. We have confidence. We have optimism. We have belief in working people and the owners. I guess it is this week, the convention in Los Angeles, but we have a belief that a rising tide should lift all ships. That is what we are trying to do with balance in these labour laws proposed by my colleague. Labour Relations Act Amendments-Impact on Business Mr.

Jim Penner (Steinbach): In a phone call this morning with the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors representing about 17 000 Manitobans, they reminded us that over half of the overhead in retail grocery operations is devoted to payroll and benefits, a very important part of the grocery business. I would like to ask the Minister: Is this bill going to encourage investors to sustain employ ment in Manitoba's retail food industry when they fear these changes greatly? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr.

Speaker, I believe the group that was referenced in the question wiii be making a presentation before the public hearings, and we are looking quite forward to that beginning tonight. We expect that Bill 44, when it finally comes back from public hearings, when it comes back to the House as a whole, when it becomes the law of the province, will restore balance to the labour legislation in this province. We expect that the outcome will be actually a better labour relations climate in the province of Manitoba. It will provide fairness and balance for both workers, who wish to join a union, for employers.

It ensures that employers are still

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5027 protected, that union certification drives must be done off workplace premises, that there can be no intimidation on the part of either union members or management to workers so that workers will be able to freely decide individually if they wish to join a union. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Teen Stop Jeunesse Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Teen Stop Jeunesse, a drop-in centre for youth, in moving into their new home in St. Vital at 533 St. Anne's Road.

Teen Stop Jeunesse has been providing service to youth in St. Vital for 20 years. Over 350 000 youth have passed through their doors at 215 Sterling A venue. Patrick LeBlanc, the executive director, reports the expansion to a new home is in response to increased use of their facility. Their new centre wiii open this fall with expanded programming. One of the most popular programs is the supper club, which will be expanded with a breakfast club sometime in November. The youth will make the meals, supper and breakfast, under the supervision of an adult.

Through this program they learn the responsibility of cooking and cleaning up. One of the most successful programs during the school year is the homework program. Once the Teen Stop Jeunesse put in their computer labs with the Internet, their homework program tripled, complementing what the students do at school. In 1999, the board of directors decided to give the youth more responsibility and the youth formed their own board of directors, enabling them to assume responsibility for organizing programs and activities. Teen Stop Jeunesse works in partnership with the St.

Vital School Division and local day care centres as well as government and other agencies to provide services for youth. Our government is proud to be contributing $40,000 towards the centre's move in order to improve its services in the community. To quote Patrick LeBlanc: There are no bad kids, just bad attitudes. Give them responsibility and they will tum their lives around. It is really impressive. Folklorama Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to applaud all the organizations supporting Folklorama here in the province of Manitoba and here in Winnipeg.

This has been a phenomenal cross-cultural event where members from all walks of the cultural society here in Winnipeg have put on just absolutely fantastic shows, fantastic pro grams. The cultural mosaic that we have here in Manitoba is second to none across Canada. I applaud the Ukrainian Folklorama event that I was at the other night.

Don Pukach, one of the security members at Folklorama, went out of his way to ensure that all the guests were feeling a real part of the event, whether it be any event that is going on now in terms of the Chinese, the Japanese, the whole cross culture of every event that we have here in Folklorama. I rise today to speak to the fact that Folklorama is unique across Canada, and Folklorama is unique here in Manitoba. We have visitors from all over the na tion coming to participate. It is such a great honour to be a part.

I know myself, members on this side of the House, and members on the opposite side of the House really appreciate the cultural mosaic that we have here in Manitoba. It is a real honour to see the dedication and commitment that all the cultures of society in our province have put into making Folklorama such a wonderf ul success. Thank you. Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, Folklorama is now 31 years old. Thanks to the strong support of then-Premier Ed Schreyer and Mayor Stephen Juba, Folklorama was created in 19 70, commemorating Manitoba's 1 OOth anniversary.

In the early years of Folklorama, I performed with a dance troupe at the Philippine pavilion. Later I became the pa vilion co ordinator, ambassador and mayor of our pavilion. In 19 80, I served on the committee

5028 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 responsible for planning and putting together the event. This year, however, was a landmark for me. As the legislative assistant to the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism, I had the honour of representing the Premier (Mr. Doer) at the July 13 ceremony inaugurating the 15 6 ambassadors of the 39 pavilions in this year's Folklorama.

Now, in its second week of Folklorama, have had the pleasure of visiting some of these pavilions, and as always I am struck by the enormous contribution of 20 000 dedicated volunteers to make visiting a pa vilion a pleasurable one. As the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism said, when proclaiming August 6 to 19 as Folklorama Week, "Folklorama shows a commitment by the people of Manitoba who work together to make our community a better place in which to live.

This event illustrates the best of what this province and its people have to offer." Folklorama is the largest and longest running event of its kind in the world. It has been recognized as the best cultural event by the Canadian event industry. The American Bus Association has named it as an internationally known super event. Indeed, with the diversity of pavilion entertainment showcasing their own cultures in the form of dances, food and display, we can indeed see the world in two weeks without even leaving Winnipeg. I invite honourable members to hop on board and see the world in the remaining six days.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Harvest Festival and Exhibition Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I too would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to activities that I was involved with on the weekend. The Harvest Festival and Exhibition, which took place in Winkler, started on Friday and concluded last night with a bang. They had fireworks, and certainly it was a very well attended event.

There was free family entertainment such as a parade, horse and cattle shows, a children's activity tent, the queen pageant, rodeo, antique and collectible flea market, classic car show, antique tractor show, yard and garden tours, heritage tours, a Low German festival, a free barbecue supper, and of course concluded with fireworks. It was a tremendous success, and it was well attended by many people. I want to thank Kathy Hildebrand and her volunteers for the work that they have done in organizing the event. They did an excellent job. Certainly we are appreciative of the work that they did.

