Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 60 (37th Legislature, 1st Session)

37-1-60

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. L No. 60- 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 12,2000 IC"l",_l n.r- An ,.... .,.....,.,....

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy St. Vital N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson N.D.P. ASPER, Linda Riel N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky, Hon. Inkster N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. Brandon East N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUA Y, Louise Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage Ia Prairie P.C. FILMON, Gary Tuxedo P.C. FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. Wolseley N.D.P. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold Minnedosa P.C. HEL WER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN, John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY,Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon. Minto N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PENNER, Jim Steinbach P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren Lac du Bonnet P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim Assiniboia N.D.P. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.J>. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Joy Fort Garry P.C.

SMITH, Scott Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric Kirkfield Park P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. - WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

3915 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, July 12 ,2000 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Comm ittee of Supply Mr. Conrad Santos (Cha irperson): The Committee of Supply has adopted certain reso lutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Mem ber for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that the report of the Committee be received. Motion agreed to. MINIS TERIAL STATEMENTS Flood Forecast Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Highways and Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement.

I want to give the House a further update in regard to the flooding that has occurred because of heavy rains experienced over the last two weeks. I want to indicate that currently we now have resolutions from five municipalities, the R.M.s of Lac du Bonnet, La Broquerie, Stuart bum, Springfield and Headingley which have passed resolutions requesting disaster financial assistance from the Province. In addition to that, Manitoba Emergency Measures Organiza tion has received 43 calls from citizens affected by the heavy rain. Mr.

Speaker, the clear skies we are ex periencing today will have an obvious influence on those conditions and the forecasts for the next few days are equally promising. Manitoba Emer gency Measures Organ ization is working with municipal governments, including the City of Winnipeg, to assess the impact of flooding on residential and commercial properties, along with public infrastructure such as roads.

At this point the role of the Manitoba Emergency Mea sures Organiza tion will continue to be to gather information on what the impact has been of these heavy rains so that we can make an in formed evaluation of the situation. I will keep the House informed of any further develop ments. I also want to indicate my offer to make staff from Emergency Measures available to members opposite for a briefing if they wish.

I can also indicate I have not had the opportunity to talk to the critic yet, but I will be going om to the municipality of Headingley later on, and I certainly would invite the Opposition critic to come along to take a look first-hand. Also, I believe the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) will be looking into the impact on a number of areas as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, well, like yesterday, we on this side appreciate this further information, but I have to start raising the question about the role of this government to sit back and evaluate and gather information.

There are many, many frustrated Manitobans that are being hurt throughout the province and indeed in the city of Winnipeg who are looking for some visible signs of response by this government. I see none of that in the Minis ter's statement. I ask him to continue doing what he is doing and charge his appropriate agencies, whether it is the Emergency Measures Organ i zation. But I will tell you it is assistance that is being sought by many of our citizens who are rapidly drowning in their own frustration and with additional waters coming up on them.

So this House and this opposition will be looking for some direction and action as a result of the evaluation that the Minister proposes in this do cument.

3916 LEGI SLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): I ask for leave to speak on the Minister's statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member have leave? {Agreed] * (13 :35) Mr. Gerrard: I welcome the Minister's state ment and the Minister's involvement in the wet weather disaster that has been going on and may continue to go on. I would suggest to the Minis ter, as well, that it is important that there be some attempt to gather data on the extent of the problem other than just waiting for phone calls to come in.

My experience talking with many Manitobans suggests to me that there are many who are quietly and calmly dealing with water in their basements without phoning the Govern ment, and in that situation we should at least have some assessment of the extent to which this has happened, as well as the extent to which there are problems in the farm community. Thank you. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bi114�The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Agriculture and Fooi.l (Ms.

Wowchuk), for the attached first reading motion, that leave be given to introduce Bill 45, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia pension de retraite des enseignants ). His Honour the Lieutenant- Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. I would like to also table the Lieutenant-G overnor's message, which the page has. I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Agricu lture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk), that the motion now be read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Caldwell: Mr.

Speaker, women who take leave from their teaching positions or other simi- Jar professional jobs in the public school system to have children are currently precluded from purchasing that maternity leave time as pen sionable service. This bill gives women the right to purchase on a cost-shared basis with the em ployer, service relating to a maternity leave, thereby addressing a long-standing issue of equity in the system. Motion agreed to. Bill 48- The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act Hon. Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergovern mental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Selinger), that leave be given to introduce Bill 48, The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les obligations de developpement rural, and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. I would like to table the Lieutenant Governor's message. Motion presented. Ms. Friesen: The major purpose of this bill is to expand the scope of the Act to allow potential investment in eligible businesses in the city of Winnipeg. Because of this, the title of the Act and references throughout the Act are changing to refer to community development bonds. Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the gallery where we have with us today I 0 Korean English as a Second Language students from Winnipeg Technical College, training in the hospitality industry, under the direction of Mr. Richard Iwabuchi. * (1 3:40) On behalf of all honourable members, I wel come you here today. -

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3917 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Labour Management Review Comm ittee Labour Legislation Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (Int erim Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this Premier and his government have tried every thing within their power to try to convince Mani tobans and Manitoba businesses that they are different, that Today's NDP is different from the NDP of old that was run and beholden to the union bosses. Of course, Mr. Speaker, we see an entirely different circumstance today.

We see a govern ment that is beholden to union bosses and in fact is run by union bosses. We see a reversal to the past, to the old days of Howard Pawley. This government is- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We see a government that is literally falling all over itself trying to bring in regressive labour legis lation when it has done absolutely nothing to address the issues or the plight of Manitoba agri culture and Manitoba farmers and farm families. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question for the Premier is: Why did he ignore the report of the Labour Management Review Committee which obviously shows that manage ment had significant opposition to the amend ments that were brought in to the proposed la bour legislation? They were completely ignored by this government. Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): If I recall the numbers correctly, Mr. Speaker, we are the only political party that received support in the past from both unions and corporations. If I recall correctly, it was four or five times more support from corporations to members opposite when they were in government.

If anybody was be holden, it was five times greater for members opposite. That is why Today's NDP has moved in democratic measures to ban union and cor porate donations. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. would ask the Honourable Member for Russell (Mr . Derkach) and the Honourable Member for Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoft), when the Speaker stands the Speaker should be heard in silence. I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members. Labour Legislation Impact on Business Mrs.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Interim Leader of the Official Opposition): We see this govern ment resurrecting the ghosts of Howard Pawley. As a matter of fact, the Premier seems to have difficulty sitting in his seat because Howard Pawley is still there directing the actions of this government. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order . Mrs. Mitchelson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government waited until after their so-called Century Summit to bring in such regressive labour legislation and spring it upon Manitoba businesses without their consent or their under standing.

They have betrayed the trust of Mani toba's business leaders and indeed the trust of all Manitobans, revealing that they are not the NDP that they said they were in the 19 99 election campaign, but they are the NDP of yesterday, who have taken the path of political payback to their union-boss friends. Mr. Speaker, can the Premier explain to all Manitobans how he thinks this regressive legis lation, pro-union legislation, will improve the business climate here in Manitoba? Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, some components of the legislation are elements that were in place when Sterling Lyon was premier. Mr.

Speaker, we believe that reducing the days lost to strike or lockout, reducing conflict, reducing confrontation, increasing the way of es-

3918 LEGISLAT IVE AS SEMBLY OF MANI TOBA July 12 , 2000 tablishing and settling disputes after a period of time in a more logical way, like the practice that has been used in first contract legislation since 19 84, is a way of reducing confrontation and increasing co-operation and reducing the number of days lost to strike and lockout. * (13:45) We recognize, in the 19 90s, that there were 29 situations that went past 60 days.

We think this will aid Manitoba families in ensuring that we have less days lost to strike and lockout, therefore more days at the workplace on behalf of working Manitobans and working companies in Manitoba. Mrs. Mitchelson: Well. Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that Eugene Kostyra is not sitting in the loge and coaching the members of the Government on their answers to questions. It is obvious that he wrote the labour legislation that has been introduced into this House, and he seems to be everywhere and intervening in every action that this government is taking right across the board.

As a matter of fact, we know that many ministers cannot meet without Eugene Kostyra sitting at their side. Mr. Speaker, we know that Eugene Kostyra has been appointed to head the Economic De velopment Board under this administration. We have a union boss managing the business affairs ofthis province. I wonder what message the Premier thinks that this sends to Manitoba businesses or to those that might be wanting to relocate in Mani toba. What message does it send when union bosses are running this government and this administration? Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, I do not know how much paranoia was contained within that ques tion. I think that is probably the most paranoid set of questions I have heard in this Chamber in a number of years. The Member has been reading too many stories about UFOs and spirits and all kinds of other appearances in the middle of the night. Mr. Speaker, there have been betrayals of Manitobans, and if one is to read page 16 of the Monnin report, they will not just see the paranoia, they will see the facts of betrayal. If one is to read on and see a senior civil servant, Mr.

Jules Benson, going from the Conservative ministers' offices over to the Conservative head quarters and losing cheques. that is a betrayal of Manitobans, and that is why you are on that side of the aisle. Labour Management Review Comm ittee Labour Legislation Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, by siding with labour on the disputed proposals brought down by the Labour Management Review Committee. the Minister of Labour has contradicted her own statements about fairness and balance.

But. to be truthful, the members opposite, who are returning us to the dark days of the Pawley regime. have never been interested in fair play or balance. Yet again we see this government of yesterday's NDP gleefully put ting the screws to Manitoba business. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain, now that she has sided against business- Some Honourable Members: Oh. oh. Mr. Speaker: Orde r. I would like to rc1:1ind all honourable members that, according to Beauchesne's Citation 501: "it is improper to produce exhibits of any sort in the Chamber." I would ask all members to please put them down. Mr.

Schuler: To conclude, this is a government that is gleefully putting the screws to Manitoba business. Can the Minister explain. now that she has sided against business on the disputed pro posals of the LMRC. why she continues to piddle-peddle the spin that she is taking a reasonable and balanced approach? * (13:50) Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we are not piddling or peddling any thing. We have put in place a piece of legislation that will return balance and fairness to the labour relations climate in Manitoba.

