Manitoba Hansard — 28 October 1996 (Sitting 71, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-71

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba ..... .. •: · .. ·.·'" :'�\�).J.._b!�� .' .-·�· DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 71- 1:30 p.m., Monday, October 28, 1996

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name Constituency �!arty ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Anhur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Alben, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. ... , EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. '- FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATH LIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norben P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. - MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Ponage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupensland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone PC . SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C.

STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Tunle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fon Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P.

4525 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, October 28,1996 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS Bon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resour ces): Madam Speaker, on Thursday a matter of privilege was raised against myself in this House. I wish to at this time table a letter for your perusal and for the House and for the media, for that matter, that might help in the decision-making issue that you have taken under advisement. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Manitoba Telephone System Mr. Clif Evans (Interl ake): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Edward R.

Arndt, Ross McDougall and Devin Crawler requesting that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Guaranteed Annual Income Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Don Sullivan, Jack McLachlan, Elizabeth Carlyle and others requesting that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Mitchelson) to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care, and that this annual income increase as prices increase and that this new legislation also provide for the creation of real jobs, with a goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can fmd safe, meaningful work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families. Manitoba Telephone System Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St.

James): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Joe Roth, Steve Palamar, Muron Standera and others requesting the Premier withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Manitoba Telephone System Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). It complies with the rules and practices of the House (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Manitoba Telephone System has served this province well for over 80 years providing province wide service, some of the lowest local rates in North America and thousands ofjobs and keeping profits in Manitoba; and THAT MTS contributes $450 million annually to the Manitoba economy and is a major sponsor of community events throughout the province; and THAT MTS, with nearly 4,000 employees including more than 1, 000 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one of Manitoba's largest firms, headquartered in Manitoba and is committed to Manitoba; and THAT the provincial government has no mandate to sell MTS and said before and during the 1995 election that MTS was not for sale.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. "'(13 35) Guaranteed Annual Income Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense.

4526 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT in 1976 Canada signed the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognized the right of everyone to make a living by work which is freely chosen, recognized the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, recognized the right of everyone to enjoy a high standard of physical and mental health, and provided for the widest possible protection and assistance to the family; and THAT poor children and adults in Canada continue to die at a higher rate and earlier age than people with adequate incomes; and THAT Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment Act, will create even greater poverty among the poor in Manitoba by eliminating government responsibility to ensure that everyone who lacks adequate food, clothing, housing and health care has these needs met; and THAT the bill proposes to punish people by cutting them off from social assistance or reducing their benefits if they fail to meet employment expectations; and WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Family Services to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care and that this annual income increases as prices increase and that this new legisl ation also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningfUl work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 302-The Grand Lodge of Manitoba of the Independent Order of Oddfe llows Incorporation Amendment Act Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I would move, seconded by the MLA for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that leave be given to introduce Bill 302, The Grand Lodge of Manitoba of the Independent Order of Oddfellows Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corpor ation � The Grand Lodge of Manitoba of the Independent Order of Oddfellows "• and that the same be now received and read a first time. Madam Speaker: Is there leave? [agreed] Motion agreed to.

PRESENTING PETITIONS Manitoba Telephone System Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Broadway have leave to revert to Presenting Petitions? [agreed] Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition ofE.J. Richmond, Marguerite Ogilvie, Brenda Pauls and others requesting that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell Manitoba Telephone System to private interests.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw attention to the public gallery, where we have this afternoon forty-five Grades 2 and 3 students from Lacerte School Wlder the direction of Madame Prejet and Mademoiselle Dumont. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. Also in the public gallery, we have sixty-three Grade 11 students from the Diocesan High School Wlder the direction of Mr. Allan Smith and Mr. Blaine Lassen.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. -

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4527 ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Teaching Profession Government Support Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity again, since the House was recessed for the weekend, to attend a meeting of parents and teachers in the community of Brandon.

Regrettably, the government was unable to send any one of their 31 members to that meeting, and it is consistent with a basic contemptuous attitude that we are picking up from the members opposite in terms of the legislative policies they have towards public teachers and the kinds of statements we hear them making. At a recent public meeting in Seine River, at the lawn bowling club, it was reported that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) had stated that teachers were only protecting their own salaries in terms of raising issues of public education. We on this side believe that teachers are part of the solution.

Members opposite obviously believe they are part of the problem. Why is the government continuing to disregard and disrespect our public teachers in the province of Manitoba, and I would like that question to be answered by the Acting Premier, please. Bon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I indicate, first of all, that we are not ignoring the needs and interests of teachers. Teachers we value very highly indeed.