Also, I had the opportunity to attend a Krahn reunion to bring greetings on behalf of the province. Again, it was well attended by people from all over actually North America. Many attended this, and they found out they were related to people that they had never met before. I think that is the beauty of reunions. You get together as family and are able to share some of the experiences that you have had. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I was able to attend a 50th wedding anniversary yesterday. It was an uncle and aunt of mine, Vic and Ollie Penner.

Vic was the editor for the Altona Red River Valley Echo for 30 years and did an excellent job there. His wife, my Aunt Ollie, really was the true Aunt Ollie, or as they called her, Tante Ollie, on Radio CFEM for many years, did the children's programming there. I wish them health and happiness and many more years together. It was a wonderful weekend and an opportunity to meet many people. Thank you very much. Foster Parents Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to thank foster parents in Manitoba. They do a difficult job.

Many of them are fostering children with special needs, for example, many children with F AS or F AE and often children from other cultures, which presents its own problems. When I was Family Services critic for six years, I had many meetings with foster parents. I remember visiting a foster parent in my constituency and being quite surprised because there was almost no furniture in her house and nothing on the walls. The reason was that the

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5029 children had a tendency towards destructive behaviour and so they had to change their household accordingly, but they st ill wanted to be foster parents.

Like the vast majority, they are dedicated people providing loving and sup porting homes. * (14 :40) I remember the time when the Conservative government withdrew funding from the Foster Parents' Association and how angry and disappointed members of that board and members of the organization were, because they felt that there was a real need for training and for support and advocacy, because often they are interacting with government departments and agencies, particularly Child and Family Services agencies, and they needed help occasionally in relating to those agencies.

In conclusion, I would like to congratulate our government for awarding $45 ,000 for developmental costs to get a foster parent association up and running. I look forward to seeing a new board of directors and a new organization. I wish them well in the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Committee Changes Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations be amended as follows: Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith) for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou); Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen) for Morris (Mr.

Pitura); and Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Motion agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call debate on second readings, Bill 38? DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 38-The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 2000 Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), Bill 38, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 2000 ( Loi de 2000 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Fort Whyte. Mr.

John Loewen (Fort Whyte): We on this side of the House are anxiously awaiting the arrival of this bill at committee. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 38, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 2000. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to now call the Capital Supply procedure. Messages Hon.

Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I have received a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant-Governor trans mits to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba revised Estimates of sums required for the service of the Province for capital expenditures and recommends these revised Estimates to the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Selinger: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), that the said message, together with the Estimates accom panying the same, be referred to the Committee of Supply for consideration and report. Motion agreed to. Bon.

Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House

5030 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Motion agreed to. * (1 4:50) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY Capital Supply Mr. Chairperson (Conrad Santos): The Com mittee of Supply will come to order, please. We have before us for our consideration the Resolution respecting Capital Supply. RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1 ,030,000,000 for Capital Supply for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001. Resolution agreed to. Concurrence Motion Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr.

Chair, I move (seconded by the Minister of Finance) that the Committee of Supply concur in all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31, 200 I, which have been adopted at this session by the three sections of the Committee of Supply sitting separately and by the full committee. Motion presented. Mr.

Harry Eons (Lakeside): In the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture there were always included some specific, modest as they may be, capital monies for several programs that often by themselves were not earth-shattering but were certainly important to the areas of agriculture that they touched on. I specifically ask her about the allocation for the monies, if any, for the completion of the improvements that were being staged and brought about to the 30- odd provincial veterinarian service centres that we have through the province for which the Minister has a responsibility.

I appreciate that there is a Manitoba provincial veterinarians board that looks after the day-to-day, week-to week, month-to-month functions of these veterinarians, but it is in her department that these monies would be housed. As I recall, a few years ago, a program of improvement was started; eight or ten were done at a time. Some of them were in bad need of improvement dating back to some of the original building structures, MacDonald Air Base as I recall that started off the program many years ago. I am just asking the Minister: Are we dealing with capital supply?

Or would this come under capital, whether or not there is a specific amount of dollars available for what I would think would be just about the completion of this program? Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agri culture and Food): Mr. Chairman, the member raises an important issue and that is the vet services in rural Manitoba. I want to tell the Member there is additional funding in the capital projects to continue with the improvement on the vet services clinics.

There is also additional money that has been put in for some new equipment that is needed within the-some of the equipment is quite outdated, so there is also additional funds put in place. But certainly recognizing the importance of the livestock industry, it is very important that we continue to provide those services and to have the kind of facilities that would be needed to attract veterinarians to come to rural Manitoba.

I think that is one of our larger challenges within the vet services branch is that there are many people who train to be veterinarians but many of them want to stay in urban centres and work on smaller animals. It is becoming more difficult to get people to work on larger animals. It is important that we upgrade those facilities, given the fact that our livestock industry is growing. As farmers move away from grain production and into more livestock production, it is important that these facilities be upgraded. So, yes, the capital money is in there to continue with the upgrading. Mr.

Enos: I know it may not be quite fair to the Minister, but I am wondering could she put a number on record? I know she does not have staff and her material in front of her, but is it in

August 14 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 503 1 the order of $300,000, or $400,000, just to give me some idea of how much money we are talking about? Ms. Wowchuk: I will put the exact amount on the record as soon as I can have my notes before me, but I believe the amount did not change from the previous year, that we continued with the same amount of money for the upgrading of veterinarian clinics. Mr.

Enos: When I had the privilege of being Minister of Agriculture, this particular minister was my critic, and she berated me constantly on an issue that I took to heart because, while opposition critics are not always right, they do hit the mark once in awhile and touch on issues that are important, that need addressing, and that certainly demand the attention of the Department and of the Government of the day.

I think it would be not unfair to the current minister if I would point out to her that research, research and more research was a constant theme of the then-Member for Swan River when she challenged me as minister in the Department of Agriculture during those years. I must confess that I was never fully satisfied, particularly in the kind of phenomenal change that agriculture is going through, was going through a few years ago, continues to go through, that more dollars, more resources, should be allocated to the field of agricultural research and development. Mr.

