Manitoba Committee Hansard — Education Committee, Sitting 15 (35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-ed15

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 42 Elizabeth II Chairperson Mr. Jack Reimer Constituency of Niakwa VOL. XLII No. 15 • 9 a.m., MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1993

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim , Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOS H, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS , Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant Vacant Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson Kildonan Ste .

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

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

518 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Monday, June 28, 1993 TIME-9a.m. LOCATION- Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON- Mr. Jack Reimer {Niakwa) ATTENDANCE-11 -QUORUM- 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Downey, Enns, Manness Messrs.

Alcock, Ashton, H�lwer, Martindale, McAlpine, Penner, Plohman, Reimer WITNESSES: Sel Burrows, Private Citizen Mark Olafson, Private Citizen Ed Blackman, Private Citizen Dave Hardy, Private Citizen Barry Hammond, Private Citizen Richard Orlandini, Private Citizen Paul Moist, CUPE, National Res ea rch Department George Harris, Private Citizen Don Sulli van, Private Citizen Nicole Campbell, Private Citizen MATTER UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 22- The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Com pensa tion Managemen t Amendment Act * * * Mr. Chai rperson: Will the Comm ittee on Economic Development please come to order.

This committee will continue to proceed with public presentations of the following bill: Bill 22, The Pu blic Sector Reduc ed Work Week an d Compensation Management Amendment Act. I have a list of persons wishing to appear before the committee. For the committee's benefit, copies of the presenters list have been distributed. Also for the pu blic' s be nefit, a board outside the comm ittee room has been set up with a list of presenters that are preregistered. I will not read the list since member s of the com mittee have copies.

Should anyone present wish to appear before this committee and who has not already preregistered, please advise the Chamber staff at the back of the room and your name will be added to the list. At this time, I would like to ask if there is anyone in the audience who has written text to accompany their presentation. If so, I would ask if your would forward your copies to the Page at this time. As moved by motion on June 17 , 1993, committee meeting, this commi ttee agreed to hear from out-of-town presenters first whenever possible.

At this time I would ask all those who are present and from out of town to raise their hands and the Clerk will circle your name on the list. One? Okay. We will now continue with public presentation of Bill 22. We will ask that person from out of town to come first. What is his name? Mr. Sel Burrows, come forward. You may proceed, Mr. Burrows. Mr. Sel Burrows {Private Citizen): Actually, I mu st say jus t before I start that I was qu ite interes ted that this is called the Economic Deve lopmen t comm itte e.

As an econ omic dev elopmen t cons ul tant, usually ec onomic development talks about growth, and Manit oba seems to be lacking in that. My presentation, I have titled it History is a Strict Teacher. I have been a civil servant. I worked for the government under Premier Ed Schreyer, and under Premier Sterling Lyon, and for actually a brief time before I moved out of the government under Premier Howard Pawley. Most recently I have worked as an economic de velopmen t consu ltant in the inner city of Winnipeg.

I have a stron g per sonal and professional concern about the future of Manitoba and its citizens, particularly its most marginalized citizens. I am concerned with this bill because it is bad economics. I am concerned with this bill as it reflects the overall economic policies of the govern men t of Manitoba. Manitoba is unfortu nately following the format of the federal and other

519 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 provincial governments to deal with the issues of the recession, a recession that has been created by the actions of these same governments and their fellow governments of the industrialized world. We have governments faced with dec linin g revenue that are taking economic actions that will guar antee a fur the r decline in revenue. What Canada and Manitoba need now are some political giants who are able to look beyond the failed econ omies, the failed economic theories of Thatcher, Reagan, Mulr oney, Campb ell, Rae, Chretien and Gary Filmon.

It is beyond my comprehension why people would follo w the same econom ic theory that brought them into this economic dilemma to get them out. All the economic projections from banks, governments, and think tanks project that if similar economic policies are followed, it will be well into 1995-96 before unem ployment begins to dip below 1 0 percent. Many economists feel that 1996 may be an optimistic date unless governments change their direction.

If you, as the government of Manitoba, continue to cut expenditures in the form of payments to your em ployees, you can be guaranteed that your revenue projections will not be met, and your deficit will increase, forcing you into an ever-increasing cut in expenditures, which will result in a drop in revenue. This will inevitably result in increased deficit and on and on. I titled my present ation History is a Strict Teacher. History gives you lessons, an opportunity to learn from events. If you choose to be too stupid to learn from history, then you and the people you govern will suffer from the impact.

My father and other relatives that lived through the Great Depression told me stories, stories about stu pid politici ans who attem pted to run the gove rnment the way they would run the ir households or their small business. It was this stupi dity that led politicians to cut back on government expenditures when government was needed as the em ployer of last resort.

It was this stupidity of politicians that led to the phrase that has been passed down from father to son but has, unfortunately, now been forgotten, the phrase that will once more be handed down from mother to daughter-that phrase: Tory times are hard times. When R.B. Ben nett, the Conservative Prime Minister, finally realized what he had done and converted to a spend-and-spend government- Floor Comment: Glory hallelujah, Ontario, eh? Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Mr. Burrows to present. Mr.

Burrows: I think it is very interesting that they are actually listening because the newspaper reports indicated that the government memb ers had not been interested enough to follow some of the previous presenters. So I think-ac tually I do not know this gentleman's name that is being so rude here. Excuse me, sir, what is your name? Hon. Ha rry Enns (Minis ter of Natural Resources): Harry Enns. Mr. Burrows: Mr. Enns, you are my neighbour! Yes, since I live in Petersfield not very far away from you. Mr. Enns: I will not hold that against you. Mr. Burrows: It was a Conser vative Prime Minister, R.B.

Bennett, that spent our way out of the Depression prior to the second World War, but it was too late. The damage to Canada's economy and to hundreds of thousands of Canadians had already been done. Where are the giants of politics today when we need them? Where is John Diefenbaker. Harry, you should remember John Diefenbaker. Where are the massive winter works proj ec ts and the Trans -Cana da High way construction projects which carried hundreds of thousands of Canadians through perio ds of economic recession? Instead of a big John, we have pygmies like Brian, Kim and Jean. Where is Ed Schreyer?

Where is Ed Schreyer with his job creation programs that gave thousands of Manitobans work when the private sector was stalled? The private sector of Manitoba rebounded with growth and hop e because Ed Schr eyer provided hope and leadership. If you fol low the same policies that drove Canadians deeper into a depression, then you deserve to be seen by history as pygmies, unable to respond to the needs of Manitoba. The only growth department under this government is the welfare department. Floor Comment: No, no, Rnance. Floor Comment: No, you have got it wrong. Try and keep the facts straight.

Interest is the biggest

June 28, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 520 growth department, thanks to Ed Schreyer, thanks to Howard Pawley. Mr. Burr ows : Finance depar tme nt-you the members of the government should rename your party. If you choose, you can call it the Finance party, but I prefer the welfare party of Manitoba. The welfare party of Manitoba better describes the tiny-minded Gary Filmon and chief welfare creator, Clayton Manness. Not since the Depression have so many people been on welfare, and your policies are guaranteed to create more welfare.

At least if you adopted the new name, the welfare party of Manitoba, people might forget that it was the same party that drove Canada into the Depression. ' Let us look at some of the results of your cutting back on your commitment to pay your employees. Sure, many of your emp loyees will cope with their pay cuts, including my two daughters who are ha rd-working com mi tted em plo yees of this government and its agencies. What will happen is that they will pay less taxes, so both you and the federal governmen t will have le ss reve nue. Secondly, they will spend less.

Your employees will have less to spend in Manitoba. They will spend less on food, on insurance, on travel, on recreation. Each of these cuts will result in some small business reaching the edge of its ability to survive, laying off em ployees or actually closing their doors. *

(0920) When I recently purchased my car insurance in Selkirk I chatted to the owner of the agency. He indicated that he was worried. He indicated that people were cutting back, buying the minimum insurance possible or maybe letting their insurance lapse. He was worried about his revenue for his small business. House builders should be knocking down your doors with a basic economics lesson . As the biggest emp loyer in Manitoba, if you cut back on wages to your emp loyees and introd uce employment insecurity, a large number of people are elimi nated from buy ing new homes.

Real est ate ag ents are wondering wher e all the customers went. They went to unem ployment or em ployment insecurity. Instead of adding to the insecurity and drop in available spending, you as a government that cares about all the people should be stimulating the economy. You shou ld be joinin g Audrey Mcl aughlin in calling for the resignation of the Governor of the Bank of Canada. We have won the war on the deficit and created a predepression economy. I would like to point out that Europe and Japan are both rejecting the narrow monetarist responses that Canadian governments seem wed to.

The conservative Japanese government, before the scandals became too much for them, had pumped billions of dollars into the Japanese economy to stop an increase in unemp loyment and stem the increase in bankruptcies, and they moved before the Japanese economy moved into recession. The European Economic Commu nity and its members have moved unemployment to primary importance and are rejecting the battle against inflation and the goal of open markets as having too high a price for the domestic economies. If I may quo te from the Toronto Gl obe and Mail' s International Business

section of Monday, June 21 -it is actually a reprint of an

article from The Wall Street Journal-and I will not read the whole thing, I will just pick a few paragraphs here: "EC focuses on creating jobs, European leaders to address soaring unempl oyment in commu nity summit," by Peter Gum bel and Charles Goldsmith of The Wall Street Journal, Paris. "Western Europe's economic orthodoxy is under attack. "Faced with soaring unemploymen t, expected to reach 12 percent next year and a recession far deeper than ex pected, European Co mmuni ty governments are increasingly tempted to relax their tough anti-inflation stance of the past decade.

"In its place is a new, politically driven focus on creating jobs, even if it means higher government spending. "Governments fear social unrest could develop unl ess something is done to reverse the trend towards more unemp loyment. Moreover, with important elections due in Germany, France and elsewhere in the next 18 months, the political pressure for action is rising. "The domina nt economic principles of the 19 80s-that stable, non-inflationary growth would create jobs-is being pu shed aside .

Bu dget deficits are now growing in most EC nations, particularly Germany and Britain, as governments try to spend their way out of recession.

521 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 • 'The conventional wisdom was that if you get a level of economic growth, you can expect to create jobs. But in our case it's not true,' says Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds. "Similar arguments resound in other EC states. 'Low inflation cannot be the sole end of economic policy,' stressed Kenneth Clarke, the new British Chancellor, in his first major policy speec h"-a conservative, if I might point out.

"And in France, Philipp e Seguin, pres ident of the national parliament"-an other conservative-"this week laun ched an attack on gove rnment economic policy. He said that the problem of unemployment wrongly had been 'relegated to second place after the defence of the currency, the reduction of public deficits, productivity and the promotion of free trade.'· He is attacking the conservative economic policy of the previous socialist government.

"For some, a swift conclusion to the world trade talks under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade would help improve the dour economic clima te and help boost em ployment. But that assumption now is being openly questioned by Mr. Seguin and othe rs, who argue that GATT is outdated and the unfettered free trade it represents would speed the demise of European jobs. The EC should remain a single market, but one that is much tougher in defending itself against the United States and Asia, Mr.