Of the 11 pro posals that were sent to the Labour Management Review Committee, 7 of those proposals had full or partial consensus by both parties. We believe this is a wonderful piece of legislation. -

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 3919 Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister even bother consulting with the LMRC in the first place, as it is obvious that she has utterly failed to listen to the most significant concerns of the business community? Ms. Barrett: We made an election commitment and restated that commitment after the election that all pieces of labour legislation would go to the Labour Management Review Committee. We sent the proposals to the Labour Manage ment Review Committee.

They did a wonderful job in reporting back positions where they reached consensus, and in some cases they were not able to reach consensus. This piece of legis lation reflects labour-manag ement relations con cepts that have been in place in labour relations acts in Manitoba as far back as 19 4 7. They reflect changes that were put in place in the former government, in the Sterling Lyon govern ment, in the DuffRoblin government. Mr. Schuler: Then I ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker: Why was

section 23 of Bill 44 not part of the r�;.;,ommendations that were sent to the LMRC? Why did she hide from it and not send it to the LMRC? Is this one of her proposals that she is just going to hang them and she is going to hang business high? Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, if I am recalling the rules of the House correctly, before a piece of legislation has come for second reading, it is inappropriate to discuss specific elements of that piece of legislation.

I would just like to tell the Member and Manitobans, again, that this legis lation is a balanced approach and will bring back, we believe, a good solid labour relations climate in Manitoba which will be good for la bour, will be good for business and will be good for all Manitobans. Manitoba Century Summit Labour Legislation Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, this government, with great fanfare, convened the Century Summit last fall. This glossy feel- good report was a result of this meeting of labour, business and government who shared their visions for Manitoba's economic future.

Manitoba's business community was lulled to sleep by this Premier (Mr. Doer) and this government that talked about balance and then ambushed them with this new antibusiness labour legislation. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain where in this report there is any mention of these dra conian labour initiatives? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr.

Speaker, there is one new part ofBill 44 and that is the alternate dispute resolution mechanism which mirrors the first contract provisions of The Labour Relations Act, which have been in place since 19 84, which would mean they were in place throughout the 11 years of the former government.

Virtually every other amendment that was brought in is a reflection of labour relations legislation that has been in place in this province as long ago as 19 47, that has been in place in this province through many govern ments, both Tory and New Democrat, including the Sterling Lyon government, the Duff Roblin government, and the Gary Filmon government. Mr. Gilleshamm er: Why would this minister not heed the comments of participants in that Century Summit who all agreed that the pro vince would benefit from labour relations that are stable? This legislation ends that current sta bility.

None of those amendments to the legis lation were mentioned in this report. * (13 :55) Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we believe that the elements that are reflected in Bi ll 44 will provide for a balanced and stable labour relations com munity in this province, particularly issues that relate to a very extended strike or lockout. It is in nobody's best interests that workers be on the picket line or on the lockout line for extended periods of time. It is not good for business. It certainly is not good for the economic climate of the province.

We need workers in workplaces, productive, in a solid, stable labour relations climate, and that is what Bi ll 44 will provide. Mr. Gilleshamme r: Mr. Speaker, why did this government give Manitoba's business com munity a false sense of security by asking them to participate in a meeting, the Manitoba Cen tury Summit, and then ignoring their ideas and sabotaging them by introducing this antibusiness labour legislation?

3920 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, far from ignoring the recommendations of the Manitoba Summit, we believe that the provisions of Bill 44 will en hance a stable, balanced labour relations climate in the province of Manitoba which will mean positive outcomes for business persons. for the workers of this province and for the entire com munity. This is a positive step. Labour Management Review Comm ittee Labour Legislation Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): The truth about Bill 44, Mr.

Speaker, is the fact that a substantial portion of it was not submitted to the Labour Management Review Committee, but, then, should we be surprised when we see how quickly this new NDP Government is wrapping itself in the policies and practices of old Howard Pawley and also the union bosses that were part of that administration?

Section 23 of Bill 44. bringing an arbitrator in after 60 days, never made it to the Labour Management Review Committee. This seems, perhaps, to be the most controversial

section of the Bill as businesses across this province and across this country are outraged at this matter. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain to Manitobans why she chooses to circumvent the Labour Manage ment Review Committee with this particular

section ofBill 44? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the alternate dispute resolution mechanism that we have put in place in Bill 44 mirrors the first contract legislation which has been in The Labour Relations Act since 19 84. It has been in The Labour Relations Act through former NDP governments, through former Tory governments. No one has ever said that the first contract legislation put in place in 19 84 in the province of Manitoba was anything but a suc cess. This alternate dispute resolution portion of Bill 44 mirrors that legislation.

What it says is that after 60 days of strike or lockout, either side may apply to have the dispute go to a third party. Mr. Speaker, we believe that this kind of procedure, which mirrors the very successful first contract legislation in The Labour Relations Act, will have a very beneficial effect on the la bour relations climate in this province. Public Consultations Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister what she has to say to the outraged business community who never had the opportunity, not a shred of opportunity to have any input about this unilateral

section of Bill 44? * (14 :00) Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we believe that this

section of Bill 44 will have a very positive impact, a very positive effect on the labour relations climate in the pro vince of Manitoba, and by extension, by automatic extension. will make it more positive for the business community as well. An ex tended strike or lockout does not do any party any good. It is not good for the workers of the province, it is not good for the employers of the province, and it certainly is not good for the Manitoba community at large.

We are mirroring a very successful portion of The Labour Rela tions Act in this alternate dispute resolution mechanism, and we think that this will have a very positive and successful outcome for the people of Manitoba. Mr. Derkach: The fact of the maner. Mr. Speaker, is that she never allowed the business community to have any input into this bill. Fairness Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Can this minister explain why she feels that giving labour such an advantage over management is a rea soned and balanced approach? Does she not have any interest in fairness and balance? Hon.

Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): The whole purpose of Bill 44 is to return fairness and balance to the labour relations climate in the province of Manitoba, to return to legislative proposals that have been in The Labour Rela tions Act for upwards of 50 years, to mirror a very successful first contract portion of The Labour Relations Act. We are very confident that these balanced and reasonable amendments to The Labour Relations Act will have a very positive impact on the labour relations climate in

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 392 1 Manitoba and, by extension, on everybody's lif e in the province of Manitoba. Labour Legislation Impac t on Business Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, the members of the non-democratic party tabled some of the most antibusiness legislation that this province has ever seen. The Minister of Labour is right; she is right. Today's NDP is taking us back to the days of the Pawley-Doer government where unions exercised unbalanced influence throughout Manitoba, and our econo my and the people in Manitoba suffered for it.

I would like to ask this Minister of Labour how her proposed legislation will benefit Mani tobans when, as a result of this legislation, em ployers will be reluctant to either expand or es tablish new businesses in Manitoba, and jobs will be lost as a result of it. Hon.

Be.:-ky Barrett (Minister of Labour): find it very interesting that the Member is talking about job losses in the province of Mani toba at a time when we have the lowest un employment rate in the country and the second lowest unemployment rate in the history o f Manitoba, second only to 1974 when we had a New Democratic government in the province of Manitoba as well. Mr.

Sp eaker, we feel that Bi ll 44, far from scaring business out of the province of Mani toba, will engender a stable labour relations climate, which is one of the areas that business looks at when they look at determining where they are going to be locating their business. In this global economy where businesses have many choices as to where they are going to lo cate, a stable labour relations climate fostered by balanced labour relations legislation can only be seen as a plus. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, maybe we should in troduce a new concept to this minister; it is called momentum.

If she wants to look at where the economy was, she should take a look back to the early '90s that resulted out of her govern ment. My question to this minister- Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the Member was rising on a supplementary question. Clearly, supple mentary questions do not require a

preamble. The Member was going on with one or two exclamatory sentences. I draw attention to Beauchesne's Citation 409: "A supplementary question should need no

preamble." It is well known to the Member. Mr. Speaker, would you please draw his attention to that and ask him to succinctly put his question with no

preamble? Mr. Loewen: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was simply identifying to the Minister, who stated in her response about how wonderful the situation is today, I was simply drawing her back to the reality of the last time their party was in power and the momentum lhat resulted from that. That showed clearly in the early 19 90s. Mr. Speaker: Order.

B efore ruling on the point of order, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members a point of order is to be used to draw to the Speaker's attention any de parture from the rules or practices of the House or to raise concerns over unparliamentary lan guage. A point of order should not be used to ask a question, dispute the accuracy of facts, clarify remarks, move a motion or to raise a point of order. I ask the co-operation of all honourable members when raising a point of order. On the point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader, he does have a point of order.

Beauchesne's Citation 409(2) advises that a supplementary question should not require a

preamble. * * * Mr. Speaker: I would ask the Honourable Member to please put his question. Mr. Loewen: I would ask the Minister, as to her comments that this piece of legislation will help employers, how she can make that kind of statement when she knows full well that em ployers across the province are decrying this piece of legislation. I would ask her how she can

3922 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 say that, how she believes that this legislation specifically will assist employers in Manitoba? Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, in the decade of the '90s when the Official Opposition was in govern ment, there were record numbers of days lost to productivity through strikes and lockouts. Twenty-nine strikes or lockouts, work stoppages in the decade of the '90s lasted more than sixty days, including five work stoppages that lasted more than a year, some of which had upwards of over fifty employees.

How many days of pro ductivity were lost just in those twenty-nine work stoppages under that former government's rule that could have been used to increase the productivity in the province of Manitoba? This piece of legisla tion will benefit workers, em ployers, and Manitobans at large. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister if she cannot see that she is, indeed, delivering a one-two punch to the citizens of Manitoba. Not only has this government created the highest tax regime in all of Canada, in fact, in all ofNorth- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order .