Chairman, I did have some success. was able to use some of the unallocated funds from some of the support programs that we had within agriculture. I think I used some of the unallocated surpluses of the now-defunct GRIP program. My memory fails me as to be exactly specific to where and how these funds were put together, but I do recall having a very nice occasion.

It was at one of our more successful agricultural centres that I like to visit, the Manitoba vegetable peak marketing people on King Edward Street where Minister Lyle Vanclief came down and jointly we were able to announce a fairly significant program of, all things considered, upwards of $19 million to $20 million for agricultural research and develop ment in the province of Manitoba. *( 15:00) We established a board to supervise these funds and to allocate these funds. I think it is not inappropriate if I would take a moment to acknowledge the late professor, Dr.

Clay Gilson, who was the first chairman of this board. Dr. Gilson, I need not remind anybody involved in agriculture, has a substantial significant record of public service to agriculture, providing advice, counsel, and input for different govern ments of different political persuasions, both at the provincial and at the federal level. When a clear, cool head and counsellor was required, Dr. Gilson certainly filled the bill. I was very privileged to have had the opportunity of working with Clay Gilson, and I was delighted to appoint him to chair this board of Agricultural Research and Development.

I know that we were able, in the short remaining time that I had some responsibility for, to advance some very specific research problems. One of the most notable ones, and one that was very near and dear to the heart of Dr. Gilson, was a $3-million or $4-million research program in co-operation with the St. Boniface Hospital.

That is a nutraceutical program where we begin to link some of the products that we as farmers produce, some of the specialty vegetable products and the other products that we produce on the farms to make them, play a bigger role in health prevention and in providing organic medical aids within the medical community. Missing from that was having the science of medicine applied to it. I was delighted that this research fund was able to co-operate with the Department of Health, and more specifically, the research centre in St. Boniface Hospital to work to bring health and agriculture together in Manitoba.

I am reminding the Honourable Minister, who used to berate me endlessly. She always reminded me of the fact that research and development dollars were key to the future of agriculture, and what was I doing about it? I want to ask her now: What is she doing about it now that she is firmly riding tall in the saddle, if I may say, Mr. Chairman-! am an old horseman, you know- where she is in control of the funds? What has she done with the Agricultural

5032 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14, 2000 Research and Development fund? What is its status? Has she been able to find some additional funds that perhaps I was not able to find, or was she able to convince some of her colleagues like the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Sale) to give up some of the millions that he spends to slide over into agricultural research, or maybe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), more importantly, to help her with some of the dollars required for agricultural research.

I take this occasion to ask the Minister of Agriculture where the Agricultural Research and Development fund stands at this moment, and preferably, if she could, indicate that it is in fact receiving continuing funding from her depart ment and from this government? Ms. Wowcbuk: I thank my friend for that question because indeed research and develop ment are a very important part of agriculture and the changing industry. It-is one that I many times asked about, about how we were going to get more money into the research fund, and it is one that I am still very committed to.

I have to say that the amount that we did put, a million dollars, into the fund this year is less than was put in the previous year. However, there is a fairly large carryover there of several million dollars that are still available in the fund for projects. The Member talks about where he was able to get money. It is true that in the safety net envelope there was always some rollover money. That is the money that was used to go into the research fund.

This year, with the new formula that is in place, those kinds of rollover dollars will not be there because of the changing in the funding formula for safety nets. Also, the million dollars that was put in this year is totally provincial dollars. There are no federal dollars that are going into that research fund.

That is going to be a challenge for us, but with the money that we have in place that is carried over from previous years, and I hesitate to say the amount because I may not put an accurate number on the record, but it is in the vicinity of $10 million that is still in the fund that can be used for projects. We believe we can fund many more projects. There are some very good projects such as the one that the Member mentions at the St. Boniface General Hospital, the National Centre for Agri-Food Research in Medicine.

There are real opportunities for us with using foods for medicines and much opportunity for research in that area. We are looking at other options of where we might be able to find some additional funds. There are a few areas that we are considering. I hope that when it comes time for next year's budget we will have some additional money to the money that we have been able to put in this year coming from a few other sources. The Member talks about the surpluses for GRIP that were able to be used.

There are some other areas similar to that that we are looking at at this time, but of course that has to be negotiated with the federal government because federal dollars are always involved with that as well. I am hoping that we can be successful to build a larger pool of money and to have the research industry grow in this province. Mr. Enos: Well, Mr. Chairman, because I am in a benevolent mood and I know that my wife told me to be good and behave myself in the House today, I am going to be kind to this Minister. But just let us understand for the record what she just put on the record.

After years of criticizing me and the former government for not putting enough research money into agriculture, she has just acknowledged that in her first year she is putting less money into agriculture on this item. Yes.

Secondly, after impressing on Manitobans shortly after that black day for Manitoba which lives in my memory, September 21, when the people of Manitoba elected this New Democratic Party Government, I remember the headline story saying, oh, but we are going to have so much more fun getting on with the Liberals in Ottawa because we are friends and we know each other and it is going to be much easier to co-operate and work together with each other. She also put on the record just a few moments ago that the million dollars that she is putting into agriculture research is all provincial

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5033 dollars, no federal dollars at all. The $18 million that I had in the budget was 50 percent Ottawa, 50 percent Manitoba. Now, let the record speak for itself as to who is doing what on behalf of agriculture research and development in the province. But, as I said when I started up, I am not going to berate the Honourable Minister. It is a Monday afternoon. We are just starting another week of legislative sessions.

I will be kind to her and gently remind her that I will be looking for that increase in agriculture research and development funding that she just committed herself to next year. I will wish her a good summer. * (15:10 ) Hopefully she will be able to see the harvest and visit many farms as the farmers are harvesting this year's crop, including those areas regrettably where storms and bad weather have damaged crops. I am hoping that her Crop Insurance people are up to speed and are going to be working. They will have a somewhat busier job this year.

We have had regrettably some areas of the province badly hurt with bad weather, but that is what the safety net programs are there for. So, Mr. Chairman, I leave it at that. I thank the Honourable Minister for her responses, but I tell her, I shall be very watchful on this particular item when her Estimates next appear before this Chamber. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Member for those comments and thank him for his advice, but certainly I support this area.