Indeed, almost half of our caucus is composed of teachers and many of us have teachers as-our own children are teachers or our spouses are teachers so we know, understand and value the work that is being done by teachers. With regard to the rally, the member knows that I did receive an invitation this time. I had not the previous two occasi ons. This time I did receive an invitation to the rally which pleased me very much. It meant a great deal to me to be invited, and I had accepted the invitation to attend the rally if, and only if, I were not called into committee.

The member opposite knows because his government House leader along with our government House leader called Bill32 for the day of the rally, and as the minister responsible for Bill 32 it was a requirement that I be there. As well, I note that members of our caucus were in full attendance at the committee hearings as required by them as well, so I wrote immediately that the committee hearings were called. I faxed a letter to the president of the Teachers' Society indicating that with regret I could not attend the rally, but that I had very much appreciated being invited.

I did appreciate the invitation, and next time perhaps the rules of the House will be such that the Minister of Education and her colleagues might be free to attend and be with the teachers as they discuss their concerns. "'(13 40) Salary Levels Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I asked why not one of the 31 members opposite would attend that meeting. I guess if it was a ribbon cutting ceremony they would have about eight or nine members of the government side there.

I also asked the minister and Acting Premier a question dealing with a town hall meeting attended by the Minister of Education, by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) , by the Speaker and by the Premier (Mr. Filmon), wherein the Premier stated that teachers are only interested in protecting their own salaries, which I thought was an insult to the many teachers that we know and listen to that are interested obviously in kids, public education and the quality of public education, and are fighting to keep up with the cutbacks, the $43 million that has been cut by this government.

A parent goes on to say, in writing, and I will table the letter for the minister, she heard this testimony at the committee hearing on Saturday that-[interjection] No, but the Minister of Government Services was there-the Premier went on to say that the teachers are paid 15 percent more than the private sector over a comparable period of time. Is that also the motive behind Bill 72 , the policies in Bill 72 , that they only care about their own salaries, which we do not agree with, and that they are overpaid by some 15 percent according to the Tory government after the election? Bon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, we have said repeatedly through all of our dialogue on Bill 72 that what we are seeking to do is to address the concerns that were brought

4528 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 fonvard by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees which indicated that over the 40 years that the existing legislation on binding arbitration has been in place, over the last 1 0 to 12 years the things that are bargained, the scope of the bargaining and the precedents that have been set by individual arbitrators have taken that original agreement far away from what it was originally intended.

School trustees contend that they are losing their ability to manage and that the rates they are having to pay their salar ied employees in the teaching profession have escalated beyond similar professions in the private sector, and statistics bear out the reality of that. But never, never, to my knowledge-I do not recall the Premier (Mr. Filmon) making the quote that was attributed to him-but I can certainly indicate that never in my experience have I said teachers are overpaid.

I have indicated statistically that over a course of time the raises accorded to the profession have been in excess of those awarded to other professions, but that is not to say or to be interpreted as any slight on teachers. It is simply a statistical reality. The legislation is intended to introduce balance, fairness and protection for teachers, things for teachers in this legislation far beyond what they curre ntly have, and I believe the balance is a good one, Madam Speaker. Mr.

Doer: The balance that used to be achieved in this province used to be done so between trustees, parents and teachers together, unlike the unilateral, autocratic and dictatorial approach of members opposite. The minister is now confirming that the true motivation of the government is in the morning to cut $43 million or some 2 percent per year from public education and then in the afternoon cut the salaries based on the 15 percent statement of the Premier. I would like to ask the Minister of Education, who is telling the truth, the Minister of Education's assertion about the Premier or Mr. Tom Barker when Mr.

Barker said the teachers only care about their salary levels? We believe that teachers care about kids, they care about parents, they care about curriculum, they care about the future of this province, unlike members opposite who do not care about teachers in our public education system. Mrs. Mcintosh: I do not accept the

preamble of the member opposite. The member opposite is putting words into the mouths of people that were not said. He is taking comments about statistical evidence out of context and attributing subjective commentary to objective information. *

(1345) Point of Order Mr. Doer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the minister is imputing motives. I am merely quoting from the letter of a parent that attended the same meeting that the Minister of Education and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) attended. Mrs. Mcintosh: The same point of order, and then if I may continue my question, the member opposite is saying that I am imputing motives to him; I am not. I am simply indicating that one must not make subjective comments about objective statistical analysis. He can quote from a letter, that is fine.