I would ask all honourable members to please put their questions through the Chair. Mr. Loewen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Minister. through you, if she does not indeed see that she is delivering a one-two punch to Ma nitoba's economy. First, they are giving us the highest taxes in all of Canada; and second, this government is delivering the most anti business piece of labour legislation that this pro vince has seen. * (14 : 10 ) Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we are not delivering a one-two punch. We are delivering balanced, reasonable, responsible labour legislation to the people of Manitoba.

Virtually every element in Bill 44 is found in former labour relations act elements that were accepted by the former government and the former, former Tory govern ment and the Tory government before that. If this legislation was so regressive, was so draconian, was so antibusiness, why did the former government not repeal it in the first eight years of their term in office? Perhaps the Mem ber should ask the Member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon) these questions. Health Care System Minister's Responsibility Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health, and it deals with the issue of ac countability. When a government is having pro blems, is disorganized, cannot meet its planning time frames, there is a tendency among poli ticians to blame bureaucrats and administrators. I ask the Minister to give this Legislature and the citizens of Manitoba an assurance that on his watch under health care he will take re sponsibility and not seek to blame administrators and hospital health care workers when problems go wrong. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, when we assumed office, we identified several significant areas that needed addressing. I think Manitobans know that we have actively pursued a number of areas and done the best we can, and we will continue to do that during the course of our mandate. Health Care Facilities Food Services Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): My supplementary to the Minister who is in a government which is having trouble keeping the planning time frames: Why is the Minister so in capable of keeping his commitment of January 13 that he would not have an action plan on frozen food by the end of Ju ne?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the co-operation of all honourable members. The TV cameras are on and the clock is running. I would ask the co operation of all honourable members, please. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we assumed a very bad contract entered into by the previous government, which was something that was identified in yesterday's Auditor's report. Secondly, we put the USSC un- -

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 3923 der the WRHA, which was also something that was identified in the Auditor's report. Thirdly, we put in place a group, an organization, to study, using proper people in place, a process for frozen food, which was also recommended as one of the major defects in the frozen food pro cess. At the same time, if the Member read the Auditor's report, he would indicate that going to time lines or going on political frameworks was one of the major failings of the former govern ment in dealing with a political agenda in rushing their frozen food program forward.

We said we would have something at the end of June. Now it is going to be at the end of summer. I would prefer to do it correctly rather than fall into the same trap and make the same mistakes that were made by the previous administration with respect to rushing things before they were done and forcing political agendas on people. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister committed, January 13 , to a report and action by the end of June. the citizens of Manitoba perhaps were suckers to believe him, but I think I would ask the Minister to take his commitment seriously.

I would ask the Minister to apologize to Manitobans for not being able to meet his commitment by the end of June . Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, if any apologies are in order, I think the former government and the Member's colleagues who supported frozen food in this Legislature owe an apology to the people of Manitoba for supporting that bad ini tiative that we opposed from the very start. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we put in place our process that has followed the recommendations of the Provincial Auditor.

We recognize what the Auditor's report said, that putting unrealistic time frames and rushing processes was one of the things that doomed that terrible experiment by government to failure. A few weeks, to err on the side of caution, to do it right for the patients of Manitoba, I think, is understandable. To do otherwise would be to fall in the same trap as the former government fell into. Labour Management Review Comm ittee Labour Legislation Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of La bour.

The Minister of Labour seems to make her backroom deals with her union bosses and discusses

section 23 with them. Can the Minister tell us why, today, she would not refer

section 23 to the LMRC committee? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr Speaker, we believe that the alternate dispute resolution mechanism that the Member is re ferring to will, as it mirrors the very successful first contract legislation in The Labour Relations Act, provide for a stable and balanced labour re lations climate rather than the record number of days lost to productivity through the 29 work stoppages that lasted over 60 days under the ten ure of the former government. That kind of record is abysmal.

We were looking very strongly and seriously, through this piece of legislation, at reversing that very nega tive component of the labour relations climate in Manitoba. Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, is this minister telling this House today that she is the overall hammer and she does not have to go and consult with the business community and that she does not have to send

section 23 or anything else? She knows what is best for business and she does not have to communicate with them. Why did she not refer

section 23 to the LMRC committee? Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the issue of an alternate dispute resolution mechanism situation was sent to the LMRC. It was sent to the LMRC, and both parties of the Labour Management Review Committee, both labour and manage ment, recognized the fact that extended strikes and lockouts are not good for management. They are not good for business. They are not good for workers. Perhaps, most importantly, they are not good for the people of Manitoba. They are not good for a productive labour relations climate, and they are not good for business. Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, if this minister is telling me that

section 23 was referred to LMRC, would this minister then table the report

3924 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 that shows that both the labour community and the business community were onside with this minister's recommendation? Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I never have said in any of my discussion about Bill 44 that there was unanimity on every issue that was sent before the Labour Management Review Com mittee. I did state that on seven of the proposals that were sent to the Labour Management Re view Committee, there was partial or full con sensus on the part of both labour and manage ment representatives of the LMRC.

If the Member wishes specifics on the recommendations of the report that was drafted by the Labour Management Review Committee, he need only contact Mr. Wally Fox-Decent who was neutral Chair of the LMRC. Labour Legislation Secret Ballot Voting Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Mr. Speaker, as this NDP Government continues to act in de fiance of public opinion, Manitobans now learn that the ultimate test of public opinion, the exercise of voting, is under attack. During Es timates, the Minister of Labour professed her valued support for democracy in the democratic process. * (1 4:20) Mr.

Speaker, I ask: How does the Minister of Labour reconcile her confessed support for democracy with her clear action to strip workers of their right to a secret ballot? Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, since 19 47, there has been some form of automatic certification either in legislation or in practice in the province of Manitoba with the exception of four years from 19 96 to the present time.

The members of the Opposition , I do not believe, ever questioned the automatic certifi cation proposals that are elements of The Labour Relations Act that were in place from 19 92 to 19 96 under their watch. We are putting in place those exact auto matic certification elements that were in place in the province of Manitoba, in one form or ano- ther, for over 50 years and the specifics of the elements that were in place from 19 92 to 19 96 under that government's watch. Mr. Pitura: Mr.

Speaker, I then ask the Minister: In her government's continuing saga of the tale of two ministers, indicate which Minister of Labour are we to believe, the one who says she supports democracy or the one who is under mining it. Ms. Barrett: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite who will be anointing a leader without a vote in November should not talk about democracy. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order.

Before recognizing the Honourable Official Opposition House Leader, I would just like to remind all honourable mem bers of Beauchesne's Citation 16 8: "When rising to preserve order or to give a ruling the Speaker must always be heard in silence." I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members. Point of Order Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. 3peaker, Beauchesne's 41 7: "A nswers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." Mr.

Speaker, they should leave their Ameri can politics at home and they should deal with it ma - Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order . On the point of order raised, the Honourable Member does have a point of order. Beauchesne's Citation 41 7 says: "A nswers to questions should be as brief as pos sible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate." *** Mr. Speaker: I would ask the Honourable Minister of Labour to please conclude her answer.

July 12 , 2000 LEGI SLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 3925 Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, in September of this year I will celebrate 25 years as an immigrant to the province of Manitoba and the country of Canada. I am very proud to have chosen Mani toba and Canada as my home. I am also very proud of the country from which I came and do not much care for that kind of political shenani gans. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. would ask the Honourable Minister of Labour to please con clude her answer. Ms. Ba rrett: Mr.

Speaker, in response to the specific question about the democratic process in Bill 44, I would suggest that if 65 percent of the employees in a workplace sign a card saying that they support certification as a union, that is certainly a democratic process. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has ex pired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Russell Smith Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to con gratulate Russell Smith of Clandeboye, Mani toba. Mr. Smith was recently named to the Manitoba Baseball Hall of Fame in recognition of his speed and skill as a player during the 19 50s.

As a child, Mr. Smith played ball in Clandeboye and Selkirk. Later he spent some time in Toronto where his senior men's team won the Greater Toronto Senior Baseball title on a number of occasions. His final and most mem orable years in baseball were spent with the St. Boniface Native Sons who dominated Manitoba senior baseball during the late 19 50s. Now 72 years old, Russell Smith and his Native Sons teammates were inducted into the Hall of Fame in a ceremony held on June 10 in Morden. They are most deserving of this honour, and Clandeboye is very proud to call Mr. Smith their own.

Please join me in congratulating Mr. Russell Smith and his Native Sons teammates. Thank you. * (14: 30) Manitoba Health Research Council Mr. Cris Aglugub (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, health research will continue in Manitoba with the announcement of $5 million for research projects over the next five years. Manitoba's funding through the Manitoba Health Research Council will leverage a federal matching grant of $5 million from the Medical Research Council of Canada's Regional Partnerships Program.

For every $1 million in provincial support for research and development, it is estimated that 33 new high-tech jobs are created and $2.8 million is added to the provincial gross domestic product. Additionally in June, the Government announced a $3-million investment in Mani toba's five primary health care centres through the Health Research Infrastructure Initiatives. CancerCare Manitoba, the Children's Hospital Foundation, the University of Mani toba, the St. Boniface General Hospital Research Centre and Health Sciences Centre Research Department, these research agencies currently employ about 15 00 people.

Our investment in health research will ensure these institutions will continue to thrive. Medical research in the province also benefits from networking opportunities provided by annual conferences. Winnipeg will host the World Congress of Health Research in July of 200 I. This conference will be the largest medi cal conference held in Canada, bringing 3500 specialists and $12 million to the local economy. We support the advancement of medical and other research.

These funding initiatives are part of our commitment to promoting research excel lence in Manitoba, building a high-tech econo my, and encouraging talented young scientists to remain in the province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Manitoba Agricultural Hall of Fame Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Agricultural Hall of Fame honours

3926 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July I2 , 2000 past and present builders of agriculture in the province. Last night, three new inductees to the Hall were named. One of those inducted was Walter Kroeker, a former constituent and long time friend of mine. A plaque honouring him, as well as the other two in-ductees, will be put on display with those honouring other members at the Keystone Cen- tre in Brandon. Walter Kroeker, following in his father's footsteps, has been a devoted member of the agriculture community in Manitoba and is most deserving of his induction to the Hall of Fame.