The Member must remember that there is a substantial rollover in the ARDI fund that his government did not allocate out for research projects. I say to him that it is an area that I strongly support and hope that we will be able to increase it and that we will be able to get the federal government to co-operate. The Member talks about the money he got from the federal government. I just remind him that he has many years of expertise in this area. It took him a long time to get that money. We have only been in government for less than a year. I thank him for his kind words.

I hope that he will be patient with us to also negotiate some of those things with the federal government. Mr. Darren Praznik (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Chair, I will be joined by my colleague the Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler). I have some questions for the Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) and the Minister of Industry and Trade (Ms. Mihychuk). Now, Mr.

Chair, I want to ask the Minister of Labour, who today in the House announced, and in the question that I put to her gave some description to the amendments that she intends to propose to the Committee, I would like to ask her if she could please provide greater detail, now that we are not under the constraint of the timing of Question Period to discuss and give us the detail of those amendments that she announced during Question Period. Hon.

Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): The one specific amendment, and there was only one that I announced specifically in the House today, deals in the alternate dispute resolution section, which is

section 87. It is amendments to

section 87 of the The Labour Relations Act. The specific amendment that we will be making will be to eliminate the employee vote as a trigger of the alternate dispute resolution mechanism process. Mr. Praznik: So am I to take it that is the only amendment that will be made in total or the only amendment to this

section of the Bill? Ms. Barrett: As I said in the House today, the only amendment that I announced was the amendment that I just referenced. There may be other amendments to this

section or other sections of the Bill. There are two other sections that have raised some discussion in the community. There may be actually in the 70-I believe it is now 70 individuals who are making presentation to the public hearings that begin tonight-there may be other suggestions, other areas of concern, other possible amendments that we will look at. As the Member knows, the process is to hear the public at the Committee and then to go clause by clause, at which time both the Opposition and the Government are free to make amendments. Again, to reiterate, the only specific amendment that has been

5034 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14, 2000 announced is the elimination of the employee vote to trigger the alternate dispute resolution mechanism. Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, I take it then that if the Committee should adopt that amendment and no other amendment be made to this provision then that provision will work by either the employees through their union or the employer after the expiry of 60 days making application, which will result in a mandatory binding arbitration process imposed by both. Ms.

Barrett: I am glad the Member asked me the question because the intimation has been, in Question Period and in comments by Opposition members in the media, that it is a binding arbitration process. If the members would read the first contract sections of The Labour Relations Act they will find that the vast majority of the process that is undertaken in first contract that we are reflecting in amendments to

section 87 of The Labour Relations Act is at the very, very, end. I would like to give the Member some statistics. Since 19 84 when the first contract provisions were put in place in The Labour Relations Act, there have been, I believe, 83 1 first contracts signed in the province of Manitoba. I am going from memory here so my numbers may be out by a slight bit. I believe just under 20 percent of those contract negotiations, at some point during the negotiation process, went to the labour board.

Either side went to the labour board and said: We are having trouble reaching a first contract; we have two or three issues that we are at an impasse on. The labour board says, well, yes, you may be having problems but we think you can still do it; so you go back and you talk to each other for another 30 days or another 60 days, I am not sure which it is in the first contract section, and then come back and see us. Or the labour board can say, well, yes, you are having trouble but let us work together with you; let us give you some mediation or conciliation and we will work together with you. The end result, Mr.

Chair, was that the only binding part of the first contract legislation in its 16 years of being part of the labour legislation has been in less than I percent of the cases did the two sides fail to reach a negotiated first contract, and only in those very small number of instances was the labour board forced at the very end to impose, and even in those cases, Mr. Chair, they imposed only in the areas where there was not an ability to reach an agreement.

So what we are saying is the alternate dispute resolution mechanism, which reflects the first contract, also provides for the labour board to say at the beginning, no, you guys have not negotiated long enough; you have not negotiated hard enough; you go back there and you try it again. Then they go back there and they try it again and they come back again and they cannot reach a consensus. Then the labour board says go back and do it again. There is nothing to prohibit the labour board in this amendment in Bill 44 from sending both sides back to negotiate time after time.

While the labour board is doing that, saying you have not done it, you guys go back and do it, the strike or lockout continues. At some point, the labour board will make a determination, perhaps, technically, theoreti cally, that both sides have tried to bargain. They have done everything they could. They have used mediation; they have used conc iliation. It just is not working in whatever areas of the collective agreement they have reached an impasse on.

Then the labour board says to the two sides, okay, we agree, you are at an impasse, or one side or the other is not bargaining, is doing unfair labour practice, is not bargaining in good faith. The labour board then says to the two sides you have a choice here; you can agree to go to binding arbitration, or if you cannot agree to go to binding arbitration, or you agree you do not want to go to binding arbitration, then you take the part that we have been talking about which is go the labour board route that says, okay, here you go.

But the labour board even then can say go back. * (15: 20) The labour board has the authority, as they do in the first contract legislation, which has not been challenged, was not challenged throughout the whole, entire term of the former government. Just like that legislation, the labour board has exactly the same authority, exactly the same

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5035 ability and exactly the same goal. That goal, Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler), Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) and all of the other members of the opposition benches, that goal remains the same. That goal is to achieve a collective agreement through free collective bargaining. No one, including the labour board, wants to impose. The last, last thing they want is to impose a settlement. They have been very successful in avoiding that imposition, in first contract legislation.

We expect them to be equally successful in the implementation of the alternative selection

section of Bill 44. Mr. Praznik: The Minister of Labour, I would just remind her that I spent four and a half years of my life, my first four and a half years in cabinet, as the Minister of Labour, in which we dealt very extens ively with Manitoba labour laws. I had a lot of opportunity to meet many people who had been involved in labour relations on both sides. I worked with some excellent staff in the Department, people like Tom Farrell, Tom Bleasdale, Mr. Bleasdale, of course, having left.