But I do not know the writer; I do not know the letter; I do not know the context. I am saying statistical evidence is not an imputation of motives. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official opposition does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education, to complete her response. Mrs.

Mcintosh: I am very surprised that the member opposite would call this a unilateral piece of legislation in light of the fact that the request to have legislation such as this brought forward was requested three successive years, two with formal resolutions passed on the floor of convention by the trustees of Manitoba who in tum are elected by the entire population of the province of Manitoba. In addition, consultation was done on this issue, and I reiterate that if the member feels this legislation is being brought in because we want some way just to simply hurt teachers, the member is wrong.

We value teachers highly. There is much in this legislation that is so good for teachers, replacing collective rights with individual rights that they could not get through a collective agreement. -

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4529 Madam Speaker, we can talk more about this in committee tonight but if I were a teacher right now I would be very pleased with what I see in this legislation, contrary to the rumours, innuendo and the false information that is being distributed about it. Access Programs Bursaries Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

On four occasions in Hansard and again last week, the Minister of Education has said that many students from former Access programs received annual nonrefundable bursaries of $25,000 to $27,000. Over the past year I have written to the minister several times to ask exactly how many Access students this involved. In response the minister has prevaricated. She offered hypothetical situations; she rolled loans into bursaries; she added four years of bursaries together and eventually said she could not give me any number.

I would like to ask the minister to confirm that the real reason she refused to answer a very straightforward question is that her own departmental records, which I recei ved on Freedom of Information, show that since 1994 no students have received bursaries in that amount. Bon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): I would indicate to the member that 25 students, approximately 25, give or take one or two, have received bursary amounts in excess of$25,000.

Madam Speaker, I would also indicate that for the years in which she spoke, she used the figure of$25,000 and for those years no individual student in any one year received $25,000, but four students did receive bursaries and some are in the area of, like, $23,900, $23,000, so very close to the $25,000. There are 25 students who, over the course of their studies, have received more than $25,000. I would like to table a sample case showing a single parent with three dependants living in northern Manitoba being eligible for up to $33,000, with an Access bursary of$26,890.

I have tried to explain this to the member from every perspective I can think of. I have tried to explain it by individual by year, by individual over time of study, by the eligibility, by the actuals. I do not know how many different ways I can explain to her that Access students can get an unlimited amount of money over and above their loan if they need it, and she just does not want to accept that reality. *

(1350) Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, what I have been looking for is a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. Would the minister confirm that she has just done exactly what she did over the past year? She has rolled years of bursaries into one, she has given a hypothetical situation, but her own Freedom of Information says that the number of Access students who have or are receiving nonr epayable bursaries between $25,000 and $27,000 annually-what the minister had put on the record-show that no students have received bursaries in those amou nts.

Will she now retract that statement, that there are no students? Mrs. Mcintosh: As I have indicated, I have tried to explain from individual by year, individual by program, individual by eligibility, individual by actual. The member has zeroed in on, how many individual students received more than $25,000 as a gift. I am saying to the member that ove rall 25 students right now have received more than $25,000 over the course of one or two years. She wants to cut off an individual student per year at $25,000.

I am telling her that someone last year got $24,000, so technically, yes, last year nobody got $25,000, but one got $24,000, another got $23,000, and anybody is eligible for more than $23,000, $24,000, $25,000. Witness the sample case I have just tabled showing an eligibility for $33,000. So I do not know what more the member wants. Access is able to provide money in this amount. That is the point, that is the message and the member wants to go on and on. She may, but it is counterproductive, and I think she would have more immediate issues to address right now.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, with a final supplementary question.

4530 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, would the minister now retract the statement she has made several times in Hansard, and which shocked so many Access students, that they had received annual free grants of $25,000 to $27,000? Will she now retract that so that Manitobans can be assured that this is not a government which has slipped across the line into the practice of habitual deceit? Because that is what it is. Point of Order Bon.

Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, if you will refer to Beauches ne, I am not sure of the exact section, but a question that has been asked before ought not to be asked again. This is the third time. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on the same point of order. Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, yes, it is the same in Hansard, one, October 10, where I said, "Those who need money are given a straight gift over and above the loan of up to $25,000, $27,000 ... a year if they need it, if their needs require it.

It is not repayable in any way to the Province of Manitoba." Then on- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education, to quickly complete her response. Mrs. Mcintosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. On that same day, I had indicated that many of the students receiving $25,000 or $27,000 a year- Ms. Friesen: How many? question because I have not received an answer, and the Mrs. Mcintosh: Pardon me? minister is doing exactly what she has done over a year in writing. She is prevaricating, she is dissimulating, and Ms.