His efforts in the continuing diversification of agriculture in Manitoba are well documented. They are evidenced by his many acres of po tatoes, onions and other less commonly planted crops. He also contributed to the National Horticultural Society, contributed to the Peak of the Market, church and community. I want to take this opportunity to commend Walter Kroeker for his outstanding contributions to agriculture and to the Winkler community. Thank you. Golden West Centennial Lodge Auxiliary Mr. Jim Rondeau (Assiniboia): Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the entire House the efforts of the Golden West Centennial Lodge Auxiliary. The purpose of this group is to have fundraisers and have family get-togethers for the residents of the Golden West Centennial Lodge. This group ensures that people who have contributed so much to our society are not for gotten in their later years. Some of the activities that this group plans on a regular basis are Christmas celebrations, Mother's Days, Father's Days, Canada Day bar becue, and many, many other activities.

There are approximately 50 volunteers, and the volun teers come from all over the city. Some people who started out as volunteers when their family members were residents continue even after family members pass on. Their dedication is awesome. The Auxiliary provides corsages and boutonnieres to each resident on their birthday. Every resident receives a Christmas present. Everyone gets something at each activity. The Auxiliary has also provided microwave ovens, coffee and tea urns on each floor, and locking cabinets for each resident.

They have also con tributed to make Golden West Lodge more like home, including putting in wallpaper borders, decorating rooms, and floral bouquets at Christ mas. At Christmas the volunteers outdo them selves including decorating the entire facility, six Christmas trees and providing presents. Irene George, as an example, has even gone the extra mile in decorating her mother's room closely resembling the room she had at home, while still complying with provincial standards. This made the transition into Golden West much easier and is an excellent example of the Auxiliary's work.

The Auxiliary has also in-volved community businesses to assist in their many functions, including providing food, donations and prizes. I would like to thank the Golden West Auxiliary for all their efforts en-hancing the quality of life for the II 6 residents of the Golden West Centennial Lodge. Health Care System Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the GoveiOment's organization and accountability in keeping the time frames. Three times, since July I, I have stood up in this House to ask the Government why it has been so sloppy in meeting reasonable time frames.

On two cases they were legal time requirements; in one case today it was a time frame imposed on the Government by itself. The first dealt with the referral of Elections Manitoba's report to a legislative committee. The Government had 60 days to do this, a reasonable time frame, but failed to meet the legal require ments which are imposed upon them by Manitoba statutes.

The second deals with The Sustainable De velopment Act which mandated by July I that the Government produce a strategy, that this had a whole series of elements, that part of this was a procurement strategy plan, goals, guidelines and operational framework. The Government failed to produce. The Government had nine and a half months since they were in office, a generous

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 3927 amount of time, to do this. There was a failure not only to meet this reasonable time require ment, but in fact the Government has clearly broken the laws of Manitoba. Clearly, citizens of Manitoba have to have their driver's licence by particular time frames or suffer consequences. There are all sorts of time frames that citizens meet. Governments, this government in particular, should meet its own legislated mandates. Today, I asked about Mr. Chomiak's com mitment in January to have a plan by the end of June. Mr. Speaker: Order.

I would like to remind the Honourable Member, when making reference to honourable members in the Ho use to be recog nized by their constituency or ministers by their titles. Mr. Gerrard: My apology, Mr. Speaker. The Honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) committen in mid-Ja nuary to bring forward a re port by the end of June on the frozen food situa tion. What is remarkable here is that he took several months to have a committee to have a plan and now, after many more months, still has not even had a report. Com mittee Chang es Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Springfield (Mr. Schuler) for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) and Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger) for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). Motion agreed to. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Wellington (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: St. Vital (Ms. Allan) for Riel (Ms. Asper) and Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) for Dauphin-Roblin (Mr. Struthers).

Motion agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DA Y House Business * (14 :40) Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce first of all that the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on Monday, July 17 , at 7 p.m. to continue con sideration of Bill 15 . If you would call second readings beginning with Bill 47 and then 44, and if we could then continue to debate on second readings with the following bills in this order: Bi lls 10 , 12 , 24, 40, and 42. Mr. Speaker, if you could add Bi ll 13 as the third bill to be considered during debates. Mr.

Speaker: It has been announced by the Honourable Government House Leader that the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on Monday, July 17 , 2000, at 7 p.m. to continue consideration of Bill 15 . [Agreed] SECOND READINGS Bill 47- The Civil Service Amendment Act Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mackintosh), that Bill 47, The Civil Service Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia fonction publique, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Selinger: Very briefly, the formal transfer of responsibility for labour relations service to Treasury Bo ard reflects the reality of the past practice over the past number of years. In the past, establishing mandates for collective bargaining was the responsibility of Treasury Boa rd and cabinet rather than the Civil Service Commission Board. The transfer of responsi bility at this time is merely formalizing past practice. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honour able

3928 LEGISLAT IVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I just noticed the Minister of Labour (Ms. Barrett) is, I presume, getting scrummed. I would ask that we put in Bill 10 and then proceed to Bill 44. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS BilllO- The Cooperatives Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Cor porate Affairs (Mr. Lemieux), Bill 10 , The Cooperatives Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les cooperatives), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Steinbach. Mr. Jim Penner (Steinbach): I am pleased to put a couple of words and comments on the record with regard to Bill 10. Members on this side of the House recognize that this bill essentially makes some small changes to The Cooperatives Act, which was brought into force on July 1, 19 99. It is not unusual when a bill as compre hensive as The Cooperatives Act is introduced that it will need some small areas of refinement after those affected by the Bill have a chance to put it into practice.

I believe that is the essence ofthis bill. Co-opera tives, as members of the Chamber know, are a popular form of business in Manitoba and in the Prairies in general. The ability of individuals to be not only customers of an entity but, in fact, owners who share in the benefits of a successful business has a great deal of appeal. These co-operatives have grown to a size and scale that I do not think many of our forefathers could have possibly imagined and now operate in the financial sector and numerous retail areas.

Indeed, the size of these operations and th eir unique make-up necessitates that certain guidelines and regulations be in place for the protection of the members and the directors. The Cooperatives Act was, I believe, a good piece of legislation that helped to achieve these goals. This amending bill addresses some small concerns that have arisen since the originating act's proclamation. One concern is that members who have their memberships terminated be allowed to be notified by mail, which is a manner that is private and discrete.

It is an unusual occurrence to have a member of a co-op removed unwillingly, but it does happen, and I think it is important that a mechanism be available that offers dignity in this process. As well, Mr. Speaker, the Bill broadens the definition of an auditor to allow Federated Co ops to continue to provide audited services to other co-opera tives. The goal of members on this side of the House and, I believe, all members of the Chamber is to ensure that there is integrity and accurate financial disclosure of financial statements to members of co-oper atives.

Whether an entity is a co-op or a publicly traded company, the ability for potential members and shareholders to have faith in its financial state ments is very important. We do not believe the changes in this bill will impact negatively on the integri"LJ of the financial statements put forward by co operatives. We understand that these changes have been recommended by the co-op erative sector, and, with that in mind, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to move this bill along in a timely manner. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr.

Speaker: The question before the Ho use is second reading of Bill 10 , The Cooperatives Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 3929 SECOND READINGS Bill 44- The Labour Relations Amendment Act

(2) Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell), that Bill 44, The Labour Relations Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur les relations du travail), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce Bi ll 44 to amend The Manitoba Labour Relations Act. This government pledged last fall during the election campaign that we would introduce measures to correct imbalances in the rules governing labour-management relations and to eliminate unnecessary interference in the internal affairs of unions in terms of the relationship between unions and their m�mbership.

Manitobans voted to restore fairness to the relations between business and labour and to have unions and employers conduct their affairs within parameters that are fair and reasonable.

In recognition of the fact that prolonged strikes and lockouts are normally detrimental to employees and employers as well as to the public interest, we are introducing measures that will permit the opportunity to resolve work stoppages which have reached an impasse by means of an arbitration procedure involving the Manitoba Labour Boa rd or a single arbitrator that the parties may choose. *( 14 :50) Our intent with respect to labour legislation is to foster partnership and co-operation rather than division. Biii 44 is an important step in that direction.

Prior to describing the proposed changes, I would like to express my gratitude to the Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee, otherwise known as LMRC, for providing me with valuable advice and recommendations with respect to the amendments that were under consideration. In particular, I appreciate the special efforts made by the Committee to review these matters and to provide me with advice on a timely basis. The Committee's collective experience and wisdom with respect to labour-management relations was very helpful and is evident in the quality of their report.

While the Committee was able to reach a degree of consensus, seven of the twelve specific areas had full or partial consensus. There was also disagreement on a number of matters. In all cases, the labour and management perspectives on the issues were clearly expressed. As I indicated, previous amendments made to the Act created certain imbalances and did not reflect realities relating to work stoppage situations or to relations between unions and their members. Bill 44 will create a new balance.

There is currently a provision in the Act that allows an employer to refuse to reinstate an employee following a strike or lockout if the employer can satisfy the Labour Board that the refusal was for just cause, mainly a cause for which the employee might have been terminated from employment outside the context of a strike or lockout.

This provision does not, in my view, take into account the fact that a strike or lockout situation creates a particularly stressful situation, because of the tension and volatility that sometimes exists on picket lines where persons involved act in ways that they would not under normal circumstances. While we are of the view that an employee has a right to be reinstated following the conclusion of a strike or lockout, we certainly do not condone criminal or illegal behaviour. Any such behaviour that occurs is unacceptable and would be subject to charges under the Criminal Code or to other legal action.

For this reason, we are proposing a return to the pre- 19 97 provision whereby the employer could refuse rein statement of an employee only upon satisfying the Labour Boa rd that the refusal to reinstate was for a cause for which the employee might have been discharged, and which was not related to the strike or lockout. It is also being proposed that the require ments relating to certification be changed so as to eliminate the need for the Labour Board to conduct a vote with respect to virtually every application for certification. This is unnecessary as well as an inefficient use of the Bo ard's

3930 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 resources, particularly in cases where the union is able to demonstrate overwhelming support as a result of employees signing membership cards. In more specific terms, it is being proposed that the Bo ard grant certification where the union has shown that it has the support of 65 percent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit. This was what was provided for in legis lation between 19 92 and 19 97. As I have stated repeatedly in the House, a form of automatic certification has been in practice or in legislation in Manitoba since 19 4 7.