Seguin argues." Some similar issues, I would point out, that we may be soon facing with the North American Free Trade Agreement and what is happening to us under the Canadian Free Trade Agreement. The same

article has a graph that show the inflation rates since 198 0. It will be difficult for you to see from here. The inflation rate has dropped from 12 percent to 4 percent in the Eu ropean Commu nity. The companion graph shows that during the same period, the rate of unemployment moved from just under 6 percent up to 12 percent. The deficit has skyrocketed from 3 percent up to over 6 percent of the gross domestic product of the European Economic Community.

It does not require a great brain to see that the lowering of the rate of inflation has resulted in an increased deficit and an increase in the rate of unempl oyment. It is also obvious that the same is true in Canada. Closer to home, here in Manitoba, I would like to talk personally about the economic policies of the Manitoba welfare party and their impact on people who want to work and cannot or are working and have no money. I have worked in the inner city of Winnipeg off and on over the last 20 years.

In the last two year s, I have been invo lved as an economic development consultant in the inner city of Winnipeg creating jobs. I have had people who wanted to work, who were dying inside from being unemp loyed. I will not use names, but I will tell you just about a couple of these people. A young native man who had worked full time since he was 15 years old, now unempl oyed, angry at himself and at you and at me. He feels that this economy and society have failed him. Another aboriginal man who had fought his way to get his apprenticeship as an electrician helped build our hydroelectric dams.

He is a qualified electrician, but he has no work. He is losing his car. He is losing his house, and he is losing his sens e of faith in this economy that he had developed when he was able to get training. He wants to work. He is fully trained, but I fear his anger. I fear the anger of others like him. The people of the inner city do not want more welfare from the welfare party of Manitoba. They want jobs. When the unem ployment rate is 3 percent, the welfare rate of Manitoba is minuscule. If you think that the society escapes unscathed when you have a high unem ployment rate, then you have not read the paper.

If the young people who are making up the gangs that are responsible for the increased property crime in Manitoba had good paying jobs and job prospects, you would have a safer society. Our seniors have for the first time achieved, on the whole, a sense of economic security, and you take it away from their grandchildren. You also put people at risk because you are responsible for the increase in crime. If people have decent jobs, they do not commit crimes. Look at the statistics in your jails. I worked in your correctional system for 10 years.

The welfare party of Manitoba's usual reason for cutting the salaries of people who fight forest fires, clear the snow off our highways and counsel sex

June 28, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 522 offe nders is that the deficit is too high. Is that correct? Floor Comment: No, the interest rates are too high. Mr. Burrows: Ah, so you agree that the Governor of the Bank of Canada is keeping the-the interest rates are too high. So you agree that the Governor of the Bank of Canada is maintaining the interest rates too high for Canada? The deficit is only going to get bigger if you maintain these policies.

I think it is interesting that every year governments have projected that they are going to cut the deficit, and every year it gets bigger because they do not loc;�k at the revenue side. Also, if you listen to Professor Ruben Bellan of the University of Manitoba Economics Department, you would know that the issue is not the size of the deficit, which is really well within the capacity of a province to repay if the interest rates were lower, if it stimulated the economy. I just want to quote a little bit from an

article by Professor Ruben Bellan from Policy Options. It is a very long

article so I will only pick a certain part of it: Are we a doomed people because the national debt is already very large and it is likely to keep rising substantially? Will we prevent that doom or at least delay it only if we manage to reduce the government's annual budget deficits? Will we hasten it if we incur even larger deficits? Must we resignedly accept the economic waste and social harm of unemp loyment caused by inadequacy of effective dema nd because, if the government enl arged that dem and, it would in crease its deficits? *

(0930) Our historical experience sharply denies the warning that large increases in the national debt with their accompanying increases in the size of interest payments- Mr. Chai rperson: Mr. Bu rrows, you have app roxima tely th ree min ut es le ft in your presentation. Mr. Burrows : Okay. I will have to cut this. I would like to give you all of it, because the basic thesis of Professor Bellan is that the issue is not the deficit but who do we owe the money to. I think the error of the provincial governments is who are you borrowing money from.

I will agree, when I worked back in the government under the NDP they began this borrowing money offshore, which I think was a failed policy. I would like to point out that I am a holder of Manitoba HydroBonds. I think it is very interesting that you have to cut off the sale of Manitoba HydroBonds so qu ickly, be cause so many Manitobans and Canadians want to buy them. I am not sure this year, but last year I had to get my money in a hurry, because they were about to cut off the sales.

I would project to you, Sir, that with proper marketing and with proper eff ort, that there is a massive amount of Canadian money that people would like to lend to you at reasonable interest rates. If you switch to borrowing from Manitob ans in stea d of Japanese, we would be in quit e satisfactory financial shape, excellent financial shape, and do not say it cannot be done.

If I have not convinced you that cutting back on spending by paying your em ployees less is bad economics-! hope I have convinced you of that-then I would like to propose some spending cuts that differ from your proposed direction, some spending cuts that may not belie the name of this committee, the Economic Development Committee. These spending cuts would cause much less harm to the people of Manitoba and the economy. First of all, simple, cut all government grants to Balmoral Hall and St. John's-Ravenscourt.

This will save over $2 million this year and an increasing amount in future years, and impact people who are well able to pay the full fees. It will also save the welfare party of Manitoba an em barrassing conflict of interest scandal, which will be revealed in the coming weeks. Second, cut all consultants. These are the people who have not passed the screening of the Civil Service Commission, so Manitobans have no idea of their competence. They have not passed any merit principle. They are not memb ers of the civil service of Manitoba.

Actually, I would be interested to know if they are also receiving a 5 to 10 percent cut in their contracts, people who are working for you as consultants. Third, if it is necessary to cut salaries of people at all, then people earning over $50,000 a year are the most likely not to be spending their money in Manitoba, most likely to be spending it outSide of Manitoba. A large cut of 25 percent of the incomes

523 LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 of people earnin g over $50 ,000 a year would provide you with sufficient income, combined with the other two actions, to give you an equivalent cut to what you are achieving by the present cuts. The money would be coming from people who are in better condition to afford it, and I would add that I also faxed similar advice to Premier Bob Rae who I think is very unfortunately following your actions. Mr. Chair person: Unfortunately, Mr. Bu rrows, your time is expired. Mr. Burrows: I understand. One last statemen t.

These three actions alone will save you more than penalizing your comm itted, hard-working civil servant s. Mani tobans want to work, to be productive, to pay taxes. Please think of our giants like John Diefenbaker and Ed Schreyer. Stop cutting the incomes of people who need their salaries to live. In ves t in an em er ge ncy employment program. You will be judged whether you are able to learn from history. Up to now you have appeared uncaring and stupid. You have a chance to show Manitobans that you are not stupid and that you do care. Thank you very much. Mr. Chai rpers on: Thank you for your presentation, Mr.

Burrows. I will now call on Mr. Ron Oberlin. I will now call upon Mr. Mark Olafson. Did you have a written presentation, Mr. Olafson? Mr. Mark Olafson (Private Citizen): No, it fits is in my pocket. Mr. Chairperson: That is okay. You may proceed then. Mr. Olafson: Good morning, everybody. I am a memb er of the In te rnational Brothe rhood of Electrical Workers, Local 2034. I would like to believe that I am here this morning to speak on behalf of some of the younger of the 2,400 IBEW memb ers.

The reason for my being up here this morning is to express my distaste for the proposed effects of Bill 22 on my and my fellow mem bers of the IBEW lifestyles. As a person in my early 30s with a young family at home, I feel it is my duty as a Canadian to stand up and be he ard at these comm ittee hearings. I stated I have a young family at home, and my protective instincts become aroused when I am asked to unfairly bear the burden of a government whose spending practices have put my and my children's future in jeopardy. I do not mind paying my fair share for past governments' mistakes in polic ymaki ng.

But when I look over to my neighbour-he works in the private sector, by the way-and see that he is not paying the same price for past gove rnmen ts, I start to wond er what country am I living in. Then I start to think that he and I may not be equal. Can this take place in the Canada that I want to live in? Apparently, you should be picking up on some of the anger that you are creating by trying to enact Bill 22. I would like to point out that my anger should act as a mir ror for you as to wha t the rest of Manitobans are feeling.

I feel that it is necessary to point out to you that no one in the circles that I travel in is pleased with the governments of today. People are disillusi oned by a syste m of government that no longer listens to the people. Special and corporate interests have taken over the system and left Canadians no longer equal. Now that you know me on a personal level, let us talk about the issue, Bill 22, on a labour level.

As an em ployee of Manitoba Hydro and a memb er of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, I personally lay my life on the line as a lineman for an electrical utility with a bargained-for collective agreement. This agreement was bargained for and achieved through the collective process under the guidelines of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act. If I could, I would like to read an

article from that act. The title a�ove the act is "Obligation to act fairly," the

article number is 80(1 ). "Every collective agreement shall contain a provision obliging the em ployer, in ad minis tering the coll ective agreement, to act reasonably, fairly, in good faith, and in a manner consistent with the collective agreement as a whole." Si nce you have extended your arm out to em brace Manitoba Hydro, I have to consider you as my emplo yer. Reas onable, fair, good faith- someone in your government must have said these words at some point. It must have been long ago, because they have been forgotten now.

This bill is cou nterproductive to the bargaining process and leaves us younger people wondering if we can ever trust the government again. This being the second time you have interfered with the collective bargaining process and my personal pocketbook, it will not be soon forgotten. The

June 28, 1993 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 524 claims of saving money still need to be addressed. Saving money is important at this time, but to tell certain work groups they must pay more than other Manitobans is inequitable. Equality is all we as a work group and I as a Canadian ask for. It is my belief that when the government's theme is the word "equal," they will skyrocket to power. I would just like to ask you to remember these words. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Olafson. *

(0940) Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):, I take it you think -well, you said that this bill is counterproductive to the bargaining process. Do you think it is also counterproductive to solving the problems that the government is facing with regard to the economy? Mr. Olafson: Not necessarily counterproductive to the saving of the economy, but as I stressed in my speech, equal and equality are the words that people want to hear out there. Most people realize what is required to be done. I mean, past mistakes, their mistakes, let us learn by them and move forward. Mr.

Plohman: I am just asking if you believe this is the way to do it, or do you have other suggestions? Mr. Olafson: No, I am not a politician. I do not have other suggestions. I mean, everybody likes to rant and rave and think they know what is going on, but as a personal citizen, my job is a lineman for Manitoba Hydro. This is what we elect the elected members for. It is their job to find the solutions. Mr. Plohman: Well, I think you are right, and I think we have to get advice. The government certainly has to get advice from the public and people like you, though.

You obviously think this is unfair, so really what I was just trying to ask is whether you had some ideas of what could be more fair in terms of achieving both the expenditure reductions and also stimulating the economy. I wondered if you had some ideas about how we could suggest to the government that they be more equitable, because I agree with you that this is singling out some people for a massive tax increase, and other people are not shouldering the same burden. Mr. Olafson: I myself am in favour of a straight tax system across the board. I believe a few days ago, or earlier on in the process, I heard Mr.

Man ness say the Pocklington policy. I totally believe in that. I am just as equal as everybody sitting at this table. I do not believe that I should have to pay any more than anybody else sitting at this table. I say a straight 5 percent on $1 0,000, 5 percent on $20,000 and so on. Therefore, I would feel as if I am totally equal to all of my neighbours and everybody sitting in this room. If I choose to work hard and earn more money, I want that money to stay in my pocket knowing that I have paid my fair share. I am not a believer in the progressive tax system.