Friesen: How many students received that much? she is not dealing honestly with the citizens of Manitoba. Madam Speaker. Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, there definitely is a reference in Beauchesne 409; however, I have been informed that, in Manitoba practice, rarely is that citation followed. However, I would remind the honourable member for Wolseley that on a supplementary question, the question requires no debate, no

preamble or midamble and should consist of one carefully drawn sentence. * * * *

(1355) Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, I would submit that the question has been answered. The member just does not like the answer because it shows we are good to Access students. Let me quote the Hansard from which she is quoting because I think it is important with her allegations of dishonesty that I quote what was actually said in Hansard. There were a couple of statements that I made Mrs. Mcintosh: Well, Madam, Speaker, you know what- Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Wolseley that this is not a time for debate.

A question has been asked, and the honourable Minister of Education is attempting to complete her response but cannot do so when she is so rudely continually interrupted. The honourable Minister of Education, to complete her response. Mrs. Mcintosh: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I do not know what more I can say. I have tried to explain it, as I say, from three or four different perspectives. The member has a Freedom of Information request that zeroes in on one speciflc item of that response. I have given her all that information.

Now I suspect-! do not know if she wants me just to keep going until she gets an answer she wants. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The response has been put. -

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4531 Holiday Haven Nursing Home Investigation Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, the minister has indicated that a consultant will be hired by Holiday Haven Nursing Home and that the minister will have his department personally investigate the many complaints which I will be forwarding to his office, and they will be forwarded within 10 days.

My question that I would like to ask the minister is, why, since the minister has had a file of complaints from Holiday Haven dating at least back for two years, has he only taken action in this area in October and after this matter has become a very public issue? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Spe aker, any complaints that come to my attention are then taken up with the facility or personal care home involved in the complaint. That would be the normal course of the handling of individual complaints that might come forward.

I assume, because of an escalation of complaints and issues in recent times, the department met with the Holiday Haven personal care home representatives earlier this month to address the problems from a systemic point of view as opposed to an anecdotal point of view, to address the problems that may have been somewhat longer standing in that particular place. So we expect that with the help of a consultant that Holiday Haven will be able to address the shortcomings that exist. Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I would like to table a letter dated July 28, 1994, from the minister's department to a person complaining about problems at Holiday Haven, with some very serious problems. Can the minister explain why, two years after receipt of this letter, some of these problems have not been addressed? In fact, they are some of the very problems that are a concern today. Why does this department not follow up and initiate action? *

(1400) Mr. McCr ae: I thank the honourable member for tabling this information, and it will be taken into account in the review that is presently underway. Health Care Facilities Accreditation Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, along the same lines, can the minister explain why the Health Sciences Centre, and now we have heard Brandon Hospital will be facing difficulties with their accreditation, because the government has known for years of major problems, particularly in the operating room, where you know last week at Health Sciences Centre what the difficulties were, why the department has sat and done nothing with respect to those centres, particularly the Health Sciences Centre, and now it is in danger of losing accreditation because of government inaction year after year? Bon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): In the case of the Health Sciences Centre, the plan for the city of Winnipeg was announced on August 20, and work will go forward to address issues related to physical plant issues at Health Sciences Centre in furtherance of the plan announced on August 20. With respect to the Brandon General Hospital, I was pleased to share a platform with the honourable member for Kildonan and the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) last Thursday evening. We addressed a number of matters brought forward by some 258 members of the public who attended that evening.

Brandon General Hospital is also part of a larger plan for the regionalization of the city of Brandon. The hospital CEO has recently resigned his position. I am pleased to note that Brandon General Hospital has put together a number of directions in terms of how they will manage their immediate and shorter-term and medium-term issues. One of them, I am very pleased to note, is the opening up of their processes to the public. Child and Family Services Agencies Reduced Workweek Impact Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, hearings on The Child and Family Services Act have been occurring at the same time as there have been more deaths of small children known to Child and Family Services. A brief presented at these hearings representing the staff says, selected policies of fiscal restraint now appear to be driving decisions regarding acceptable levels of risk for the children of Manitoba.