A further change provides that in cases where the union demonstrates that it has between 40% and 65% support, the Labour Board would be required to conduct a secret ballot vote to determine the true wishes of the employees in the unit. As is the case under current legislation. this vote would have to be held within seven days of the application, unless there are exceptional circumstances that warrant an extension of time as determined by the Labour Board.

In situations where the Board is satisfied that an application is supported by less than 40 percent of the employees in the unit, the Board would be required to dismiss the application. In addition, provisions that were in the Act prior to 19 97 that allowed the Boa rd to grant interim certification will be reintroduced in the legislation. The Board would be empowered to grant interim certificates only in cases where it was satisfied that any dispute relating to composition could not affect the union's right to certification.

Once the composition of the unit was determined, the Board would issue a final certification to the union. This would allow notice to collective bargaining to be given as soon as the interim certificate was granted without having to wait for the final certificate to be issued. LMRC reached consensus that provisions relating to ratification of collective agreements by secret ballot votes be amended to take into account the unique nature of the construction industry.

Bargai ning arrangements and bargaining units in that industry differ suffi ciently from those in general industry to justify special legislative attention. The provisions in the Act relating to requests that a vote be taken of the employees to determine whether the employees wish to accept or reject an employer's last offer have not proven to be very beneficial or useful, particularly in cases where the employer makes the request prior to the commencement of a strike or lockout. A vote ordered to be taken under these circumstances has never resulted in acceptance of the employer's last offer by the employees.

We are following the consensus position of the LMRC and proposing to repeal the provision in the current act that allows the employer to request the Minister to order a vote of the employees on the employer's last offer prior to the start of the strike or lockout. Nevertheless, circumstances may arise where it is considered advisable and in the public interest to allow employees the opportunity to vote on an employer's last offer. Consequently, a provision in the existing act allowing for last offer votes will be retained but with some modification.

More specifically, the Minister will be authorized before or after the commencement of a strike or lockout to order a vote to accept or reject the employer's last offer in those exceptional cases where there is convincing evidence that it would be in the public interest to do so. The current act allows for the appointment of a mediator by the Minister in cases where the parties make a joint request and name the mediator, or in cases where the Minister acts on his or her own initiative to appoint the mediator.

It does not explicitly address situations where only one of the parties requests a mediator or cases where the par ties jointly request one but are unable to agree on the person to be named as the mediator. Proposed amendments, again as recommended by the LMRC consensus, specifi cally addresses these situations. The Act will continue to provide for sharing of the costs of a mediator in cases where either or both parties request a mediator. The employer, the union and the Government would each pay one-third of these costs.

However, in cases where the Minister acts on his or her own initiative to appoint a mediator, it seems unreasonable for the parties to have to pay part of the remuneration and expenses. Therefore, an amendment is being proposed that will require

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 3931 the Government to pay the full costs in those circumstances. Under existing legislation, access to the expedited grievance arbitration procedures is limited to cases involving employee dismissals and suspensions exceeding 30 days. As well, the absence of controls relating to the continuance or adjournment of arbitration hearings sometimes defeats the purpose of the expedited procedures by allowing for the prolonging of these pro cedures beyond a reasonable time.

It is being proposed that access to the expedited procedures be extended so as to be applicable to employee dismissals, suspensions of any length and any other discipline of an employee. As well, the expedited procedure will continue to be available with respect to other matters that the Labour Board considers to be of an exceptional nature. To ensure that the process is truly an expedited one as recommended by LMRC consensus, an arbitrator will be required to issue a decision within 90 days after his or her appointment unless the Labour Board allows for an extension.

Adjournments and extensions of hearings will also be prohibited except in cases where the Labour Boa rd approves them. Furthermore, an arbitrator will be empowered to set hearing dates for which an adjournment may not be granted. A current provision in the Act requires a union to develop a process for consulting with each employee about whether the employee wishes his or her union dues used for political purposes. An objecting employee can direct the union to remit any amount of his or her union dues proposed to be used for political purposes to a registered charity designated by the employee.

When proposed amendments to The Elections Finances Act come into force prohibiting political donations by unions, the provisions in The Labour Relations Act will become redundant and be legally nullified. Consequently it is being proposed that this provision be repealed. Existing provisions requiring unions to file financial and compensation statements with the Labour Board and allowing employees access to those statements by application to the Board have been shown to be unnecessary and have resulted in the Boa rd's resources being utilized in an inefficient manner.

Over the last three and a half years, the Boa rd has received only five applications under these provisions. Generally this dearth of applications exists because financial statements and information is readily available to union members directly from the union. For these reasons amendments are being introduced to eliminate the need to file financial statements with the Labour Bo ard, again based on an LMRC consensus position. * (15 :00) Instead, amendments will require a union to make its financial statement available to a union member on request and at no charge to the employee.

If the union fails to provide the financial statement, or if the member feels that the statement is inadequate, a complaint may be made to the Labour Bo ard. which would be able to order corrective measures. Recognizing that lengthy work stoppages are detrimental to the interests of employers, employees, unions, and the public interest, a new, alternative dispute settlement procedure is being proposed to be applicable in certain severely defined circumstances.

The proposed alternative dispute resolution mechanism mirrors the first contract legislation model, which has been in existence in Manitoba since the mid- 19 80s. More specifically, in cases where a work stoppage has been in progress for more than 60 days, either the employer or the union will have the option to apply to the Manitoba Labour Board to settle the terms and conditions of the collective agreement they are attempting to negotiate.

Where such an application is made, the Board will be required to conduct a vote of the employees to determine if their wish is to have a third party be involved in settling their strike or lockout, either the Labour Boa rd or by a single arbitrator where the parties agree. The Labour Bo ard will be required to conduct this vote within seven days after the application or such further period of time, if in the opinion of the Bo ard such additional time is warranted.

3932 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 If the employees vote for a third-pa rty settlement, the employer and the bargaining agent can agree to have the matter settled by an arbitrator or the Labour Board. Where there was no agreement, the settlement will be by the Labour Bo ard. If there is agreement to have the matter settled by an arbitrator, the relevant sections of The Labour Relations Act will apply. Where an application for settlement is made and the employees in the unit vote in favour of referral to a third party, any strike or lockout that is in progress will have to be terminated.

The employer will be required to reinstate the employees in the unit. This is a sensible approach to bringing a lengthy work stoppage to an end. Having an impartial third party settle the dispute will likely result in a fair and reasonable settlement and will bring an end to the hardships that a w ork stoppage creates for employers, unions, emplo yees, and their families, and, in many cases, the general public. The above is a general description of the ma jor amendments being proposed.

These changes will restore a balance in the rules governing labour-management relations, will allow employers and unions to conduct their affairs within the context of rules that are fair and reasonable, will help promote co-operation and partnership rather than division, and will provide an alternative means for resolving lengthy work stoppages that are detrimental to all affected parties. In conclusion, I would like to reit erate my gratitude to Professor Wally Fox-Decent and the other members of the Manitoba Labour Management Review Committee for their advice and guidance on the matters addressed in this bill.

In our view, Bill 44 represents balanced legislation that is in the interests of all Manitobans, and I commend it for your approval. Thank you. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I move, seconded by the Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), that debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Billl2- The Public Schools Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Caldwell), Bill 12 , The Public Schools Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to put a few comments on the record regarding Bill 12 , The Public Schools Amendment Act. which concerns home schoolers here in the province of Manitoba. As you know, we have approximately 500 home schoolers in this province of Manitoba. These are parents who have selected by the democratic process to train their children at home in academic studies.

There are several reasons for this, but in a democratic society as we have here in Canada and indeed in Manitoba that choice is there for parents across the province. I shall put on record, Mr. Speaker, that at one point in my career I was in charge of the home schoolers and had many opportunities to visit the home schoolers across the province. I found, for the most part, that a lot of the <.,nildren involved in the home-schooling exercise in their homes were very, very well cared for, were very, very well schooled in many ways.

In fact, I believe one high school here in Winnipeg, Sisler High School, has a special program put together for the entrance level for home schoolers to come in and continue their senior high school. I know of one individual in particular who, upon leaving the home-school environment in their home and going to the program at Sisler High School, achieved a very high percentage. I believe the average initially was 99 percent. So this was indeed a success story for the home schoolers. Mr. Speaker, I also know of some teachers who have selected to have home schooling occur for their own children as well.

So indeed it is a selection, a choice that parents can make across the province. It is something, members on both sides of the House should be very proud of the fact that in our school system we have independent schools, public schools, faith-based

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 3933 schools and indeed we have the home-schooling possibility as well. The integral part of home-schooling lies with what I referred to earlier, and that is the right of choice. Home schoolers are not subsidized or paid by the Province. They receive no monies from the Province. They continue to be taxpayers, and they do contribute by their taxes into the public school system. So their choice does not take away the fact that they still are supporters in the community. Mr. Speaker, the home schoolers that I have met are well organized.

The home schoolers that I have met care very, very deeply about the academic and social development of their children, and are very mindful, I daresay, extremely vigilant in by far the ma jority of cases, extremely vigilant in ensuring that their children are at grade level in the core subjects and in different aspects of academic social development. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the Bill in several places because I do feel that the input that home schoolers do give into the right to home-school is extremely important.

I have to applaud the efforts and the organization of the home-schooling organization in ensuring that they are self-supervised, self-taught and are accountable as well. I do respect the fact that the home schoolers are very mindful that they need to notify the Minister of a child who is attending a home school situation. I know that they have no problems at all and are very mindful of the fact that they have to make sure that the school division to which their children belong and the Minister's office need to be aware that these children are in a home-school situation.