If I choose to work hard, take on two, three jobs, I want to keep what I have earned and give it to my family and also spend it on myself. Mr. Plohman: So just to get a better idea of what you are saying. You are not advocating a progressive flat tax. In other words, I was trying to get an understanding-[interjection) Well, flat tax would be on a certain amount of money. You said five-[ inte rjection) Well, you could have a progressive flat tax. The Minister of Rnance (Mr. Manness) is saying flat tax on the first $10,000- Fioor Comment: Progressive flat tax. Mr. Plohman: Well, you could have. Mr.

Chairperson: Order, please. Mr. Plohman: I want to ask about that, because the individual is recommending a flat tax, he said 5 percent on the first $1 0,000 and 5 percent on the next $20,000, and I wondered whether he meant an increased rate as you go up higher. In other words, something a little bit progressive. I know people are remarking about this-flat taxes are not progressive. But what you are saying is that you would not change the rate, even if you go up to a higher income level. You would still maintain it at the same flat tax as you would for the lower level income people. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Olafson: Yes, that is what I am saying. Equality is the key to being a Canadian is my belief, and also a Manitoban. If anybody is asked to repay government's past mistakes, I would like to see it done fairly and that is everybody, whether you make $8,000 or $9,000. Those people that make that amount of money, usually it is by choice, sometimes by circumstance. I just feel there are the go-getters and there are some that fall behind, and I would like to see

525 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 everybody pay the same, no matter what their circumstances. Mr. Plohm an : So you are really saying that a person at the poverty level should be taxed at the same rate as a person making $75,000, $1 50,000 a year. Do you think that is fair? Mr. Olafson: The same rate, yes. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairperson, I find this discussion kind of interesting, because I do not know if it is well known or not. I hear people coming and making presentations here and saying, well, make the rich pay more.

I would like to share with this committee-! was talking to a very senior civil servant, and because the first reductions from our pay, I think, just occurred the last pay cheque, I was asking this person the impact on their net take-home pay. The impact was virtually nil. It was around 20 percent, because, of course, the person has such a high marginal tax rate. We have such a progressive tax system here that they are losing basically 60 to 70 percent of the marginal dollar. So when the reduction comes in, of course, they do not lose much on the net take-home.

It is the tax coffers, it is the consolidated revenue fund that loses the money. So never let it be said that we do not have the most progressive tax system in Canada. Let it never be said that those earners today, making beyond $60,000 or $70,000, are not paying an overwhelming amount of tax at the marginal rate-[interjection] No, no. There are not just three rates. There are surtaxes all over the place on top of those three rates, provincial, federal, and surtax on the surtax in some cases.

I was astounded to see that the impact was basically net take-home pay, was only a reduction, and do not quote me on this, of 20 to 30 percent. So, sir, I hear what you are saying. We have an incredible progressive tax system in place. I say it mainly for the record, because many presenters have come forward here and said make the rich pay as if the rich are not giving away almost every part of their marginal tax dollar over $50,000. Mr. Ol afson : Yes, I myself was somewha t amazed when I did hear presenters. I have sat in on approximately 1 0 hours of this. I do not agree with that system at all.

I mean, everybody works to improve themselves. That is basically what this country is all about, and I do not think that anybody tries to get out of paying their fair share, but they do not want to pay any more than their neighbour. When I invite people over for dinner, and in conversation one person says how much they paid, and the next one says how much they paid, we do not feel equal sitting around the table. Mr.

Manness: I would ask the presenter then, he figures equality is through the tax forum, I tell you the reason that we would not take a bill like this-1 do not think we would have the power provincially to take it beyond the civil service and apply to the private sector. In the first instance, we are aware of many labourers within the private sector, over the course of the last two or three years, who have had to voluntarily roll back wages, not by 2 or 3 percent, in many cases 1 0 or 15 , not all, certainly not all.

It was because of that we never, even if we did have the power, we would be very reluctant to impose yet another reduction, because voluntarily many groups in the private sector, just to maintain their jobs period, have seen the wisdom of rolling back their wages very significantly. Now I cannot say that your circle of friends, the people who you talk to on a social basis, whether they would be part of that or not, but we are aware of many groups in society who have voluntarily rolled back. So it was on that basis we said, well, we are probably ·best not to get involved within the private sector. Mr.

Olafson: I realize that, but making statements like that just does not wash, I am afraid. You know, private sector rollbacks, who knows why they are rolling back. It could be government policies that are causing them to do this. I believe in most cases it is poor management, incentive programs that make businessmen out of people that are not businessmen just because the money is available. I mean, to make a statement as you did, I do not quite agree with it. I would just think less government is better.

If you let the businessmen be businessmen, stop the incentives, the free money, possibly make the money available but make them pay it back, and with interest. It just seems any incentive program, you get the people who jump on the bandwagon

June 28, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 526 just because they know the system and they know how to get this money. I myself do not know that system, and I believe it would be hard for me to get any kind of monies. I just feel that government is to set policies. As for the stimulation, if there is no need for a product, do not stimulate just to get jobs and the ballots. Mr. Doug Marti ndale (Burrows) : Mr. Chair person, I would like to ask Mr. Olafson, would it be correct to say that you have two major concerns, one being that this bill violates the terms of your collective agreement. Is that correct? Mr.

Olafson: Not directly, but indirectly, yes. Mr. Martindale: Your second concern is that a pay rollb ack is unfair. That is your second concern? Mr. Olafson: Yes, definitely. I feel that I cannot look my neighbour in the face, not that I am holding anything against him, but he and I are not paying the same amount for past governments' mistakes. *

(0950) Mr. Martindale: You also said that you do not mind paying your fair share. Last week, we had people here with suggestions about things that would be more fair, and someone suggested that all government suppliers should be required to take 4 percent less, and across the table here govern ment members said that they are. We do not know that they are unless the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) or the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) wants to give us information on the record. Floor Comment: Do you take less? Mr. Martindale: The member for Emerson (Mr.

Penner) is asking me if I am taking less, and, yes, my wage is being rolled back 4 percent. I am happy to put that on the record. That is true. So I am wondering if you think-[interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Mr. Martindale is ask ing questions of the presenter. Mr. Martindale has the floor. Mr. Martindale: Do you think it would be fair if the government sent a signal to the public or to say, we are just not going to assume that suppliers are taking 4 percent less? We are going to put out a press release or pass legislation saying that all suppliers to government are taking 4 percent less.

Do you think that would-well, now the Conservative members on the committee are saying they are taking less. We do not know that. You are saying that-pn terjection] Mr. Chai rperson: Mr. Martinda le, to ask questions of Mr. Olafson. Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I would like to ask Mr. Olafson: Do you think that would be a good signal to send to the public and taxpayers of Manitoba and civil servants if there was another group in society, namely, suppliers to government?

Presumably the government spends millions and millions of dollars purchasing supplies either directly to government departments or hospitals and othe r govern ment -f unde d organizations. Do you think that would be a good thing to do to say, we are going to require all suppliers to take 4 percent less? Would you feel that this would be fair, because there would be another group that was taking less as well as civil servants? Mr. Olafson: You are asking me to make a judgment on a situation that I really do not know anything about.

Whether these people are on a fine line from a business standpoint, I really do not know, and to ask them to take a cut might cause them to put themselves in a bad business position. Along that line of thinking, I would like to comment that the government really should be picking up all of these supplies using a little bit of buying muscle. They really should be buying all of these supplies at pretty much cost, I would think. [inte�ection] Well, I mean, if that is the case, I really do not know; and to be asked to make a judgment on a business proposal, I do not think is quite fair.

Everybody needs to bear the brunt of all of this. If you could show me that they are paying too much for this and the sup plier is mak ing an overabundance of money on these contracts, then I would support that. If the manufacturer is running a fine line, then I mean how could I support it. Mr. Martindale: Mr. Olafson, I heard you say that you do not believe in stimulating the economy just for the sake of stimulating the economy to increase demand.

However, the government does have a very firm proposal bef ore it from the City of Winnipeg for an infrastructure renewal program which would take 2,000 people off city social assistance, would create jobs and would improve our streets and sewer systems, et cetera, in the city of Winnipeg. Do you think that this is a reasonable effort to both create jobs and get some much

527 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 needed work done on the streets and sewers in the city of Winnipeg? Mr. Olafson: Well, again, you are asking me to make a judgment on something that I am really not familiar with. If it is good business sense, then I agree with it. If it is taking money and throwing it in the so-c alled garbage, then I do not agree with it. How I can make a judgment on something like that, I think that is the whole problem with people or go vernments of today that every issue is so confusing.

This is why we elect you people to hammer these things out, and when we see results that we do not like, then we will get rid of you. I mean, that is about the bottom line here. I would just like to add that under Bill 22 here we might be seeing a few people who think they have joined the Alberta NDP party. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Olafson. I will now call upon Catherine Collins. A Mr. Guy Bouli an ne. Mr. Richard Ke rylko . Mary Ann Mihychuk. Mr. Richard Park. Mr. Darryl Buhr. Mr. Wally Johannson. Mr. Randy Taylor. Beth Stambrook. Mr. Jack VanMulligen. Mr. Paul Williamson.

Mr. Rick Farley. Ms. Gloria Wilkes. Mr. Andy Couchman. Mr. Plohman: I just wanted to clarify, the ones with the asterisks are being called a second time-is that correct? Mr. Chairperson: That is true. Mr. Plohman: And the rules that we agreed to is that if they are called a second time, they cannot present if they are not here for the second call. Is there any particular reason why they are put up so close to the beginning of the list in this case? Is there some correlation with when they first were called? Mr.

Chairperson: My understanding is that they were placed early in the list at the beginning of the process, and this is why they are coming up on an early process again for second recall. I will then proceed by calling Dr. lan Goldstine. Mr. Rick Burns. Mr. Ed Blackman. Did you have a written pr esentation, Mr. Blackman? Mr. Ed Bl ac kman {Private Citizen) : Yes, I believe it is- Mr. Chairperson: Yes, it is being passed around right now. You may proceed, Mr. Blackman, thank you very much. Mr. Blackman: My name is Ed Blackman, private citizen, will soon be private citizen. Good morning, Mr.

Chair, and members of the comm ittee. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity. I am appearing before the legislative committee on Bill 22 as a private citizen to express my opposition to the bill. Bill 22 gives the public employers the unilateral right to impose on them some 15 days off without pay each year in a two-year period. The bill also declares that this is time off and is not a layoff. I will be speaking today about the effects of the bill on collective bargaining, on public sector employees, on services and on our community.

I will also be discussing alternatives to Bill 22. � (1 000) In early 1991, Premier Filmon went on record in the Legislature in support of free collective bargaining by saying: We will act in good faith at all times in this free collective bargaining process with all employees with whom we have to negotiate. Since then Premier Filmon and his government have shown their complete and utter disregard for the collective bargaining process by introducing bills which take away the rights of working people, first through Bill 70 and now through the introduction of J3ill 22.

This is something that cannot be tolerated in a free and democratic society. Whenever any segment of our society has its rights removed and we sit back and let it happen, then it lays the groundwork for all of our rights to be taken away piece by piece. Consequently, I am here speaking up today against the bill because it unfairly targets the public sector and takes away important and hard-won rights of that group. Who will be the target next? There are many effects this bill will have on employees.