4532 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 The report goes on to say that 12,269 days have been lost to Child and Family Services to the children and families of Manitoba due to Filrnon Fridays. I want to ask the minister responsible, will the government end its Filrnon Fridays at Child and Family Services which amount to putting the agency on crisis mode for 40 days? Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question because it does allow me the opportunity to indicate that we have year after year put more resources into our Child and Family Services system. Some $13 million over the last five years have been added to Winnipeg Child and Family Services. I guess it just seems that no amount of money is able to ensure that there is better care for children who need our support and our services.

We will continue to work very diligently to try to ensur e, through some of the new initiatives, through the review of the act and through the new direction that we have taken in the department, that all Manitobans have the opportunity to participate in trying to help form and support healthy families. Ms.

Cerilli: Will the minister admit that there have been no real financial savings with these Filrnon Fridays since they have been forced to hire 40 staff and have people on night duty, and there have actually been real costs of increasing the risk for error, either in having children apprehended who do not need to be apprehended or leaving children in families where they are injured or even killed? Mrs.

Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we have been putting additional resources into our Child and Family Services system year after year after year, and it is of some concern, of course, when there are children that are abused or even child deaths. It is not an issue that I take lightly. It is an issue that ministers of Family Services, regardless of political stripe, over the years in Manitoba have had to deal with, as they do in all provinces right across the country.

I would like to indicate that there are-it is not only the hours of nine to five, Monday to Friday, that we find children in dangerous circumstances in families. It happens after hours and on weekends also, and I have to indicate that I would hope that all of the work that is done by those that are working in the field is work that will improve the circumstances of children in families in Manitoba. Ms.

Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister to understand that we are asking her to reconsider her policy ofFilrnon Fridays at Child and Family Services, especially given that Fridays have the highest incidence of abuse disclosures from children. Given all of these cons iderations, will she look at the impact of Filrnon Fridays on the caseloads and on the children in families in Manitoba? Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, I know that very often allegations of abuse or children left abandoned or neglected is not necessarily on a Friday, but it happens.

Monday to Sunday, 24 hours a day, we fmd that there are children that are apprehended at all times of the day and night, so what we want to do is ensure that the additional resources that are going into our Child and Family Services system, some $13 million extra in Winnipeg alone over the last number of years, are being used in the most appropriate fashion to ensure protection, care and support for children and families. Ecole Lavallee Funding Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

On October I 0, my colleague from The Maples asked the Minister of Education if federal funding was available for Ecole Lavallee in St. Vital. In response she claimed that she continually grovelled for education funding from the federal governmen t I find that image disturbing since it is not true. The minister's cuts to education are a responsibility to no one else. If matching funds for the St. Vital school, Ecole Lavallee, are available, will the minister support this project? Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's support for education in his district because over time he has proven to me his credibility on this issue, so I take his question seriously. I indicat e, first of all, that all capital for new schools comes through the Public Schools Finance Board. Those decisions are made by that body and not by governm ent. Governm ent will allocate a certain amount of funding to the Public Schools Finance Board, and from within that allocation, it will prioritize the needs of the province and

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4533 assign capital projects on that basis. So that decision would have to go through them. I also indicate though that we do repeatedly ask the federal government to reinstate its transfer payments. Those cuts are huge, and the OLE funding cuts are huge as well. I know the member has tried on occasions in the past to be of assistance to us on that issue. Mr.

Gaudry: To the same minister, Madam Speaker, if her department has applied for federal funding for Ecole Lavallee School, and if she has been refused, will she table the rejection letter or the letter of approval? Mrs. Mcintosh: I do not have such documents to table. I can indicate to the member that in our dialogue with the federal government on issues of funding for French language education, we have addressed the overall picture of the federal transfer cuts, the funding for French immersion, the OLE funding, which have had huge cutbacks in recent years.

A positive response from the federal government on those issues would be very welcome. It would enab le us to deal with individual requests such as this more easily. Education System Provincial Responsibility Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): To the same minister, will the minister admit that education is a provincial responsibility regardless of where the funding comes from? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Yes, indeed that is true.

Education is a provincial responsibility, and ministers of Education right across this nation have indicated that they prefer the consensus provinces can come to as a group for national direction.

Ministers across the nation at the same time have said that though it is a provincial responsibility, over the course of the history of Canada, the federal government has always provided a certain amount of money for post-secondary education which has been drastically and dramatically cut- $220 million cut this coming year for health and education and family services here which is roughly the equivalent of the University of Manitoba operating budget.