There has been in the past in this province an accountability system set up where parents do send units of their work into a central location in Winkler, Manitoba, I believe it is, so they have samples of the programming and samples of the children's work as they progress from grade level to grade level. Mr. Speaker, the right of the parents to establish this accountability procedure is of paramount importance.

It is something that they are very mindful of and are very open to putting forth a description of the curri culums that they use and very forthright in putting forth the grade level that each student is attending. Mr. Speaker, in this legislation, I must speak to the fact, and be mindful of the fact, that home schooling parents do submit a progress report to a central location, and I do appreciate that. In talking with a lot of the home-schooling parents, they have absolutely no problem with doing that.

The one thing that has been discussed greatly across the province is when in the rare case there is a problem, where the Minister or the school division offices are not quite sure that a home schooling child is being schooled in the way he or she should be and, if there is some question as to whether or not the child goes through an academic exercise on a daily basis to enable them to read, write, compute, and keep up with the curriculum in the way that they should, so they are well schooled and when they do graduate Senior 4, they are able to go into the workforce or into post-se condary education with the assurance that they do have the academic skills that they need to succeed there. * (15 :10 ) As you know, Mr.

Speaker, I do want to put the comment on record at this time that a lot of home schoolers, Senior I or Senior 2 or Senior 3 have a tendency to go back into the public school system and at that time, the docu mentation and the data that we have here in Manitoba indicates that those same children do extremely well in the public school system and I daresay, in many cases, even better than the children who have been in a public school setting. I think this is due to the parental involvement, the parental commitment to helping their children achieve a high aca demic standard. Mr.

Speaker, I think what we have to be very careful of in this legislation is we have to be very careful that we do not govern the home schoolers to such an extent that their choice is not there. The accountability, of course, has to be in place for all children in the province of Manitoba and I do believe that the home schoolers in the province of Manitoba are very, very vigilant about that and have done an

3934 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 outstanding, excellent job for the most part for their children in the home-schooling situation. So I would like to put on record the integral part that home schoolers play in the educational mosaic here in the province of Manitoba. I would say that we have to be respectful of all people's choices and as a government be responsible in making sure that systems are in place that serve the children of Manitoba in the best possible light.

I daresay that the home schooling situation that we have seen in Manitoba has been excellent, and I know the home schoolers themselves are very mindful when there is a pr oblem, the home schoolers themselves I know feel strongly that there is a point where the Minister can inquire as to a student's progress and can inquire if things are the way they should be for the best interests of the child. Other than that, from the feedback I have had from the home-schooling community, home schoolers want the right to choose. They want the decision making kept in their court, as it were.

They want to have the right to school their children in the manner that they choose to school their children. Mr. Speaker, this is a democratic right where government does not come into the homes of Manitobans in such a personal way, but when home schoolers do make the choice of home schooling throughout the province that they do have free rein to do that and free right to do that. Mr. Speaker, as I look at this legislation, it looks like a good piece of legislation in many ways. There are some red flags that have gone up.

I am sure that some of those red flags will be presented at the committee level when this bill does go to committee. Mr. Speaker, I just want in closing to say that I applaud the home schoolers here in Manitoba. I applaud the job that they have done. I applaud Manitobans for having the right to choose either public school system or indepen dent school system or the home-school system. We live in, and I am very proud to be a part of Manitoba, very proud to be a citizen here in Canada where we do have these democratic rights. I just want to thank you, Mr.

Speaker, for having the opportunity to put these comments on record. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I, too, wish to put some comments on the record about Bill 12 , dealing in particular with the home schoolers. Having spent considerable time working with home schoolers, particularly as a trustee in River East School Division, I would have to say we certainly developed a strong relationship with the home schoolers and with the private schools that were located in the River East School Division.

One of the things we found out with the home schoolers is they had a very high academic standard, certainly had a great interest in the education of their children. The programs were sound. In fact, the programs I would have to say were superior. They were excellent programs, well thought out. The parents certainly spent a lot of time with their students going through the programs with their students. We felt, certainly River East School Division, that there are different venues of educating your students and certainly the public school system which we all support.

There does come a time perhaps when you have a difference with the public school system. You do not particularly like the way something is being done; maybe it is classroom size, maybe it is something that is being taught. It is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact we saw it as a good thing, that parents would have that option; they could move their children into a private school. Interestingly enough, often we found that, after having put their children into private school for a couple of years, they would then move their students back into the public school system.

Often we would see that just as a pressure gauge. These people would go try a different form of education and then come back and continue in the public school system. The home schoolers, again, though a smaller group, represent a group of individuals who feel that the best interest of their children's education is not served in the public school system or in fact in the private school system. Again, we have

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 3935 heard in this Chamber the talk about having the freedom to choose, the right to choose, and it is one of the reasons why I have always been a very strong supporter of the home schoolers. It is not a large group of people. It is not a large segment of our population, but again, it is a bit of a pressure valve that these individuals be allowed to take their children out of the school system, give them an education. As I have mentioned, the programs tended to be very strong and students tended to get a very good education.

I guess one of the things that I appreciated the most about River East School Division is we used to extend to the private schools. We had a lot of shared services agreements, whether it came to clinicians or it was gymnasiums or if it was busing. We had all kinds of shared service agreements with them, and they worked well. In the end, really, all of those children are our students, and we would make those services available to them, the same thing we did with the home schoolers.

We would make sure that, if, for instance, the home schoolers' association wanted to have a track and field day and where there was a facility that was not being used by us for that day, they would have access to it. We extended to them the privilege or the right to come in and use the shops, if they were a larger group, and when we were not using them, they had the right to come in and use it. Again, it was a harmonious relationship, and I think that is something we want to foster.

We want to recognize people's rights and work on that with them. * (15: 20) One of the things I have some concerns with, and I am sure we are going to hear more about it when this bill comes to committee, is that our society tends to always want to push things toward more paperwork. In fact, I would say that bureaucracy and paperwork is singularly the biggest killer of small business in this country.

I speak from experience on that one, that the paperwork, unless you are big enough to afford a staff who deal with all the paperwork, whether it is GST, PST and all the different filings you have to do, it will drive you to madness. In fact, when we started off, we were very misguided in trying to do our payroll ourselves until we saw that beacon, that light out there called Comcheq. We went to Comcheq, and they did our payroll services. It really does cut down on a lot of the paperwork.

Besides doing a great job and being fantastic people and that having been the right choice, besides all of that, it really cut down on the paperwork, because it was unbelievable the kinds of charts you had to go through and the forms you had to go through. So this bill, again, I would caution the Legislature, let us be very careful that we do not foist more and more paperwork on individuals who clearly want to educate their children. I think they do a great job at it. When we get into committee, I am sure that is one of the things we will be looking at: Does this really foist unnecessary paperwork?

Are we developing more of a bureaucracy which we do not need that then has to process all these reports? What is the point behind it? Certainly, I will be very interested in seeing the presentations that come forward. I look forward to the committee stage. Being a great supporter of the home schoolers, I look forward to seeing the Bi ll go on to committee. So those would be my comments, brief as they are, and thank you. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I, too, would like to put a few comments forward regarding this bill. Certainly, the area I represent also has a number of home schoolers in the community.

My opportunity to serve on the school board for a number of years gave me also the opportunity to meet with those who were home schooling. As a division and as a community, we had foremost in our minds the needs of the children, and we wanted to see that the students would be able to receive an education. Keeping that in mind, we also indicated very clearly, as a division and as a community, that there were certain requirements that the students who were home schooled needed to follow, and which I would say 99 percent of the time they did.

As is the case in any area with people who are educating their own children at home or even in school, some do fall between the cracks. I think those are a concern to all of us here. So I do not want to put a lot of comments on record. I just want to support the fact that the

3936 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 home schoolers, by and large, are doing a good job. They do have in mind the best for their children, and in fact are sacrificing, in many cases, their own valuable time in educating their students. In most cases, at least in the area I represent, one of the parents would be staying at home and giving that added measure of instruction to the students in order that they can in fact come out, and come out with a good education.

Also, as was indicated, and also witnessed within our area, the fact is that students who graduate with a home-schooling certification, as they would have it, are doing very well. They have, in many cases, put some of the students in public school to shame in the kind of an education that they have received and also in the grades that they have been given. With that, I, too, agree that we want to move this on to committee, but want to continue to support the home schooling and certainly what is best for the students within each area. Hon. Drew Caldwell (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, I am happy to hear some of the comments of the Member opposite and to understand that they are supportive of the Government's policy in this regard. I was very pleased to have the support of the members opposite in this, and I am happy to conclude debate. We on this side of the House are also supportive of home schooling. This provides an opportunity for home schooling to be formally recognized in the province of Manitoba. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Mem bers: Question. Mr.

Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 12 , The Public Schools Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed. Bill 13- The Taxicab Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Highways and Government Services (Mr. Ashton), Bill 13 , The Taxicab Amendment Act (Loi modifiant a!

Loi sur les taxis), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Minnedosa. Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking on this bill and will be the only spokesperson for our side on this. We will be pleased to send this on to committee to hear members of the public comment on this. This is the Minister of Highways' first bill in the Chamber, I believe. It is not a substantive one.

I did listen carefully to his introduction to the Bill , and noted that he went to great lengths to indicate that he wanted participation of the community and harmony and better relationships in this industry. I note that the Bill increases the number of members of the Taxicab Board who are appointed by the Minister from three to five. As a result, the total size of the Bo ard has increased from five to seven members.

I would hope that, when the Minister makes his appointments to this board, he does it in a judicious manner, because certainly it could be seen that he would have five of the seven appointments on the Board, and that he would be making an effort to control this board in having it perform in the manner which he would deem best for the industry. So I would urge the Minister not to consider this a takeover of the Board but an opportunity to have widespread input from members of the community. At this point, we are prepared to let this go to the committee stage and look forward to the public presentations on it.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Speak er: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 13, The Taxicab Amend ment Act.