I came to appreciate in those years the importance of the words that I think she uses very freely, free collective bargaining, and that has to be the goal of this Legislature, free collective bargaining. Imposed settlements, no matter how many steps to get to them, are infringements upon free collective bargaining, and I do not think that this Minister of Labour fully appreciates or understands that. Now, Mr. Chairperson, the Minister of Labour has referenced first-contract legislation. I remember when we won the election in 1990 and I was the new Minister of Labour, we looked at all of our existing laws.

There were amendments made to first-contract legislation that provided for those time periods. I will say, Mr. Chair, there was a reason why I recommended to my cabinet colleagues that we retain it in some areas. We did not want to, first of all, do a radical overhaul of labour legislation. That was not our policy or style as a government. We wanted to ensure we struck the right balance, the right balance being one that supports the principle of free collective bar gaining with as few interferences as possible.

Now, I want to say to the Minister of Labour that, with respect with first contract, the reason why we even kept it-and we did make amendments. She is wrong when she said it was not challenged or discussed or changed by the Filmon administration. We made changes to first contract because what we inherited from the Pawley, a very much one-sided balance, administration was a process in which two unions used it all the time, United Food and Commercial Workers and the one- I cannot remember the name-industrial mechanical engineers. Their name escapes me. Mr. George Smith was their business agent.

But they were the two users of that provision. They would apply for first contract right off the bat under the Act, and they would walk in to the first negotiations, the first, and say: We have already applied for first contract. Which is not what it was intended to be. It was not to be a tool for negotiation. It was a tool for settlement. So we did amend it. The Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) is incorrect when she said that we did not deal with first contract, we maintained it as it was. We did amend it.

We put into place a host of provisions and time frames and discretions by the Labour Board because we felt it was being misused by some of the very same people who we think secretly advised this Minister of Labour and have directed this process today. But the reason we kept it at all was for one reason, and this comes back to the vote issue. We kept it in place for one reason, because we recognized that when a business had been unionized for the first time, and I underline, Mr.

Chair first time, that there was an issue around accepting labour relations, and particularly if it was a smaller shop that had no experience dealing with business managers of large unions who were professional business managers. They came in from Toronto or Winnipeg or wherever to deal with this. There was a difficulty in even getting into a negotiating process. So we recognized that having that tool available, particularly with all of the time frames we recommended and wrote into that act when we were in power, that it would be a useful tool to

5036 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 getting a first contract. But we recognized very firmly that that was an intrusion on free collective bargaining, and it was as far as were prepared to go. But the Minister's proposal now is not just for first contracts, is not to deal with a situation where you are beginning a relationship in which particularly one party may be very inexperienced and uneasy in dealing with, but she has now taken it and imposed it on every single collective bargaining process in this province, whether it is experienced negotiators or not.

She is [interjection] And she sits from her seat and says no. Well, I wonder what planet she walks on, because that is what her bill does. She is bringing in a process of compulsory binding arbitration for every single settlement in this province, not just for first contract. Mr. Chair, I want to point out to the Minister as wei!, because she was very fond of quoting my statements in 1990-9 1 in this House, and I have to tell you, what I came to appreciate, the long-[i nterjection] I stand by those words, when I made them.

What I found as Labour minister and what she might find after two or three years in the job, if she remains in that position-not after this debacle, I am sure. But I tell her, what I found, after three or four years as minister of Labour, that I had employers come to see me and my staff who had just been unionized. They would say, well, there was union intimidation of employees, and I am not accepting this union. It is fraudulent and it is illegal, et cetera, et cetera.

You know what I came to appreciate, and I think if this Minister of Labour would have been a little more far searching, she would have realized that the compulsory vote on certification does away with that issue, because when those employers came in, if there had been a secret ballot, what was their argument? They did not like the result? Well, fine. People have a right to organize and unionize, and that has been given effect by a secret ballot vote. What the Minister of Labour is demon strating is a huge naivete that intimidation does go on. Unions intimidate. Fellow employees can intimidate.

Employers can intimidate. The only guarantee that the true will of those employees to have either that union or, in a case where there may be two vying unions, which union they wish, the only guarantee is a secret ballot vote. The Minister of Labour has given that up. She has given it up. That is the point that Mr. DeFehr makes in his letter. Mr. DeFehr, who employs 3700 people in our province, who has had one of the largest expansions, who employs many new immigrant families with their first job in this province, what point does he make in his letter? He makes it very clear.

If his employees chose a union, he would deal with that. He wants to just make sure that is their will. There is only one way to do that and that is a secret ballot vote. *( 1 5:30) You know, the fact in his workplace, he points out the number of unions who have attempted to organize there. But it is interesting who they are. They are all very large unions, some of them sending people out from Toronto. Why? Because Mr. DeFehr summed it up very well. The number of employees he has represents $1. 5 million to $2 million a year in dues. It is not about representing those workers.

It is not about those workers forming an organization to bargain collectively with Mr. DeFehr. No. It is about the business of unions seeing $1. 5 million to $2 million of revenue a year in dues and sending the big guys from Toronto in and dealing with many employees whose command of the English language may not be great, who are coming from countries that have totalitarian regimes. Many of these immigrants have escaped countries where their freedoms have been severely curtailed, who could be easily intimated.

So the Minister's friends come out from Toronto and they intimidate. [interjection] The only guarantee though is a secret ballot. That is what it is about. What the Minister of Labour has failed to understand is that as long as you have a secret ballot vote there is no doubt. Now one argument that organized labour has raised about secret ballot votes that I appreciate, if that secret ballot vote is held at the workplace or is held a long period of time after the application for certification is made, it does potentially increase the chances for a reaction. The answer is simple.

Do not take away the right to vote, but ensure that the vote is held speedily, after the

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5037 application is made, and make sure that if it has to be, it is held off the workplace. I can remember Mr. Korpesho, the chair of the Labour Board, talking about conducting votes out of the trunk of a car off the premises because there was no chance of intimidation.