If you follow the time at which the cuts began to be implemented-it was not necessarily with just this particular federal government�you can see that, prior to the massive decreases in federal transfer cuts, we had a lot more money and were able to fund education much more highly than we currently are right now. Manitoba Telephone System Privatization Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): In 1995 the Conservatives ran a fraudulent election campaign in which they said they would not sell MTS, a misrepresentation they repeated numerous times in this Legislature.

I would like to ask today, on a day which will probably have the first vote ever on the sale of MTS, that of the members of the Legislature, if the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) will not finally do the right thing and, given that fraudulent election campaign, put the decision on the future ofMTS to the people of Manitoba, a shareholders' vote of the people ofManitoba? Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, I would first of all like to say to the member that I do not accept any ofhis

preamble about the election and the manner in which it was carried out. As the member knows, there are 57 people sent to the Legislature to express themselves as to the direction the government is going and the actions they are doing. He has had that opportunity to do it. We have had the opportunity to do it, and there will be a vote take place. I can assure you that there is a sensitivity to the people that we represent in the province of Manitoba, and it is our intention to do what we believe is in the best interests to carry on the future of this province in a very positive way. "'

(1410) Privatization-Public Hearings Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Well, since at least 23 of us told the truth to the people of Manitoba in the election, not the 31 government members- Madam Speaker: Question. The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if the Deputy Premier is really serious about being sensitive to Manitobans, will

4534 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 he at least-since this bill will probably be voted upon in second reading today and will be going to committee tomorrow-ensure that hearings will be held throughout rural and northern Manitoba to make sure that Mani tobans can have a first-hand opportunity to speak about the future of their telephone company? Hon.

James Downey (Deputy Premier): Unlike other provinces in this country, the public does have the opportunity to come before committee, come to this Legislature, as they have done when the New Democratic Party were in office, when the Conservative government are in office, have the opportunity to come forward and express themselves. That, Madam Speaker, they will have the opportunity to oo and will continue to have to do as far as we are concerned.

Madam Speaker, they did not have the opportunity to speak out, other than when the next election came, when the former New Democratic Party spread $27 million over the sands of Saudi Arabia through the Manitoba Telephone System. Mr. Ashton: My question was very simple, Madam Speaker. Will this governm ent hold hearings in rural and northern Manitoba about the future of MTS, a decision that will be made on November 7, just barely over a week to go? Will they hold hearings throughout Manitoba? Mr.

Downey: Madam Speaker, as I indicated previously, the public will have the opportunity to come before the committee of the Legislature when the bill goes before it, which is a normal process. Nobody will be denied the opportunity of presenting themselves and that I think is extremely important, that the opportunity remain as legislation is presented in this province, unlike when I said actions like the New Democratic Party carried out when they spent $27 million in the sands of Saudi Arabia without the right to do so by the people of Manitoba. Manitoba Telephone System Manglobe Contract Mr.

Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. Earlier this year the government through MTS entered into a contract worth $3 million with a newly formed company called Manglobe Virtual. Since no tendering process was used, I would like to ask the Deputy Premier what criteria were employed to select the successful applicant. Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Elmwood, with a supplementary question. Mr.

Maloway: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the same minister is this: Since the corporation, advanced its first $375,000 in February-<:an the minister tell us what results he has to show for this expenditure? Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, as it relates to any activ ities carried out, I can assure the member that any programs or any development are carried out in the interests of the development of activities in the province of Manitoba, whether it is creation of employment, technology, but I will, as well, get additional information for the member. Mr.

Maloway: Madam Speaker, my final question to the same minister is this, and this is an easy one that he should be able to answer. That is, what was the purpose of the additional $125,000 advanced to this company by this minister from his I, T and T department? Mr. Downey: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, I am prepared to provide the information. The agreement that was entered into with Manglobe, as I said, was to create and develop technology to create employment for the people of Manitoba. If the member has additional information that I should be aware of, I would invite him to provide it.

I am quite prepared to make sure that any activities carried out by my department and by this governm ent are appropriate. I am quite prepared to respond back at an appropriate time. W estf air Foods Labour Disput�Mediation Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Last week, I asked the Minister of Labour why he would not appoint a mediator to resolve the dispute that is taking place currently -

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4535 between Westfair Foods and the retail-wholesale employees employed in that company. At that time, the Minister of Labour said that there was a unique situation and that there are unique concerns, and that is why he will not appoint a mediator.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour, are the unique concerns that he talks about with respect to this strike the fact that Westfair Foods has contributed to the Conservative Party since 1988 some $40,000 and that is the reason why this Minister of Labour will not appoint a mediator because Westfair does not want him to appoint a mediator? Bon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): As indicated in my response to the member's question last week, we continue to look at the situation. We continue to work with both parties. I understand there is a conciliation meeting set for November 4.