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 3937 Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 24--The Personal Property Security Amendment and Various Acts Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Cor porate Affairs (Mr. Lemieux), Bi ll 24, The Personal Property Security Amendment and Various Acts Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les suretes relatives aux biens personnels et d'autres dispositions legislatives), standing in the name of Honourable Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay). Is there leave to keep it standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Seine River? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave has been denied. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): I am pleased to make a few comments regarding this bill. The Bill amends The Personal Property Security Act, which was passed some time ago, but, I understand, is waiting for technology to catch up with it.

This is viewed mainly as a housekeeping bill and will help tighten up the Act and make some technical clarifications. I do, however, feel that it is important, as is this act, because the registration of personal property as security is an important factor in today's economy. Certainly, I know that many of those in the financial industry would agree that the registration of personal property is somewhat more challenging than it needs to be at this stage of technology.

Many financial institutions hire individuals whose sole job is to ensure that property used as collateral is registered properly, and those individuals would indicate that the system can be challenging and involve a great deal more paperwork than might be expected. I also understand that it does at times take days to get certified confirmation for some institutions, and they have first right of collateral on the property. This bill, as I understand it, clarifies that financing and discharge statements can be filed electronically.

In today's world, one expects that is reasonable as long as the confidentiality and security can be assured. In fact, this will benefit both the individual owner of the property as well as the institution looking into acquiring security interest in collateral. The ability to make transac tions quickly and accurately is an important part of a successful economy. * (15: 30) Mr. Speaker, with these few comments, I believe that we are ready to allow this bill to proceed to the committee stage. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr.

Speaker: The question before the House is second reading ofBi11 24, The Personal Property Security Amendment and Various Acts Amend ment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 40-- The Business Names Registration Amendment, Corporations Amendment and Partnership Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Bill 40, The Business Names Registration Amendment, Corporations Amend ment and Partnership Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur )'enregistrement des noms commerciaux, Ia

Loi sur les corporations et Ia

Loi sur Ies societes en nom collectif), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Pembina.

3938 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate this opportunity to make a couple of remarks regarding Bill 40. This seems to be another bill on which we are dealing with the best way to disseminate information to the public and those who might have an interest in it. Members on this side of the House recognize that it is important that government provide relevant and important information to those who require it, for whatever reason, in a timely and reasonable manner.

Of course, the way individuals access information today is very different than the way they did so in my parents' and grandparents' days. The Internet has made it possible for individuals in virtually every part of the world to obtain information the minute it becomes available on the Internet medium. I understand from the Minister's remarks on second reading that it is the intention of the Government to post various notices related to the registration of business on the Internet as opposed to the traditional method of publishing them in the Manitoba Gazette.

I think all Members would agree that this will make available this information to a great number of more Manitobans and will do so, I will expect, in a more timely manner. I also note as well the Minister made reference to the fact that this information would still be provided free of charge to those who still wish to receive it in paper form. That is an important qualification because, while the Internet is growing rapidly in its use and application, it is not used universally at this date.

Members on this side of the House view this bill as a step which is basically aimed at improving the manner in which government provides information to the public, and it is an intention that we support and would encourage this government to do more of. With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I believe we are ready to move this bill along. Thank you. Mr. Spea ker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Mem bers: Question. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Biii 40, The Business Names Registration Amendment, Corporations Amend ment and Partnership Amendment Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 42- The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amend ments Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education, Bill 42, The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques et modifications correlatives), standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to place a few words on record about Bill 42, The Public Schools Amendment and Consequential Amend ments Act. I am not pleased, however, with the tone and intent of this legislation. I feel that this legislation has not been a well-thought-out piece of legislation.

I feel that the ramifications to taxpayers, to teachers, and to communities are going to be felt in a very negative way as the consequences ripple across the province. Through this legislation the New Democratic Party Government has removed 50 pages from the original Public Schools Act. This can only politely be described as the gutting of one of the most important pieces of education legislation in this province. For example, school boards are no longer required to provide to an arbitrator information about their financial circumstances. Surely this information is critical to the bargaining process. Mr.

Speaker, furthermore, the following matters previously were not referable for arbitration: the selection, the appointment, the assignment and the transfer of teachers and principals, the method for evaluating the performance of teachers and principals, the size of classes in schools and the scheduling of

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3939 recesses and the midday break. All these considerations are now withdrawn from The Public Schools Act. I find it interesting that the Government has chosen to exclude class size and composition from arbitration until further consultation with Manitobans takes place. Indeed, this legislation provides for the establishment of a provincial commission on class size and composition with a mandate for public consultation. I need to note at this time and put it on record that it is highly unusual for a commission to be placed in a piece of legislation.

This commission is supposed to consult with parents, teachers, trustees, pupils and taxpayers. It is supposed to consider whether class size should be a matter of provincial policy and, if so, to suggest what kind of approach should be used. This is a very complex issue to place before a commission that is not obligated to report for two years. It will be a costly exercise. Will this Minister assure Manitobans that it will not be a waste of money, that the report will not gather dust in the comer, that it will not become some election ploy?

This legislation does not contain any provisions about what will happen should the NDP Government proceed on some of its policies. For example, nowhere does the legislation address the very real possibility that the Province will force school divisions to amalgamate. Mr. Speaker, what are the ramifications for teachers, school boards, and students? Mr. Speaker, other issues are of grave concern. The legislation allows the Manitoba Teachers' Society to organize its members during school hours. This part of the legislation was extracted. Yes, labour has the right to organize.

However, should this take place during valuable school time? What type of service does this provide to students? Teachers will be at risk if union organization takes place in a school setting during school hours. It is important that teachers are supported and protected. This is part of the ill-thought-out ramifications of this legislation. Also, Mr. Speaker, missing from the original legislation is

section 1 03( 1) which stated: "No person shall seek by intimidation or coercion to compel a teacher to become, or to refrain from becoming, or cease to be, a member of the society." Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this must be an area of concern for teachers. I feel that a lot of information has been left out. A lot of information that should have gone to teachers is left out of this legislation. This is why previously in this House I pleaded with the Minister of Education to set aside this legislation, Mr.

Speaker, and take more time to go around the province, to speak with teachers, to speak with parents, to speak with other taxpayers, community members, and be certain that the ramifications of this Legislation would indeed help teachers, not hinder them. Mr. Speaker, there has not been a lot of vision. There has not been a lot of planning, long-term planning. This Legislation, I want to put on record, has very serious, far- reaching concerns for Manitobans, for taxpayers in Manitoba, and in particular for teachers.

On the surface, with the small bit of information that was given to teachers about the fact that they are able to talk about salary and managerial rights, there has not been enough information given to teachers, because this Legislation, I will predict, will come back to bite the NDP Government here in this province of Manitoba. * (15 :40) Further provisiOns pertaining to personnel records have disappeared, Mr. Speaker. For example,

section 101( 6) stated that "a school board or person acting on behalf of the school board shall (

a) provide a teacher with access to the teacher's personnel record upon request." Again, by removing this provision, what do teachers gain? As a teacher of 22 years, there are times when I went in and asked to look at my personnel record and was delighted to have the opportunity to do that. Teachers do this from time to time to ensure that the awards they have been given or the special letters they have been given on a job well done are put right in their personnel record. Mr. Speaker, this is gone. Teachers have no right now to go to the personnel records and request that they see their personnel records.

3940 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 There is nothing in the legislation that allows for this. This again is an ill-planned, ill-thought-out piece of legislation that indeed could come back to harm the teachers, not help them. Indeed, this legislation also provides a whole new collective agreement with very few controls. One of the most disturbing changes, Mr. Speaker, to The Public Schools Act pertains to a school division's ability to pay. I would like to read an important

section of the existing legislation into the record as it concerns factors an arbitrator would take into account when working towards a settlement. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair

Section 12 9 (3) states the following: "The arbitrator shall, in respective matters that might reasonably be expected to have a financial effect on the school division or school district, consider the following factors: "(

a) the school division's or school district's ability to pay, as determined by its current revenues, including the funding received from the government and the Government of Canada, and its taxation revenue; "(

b) the nature and type of services that the school division or school district may have to reduce in light of the decision or award, if the current revenues of the school division or school district are not increased; "(

c) the current economic situation in Manitoba and in the school division or school district." Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have to put on record at this time too, this could be a reason for the forced amalgamation that this government has put on school divisions across the province. This could be a reason why the school divisions who have industry and who are able to put more money into the education pot will be put together with school divisions that maybe do not have as much.

This is good on the surf ace, except it also has great ramifications when it comes to teachers' salaries, when it comes to the programs that students are used to. I would daresay at this time, too, this ties into the fact that Schools of Choice has been impacted by the alteration of the supplementary funding. The lack ofvision, the lack of planning, the lack of careful attention to some of these details is very worrisome for educators and for Manitobans. "(

d) a comparison between the terms and conditions of employment of the teachers in the school division or school district and those of comparable employees in the public and private sectors, with primary consideration given to comparable employees in the school division or school district or in the region of the province in which the school division or school district is located; "(

e) the need ofthe school division or school district to recruit and retain qualified teachers." Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am very concerned that the proposed legislation guts this very important

section from The Public Schools Act. It is incomprehensible to think that this govern ment believes that a school division's ability to pay has no bearing on contract settlements. There are a limited number of dollars available for school divisions to use to fund the schools. Providing Manitoba students with a high-qual ity education costs money. School divisions do not have an unlimited supply of money with which to meet these needs. School trustees have to be mindful of the ability of their taxpayers to pay for the rising cost of education. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I have to put on record at this time that in view of the fact that school divisions are forced to raise the taxes, who is going to be to blame? The teachers are going to be to blame or this government will blame the school divisions for not using their money properly, but the fact of the matter is, know ledgeable people will be very aware that it is this government's policies that have set up this very debilitating structure that is doomed for failure. Surely this government realizes that there are a limited number of taxpayers.

It is all well and good to proclaim that this government will fund education based on growth in the provincial

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3941 economy, but it is also a fool's paradise. We do not want it to happen, but we know that economic growth is cyclical and that eventually the provincial economy will experience periods of slower growth, but slower growth does not mean that the costs of running the school system will necessarily drop. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will the Government then continue to keep pace with funding or will taxpayers be expected to make up the difference? This is why it is so essential that a school division's ability to pay be taken into account in the arbitration process.