Now, if you have the secret ballot vote, if the Minister has that vote, and if, as the Minister of Labour, she ensures it is conducted promptly and in a place where people cannot be intimidated, it sends a clear message to all the world that those employees wanted to be part of that union, wanted to be. I say to her again my experience as Minister of Labour was that, when you had a secret ballot vote, the employer had no excuse, they had to deal with the union. They then turned around and said, well, wait a minute. What have I done here? What is the relationship? My employees really did want a union.

This is the point that has somewhat been missed in this debate, the 65 percent taking away those automatic votes. The Minister of Labour is right. Very few of the votes have probably changed the result in the end, but they have changed the atmosphere. They have changed the willingness of an employer to recognize that union, because signing a card is open to intimidation by fellow employees, by union officials, by overexuberant managers in a plant. The Minister's answer to that is take away the secret ballot vote. Mr. DeFehr sums it up very well in the letter.

He said he would remind members that the New Democratic Party about the middle word in their name, "democratic." If my colleague the Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler), the Labour critic, had brought a private member's bill into this House that would have said that, you know, to get elected to the Legislature, all you have to do is go into the constituency. There are 10 000 voters, you get 6500 to sign a card, and you are the MLA. You would be the MLA. Well, you know, we would laugh.

We would say it is silly, because people sign cards, they sign petitions, that the only true [interjection] Well, the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Labour are chirping away there, because they know I have hit a spot. [interjection] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Call your New Democratic colleagues to order. We would say that, if we had brought such a private member's bill, members opposite would have said it is ludicrous, elect our MLAs by signing a card. It took me as Minister of Labour a few years-because the Minister is right. I made those comments in '9 1.

I was trying to maintain as much of a reasonable status quo as I thought should be, and I wanted to make changes that had a balance based on supporting free collective bargaining. I wanted to have reasons and changes brought about that I could understand, could explain and had a cause. From 1991 until 19 95, when I left that portfolio, I came to the view that secret ballot votes were the only way to go, and not because they changed the result, but because I was tired of employers coming to see the Minister of Labour because they said there was intimidation, people did not really mean to sign cards, et cetera.

The member gives that real smart comment: Send them to the Labour Board. You know what? The problem is again, and the Minister just does not get it, there is one of legitimacy. Secret ballot votes are legitimate because we know that that individual went into a polling station, had the choice before them and, without any fear that they were being looked at or watched or anyone could find out, made their true choice. What she refuses, through her own stubbornness, to understand is that signing a card, like signing the petition, you are doing it in public.

It may be your will; it may not be your will, but one thing is for certain. It is challengeable in the minds of everyone who has to deal with you. It is not a legitimate way of making a decision. I am not surprised that the majority of those votes over 65 percent signed up carried. I am not surprised, but I will tell you the difference. In talking to my colleagues who succeeded me as Minister of Labour after those amendments that, I would remind her, I stood and voted for in this House, because I supported, I argued for them in our caucus, yes, I did come to recognize that a change was needed there.

If the Minister is going to quote me from 19 91, she had better be prepared to also put on the record that I supported those changes in 1996.

5038 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA August 14, 2000 But, again, in her world the facts may not really be important. Mr. Chair, my colleagues who succeeded me in that portfolio made the point that after the votes they did not have employers coming in and saying: My employees were intimidated. The big guns came in from Toronto. People were getting pushed around. What the Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) does not understand either is sometimes people do want to belong to a union and they are embarrassed to tell their employer they want to.

They are embarrassed to say that they want to, and they will tell that employer, well, you know, I signed the card because someone came to my house or they put pressure on me. And the employer will believe that. But what everyone has to accept is when a person has made that decision in the privacy of a voting booth with a secret ballot, you cannot make the argument that your arm was twisted. You cannot make the argument that you were forced. You cannot make the argument that this is illegitimate.

The difference which this Minister of Labour does not understand is she is creating the problem that led to first contract. Because you will have over 65 percent sign a card, you are going to have an employer say: That was illegitimate. I am not going to deal on this first contract. This union is not legitimate. And you know what? They are going to have that antagonism at the bargaining table when they try to write their first contract, and, yes, then they will need dispute settlement mechanisms like first contract.

But if the certification is legitimate to all the world, then you do not need that, because the employer knows. They had a secret ballot whether he liked it or not. What did I do wrong? Why has this happened? They know that is what the majority of their employees wanted. So you are over that obstacle and you can get down to negotiating your first collective agreement. * (15 :40) So here the Minister of Labour and the Premier (Mr.

Doer) are prepared to take away a democratic right for people to make a choice in the privacy of a voting booth, which only leads to probably unnecessary doubt about the legitimacy of the process if it is done by card, which creates difficulty at the bargaining table. Their solution: Well, let us find another means to solve that one. Well, you know, by giving a vote, I bet you that you do not even need first contract legislation anymore, because you have established the legitimacy of that bargaining unit. That is what the Minister of Labour has missed.

The Minister of Labour said that her system she is proposing is not compulsory. Either side can tie both into a process that can lead to an arbitration settlement. That is no longer free collective bargaining. That is compulsory. It does not matter how many steps of time frames you put in, you have still impinged on free collective bargaining. What this Minister of Labour does not appreciate is that that little infringement we made on a first contract as a Legislature, we were fine. She is now extending that to every single negotiation in this province. Every single negotiation. And for what purpose?

Has she offered this House or the people of Manitoba a real purpose? Has she given us a problem that she is trying to solve? I think not, Mr. Chair. Because if she had, she would have raised it at the Century Summit. If she had, they would have put it in the Throne Speech. If she had, she would have had numbers here showing the thousands and thousands of days lost to strikes and lockouts and that it was such a massive problem that it justified interventions and taking away the right to strike. I want to say this to the Minister as well. She wonders why this is important.

Well, any company looking at investing in Manitoba, in expanding and seeking investment or coming here from another jurisdiction, when they do their due diligence, they are going to ask their lawyers to tell them: What is the labour law under which I will live? One question with this still muddled-up set of amendments that the Minister has-her previous one was bad. She has done nothing to eliminate the problem because I do not think she really understands the problem of what she is doing here.