The first and most obvious is that it takes away needed dollars from the pockets of public sector workers and their families. Just like everyone else, public employees are suffering through this recession. Many have spouses who have lost jobs or had their income cut back. In other cases, parents and even sometimes brothers

June 28, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 528 and sisters have become dependent on public employees wages to help them out. In cases where the bill has not been applied directly, it has been used as a threat to negotiate concessions from working people. In the City of Winnipeg, due to the provincial government cutbacks in gr ant s and due to the threat of furloughs being imposed, CU PE Loc al 500 members were forced to take a pay cut to help save jobs of their co-workers. The same can be said of the Convention Centre workers.

Prior to the rollback, these workers had lost 13 percent of their salaries to inflation over the past 1 0 years. Just as city employees at:e not the cause of the city's financial problems, government workers are not the cause of the province's economic woes. As a government and an employer, the province should be setting an example for others. Good organizations will tell you that their employees are their most valuable resource and should be treated as such. This government, by making its employees the scapegoat for its failed economic policies, is saying exactly the opposite.

That attitude, unfortunately, will be reflected in the workplace. This government purports to be concerned about productivity in the civil service yet, through its own policies, it seems to destroy any hope that the best productivity can be achieved. Freeman and Medoff, in their book, What do Unions Do?, studied the effects of good and bad labour management relations and found this, and I quote: Productivity is likely to depend on the state of labour-manage ment relations. When those relations are poor, management is likely to have trouble getting high productivity.

When they are good, workers and management pull together for the benefit of the firm. Three studies have examined the link between productivity and the state of industrial relations at plants, and all three have found strong support for this proposition. Along the same lines, the government of Manitoba has a number of Total Quality Management initiatives running through the civil service. The founding principles of Total Quality Management are that employees are the most important resource and that they know about the operations and should be involved in the decision making.

Most important is the commitment that the employer must make to its employees for TOM to be successful. Tom Peters, author of In Search of Excellence, wrote about TOM, and I quote: The heart of quality is not technique. It is a commitment by management to its people and product, stretching over a period of decades and lived with persistence and passion. Just as the provincial government has failed in its commitment to its employees, so has it failed in its commitment to its product, public services. Continual cutb acks have resulted in the deterioration of some services and the elimination of others.

To add to this problem, Bill22 takes away public services on designated days , removing these needed products for many users who are counting on the services being there. For all of us, it creates a mass confusion about when government services are available. According to the government's own figures, Bill 22 will save some $1 5 million. Yet it will take $1 29 million from our economy through lost wages and purch asing power of publi c employe es. The effects, though, will be much greater. (Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair) Public employees will pay less taxes as a result of lower incomes.

They will also spend less. Their reduced purchasing power will mean reduced profits for businesses and lower income for their employees. This in turn will result in less tax being paid by businesses and their affected employees. In the long run, it is doubtful that the government will really save anything. Removing Bill 22 and spending $15 million by government will add that $12 9 million back into the economy since it is well known that the lower- and middle-income earners tend to spend all their pay cheques in the community. This is a significant return for the money, a return of some 760 percent.

Government spending is not a waste, as some people would have you believe. It is an investment in our community. It provides a myriad of services such as health care and education; it builds and maintains our provincial infrastruct ure; and it sustains our social and safety programs. The Filmon government has introduced Bill 22 , presumably as part of its cost-cutting measures aimed at deficit reduction. However, this bill, along with other parts of the Conservative plan, will make the problem worse, not better.

529 LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 If we look at the reasons for the current deficit, both provincially and federally, we will see why. The deficit has increased in the past several years for three reasons: No. 1 , high interest rates; No. 2, an unfair tax system; No. 3, high unemployment. The government's policies do nothing to address these issues. In 1984 when the Conservatives came to power federally, the debt was some $207 million. It might be 26 0. I stand corrected on that- Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): 160. Mr. Blackman: 160? Mr. Enns: Do not believe Reg. Mr.

Alcock: Your point is still the same. Mr. Blackman: The point is still the same, and we will check the research on that. Recent figures show that the debt, and we got this from a research economist in a discussion and this is the figure that was used, was $207 million, and they also went on to say that the debt is now $453 million. That is more than double the original figure. Pretty good for a government whose policies, we are told, were necessary to attack the deficit. Why is there so much focus being placed on the deficit anyway? That is what John Hotson asked and answered in his

article which appeared in the September 1992 issue of FIND Report. I quote: When World War II ended, the national debt was more than twice as large, relative to the GNP, as it is now. But was the country ruined? Did we have to declare national bankruptcy? Far from it. Instead, Canada's economy grew, and the country prospered for most of the postwar period. Why is the same thing not happening today? Why was a much larger national debt shrugged off in 1945 while today's smaller debt is being used as an excuse to let the economy stagnate? The answer can be found at the Bank of Canada.

During the war, and for 30 years afterward, the government could borrow all it needed at low rates of interest, because the government's own bank produced up to half of all the new money. That forced the private banks to keep their interest rates low. Since the mid-'70s, however, the Bank of Canada, with federal government approval, has been creating less and less new money, while letting the private banks create more and more money.

Today our bank creates a mere 2 percent of each year's new money supply, while the private banks gouge the government, and, of course, you and me and other Cana dians as well, with outrageously high interest rates. High interest rates are one of the major reasons for the deficit. But other factors enter it as well. A 1990 Statistics Canada study showed that 50 percent of the deficit was due to tax breaks to corporations and wealthy Canadians, 44 percent was due to high interest rates, and 6 percent was due to government spending.

While we do not have figures available for the provincial debt, the three issues that affect the federal deficit also have a major impac t on provincial revenues and expenditures. Between 1986 and 1989, for example, corporate profits rose some 34 percent while corporate taxes declined by 20 percent. In contrast, direct personal taxes went up by more than 32 percent. Canada's corporate tax rate is the lowest of all of the G-7 countries, and our individual tax rates are the highest. Neither the federal government nor this provincial government has done anything to correct the unfairness of our tax system.

As Leonard Shifrin wrote in the Free Press on February 15, '91, and I quote: The bloated interest payments the federal government has been paying on its debt are a gigantic income redistribution program for the rich. The $40 billion of interest it paid to investors last year is double the total of its old age pension, guaranteed income supplement, and family allowances combined. In other words, we have socialized debt. •

(1010) Since 1984, the federal debt has grown by $246 billion, but during the same period the country has paid out $279 billion in interest on the public debt. If we take away these interest payments, we find that public programs and services operated at what we might call a profit of $33 billion. So the point we are making here is that it is the interest that has caused the difficulties that we are in. In 1993-94 the projected federal budget deficit could be $4 billion, and not $34 billion, if there was a 2 percent gap between Canadian short-term interest rates and U.S. short-term interest rates. (Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

June 28, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 530 There is a myth out there, and it is certainly prevalent among Conservative governments, that the interest rates are not up for discussion because the market sets the rates. But given the ability of the Bank of Canada to throw our country into a recession with its interest rate policy, we can also use the Bank of Canada to lower interest rates, cut government debt, and help bring the country out of a recession. In fact, nine leading economists say exactly that in Bleeding the Patient, a document published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

It is easy to figure out that when people do not have jobs, they do not pay taxes. Therefore the higher the unemployment is, the iower government revenues will be. The more governments cut back and lay off, the higher the deficit will go. Ask most Manitobans today and they will tell you the biggest problem we face is unemployment. Yet this government has refused to provide initiatives that will put people back to work. In 19 92--and this is a staggering figure-$52 6 million was spent in the city of Winnipeg alone on unemployment insurance and social assistance payments.

That is $1 07 million social assistance and $419 million in UIC. That is more than half a billion dollars to keep people unemployed. Aside from the financial costs the social costs of unemployment are also high. We are already experiencing higher crime, especially violent crime, as well as greater family crises and more youth problems. In establishing economic and monetary policies, so often governments overlook the impact of these policies on human beings. The human face of decisions seems not to be considered. People want to work.

They want decent paying jobs, and in a society such as the one we have built in Canada a job should be considered a right not a privilege. The province should be using its power as a government to help put people back to work. Spending on infrastructure programs is one way that governments can provide good jobs, lower the unemployment rate, kick-start the economy, and at the same time get needed work done.

Support for gov ernment spending on the infrastructure is coming from some very nontraditional areas, and I quote: For his part, Donald Savoie, an economist at New Brunswick's University of Moncton, who has advise d the Mulroney government on economic and constitutional issues, says that he is reluctantly adopting the position that the economy is sick, and that public funds would be better spent on infrastructure projects than on cutting government deficits. That was taken from Maclean's.

An American economist, David Anschauer, has found that $1 spent on infrastructure adds as much to the economy as $4 of private investment. Here in Canada where the importance of infrastructure is greater, the returns are likely higher. Here is one that got me, though you hear some words about this in bits and pieces, but this came out just a couple of years ago as Japan saw this recession coming on. Japan's government has committed to spending some $3 trillion U.S. dollars over the next 1 0 years on infrastructure while in the U.S. the government will be spending some $20 billion over the next four years. Mr.

Chairp erson : Mr. Bla ckman , you hav e approximately three minutes left. Mr. Blackman: Okay. The European Economic Community has also been discussing publi c investment in infrastructure as a means to improving the European economy. There are alternatives to the deficit hysteria. A fair tax system is desperately needed along with low interest rate policies and back-to-work programs. For all the reasons contained in this brief, I recommend that the members of this committee withdraw Bill 22 . Mr. Plohman: Yes, just a couple of questions. Obviously, the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) has never advocated in this province that the Bank of Canada go back to the policies of the war period or postwar period of providing most of the money at a very nominal interest rate to provinces and to the federal-print the money at the very nominal interest rate and lend it at a very nominal interest rate to the provinces and to itself. What do you see as a reason why that is not being advocated? Mr. Blackman: It is government policy, and it behooves me-l just do not understand. I was reading some research and tlien asking people about this, and it seems so common sense to do this kind of thing.

It is probably so simple that it has escaped most minds for some reason or another, but I think that it really does not make sense for the

531 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 Bank of Canada to allow five private banks to loan money to governments and wind up putting us in the bread line, so to speak. Why does the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of Canada not change the policies that are literally destroying this country? We just cannot understand it. Mr. Plohman: Yes, well, I think you have illustrated very well in your brief the effects of interest rates and how they have impacted on the deficit and the total debt load that Canadians are being asked to shoulder.

The government seems to say that we have to play by those rules, we cannot change them. I think what you are saying, I think more and more people are starting to say, is that there has to be a change in the monetary policies of this country. We cannot afford to pay private banks huge interest rates for this debt. That is why I was asking whether you had heard any other side of the argument, whether investment is going to dry up in this country. Have you thought about those kinds of things? Because I feel you are on the right track. Mr.

Blackman : The deficit, again, is created by the high interest rates, and why we are allowing it to happen is just beyond me. The tax breaks to the large corporations, that is, the big players that can afford it, are being given breaks, that also adds to the equation, and I am reminded of the research. There was a Stats Canada report that came out that documents this very well where we have a tendency to think that it is social programs and the like that have created the debt, and that is absolutely not true. They have tracked social programs since 1966 and the cost of running the programs has run flat.