Moreover, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees president, Rey Toews, told the Thompson Citizen that the proposed changes remove school divisions management controls over where and how they can assign staff and could drive up education costs. As Mr. Toews stated, obviously, when you lose control, there is no one there to make sure those costs do not get out of control. Moreover, he noted that if arbitrators cannot consider a school division's ability to pay, teachers may seek higher wage settlements. I have to put on record that I believe that teachers should be well paid.

I believe that teachers should have the support and be able to have the wages that they so much deserve, but teachers themselves do not want to pay higher taxes and teachers themselves do not want to hurt the tax base or the ability of their students' parents to pay taxes. Teachers want what is best for the students. Here again I feel that teachers do not know the whole story. This has not been a well thought out piece of legislation. As the Winnipeg Free Press has pointed out regarding ability to pay, quote: If it had not been a factor in recent years, that does not mean it will not be a factor in future years.

Clearly this government lacks the ability to plan ahead and to allow school divisions to do the same. It is readily apparent that this drastic overhaul of the existing legislation is being rammed through as an election promise with little thought to the long-term ramifications to students, parents, teachers, trustees and taxpayers alike. Is this what Manitobans asked for when they elected this government? I think not. I would like to take this House back to June 3, 19 96, the day Bill 72 was announced.

These amendments to The Public Schools Act were designed to achieve a balance between fairness and equality for teachers and affordability and accountability for school trustees and taxpayers. The changes to The Public Schools Act were made in relation to the process and requirements for teacher collective bargaining. Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the beginning representatives from the Manitoba Teachers' Society and the Manitoba Association of School Trustees were included in the consultation process for Bill 72.

The amendments incor porated many of the recommendations of the teacher collective bargaining and compensation committee that dealt only with the collective bargaining issues. When Bill 72 was introduced, the collective bargaining for teachers and trustees had been in place for some 40 years. It has served the needs of students well, in the sense that there were no strikes during that period. However, over the course of 40 years the nature of Manitoba's society had changed, requmng a closer examination of The Public Schools Act and issues that had an impact on collective bargaining.

The amendments provided for in Bill 72 were aimed at ensuring the needs of students were protected and ensured a high quality, affordable education system is maintained in Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, they were also directed at improving the process by giving teachers a voice when it comes to working conditions directly related to their teaching responsibilities and providing school boards with the flexibility to manage effectively.

In order to strike a fair balance between the collective bargaining rights of teachers' and trustees' ability to manage, the amendments specifically stated that all issues that were negotiable would remain negotiable, such as salaries, benefits, contact time, method, time of payment, preparation time, leaves, methods to address employee grievances, et cetera.

3942 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 * (15 :50) The only change that an outside arbitrator could rule on was four items. They were: No. 1, the selection, appointment, assignment and transfer of teachers and principals; two, the method for evaluating the performance of teachers and principals; three, the size of classes in schools; four, the scheduling of recesses and mid-day break.

When Bi ll 72 and its provisions were introduced, it was clear that these were essential management functions that must be preserved to provide trustees, who are politically and legally held accountable for their actions, with a flexibility needed to make the decisions required to run their divisions effectively. When the former government introduced Bill 72, they were told by the Manitoba Teachers' Society and schools' financial books that the schools' financial books should be open to teachers.

The teachers did not want strike lockout, teachers wanted to retain some form of binding arbitration, not to rollback teachers' salaries at any level. The teachers wanted a single arbitrator and to add a mediation process. The Government listened and agreed. The former government also listened to the Manitoba Association of School Trustees who said some form of ability to pay had to be a consideration as part of the bargaining process, who said no, to provincial bargaining, and who said that boards need more management flexibility in order to more accurately reflect the public's priorities in education.

Again, the Government listened and agreed. This is where you see real fairness and balance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Another step the former government took to ensure fairness for teachers was requiring by legislation that school boards act fairly, reasonably, and in good faith in administering their policies and practices related to the four items not referrable for arbitration. The Minister said if teachers believed that this was not happening, they had the right to file a grievance in accordance with the provisions of their collective agreements.

This was a fair and balanced way of dealing with the school system and collective bargaining. All these changes address concerns raised by school trustees, that decisions made by arbitrators who are an outside party and not accountable for divisional operations often did not reflect the realities of a division's ability to pay, nor do they take into account the requirements of the division in managing schools. With these amendments, if disputes did get to arbitration, arbitrators would have to base their decisions on a set of criteria, which included the ability ofthe school division to pay.

In the context of the ability to pay, they would have to consider factors such as economic conditions in Manitoba and the school division, the compensation of comparable employees and the need to recruit and retain teachers. Divisions would be required to provide teacher asso ciations with budgets and related relevant financial information. In the interests of both cost and time effectiveness, Bil l 72 provided for the appointment of single arbitrators, either by mutual agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of both parties or from lists of labour-management approved arbitrators.

The amendments to Bill 72 reflected what was heard from both the Manitoba Teachers' Society and the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. The Government listened and re enacted measures and enacted measures aimed at improving the province's education system. These amendments were the result of extensive process of review and consultation conducted by the former government committee that included a series of public hearings across the province and several meetings with representatives of MTS and MAST. Sadly, this same level of public consultation is lacking with this present government.

This government's education policy seems to be one where directives are issued rather than public input sought. This is a disservice to students and parents, teachers and trustees, who all deserve to have some input into the educational process. If we are to have equality of educational oppor tunities in this province, there must be an open dialogue about how the education system works and how it needs to evolve. The previous government believed that the best settlement is one that can be reached through an agreement between teachers and the

July 12 , 2000 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3943 division without resorting to formal dispute resolution mechanisms. The goal of the mediation process was to encourage local settlements, bearing in mind the unique needs of individual divisions. Mr. Speaker in the Chair Manitobans deserve an education system that is both responsive and accountable through the effective use of resources and our shared commitment to ensure Manitoba students receive a high quality education we will be able to secure for them and a prosperous future.

Over the years, questions had arisen about the effectiveness of the system in meeting the needs of students, school divisions and taxpayers. June 5, 19 96, Bi ll 72 was introduced for this reason. These are of concern to all parties, but most particularly, school trustees have expressed concern. At the start of the review process a few years ago, the former government set out five principles. Key among those was that any changes should be designed to ensure the needs of the students are addressed. There was general agreement that the right to strike and lockout would not be in the best interests of students.

Teachers, as well, indicated that having strike privileges could prevent them from having good relationships with people in the communities where they live, and they spoke against strike. Trustees spoke about strike interrupting the learning process. It was very clear that there was no party who would accept strike as a choice of preference. Therefore, these amendments were designed to improve the current bargaining and binding arbitration process while continuing to prohibit strikes as a dispute resolution mechanism. The Government also eliminated lockout which, I believe, is to the teachers' benefit.

The amendments brought forward by the previous government were designed to accomplish several things: to provide processes to ensure that collective bargaining is conducted in an effective, efficient and timely manner; allow all issues related to teacher compensation and working conditions to be negotiated, unless they were already limited in legislation. In other words, all items that were currently allowed to be negotiated would continue to be allowed to be negotiated, within the limitations imposed by The Public Schools Act as it had been written many years ago.

The amendments were also intended to accomplish the insurance that the ability to pay is given an appropriate degree of weight by the arbitrators in making a decision, while at the same time, ensuring that it is not the only factor considered. The definition of ability to pay combines those elements identified by trustees and includes those elements identified by teachers. It is a measure designed to be met with acceptance on both sides. Bi ll 72 also ensured that the ability of locally elected trustees to manage schools was maintained by restricting four items from being determined by a third party.

These are items that are clearly identified in The Public Schools Act and have been for many, many years as basic management functions that are required to run a division. It also ensured that teachers are afforded the protection that divisions must act reasonably fairly and in good faith in administering their policies and practice with respect to those items, those four that while negotiable, will not be referred to arbitration. As with any system of collective bargaining, it is expected that most agreements would be arrived at between the parties without any third party intervention.

In a negotiated settlement and a negotiated agreement, Mr. Speaker, both divisions and teachers are accountable for the results and can determine for themselves where priorities lie. It is only when negotiations cannot be concluded that it is necessary to ensure that there is a process in place that provides some measure of accountability for third parties when they make the decisions on behalf of others.

We hope through these provisions that boards and teachers would be encouraged to settle locally rather than simply applying for the more expensive, costly and time-consuming procedure of arbitration. * (1 6:00) Bi ll 72 provided for two approaches to bargaining and dispute resolution. The first is essentially the existing approach for collective

3944 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA July 12 , 2000 bargaining, followed by provincial government conciliation and finally binding arbitration. The key difference was that proceeding with this approach would require agreement by both parties. The second method would be bargaining followed by mediation and binding arbitration with the same individual serving as a mediator and arbitrator. The parties could jointly select this approach at any time, and either party could do so after a minimum of 60 days has passed from the date that notice to begin bargaining is given.

One of the major concerns raised by school trustees is that decisions raised by arbitrators often did not reflect the realities of a division's ability to pay. The definition provided in Bill 72 stated that an arbitrator must take into consideration certain items regarding abil ity to pay. That definition took into account factors identified by teachers and factors identified by trustees. This met with acceptance from both sides, Mr. Speaker.

It also included that the arbitrator must consider other factors such as the economic conditions in Manitoba, the division, the compensation of comparable employees and the need to recruit and retain teachers. I think this would help with both sides. The Education Minister in this government has stated that the purpose of Bill 42 is, and I quote: "to put into place a framework for collective bargaining which will stand the test of time and allow our schools to function in an atmosphere of mutual respect and benefit." The Minister said, Mr. Speaker: "This bill is about fairness.

It is about sta bility in our schools. It is about creating an environment that allows all of us to work towards achieving the main priority of our public school system, ensuring that our children receive the highest quality of education possible." Mr. Spea

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-1-60
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 1st hansardpdf 60.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	551c0ae1836ff49a5d579ac8d1a3b890cfb39b09

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