August 14 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 5039 Mr. Chair, every lawyer writing an opinion will now have to say that in Manitoba there is a chance that you will have a settlement imposed upon you by an arbitrator of the Labour Board, that free collective bargaining is not guaranteed in the province of Manitoba. Now if the Minister said this thing will probably be used very few times, I would agree with her. She is probably right, which begs the question: why are we dealing with it in the first place? Why are we bringing it in in the first place? Why are this Minister of Labour (Ms.

Barrett) and this Premier (Mr. Doer) wasting the good reputation of the province of Manitoba on an issue they did not think was so important that they would raise it at the Century Summit. And for what? But now every single investment oppor tunity that this province could pursue, in the due diligence the lawyer will have to provide the client with that destructive phrase that their bargaining is not free collective bargaining. That there is the chance under Manitoba Labour law that they will have a settlement imposed upon them without their agreement to go to that process.

That is what will scare people away from this province. Mr. Chair, even if it is never used once until the next government repeals it, if it is never used once on thousands and thousands of legal opinions about the investment climate in Manitoba, those words will appear because of this unknowing Minister of Labour that in Manitoba there is a chance that you can have a binding settlement imposed upon you. Now that existed under first contract, but at least it had the caveat of only on your first contract, that would be for one year, and thereafter you are into free collective bargaining.

But now it could be on every single contract. An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Praznik: Well, the Minister says no. But I will tell you, anybody about to invest money to come to Manitoba is going to do a due diligence. I will have to ask the Minister of Industry (Ms. Mihychuk) about this because obviously these two ministers do not talk, or she has been gagged as to what she can say. But I say to the Minister of Labour anyone seriously investing in Manitoba, one of the questions they do in their due diligence is: What tax regime am I coming into? What is the municipal infrastructure?

Are there support programs by government? What is the labour relations climate? What is the labour relations law? Every lawyer, if this bill should become law in its current form or with the amendments that the Minister is talking about, will have to say that there is no free collective bargaining in Manitoba, that there is a chance, even if it is a small one, that you could have imposed upon you an arbitrated agreement without agreeing to go to arbitration and more than just your first contract. That is where the damage will be done to the province of Manitoba.

Because in a world where you are competing for investment dollars, in a world where people have choices, in a world where there are a lot of opportunities, you look at that and that could be a factor. It may not be the determining factor but it will be a factor. If our tax competitiveness continues to fall away, as this Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger) has set us on that course, it becomes one more problem. Do you know what? The Minister of Labour (Ms.

Barrett) should spend a little time with the Minister of Energy and Mines because that minister understood what we were doing in the mines sector in attracting exploration to Manitoba. She understood that industry needed certainty, that they needed to know where they were at, that they needed clear and concise rules, that they needed environmental laws they knew were based on science, that if they were met you got your licence. She knew that, and she said publicly the policies we put in place have been successful, and she would carry them on, and I hope she does.

But in all the other areas of her department she will now have to go to investment centres talking about Manitoba. When she is asked the question: What about free collective bargaining? Do you not have some kind of method there in Manitoba that we might have a settlement imposed on us? She might be able to smile. She might be able to use her charm. She might be able to try to walk around it, but ultimately-well, I tell you, I think this minister is a delightful Minister of Industry (Ms. Mihychuk) to work with, and I am a strong supporter of her in her

5040 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 efforts in the mining sector. She can be a very persuasive recruiter for Industry, but no matter how persuasive she can be she will still have to say, yes, there is a chance that you could have an arbitrated collective agreement. She cannot get around that. I will tell you, the Minister of Labour is not going to be there with her to make the case. The Minister of Labour I do not think really understands what she is doing here. Do you know what reinforces that? When I asked her a question a few minutes ago about taking off the one-sided trigger mechanism.

I do want to pick up on something for a minute, Mr. Chair. The Minister of Labour is very keen to call this the alternative dispute settlement mechanism. Well, she is right. What is it an alternative to? It is an alternative to free collective bargaining. That is what it is an alternative to. It is an alternative to free collective bargaining. We are not happy, she says, with free colle ctive bargaining, if it is tough. We are not happy if it results in a strike or lockout. No, we are going to have binding arbitration as our alternative- [interjection} She explains the process.

But at the end of the day what this minister does not appreciate, despite all of the lag time, despite all of it being sent back to conciliators and mediators, the end of the process still can have the same result, that the labour board orders or does an arbitration. That is not free collective bargaining. That is a third-party imposed settlement. I have to say to the Minister I appreciate the time frames, because that is going to eliminate quite frankly, the more you get people talking, the more you use conciliation and mediation, the more likely you are going to get a settlement.

But it really begs the question: If it is narrowed down to so few people who are going to use the thing, why is she bringing it in at all? What is the good she is achieving out of bringing this bill? An Honourable Member: Bernie told her to. Mr. Praznik: Well, one of my colleagues says because Bernie Christophe told her to, and I tend to think that is the case. Why? Because all of these intrusions ultimately were used by his union, more than anyone else. I want to ask the Minister of Industry (Ms.

Mihychuk) today if she can tell us the name again of any one business that she has been dealing with that has said to her that labour relations in Manitoba are terrible and we need these amendments that are brought in? I want to ask her specifically today to answer that question. * (15:50) Point of Order Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I ask for clarification. My question was to the Minister of Industry, who deals with business, about any business that has brought her in. Now if they want to use the Minister of Labour (Ms.

Barrett) to respond, I at least want it noted on the record that the Minister of Industry is ref using to get up and answer a question put by a member of this committee who has requested her presence here for that purpose. Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Family Services and Housing): On the same point of order, Mr. Chairperson, no rule in Beauchesne's was cited, and there cannot be a point of order without some citation. The Member knows full well that a Minister can choose to answer a question or not and that any Minister can rise in response to a question. So he does not have a point of order.