Just as the City of Winnipeg and this government and the federal government and our stats indicate, it is the high interest rates that have got us there. Why do we have a high interest rate policy? Then when we have high unemployment like we do, we have 11 percent, 12 percent unemployment. It is probably more like 18 percent in this community. * (1 020) We have infrastructure that is needed, and municipal infrastructure that is needed to be repaired. In the neighbourhood of about $20 billion is needed across the country, and we have all of this unemployment.

People want to work, and we are spending-we do not have it in our brief social services and UIC last year cost this country $35.6 billion to keep people not working. So it is incredible, and then in a city the size of Winnipeg, a half a billion dollars, when the infrastructure is falling apart. It is like watching a home fall apart and you do nothing. Sooner or later, you have got to pick up the tab to repair your home, and that is what we should be doing. So I hope I have answered some of the question and expressed some of the dilemma that reaches me. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Blackman. I would like to make just a brief announcement. The members of the committee have been distributed a new page 3, an updated page 3 of the presenters. That has been presented to you. I will now call on Susan Rawdon. Ms. Marion Bernier. Roger Kirouac. Mr. Dave Hardy. Do you have a written presentation? No? You may proceed then, Mr. Hardy. Mr. Dave Hardy (Private Citizen): Rrst of all, this is only going to take about five minutes. I am going to speak and not answer any questions for two reasons.

First of all, you passed a resolution the first night, the 15 minute and 5 minute resolution and then proceeded to ignore it. People that are speaking for five minutes are having questions asked, more like grandstanding, for 15 minutes, and I do not think that was the point of the resolution in the first place. I do not want to be part of that. Reason No. 2 is I have to get back to work. Number 1: During the '80s, according to the Financial Post, which is the financial bible of the Progressive Conservative Party, the average salary in Canada was 0.5 percent over CPI for that decade-not much, but something.

The union contracts with the government over the last 10 years, including a legislated zero percent by Bill 70 and now minus 4 percent by this bill, excluding merit increases and wage equity, will be about 20 percent less than CPI over the last 1 0 years. I have figured this out, and that is what it is. So I am really failing to understand how it is that government workers are the ones that deserve getting picked on. Number 2: Some people might say, if you do not like it, quit and get another job. I would love to do this myself, personally.

A great idea for a lot of people, but what a lot of people do not seem to understand is that once a person has been working

June 28, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 532 for the government for some period of time, nobody in private business will hire an ex-civil servant. Unfortunately, that is a fact of life, and I wish more people would realize that. As well, the government willingly hired all of us in the first place because there was some job that needed doing, and I think that we deserve a little bit more consideration and respect than we are getting. Number 3: Because of the backlogs that will result from the 1 0-day layoff, there will be backlogs compounding backlogs.

The cheques made out to the province, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) here, will take days and days longer getting into the bank than they would have o�dinarily, and the government will be either losing enough interest on late deposits or paying enough interest on overdrafts so that the net saving to the government will be nowhere near the amount of wages not paid due to the layoff-not a very efficient use of money having it sit in letters in the provincial post office or in somebody's desk who deposits into the bank.

Finally, a question that I have been wanting to ask for a long time of all of the chamber of commerce-type people here or people who have friends in the chamber of commerce who are applauding these layoffs. The question is: Once and if you get your way and civil servant jobs are contracted out at lower wages, or wages are frozen by Bill 70, or our wages are reduced by this bill resulting in thousands of Manitobans having less or indeed no disposable income, no discretionary spending left, who, pray tell, do you think is going to have enough money to spend to keep all your businesses and stores open?

After all, a 4 percent wage reduction may sound quite harmless to some people but is going to be all or half for some big fraction of thousands of people's discretionary spending. There is not going to be anywhere near the amount of discretionary spending left for people to spend on anything other than paying rent, buying clothes and buying food. I would like to hear the chamber answer that question sometime, because I really have no idea, once the discretionary spending all shrivels up in this province, who is going to keep all these people's stores open. That is ali i have to say. Thank you very much. Mr.

Chai rperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Hardy. I will now call upon Mr. Victor Schwartzman. Mr. Reg Perry. Ms. Amy Dellebuur. Mr. Gord Hannon. Anita Lewis. Bob Clasper. Barry Wadsworth. Barry Wittevrongel. Shirley Diakowich. Kevin Richardson. Garry McCowan. Michelle Masserey. Beatrice McTavish . Rob DeGroot . Nadine Semenchuk. Dan Go odman. Barry Wolfe. Rejean La Roche. Kathy Harness. Victor Kuzyk. Mark Miles. Ross Skabar. Shirley Lord. Barry Hammond. Do you have a written presentation, Mr. Hammond? Yes, we will distribute it. You may begin, Mr. Hammond. Mr.

Barry Hammond {Private Citizen) : I think you have heard most of the reasons why the bill is a bad bill, so I will spend little time on that and I will spend mainly some time on the alternatives to the bill. I think Bill 22 is a bad bill and should be withdrawn.

Three major reasons, I think, have led to this decision: No. 1, The bill will not accomplish its goals of reducing the deficit; No. 2, the bill displaces provisions of collective bar gaining agreements already in pl ace; No. 3, I think democracy is aborted, since hearings such as these rarely lead to any significant changes in bills presented by this government. The following will expand on these three reasons for opposing Bill 22 and provide some options which would be significantly superior for reducing the deficit and establishing citizen's confidence in government.

First, removing people from the workforce and cutting services and reducing the income of wage earners lead s to reduced taxes paid and to increased demands for social allowance income and welfare. Consequently, while Bill 22 may appear to be saving money, at the end of the year and beyond it will prove to be more costly. Those affected will need more funds, while the government will receive less inoome in taxes. Secondly, by displacing provisions of collective bargaining agreements already in place, the bill makes a mockery of labour relations processes.

If the rules of such an important process as labour relations can be changed by the passage of a bill, then why should managers and workers spend long hours negoti ating to reach contract agreements? Contract negotiations carried on in

533 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 good faith by management and workers will forever be tainted by this third-party interference. * (1 030) If this bill is not withdrawn or significantly amended, hearings such as these will be recognized as a democratic sham that they have been in the past. Only the appearance of democracy is served by asking for public input if this input is ignored by the government proposing such bills.

Much time and creative thought is poured into preparing briefs which would assist the gov ernment in comin g forth with worka ble legislation that might solve the problems which precipitated the legislation in the first place. If these creative ideas are ignored then it will be clear not only to the citizens who prepared briefs but also to other citizens that the government is deaf to ideas that do not emanate from their caucus. Such ri gidity by those proposing legislation is authoritarian and insensitive to the democratic process. Now, let me suggest a couple of alternatives to Bill 22.

Social costs by government account for about 6 percent of the deficit push that we all notice. Hence, cutting back on social spending will solve less than 6 percent of the deficit problem. The present government of Manitoba must have noticed this fact since all of their "solutions" to cutting the deficit have failed, as will Bill 22 . The Manitoba government, even after pouring in its rainy day fund, will have a deficit of over $570 million. Obviously, cuts to social programs do not solve debt problems.

Likewise , forcing people onto welfare and unemployment insurance or reducing the pay of the working people will not solve any deficit problems since welfare and Ul will cost more money, since reducing working people's wages reduces the taxes that they pay. Brian Mulroney promised in '84 to cut the debt to zero, but in fact it has risen to $450 billion. The Province of Manitoba is in the same predicament. In spite of using up the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Manitoba's deficit is up. Cutting social programs and the wages that taxpayers pay will not reduce the social deficit.

Now, at the end of World War II, when Canada's debt to the gross domestic product was about twice what it is at present, the United States launched their famous G.l. Bill of Rights in which one million veterans were funded to attend university. In Canada equivalent numbers would be 1 00,000 university students. Today we need a U.P. Bill of Rights which would put thousands of unemployed people back in schools and universities. There are 1. 7 million unemployed in Canada at this time, or about that.

If even one-t enth of this number were encouraged to return to studies, Canada would be on the road to future prosperity and well-being. Cutting the time university professors teach and do research has the op posite effect and sends depressing signals to students, faculty and the unemployed. Today our debt to GDP ratio is nowh ere near the levels it reached at the immediate post-war period. Canada and Manitoba should send this positive signal to the people. Tax breaks to the wealthy are the main cause of our present deficit.

Recent Finance department figures show that these tax breaks cost Ottawa and the provinces more than $26.5 billion dollars each year. For example, capital gains deductions and tax deductions for corporations who buy dinners and football tickets for their clients cost the government more money than will ever be saved by Bill 22 . The deficit problem may be diminished at source by reducing the tax loopholes and collecting taxes from those who have ways of avoiding paying their fair share. The amount clawed back by Bill 22 will be insignif icant compared to the tax breaks enjoyed by the wealthy.

Bill22 will not solve any deficit problems, and since this was really the only rationale for the bill, it should be withdrawn immediately. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Hammond. Mr. Manness: Mr. Chairperson, I listened carefully to Mr. Hammond's alternatives, and yet I am troubled, and I go to the third paragraph of his brief, when he says, and I quote from his br ief: "Consequently, while Bill 22 may appear to be saving money, at the end of the year and beyond it will prove to be more costly.

Those affected will need more funds, while the government will receive less income in taxes." I am a person who tries to keep things simple. If I believe that-and I have heard this statement many, many times-then the people would be much better off then following your logic; that if we did just the reverse, we went further into debt and put more people to work, and all the tax money would flow in and our problems would be solved. Is that the way you see it?

June 28, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 534 Mr. Hammond: I see two things. Rrst of all, that will happen, I believe, if people are put back to work. There will be more taxes paid and so on, that is quite obvious. However, I think, whether the debt will be increased will depend again on where the money comes from. I think if it comes from, again, as Mr. Blackman was talking about the Bank of Canada in fact printing the money instead of the kind of banks-which, by the way, get the tax breaks-then I think the deficit will not rise.

Also, of course, earlier we heard today that I think $6 million in Manitoba is going to fund elite private schools. That $6 million could easily be kind of converted, I think, to more job creation programs and other such things without ever increasing dt�bts. Mr. Manness: Mr. Chairperson, I do not want to appear critical, but, Mr. Hammond, I asked you a detailed question and you went all over the map. That is your right to do. I am not one who is overly concerned, believe it or not-you might find this statement of mine hard to believe-with the debt. My big problem is servicing the debt.

They are not necessarily the same issue. I have a lot of personal debt on the farm. If I can keep handling it, I can manage as every business can. What we are talking about here is governm ent debt, not so much in its magnitude, but the ability to service that debt. As I said earlier today, if you were in the audienc e, the fastest growing depar tment in government is not welfare; it is Finance, interest payments. Some would say, let us get control of the interest rate through the Bank of Canada. The reality is we have control on 90-day money, but I do not need 90-day money.

In other words, you and a million of us do not need 90-day money. We need 1 0-y ear money, and the Bank of Canada is powerless to deal with 1 0-year money, absolutely powerless. Why? Because the institutional buyers of bonds, 1 0-year money, what I want to float, are the teachers' pension fund, the insurance brokers, indeed, all the pension funds in the country, and they want maximum yield. They do not want 6 percent. They want 9 percent, and the government is absolutely powerless to force the market to take 6 percent when it wants 9 percent.