Some of these unique concerns will be discussed there, and I am trusting that in time a resolution will be arrived at in respect of this particular dispute. We are prepared to do as much as possible to try to get these two sides together. It is a difficult situation, and I am confident that in time they will resolve their dispute. Mr.

Reid: I want to ask the Minister of Labour, because he does have a double standard with labour relations, why this Minister of Labour is listening to Westfair Foods and their $40,000 contribution to his party when he knows full well that he appointed a mediator to deal with the strike during the University of Manitoba strike last year that was not called for by both parties at that time, and he went forward and appointed a mediator. Why is he relying on the fact that both parties in this case have not called for a mediator and that he will not appoint a mediator in this case?

Why will he not do the right thing and appoint one now? *

(1420) Mr. Toews: Again the member indicates that there is some kind of double standard. I can tell this House that there is no double standard, not like the kind of double standard that the NDP used in 1988 when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was in power, and he told striking workers at the Health Sciences Centre that the provincial government is not involved in a dispute between the hospital and the union. He said it was not any of our business at that time.

I can tell you that this government continues to stay involved in an appropriate and in a prudent way, unlike the member opposite who said that labour disputes are simply the concern between the employer and the union. We have never said that. We do not set a double standard such as they do now that they are in opposition. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Employment Creation Mr.

Frank Pitura (Morris): A survey made public last week by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business indicated that Manitoba responses point to some of the most confident business people in the country. Manitoba's small- or medium-sized businesses are expected to lead Canada in hiring over the next 12 months. Of the more than 900 Manitoba respondents to the survey, 34.8 percent of those who hired or who intend to hire did so because of business growth. This is the highest level in the country, a full 7.6 percent higher than second-place New Brunswick.

So, while members opposite cnt1c1ze incessantly, businesses move aggres sively forward, taking full advantage of the longest-running tax freeze in North America as well as the strongest balanced budget legislation in the country. Our government has long recognized that government alone cannot create jobs and wealth. However, leadership and a strong long-term policy framework can provide a favourable and competitive economic clinlate for the growth of jobs and the economy. It is encouraging to see once more that our policies and legislation are having tangible, positive results on Manitobans.

Madam Speaker, it should also be noted that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business found that new hirings are, for the majority, career opportunities. This bodes well for young people graduating from community colleges and universities. They can graduate with the knowledge that career opportunities are available, opportunities that will allow them to remain in

4536 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 Manitoba, to live, work, invest and raise a family. Thank you. Politician/Media Spelling Bee Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, just when Manitobans were convinced that politicians were not even speaking to each other, we politicians managed to pull another mbbit from the hat. It is too bad that journalists have fled the gallery because I refer, of course, to the politicians' resounding victory in last Friday's spelling bee, one event in School Division No. I 's 125th anniversary celebration, an event which featured politicians versus journalists.

After much early-morning swagger and braggadocio, evid ent to all Friday morning Free Press readers, the journalists at high noon were roundly trounced by a team which included the Premier (Mr. Filmon), Councillor Garth Steek, school trustee Betty Granger and me, the MLA for Osborne. The defeated team of Lindor Reynolds, Roger Currie, Marjorie Stevens and Diana Swain were unrepentant, and despite a 22 to 19 loss, refused a public retraction of their boast to, quote, make mincem eat out of the political team. Even the CBC coverage, supposedly unbiased, continued the myth of journalistic superiority.

All I heard were whispers of, wait till next time . Of course, we will wait till next time, and we will be ready. The Filmon team, or more properly the McGifford Filmon team, developed a strategy of consultation and teamwork, clearly the basic socialistic principle of co opera tion. Clearly, this principle carried our team to victory.

The final word, undoubtedly, Manitobans will sleep securely tonight safe in the knowledge that the member for Osborne can spell "accessories" and "scisso rs" and the Premier has mastered the spelling of "deficit" and "aardvark." Indeed, this Premier can even spell "potato." Economic Growth Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): I think every now and then we must highlight some of our province's economic performances, and I would like to share a few of these with the members.

Manitoba is the only province to have recorded five consecutive years of rising private sector investment The total increase between '92 and '96 was 22.3 percent, which is five times the growth rate of Canada. Manufacturing investment in Manitoba has been very strong since the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement carne into effect in '89. Over those eight years, real manufacturing investment has been 73 percent higher than in the preceding eight years. The Free Trade Agreement has also been a boon to Manitoba exporters.