He continually abuses the rule in regard to the making of points of order. I wish you would call him to order. Mr. Chairperson: Actually, the Honourable Member knows that it is not a point of order. He can direct this question to the Honourable Minister if he wants to. *** Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chairperson, I am more than delighted, and I know the Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines (Ms. Mihychuk) would be more than happy to answer the question. She will. But I would like to take the opportunity and-[interjection]

August 14, 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 504 1 We have a half an hour to respond, as you had a half an hour to raise your point, sir. I am going to respond to some of the points you raised and then tum it over to my colleague to answer the specific question that you asked at the end. So no one is being muzzled here, gagged or anything else.[interjection] The Member is either in ignorance or gratuitously putting on the record false information. I think I know which it is, because the Member is a very bright person who, when he chooses to, can listen very carefully. Mr.

Chairperson: A point of order is being raised. I hope the Member will cite the rules that are being violated. Point of Order Mr. Praznik: I do not have my Beauchesne's with me, but the Member is certainly imputing motives to my questions and that I know, Mr. Chair, is out of order. Would you please bring her to order? Mr. Chairperson: Everyone knows that you cannot impute motives. It is sometimes done by both sides of the House. May I remind both sides of the House not to do that. *** Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did not mean to impugn motives.

I was merely making a comment, but I will refrain from doing so, making any such perhaps extraneous comments in my response to the Member's long comments and statements. I do want to talk about a number of issues. I do not have Hansard so I may not be a hundred percent accurate, but at the beginning of his discussion he said that the alternate Dispute Resolution mechanism will affect, and I quote: "Every single collective bargaining process." He made that comment or several others like it in the course of his comments.

I want to say to the Member again that the alternate Dispute Resolution mechanism does not come into play until, at minimum, there has been a strike or a lockout for 60 days. This is two months. Then, and only then can either side, labour or the bargaining agent for the workers or management, make application to the Labour Board. Then the Labour Board decides. As the Member knows, because he referenced my comments in his comments, then the Labour Board decides if they truly have reached an impasse or if they should go back and bargain again. It is not, as the Member said, taking away the right to strike.

This mechanism, even theoretically, can come into play only after a strike or a lockout has been in place for 60 days or more. Of the, I believe, 29 strikes or lockouts that have taken place in the decade of the '90s, one third of them that lasted more than 60 days were as a result of lockouts. So we are not only talking about strikes. We are talking about lockouts here. The Member may not be aware, but there is a

section in Bill 44 that states, as the first contract legislation states, that any settlement that is imposed by the Labour Board would be in place for only one year, just as the first contract is in place for only one year. I would like, finally, before I tum it over to my colleague from Industry, Trade and Mines (Ms. Mihychuk), to state that, when the Member was talking about the labour relations climate in the Province of Manitoba, does he not remember that in the decade of the '90s there was a record number of days lost to strike or lockout?

When people are doing their due diligence about coming to a province or locating in a particular jurisdiction, they look at days lost to strike or lockout because they know that a high number of days lost to strike or lockout means that the productivity level goes down, the labour relations climate is not good and that it is maybe someplace that they may not choose to come to invest.

Since 19 84, any legal opm10n about The Labour Relations Act in the Province of Manitoba has had to state that there is a first contract in position potentiality and for one year, and what I am saying to the Member for Lac du Bonnet is that this is for one year. This imposition is for one year. It is modelled on the first contract legislation, and it can only be even begun to be implemented after 60 days of strike

5042 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 14 , 2000 or lockout. The Member can disagree with me on the concept, but he must be accurate. Every single collective bargaining process is not impacted. As a matter of fact, there may be an average of three strikes or lockouts in a year where it lasts longer than 60 days, so it is not every collective bargaining.

Well, then, the same thing applies for first contract, and the reality is that first contract has been implemented in less than one percent of the first contracts that have been negotiated in this province, so I think the Member should, if he is arguing against Bill 44, he needs to get his facts straight, and I will now turn the answer over to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines to respond to the specific question that was asked. Hon. MaryAnn Mihychuk (Minister of Industry, Trade and Mines): I appreciate the question, and the question was: Name a company that supports the Bill.

If I remember it, clarification, that asked for the Bill, and clearly no labour union asked for the changes that the Conservative government brought in just as no business that I am aware of has asked for this labour legislation, but the fact is that there is a great deal of comment on the Bill, particularly from a fairly small number of organizations. It is important to note that there are some very prominent businesses that are not participating in these campaigns and that there are some very prominent Manitoba businesses that, Mr.

Chairman, I have spoken to that are not concerned about this bill having a huge impact. They did have some concerns in some areas which we hope to be addressing by listening to the business community, and we are hoping that the legislation will actually reduce the number of days of strike and lockout, provide more harmony in the workplace and a more solid economic platform for business to expand. * (1 6:00) Mr. Praznik: Mr.

Chair, I want to deal with the comments first of the Minister of Labour because I think her talk about, her comments about the alternative dispute mechanism, the alternative to free collective bargaining does not apply to all contracts. I think it is such a ludicrous statement. It may not be used in all disputes, but it applies to them because it is the law. If we were to believe, if the Minister of Labour was to understand what she just said, the equivalent in traffic law would be like saying traffic lights do not apply to all drivers because some drivers do not drive where there are traffic lights.

In that case, we should not require them to understand what the signals are about. If you just drive in Beausejour, we do not have any traffic lights. So, when we give you the test, we should not ask you what a red light and a green light and a yellow light mean. That is what the Minister of Labour is saying to this House. It is unbelievable, Mr. Chair. She is saying that just because not everyone will use this process it does not apply to them. It applies to them because it is the law. If it becomes the law of the province of Manitoba, it is there and can be used against them in that process.

When the Member talks about alternative, she is talking about an alternative to free collective bargaining. You know, what is amazing is that in labour relations, if there are a few principles that have come to be accepted almost universally, and I think in progressive, modern society, that is the principle of free collective bargaining. We know there will be some infringements upon it from time to time, particularly it could only be

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-77
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf 77.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5353ee9cf77209da7f464f8dcee45618f3bde6f3

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