The reality is, the reason that the money traders are betting it is going to be 9 percent is that they sense that a government will never have the discipline to balance their budget and will be into the market for hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and billions and will have to pay that 9 percent. [interjection] Charging-w ell, you see they do not charge. It is the equilibrium around market supply and demand that ultimately sets the price. Consequently, the problem is not so much the debt. The problem is the interest on the debt, and, yes, they may be one and the same, but they are a little different.

Mr. Hammond : But what government does have the power to do is tax the banks, for example, who are holding, I think, mo st of the debt, not the pension funds, the banks. The last figure I had was the tax on banks was 8 percent. Somebody talked about justice and so on here. I mean, workers do not pay 8 percent tax. They pay 22, 25 percent. Mr. Manness: Mr. Chairperson, that is exactly wrong. The banks may have a significant share of 90-day money, but when it comes to long-term debt, the long-term debt is in our RRSP accounts. Long-term debt is in the pension accounts. The long-term debt is not owned by the banks.

It is owned by the Canadian citizen, and the Canadian citizen right today is wanting a higher yield rather than a lower yield. •

(1040) Mr. Hammond: As I stated in my brief, and as you heard earlier from Mr. Blackman and from my brief, the main cause of the debt is decreased corporate taxation. This is in the government's purview. The government could easily tax corporations and banks and so on. However, by eliminating something like $29 billion worth of taxes from those things, we have quite a deficit, and we will continue to have a deficit. Social spending is only about 6 percent of this, so this will not solve any of the problems that we have kind of perceived. Mr. Manness: Mr. Chairperson, I was willing to let it drop.

Now I would ask Mr. Hammond, who owns the banks? Mr. Hammond : The banks are mainly owned by the people who make the mol"!ey out of it. Floor Comment: Shareholders. Mr. Manness: Yes, I heard somebody say the shareholders. The shareholders, the people of Canada, for the most part, own the banks, and any money that they make after taxes-- Floor Comment: Foreign ownership. Mr. Manness: No, not foreign owned. Absolutely not. So whether they are credit unions or whether

535 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 they are the banks, they are Canadian owned by the shareholders. Indeed, any money they are given by way of dividends after the taxes are paid, the question is, where do those dividends go? And if they go into the Canadian economy, they go to the Canadian economy as if they were infused by a government. So where does the money go? It goes right back into the Canadian economy. Sure, we can tax the banks more-by the way, the banks make a contribution to the Manitoba Consolidated Revenues somewhere, between two different taxes, around $45 million to $50 million.

So, if we now made that $100 million, all we would do is take away then from the dividends to the shareholders another $50 million, which would not be going into the economy that way. You cannot destroy money. It goes around one way or the other and, ultimately, even that, as long as you keep it in the country, it surfaces. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Martindale: Mr. Hammond, I am interested in your entire brief, but particularly in No. 3 on the first page about the purpose of these hearings and your frustration that they really do not seem to change anything.

My interest comes partly because I am on an ad hoc rules committee of the Legislature, and in the next year we are going to be talking about trying to change the way committees operate here. So I would be interested in knowing if you have some suggestions as to how the committee process could be improved so that citizens like yourself would feel that your views are being taken more seriously or that the views of citizens would be maybe used or incorporated in legislation. Mr. Hammond: I think I have two points to respond to that. I think, first of all, it should not be a sham; it should not be a token.

It should be something kind of real. If we are holding hearings for the purpose of kind of looking at alternatives to the bill, then I think that those alternatives should be kind of weighed in a solid way. The answer to your question is, basically, that I think we should see some results. If the results are never forthcoming, if there are never any changes in the bills, then in some sense I see it as a sham. So I really think that the way to make it democratic is, in fact, for there to be some consideration given to the input and then some changes made in the bills. Mr.

Martindale: Under the current system, that could happen if the government chose to because the government has the power to withdraw a bill or to amend a bill. It really is up to the government as long as we have a majority government. But I am wondering if you think there are ways that the process could be improved. Would it be in terms of timing so that public delegations are heard before second reading, say, after first reading, or when the bill is first distributed in the House?

Maybe you are aware that many bills go to committee the last day of the session or sometimes the last week of the session, and it is not really realistic to think that the government is going to amend them unless there is tremendous public pressure to do so. Do you have suggestions as to how the process and how the public input could be changed or improved in your opinion? Mr. Hammond: Yes, I think that we need task forces, we need panels, we need commissions to study the problems before the bills are created. I think it is much too late to come at this time in some sense to try and deal with the situation.

Long before the bill is in its final draft, I think you should have the public hearings and not at this stage in the game. Mr. Martindale: One area of potential change would be to adopt the system that is in place in Ottawa where committees are made up entirely of backbenchers or private members, and if a cabinet minister wants input, a cabinet minister comes and appears before a. committee just like everyone else. The difference between Ottawa and Manitoba is that the cabinet is a very small percentage of the government in the House of Commons so there are lots of backbenchers to put on committees;

whereas in Manitoba the cabinet makes up the vast majority of government members and there are very few backbenchers. So it is a little more difficult to form committees that would have majority government representation. Now I suppose you could ignore that and still make up commi ttees with opposition and government backbenchers- Mr. Hammond: Or citizens. Mr. Martindale: -and /or citizens who would look at legislation and make a recommendation to the government rather than the government looking at bills and considering what its options are.

June 28, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 536 Mr. Hammond: A much wiser and much more sane process, I would suggest. Mr. Martindale: So would you be in favour of having committees made up entirely of backbenchers and no government ministers on it? Mr. Hammond: Not necessarily. I still think that a broad committee though, including citizens as well as backbenche rs as well as perhaps some government ministers, would be a useful group as a panel, as a task force, as a commission, to study the problem that the bill is attempting to solve. Mr.

Marti ndale: I woul d like to respon d to something the Minister of Finance said at the table. I think this does have a lot to do with this bill because this presenter has said that hearings such as these rarely lead to any significant changes in bills presented by this government. Mr. Manness: Why did you organize so hard to get these people out? Mr. Martindale: Let us hope that the government listens to a: vast number of presentations. Point of Order Mr.

Enns: Wh at I would say, on average 60 percent of the bills that come to this kind of committee get changed and get amended as a result of public presentations, 60 percent of the bills that appear before committee. That is speaking of 25 years of sitting around this committee table; 60 percent of the bills get changed or amended or indeed withdrawn. I would stake my reputation and have the Clerk do a study of the bills that were passed in the last 20 years to see whether or not my statement is right. Mr. Plohman: On the same point of order, a small point of order- Mr.

Chair person : The minister's point of order was not a point of order. Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Plohman, on another point of order? Mr. Hammond's time is vastly slipping away. Mr. Plohman: I think it is important that we put on the record that most of the amendments are as a result of government errors in drafting rather than the presentations from the public. * ** Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Hammond. I will now continue calling. Ms. Jean Altemeyer. Mr. Jim Silver. Mr. Alan DeJardin. Ken Guilford. Dr. John Loxley. Richard Orlandini.

Do you have a written presentation? Mr. Richa rd Orlandlnl (Private Citizen): I did, but I did not expect to be called up this morning, so I did not bring it with me. I was busy trying to submit names from other organizations. Mr. Chair person: Okay, you can proceed with your presentation. * (1 050) Mr. Orlandlnl : I am going to have to wing this. My name is Richard Orlandini, and I am a resident of Manitoba. I say that very specifically because -and this is by way of clarifying some thing that happened a few years ago. Two years ago, I had the honour and the privilege of being the organizer around Bill 70.

I recall, with some dismay, that 3:30 in the morning adjournment after you read off 600 names on a Monday morning. A few days after that , the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province stood before the Legislature and made a statement that the labour movement in Manitoba was in so much disarray that they indeed had to bring in an organizer from Ontario. I take umbrage with that. I am not from Ontario. I have been a resident for six years in Manitoba. I do not like being called an outside agitator. It makes me sound like a damn washing machine. By the way and for the record, the last name is 0-r-1-a-n- d-i-n-i. Mr.

Chairperson: Could you repeat that? I am not sure we got it right. Mr. Orlandlnl: 0-r-1-a- n-d-i-n-i. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for correcting that. Mr. Orlandlnl: Before I get into the substance of my brief, I would like to make some comments about process before these hearings. A few minutes ago-and the reason I came down to the Legislature today is, I tried to submit to the Clerk of the Committee about 50 names. I was told that the Clerk of the Committee would not accept those submissions, that the individuals would have to do so individually, something of a change in rules

537 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBlY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 I would suggest. That certainly was not the rule around Bill 70. I would like to read at this time, into the record, the names of those 50 people because I am not sure that they will all be called. Point of Order Mr. Manne ss : On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, the purpose of this committee is to listen to presentations on Bill 22. It is not to deal with process. It is to listen to a sp ec ific presentation on Bill 22, and I ask the presenter to make a presentation on Bill 22 or to withdraw. *** Mr.

Orlandlnl: The following individuals would like to ma ke a prese ntat ion to Bill 22: Robe rt Chernomas, Mark Gabbert, Charles Bigelow, Sigrid Johnson, Sarath Abeyse kera-1 am speaking to Bill 22, Mr. Chairperson-An iruddha Gole, Paul Phillips, Marie Speare- Mr. Chairperson: I will just interrupt for a moment to tell you the process of committee hearings is that the individuals themselves have to mak e themselves known to the Clerk either by a phone call or by a visitation to the Clerk's Office to be put on the list for presentation.

The reading of the list really has no validity other than the fact that the mem bers that you have men tioned themsel ves would have to personally call or make personal representation to the Clerk. You may proceed with your presentation on Bill 22, sir. Mr. Orlandlnl: The following individuals would like to make a presentation before this committee on Bill 22: Tom Booth, Tony Stee le, Steve Holborn, John Laxley, Peter Hudson, Dan Gie tz, Paul Fortier. Point of Order Mr. Enns: Mr.

Chairperson, on a point of order, I jus t object, and it is obvious to me that this presenter has nothing to contribute to Bill 22 other than to take up some time of the committee and read a list of names of citizens. I am sure that is a worthwhile activity. Any one of us could read a similar list of names into the record. The sad

part is that this gentleman presents himself as having some position with organized labour and cannot bring anyth ing worthwhile to this comm ittee's deliberation with respect to Bill 22. We have been accused as committee memb ers of aberrations of democracy around this table. We are witnessing it right now. It is a blatant abuse of this committee's time by what is happening here this morning. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Chairperson, on the same point of order, and I trust that these points of order will not be usin g up time of the presenter. It was the comm ittee's decision that each presenter would have 20 minutes.

If this presenter chooses to use his 20 minutes in making the committee aware of people who would like to come forward and speak before the committee, I think we should not-you have already taken away their right to speak as long as they choose to speak, the first time I would note, so I do not think you should also be censoring the content. Let him say what he chooses to say in the time that you have allotted him. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairperson, I think it is wrong for this committee and the mem bers here and for the government to pre-empt what Mr. Orlandini has to say. He has not finished his presentation.

He has just begun. He is dealing with some aspects of the presentation. The member for Lakeside said that he has nothing to contribute. He has no basis to make that kind of decision, that kind of statement. I think that it is quite appropriate for any individual to come forward and to indicate the kind of support that they have. That is what he is really saying, that these are other people that he has identified as well who would like to talk to this bill and have not been able to have their names pla ced because of rule changes that do not allow individuals to have their names placed by someone else on the list.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairperson, Mr. Alcock and Mr. Plohman are right, and I withdraw and apologize for those remarks. I was in error. The presenter has every right to make whatever presentations that he has before this committee. The fact that I believe that he is not contributing anything of substance to the bill is of course just my own belief, but I accept the admonition on the part of my Liberal friend Mr. Alcock. I am prepared to listen to the list of names. Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you very mu ch.

All points of orders were taken, but what I will do is I will add another two and a half minutes to the mem ber's presentation. You may continue.

June 28, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 538 *** Mr. Orlandlnl: Having heard those remarks, I will not deal with process any longer except to say that I really find much of what this committee is doing, including the time limitation, an abrogation of our demo cratic rights. Manitoba as a province can take pride in the fact that we have public committee hearings, but what you have consistently been doing to this committee is changing the rules as they accord to yourself and not to the possibilities of the public being heard. The time limitations are outrageous.

You are taking away our democratic rights to really deal in depth with our objections to Bill 22. I would suggest on Bill 22 that the minister and his minions can take no pride in authorship in certain clauses of the bill. The clauses have been used before. In particular, I am thinking in terms of the clause that suggests that Bill 22 overrides all other collective agreements. This is an odious use of legislation, but it is exempli fied by previous legislation, not by this government but by previous governments.

In looking through the historical record, the first refe rence I found to any piece of major labour legislation that used the same kind of clause was in 19 26. The language was Italian. Mussolini, on achieving state power, used the clause exactly like that to beat the labour movement of Italy into subm ission. It was used again in 19 34. The language was German. Adolf Hitler and his labour minister used a very much similar phrase that this leg islation over rides all oth er coll ective agreements. It was used again in Spain 19 39 with the rise of the Franco government after the defeat of the republic.

Most recently, it was used in 19 73, in Spanish again, by Augusto Pinochet in Chili and again it was used as the phrase that this legislation overrides all previous agreements. So you can take no pride in your authorship on this. Far be it for me to sug gest tha t your government is even approximating the reactionary tone of the governments that I have mentioned, but ideologically with your actions you are pointing the way to becoming so. I take umbrage, as well, with a certain aspect of Bill 22 that I find mo st inte resting, but mos t antidemocratic as well.

In the fast three years, I have led a struggle against use of public funds for the financing of private schools and institutions in this province. * (1 1 00) This year, Mr. Manness, in your budget, you put forward something on the order of $6 million to private schools. I find it interesting to note that within the legislation, public school teachers are under Bill 22, university professors are under Bill 22, college teachers are under Bill 22. What is lacking, Mr.

Manness, and it is I think an indication of what you would have your government do in terms of favouritism, is that Bill 22 does not cover the instructors at these private schools. I find that curious. Is it because, for instance, so many memb ers of your cabi net have chi ldren in those private schools? Why are the private schools not included under Bill 22? I am sorry, if the minister has a question, I will be happy to ans wer it. He is obviou sly saying something, his lips are moving. Mr. Chairperson : You may proceed with you r presentation, Mr. Orlandini. Mr.

Orlandlnl : Bill 22 is having an impact as well on other aspects of educational work. Bill 22, in conjunction with the kinds of cuts that we have seen imposed on our uni versities, for instance, jeo pardiz es the kind of rep utation that our universities are able to maintain. I think it throws into question whether or nor we are going to be able to get the calibre of university professors, when they look at the kind of restrictive legisla tion that is com ing forward out of this government.

Whether serious scholars would consider coming to universities when they know that six days of their scheduled school year could disrupt indeed, but they are able to say, No. 1, to their students, and No. 2, to what they are able to do in research. This is a retrograde bill. It has no social merit. I would suggest that if the minister was serious about this kind of bill, he would not be able to put it in the mails in Canada, because there is antipornography legislation, and under the definition of pornography, this bill has no socially redeeming values. That is the conclusion of what I would like to say. Mr.

Chair person: Thank you very much, Mr. Orlandini.

539 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 Mr. Plohman : Yes, just for the record, 1 notice you men tion private schools at $6 mil lion. The Estimates of Education, just being completed, still in progress, and we have learned that the amount is over $22 million for private schools. This is not the elite necessarily, it is all private schools. The elite, some might call exclusionary schools that accept only certain students and so on, is much less than that.

The total private school bill is about $22 mil lion, and it represents a 10 .4 percent increase over last year, while the public school system has received a decrease overall of 1. 5 to 2 percent. So that is the comparison on a school year over school year basis, 10 .4 percent increase.

I note, since there is $22 million going into those schools, you are saying that the bill, if one were to look at any ele ment of fairness and you do not find any redeeming factors in this bill in the first place, but if you were going to look at any element of fairness that it should also apply to the private school funding as well as the public schools. Is thatwhat- Mr. Orlandl nl: Yes, that is my point. I wo uld dearly Jove to hear from the government memb ers as to why they exclude d the private school teachers from this.

If we are looking to fairness, if we are looking to equity, it seems that you are buttering your own bread in terms of assuring that your children can have full teaching staff available for them for their school year when you are not prepared to do that equitably for the public as well. You are punishing those who cannot afford to send their children to these elite schools while you are rewarding those of yourselves who do indeed send children to them . Mr. Plohman: Do you have any suggestions as to what action the government should have taken?

They have talked in the past about, well, either you have to have layoffs or else a shortened workweek. Those are the two alternatives we had. Of course, we have seen in the public service, we have gotten both. We have layoffs, massive layoffs, even increased layoffs after this bill was announced, plus we have the 1 0- to 15 -day cut in salary for civil servants and public service workers across the board. Presenters before you have said that this is going to have a tremendous negative impact on the economy because of the lost spending power and so on.

So I ask you whe ther you would have any specific suggestions for the Minister of Rnance (Mr. Manness) as to how this could have been approached in a diffe rent way so that it would not have that kind of negative impact on the economy of Manitoba. Mr. Orlandlnl: I certainly have a few suggestions. Number one, I think you are going after the wrong element in society to pay for the minister's, what, six budgets, none of which have even been close to the political realities that he was projecting over the six years.

You can stop squandering government monies by sending the Premier and his family and others on junkets to grovel before the new Prime Minister of Canada. You can also go after the taxes that are owed from the corporations in this province. (interjection) You have not, Mr. Minis ter. Balder dash, Mr. Minister. You have not gone after them. There are millions upon millions of dollars owed, and you and your Tory friends are taking advantage of the working people in this province rather than going to where the real problem lies. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Chairperson, Mr.

Orlandini, you are appearing here as a private citizen, but I know you have some involvement with the University of Manitoba Faculty Association. You have indicated that Mr. Chernomas is going to come and present. I am just wondering though if you can sketch in for us some of the impacts of these cuts on class scheduling and availability of services to students who are taking courses this summer, because I understand that is a substantive concern that has come out of the imposition of this bill, and I would just like to get some details on that. Mr.

Orlandlnl: I would not want to steal anyone's thunder that is going to be appearing before this committee, but the impact is substantial. Students are asked to pay a 5 percent increase in their tuition. At the same time, they are taking roughly almost a 5 percent reduction in their scheduled work or classroom time available to them. Muc h research goes on at the University of Manitoba, and it is a joy to work with the people who are doing that kind of research.

They point out to me that in the case of a microbiologist, for inst ance, who is doing work on meth an e production -that should be of concern to this government because it will have direct and indirect impact on the agricultural economy. He is told that his funding is going to be reduced. His bugs do not take off a day of the six days. They are working all

June 28, 1993 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 540 the time, and he has to be there to monitor it. He is doing that research for you for free on those six days. What if he withheld 6 percent of his thesis? The inequi ties of this thi ng are ju st over whelming. You are asking the wrong people to make sacrifices when you are not prepared to call on the areas that owe the most money to this province to make similar kinds of sacrifices. You are cutting into people's budgetary allowances for research.

All the uni versities in Manitoba are having extreme difficulty in terms of maintaining proper accreditation, and this kind of thing will do nothing to attract new scholars to this province . The university can and should be playing a fantastic role in terms of th e develo pmen t of new technologies, things that will gene rate the wealth that is needed to get us out of the six years of financial bungling that the Minister of Finance has brought us into. [interjection] I am sorry, if you have a comment would you like to share it with me? *( 111 0) Mr. Chairperson: I am sorry, the memb er's time is up. Mr.

Orlandlnl: The me mber's time? Mr. Chairp erson: Pardon me. The presenter's time. Mr. Orlandlnl: I have no aspirations for that. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Orlandini. I will now call upon Tracy Libitka and Shaun a MacKinnon. Janice Wart. Elaine Olynyk and Roger Carrier. Dave Cutler. Diana Degagne. Rick Panciera. Rick Ke ep. Debor ah Zan ke. Kevin O'Toole. Paul Moist. Do you have a written presentation, Mr. Moist? Mr. Paul Moist (CUPE, National Research Department): No, I do not. Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed then, Mr. Moist. Mr. Moist: Mr.

Cha irperson, memb ers of the committee, it is a pleasure to appear before you on behalf of my union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees. We have tabled previously with the committee our major subm ission on behalf of our 20,000 me mbers in Manitoba. I just want to touch on three points from that su bmission. One rela tes to free collec tive bargaining and this province along with nine other pro vi ncial gove rnmen ts and the federal governmen t being signatory to the International Labour Organization's Convention No. 87.

Secondly, I want to talk about what I think are the most managed and best performing economies on earth, where there is some sort of a deal been stru ck bet ween labour, ma nagement and government. There is another way. Thirdly, I want to put Bill 22 in some context and read into the record what a couple of towns and school boards throughout the province have said about the government's record, not just on this bill but on other matters. With respect to free collective bargaining, the ILO, the International Labour Organization, was formed in 19 19 .

It was the first standing agency and standing committee of the new United Nations in 194 8. It has 15 0 memb er-states today including Canada. It does two things. In additi on to monitoring world conditions in the area of labour management relations, it adopts conventions and makes recommen dations to member nations. Since 1919 , it has adopted 15 8 conventions and, of lesser relevance, 16 6 recommendations. Although Canada has been a me mber since 1919 , we are part of what is called the 1 0 states of chief industrial importance.

We have only adopted 26 ILO conventions to date, because in Canada, and this is probably a good thing, the federal government speaks for us at the ILO, but the adoption of conventions requires approval of all provinces, all legis latures and te rritor ial gove rnme nts and the federal Parliamen t of Canada. The last convention that we ratified was in March 19 72. It was Convention No. 87, which is the convention which affi rms principles of free collective bargaining among other things. In 19 92, the ILO issued a ruling on this province's Bill 70.

Part of that ruling stated: The committee regrets that the government has not given the priority to collec tive bargaining as a means of determining em ployment conditions of its public servants but rather that it felt compelled to adopt The Public Sector Compen sation Management Act of 19 91 . Secondly, the comm ittee stresses the importance of adequate consultation prior to the introduc tion of legisla tion through which the

541 LEGISLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 19 93 government seeks to alter bargaining structures in which it acts actually or indirectly as em ployer. Thirdly and finally, the comm ittee trusts the government will refrain from taking such measures in the future. I raise all of this, Mr.

Chairperson, and mem bers of the committee, for one reason and one reason alone, to share with you the response of our First Minister, of the Premier, in response to that ruling and to the introduction of Bi11 22 this year, because the governme nt's largest union, the MGEU, has filed ano ther compla int citing a viola tion of Convention No. 87 with this bill. The Premier is quoted as saying in the Free Press: The ILO is not relevant to what is happening in Manitoba.

I guess, as a citizen of the province, and our memb ers being citizens of the province, no matter what stripe of gove rnmen t is in power, it is regrettable when comments like that are made. It seems to me that Canadians are proud of their affiliation with the U.N. Secondly, when the U.N. cites Canada as having the highest standard of living in the world, we sort of take pride in that. When Canadian troops serve in peace-keeping capacities, we all take a bit of pride in that.

When an agency of the U.N. rules that the government of Manitoba has violated free collective bargaining, that is viewed by the Premier as being not relevant. I suggest, from our vantage point, that is a reg rettable but, un fortuna tely, not a surprising comment. I clearly put on the record that it is our belief that Bill 22 will be found to be a similar violation of ILO Convention No. 87, to which this province is a signatory since 19 72, as I mentioned earlier. The second point I said I wanted to raise was labour-managemen t-government partnerships to manage the economy.

It seems to me that some of the more successful nations on Earth, in bad times everywhere, are those gov ernmen ts that have forged such a relationship with business and labour in their economies. I want to read for you one recommen dation of 27 un animous recommendations of the Canadian Labour Market & Productivity Centre. That is a bi par tite co mmi ttee fu nded by the federal government with no political representation on it. It is simply a business and labour organization to try to work together and to make things better in our country.

In March of this year they presented to the minister-th ey report to 27 recommendations, one of whic h was this : We re com men d that governme nts develop effective ongoing working relationships with existing joint business and labour organizations at the sectorial and economy-wide levels. These organizations have a critical role to play in the following areas: No. 1, providing advice to gove rnmen t on public policy; and No. 2, moni toring the implem ent ati on of joint recommen dations by governments, business and labour.

We had last week, at a retreat sponsored by this gove rnmen t at Hecla, the chairperson of that agency, because many of us attended the Economic Inn ovation and Technology Council's second meeting. I was one of about 40 labour delegates and 40 representatives of the business commu nity, and we met to dialogue on matters of mutual interest. I raise that because that is, on the face of it, a positive undertaking to get labour and management together.

But you get a little deeper into it, and there is a very mu ch a feeling amongst labour participants in forums like that and the one held last November over here at the Fort Garry Hotel that many of us in the labour commu nity have adopted, and continue to adopt, principles important to the business commu nity in terms of speaking out in favour of strong job-creation efforts, not only in the public sector, but in the private sector. • (1 12 0) Many of us, myself included, have been involved in groups like Winnipeg 2000. We have .been involved in EJTC subcomm ittees.

I myself have been a previous memb er of the Winnipeg Business Development Corporation. I cannot fathom trying to represent working people and arguing that business does not need to thrive in our economy, and have spent years trying to argue in that direction, and have made subm issions to this cabinet and other cabinets to that effect. But some of the discussion we had at the tail end of last week's conference from the labour delegates was, we do not see a lot happening in reverse.

We do not see very many memb ers of the business commu nity advan cing the importance of the principle of free collective bargaining. Bills, such as Bill 22, undermine the very thing that the EITC council is being created to try to wrestle with. You

June 28, 1993 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 542 cannot, on the one hand, ask for labour to come to a table and be a partner in managing the economy if, on the other, you are taking away one of ours, and our most fundamen tal right, and that is the right to engage in free collective bargaining. Last week was not the type of conference for press releases or public presentations such as this; it was in the context of a behin d-closed-doors session that we spoke very directly to the business communi ty that was assembled there, because many of them are behind and very supportive of Bill 22.

We did that behind closed doors, and we are comm itted to trying to make the EI TC work. It cannot work in the long run if one of the partners being asked to the table , that being labour, is having fundam ental rights stripped away, and the right to collective bargaining is a very fundamen tal right. So we said that behind closed doors last week to Manitoba's business community. We say it into the record today to the government and memb ers on all sides of the Legislature that we do not think such things are bound to succeed when we have to mo nopoli ze so mu ch of our time defending our right to exist.

I said two years ago on Bill 70, and I will say here again today, the prelude to our Labour Relations Act contains a fundamen tal statement of public policy, and, that is, this gove rnmen t and all governments, since that legislation was put in place, recognize and approve of the principle of free collective bargaining as the means of settling wages and working conditions amongst employers and em ployees in the province. It is not the union movement's Labour Relations Act; it is not

an act for the business community solely. It is Manitoba's Labour Relations Act, and it sets out in its prelude its most fundamental principle, and Bill 70 from 19 91 and Bill 22 this year undermine the integrity of that prelude and, in fact, the entire act. Thirdly, I want to put Bill 22 for a couple of minutes in the context of sort of a wider agenda. We will get an opportunity, Mr.

Chairperson, in the next few weeks to speak on other bills before the Legislature, including bills like Bill 16 , wherein this government is seeking to curtail the taxing authority of democratically elected level of government at the school board level. The government's funding announcements. In advance of announcing the decision to implement unp aid lea ves on gove rnm en t em ployees, government began announcing grants to school boards, municipalities and all agencies who receive mo ney from this government, and all of them received Jess than inflation increases, if not outright reductions.

That has been met throughout the province with a number of responses, not just from within the labour community. I will just give you three, because many people in the commu nity do not agree with you, including the labour movement. Friday, June 18 , from the Opasquia Times in The Pas. The Pas town council has decided to put the implemen tation of Bill 22, the reduced workweek legislation, on hold. It was brought up after reports from de partm ent he ads on the ef fects the implemen tation of Bill 22 would have on revenue and operations. The comm ittee felt that the bill should not be implemen ted.

They have got prob lems, and our union represents town em ployees there. We are sitting down with management there to work out any and all methods of saving monies in the operations of that town's activities in the context of the town living up to the three-year collec tive agreement they signed in 19 92, and I believe we will succeed in coming up with those savings.

Two final levels of govern me nt that have commented on this government's track record, not just in the area of Bill 22 but the entire record, Dauphin Ochre School Area No. 1, May 25, 19 93: WH ERE AS the pro vincial gove rnment has recently approved its '93-94 budget; and

WHEREAS included in its budget approval was major cuts of provincial government jobs in the Dauphin area; and WHE REAS these cu tbacks will me an that em plo yees and their fam ilies are leaving the Dauphin Ochre School Area No. 1 ; and

WHEREAS this means a loss of school students and a loss of education grants; THEREF ORE BE IT RESOLV ED that the Dauphin Ochre School Area No. 1 continue to urge the pro vincial gove rnm en t to rev erse and discontinue the cutbacks in service that affect the Dauphin Ochre School Area No. 1. Carried unanimously. Finally, April 26, '93, the Town of Dauphin, and I will not read the WHEREASes: THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Dauphin continue its efforts to urge the provincial gove rnmen t to reverse and dis con tinue the

543 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 28, 1993 cutba cks of job s and services to the town of Dauphin and the surrounding area. Those were only the top papers in a file I have of similar such pronouncements from various towns, town councils and school boards throughout the province. Most of our town councils and school boards where CUPE has dozens, literally dozens, of collec tive agree men ts, wher e for years, pre-dating this legislation and perhaps subsequent to it, we have been bargainin g and com ing to agreements.

They are not always agreements that our mem bers find to be perfect, but they are agreements arrived at in the two-party process and signed and honour ed by both parties for their duration. I will just close by saying, there is a long

section within CUPE's major submission that talks about cuts in services to the public, and Bill 22 has the potential, if only three-quarters of the potential em ployees affected are affect ed, 75,000, to the tun e of 10 days a year, that would more than double the worst year on record for strike lockout days. This really is a form of lockout when em ployees are not allowed to come to work and provide service to the public. You know, the worst year we ever had on recor d was 19 78, 260, 000-odd days lost.

That will be more than doubled by Bill 22 if it is enacted only 75 percent of the way, and we think that is regrettable. We think there is another option, and that option includes free collec tive bargaining and respect for free collective bargaining. The most fundame ntal concern that CUPE has with the legis lation is the fact that it ignores collec tive bargainin g and it sets aside a very fundamen tal right. It mitiga tes against any possibility of us making substantial progress in areas like the EITC forum and other such tripartite ventures. That is not to say we are not committed to working with those.

Rnally to conclude, we use an analogy in our brief: in a fuller economy Bill 22 is akin to 10 0,000 public servants saying midterm in a collec tive agree me nt-let us say unemplo ymen t was 2 percent, you know, full em ployment for statistical argument sake--w e are not coming to work next week unless we get a 5 percent raise. We realize it is not time to bargain, but we really feel hard done by and we are not going to come to work.

I ex pect tha t the government of the day and all the town councils and school boards would immediately proceed to the courts, that injunctions would be granted, that em ployees would be ordered back to work on pain of dismissal. In concept, the only difference between that analogy and Bill 22 is that you have the right to make laws like Bill 22 and employees do not have rights to enac t laws. Apart from that, there is absolutely no dif ference in concept between reneging or, as we use in the hall sometimes in our meetings, welshing on a deal.

When we present deals that are hard sells to our members-and I have presented some of those in my day-we present them for their entire duration, and we do not welsh on the deals that we make. We stand by them even if they are not great deals. We tell people to bring their concerns forward for the next round of bargaining. With the greatest of respect through the Chair to the government, you are welshing on deals signed with 10 0,000 Manitobans. That is very regrettable in light of some of the other initiatives you are trying to em bark on. Thank you. Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you very mu ch, Mr. Moist.

There are ap proxi mately about three minutes left. Mr. Manness: I have a very short question. Mr. Moist, I always enjoy your presentation because it is well though t out. I belie ve it is sinc erely presented. I will not com men t as to whether or not the government has welshed. It is your statement, and it is on part of the record.

Certainly, though, I will indicate what has changed so dramatically in the past over the last 30 years is tha t when demo cratically elec ted governm ents became in volved in an agreement which , maybe in retrospect, was not a good agreement, given the reve nue s comin g to govern men t, of course, governments of the day just went and borrowed mo re mo ney agains t that for the negotia ted contract. Today, government does not have that opportunity. I honestly believe that we do not. Do you bel ieve that the abilit y to honour contracts has any consideration at all, from the fiscal side?

I know we can get into arguments on choices and increased taxes and so on and so forth, but when I survey the landscape I do not see what we are doing differently than many other ju risdic tions. So I mean, is there a fiscal consideration, an ability-to-pay consideration that

June 28, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 544 should ever be considered by government during the term of a negotiated agreement? * (1 13 0) Mr. Moist: Mr. Chairperson, through the Chair, I guess two comments. One, it is our belief that you surveyed the landscape on your own, independent of meanin gful dialogue with represent atives of working people in the provinc e of Manitoba.

Secondly, I mentioned into the record earlier, and I will men tion it again, our union has bargained con tracts, the 13 0-odd contracts we have throughout the province , some very diffi cult collective agreements, collective agreements that on occasion did not contain wage increases, but contained prohibitions for periods of time on contracting out and provided people with security. We present that to our membership. It is a tough sell, but they have ratified those agreements. So I am not of the view that the parties are incapable of negotiating collec tive agreements, despite the economic times that we live in.

Mr. Alcock: I am just interested in your comments of what The Pas has done, and

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-ed15
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf ed15.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	541be90e16ba567917d14de537bb7d3c1262ad98

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