Over the past four years, mercha ndise exports to the U.S. have increased 124 percent, the largest increase by a substantial margin of any province and well above the national increase of 86 percent. Retail sales in '95 and '96 have grown at more than double the national rate. This strength may be explained by the fact that Manitobans have among the lowest level of household indebtedness in the country. There has been a revolution in Canada in Canadian agri culture over the past few years. Manitoba farmers have shifted production and are investing in new capacity, especially livestock.

Thanks to these changes and to current strong gmin prices, farm cash receipts from the market have grown at double-digit rates in both '95 and '96. Madam Speaker, this government has been working hard to ensure that Manitoba's economic prosperity continues to perform well. We will continue to follow our fiscal strategy of balancing budgets and repaying the debt. We will also continue to provide a stable and competitive tax regime.

Thanks in part to fiscal discipline, Manitoba has one of the strongest economies in Canada, and it is easy to see why the CFIB stated that Manitoba has set a standard that many other provinces should follow. Manitoba Telephone System Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, over the past three years, Manitoba Telephone System has systematically been stripped of valuable assets such as cable and telemarketing. At the same time, Manitoba Telephone has been told to cut over 1,000 jobs. Three hundred of those were cut this last spring.

Many of these jobs have been cut, of course, removed from rural Manitoba making a mockery of this government's decentralization policy. Rural Manitobans know very well who the losers will be once MTS is sold off. -

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4537 On June 10, MTS filed application requesting residential rate hikes of up to 80 percent for rural Manitobans. The politically appointed CRTC are reviewing this request at this time, but it is clear such hikes will greatly benefit the new owners ofMTS. Small wonder that once again today the provincial government is refusing to hold hearings outside the Legislative Building. Despite wasting over $400,000 advertising the so-called reasons for dumping MTS, the government knows that rural Manitobans do not believe this government. *

(1430) In the last week alone, rural municipalities such as Lac du Bonnet, Brokenhead, Grandview and others across the province have passed resolutions asking that hearings be held outside of Winnipeg. This government has refused to listen to rural Manitobans, and, once again, they have broken their promise on MTS. Nowhere did they talk about the sale of the MTS during the election, and they have no mandate to sell the system.

The government also has a responsibility to listen to people outside the city of Winnipeg, and we urge this government to go out and hold public hearings in the rural communities, as they should, since it is the rural communities that are going to be most drastically affected by the sale of MTS and will suff er the greatest increase in telephone rates and the greatest loss of services. National Science and Technology Week Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): Madam Speaker, as most members know, Technology Week was held last week from October 18 to 27, and, indeed, it was a huge success.

National Science and Technology Week was first held six years ago to encourage public appreciation of science, engineering and technology and the importance to our quality oflife. In Manitoba, the week was aimed at increasing awareness of the importance of science and technology in the education and business sectors and sustaining science and technology activities throughout the year. Science is Investing was the theme of this year's event which was celebrated with hundreds of activities taking place across the province.

Highlights of the Manitoba activities included 21 scientists, engineers and investors volunteering their time to work with schools and share their experience with students and teachers. Organizers plan to recruit more scientists and continue that activity year round. Science and technology workshops will be held for educators in October and in November.

Through live seminars and video conferencing, teachers will have the opportunity to discuss topics such as gender equality in science and technology training and careers, generic skills in the workplace and how to involve business and parents in raising science and technology awareness among young people. The CIBC is also training young people in Internet technology and entrepreneurship so they can act as a resource for small business, especially in rural areas. A pilot project is underway with students and staff from River East Collegiate.

Madam Speaker, I am proud of my government's support of Science and Technology Week. As the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) said, the more we can promote science and technology, the more we can benefit our children for generations to come. Last week was a chance for everyone to focus on this important task and to ensur e these activities are continued throughout the year. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY Committee Changes Mr. George Dickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr.

Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Osborne (Ms. McGifford) for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) for Monday, October 28, 1996, for 6 p.m. Motion agreed to. Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek) : Madam Speaker, the committee change made last Thursday needs to be rescinded. I move, seconded by the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the motion to amend the Standing Committee on Law Amendments meeting October 26, 1996, at 10 a.m. by substituting the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) be rescinded.

4538 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verend rye (Mr. Sveinson), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for the meeti ng of October 26 at 10 a.m. (be amended as follows): the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) . Motions agreed to. Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): My apologies, Madam Speaker, I believe there may be a will of the House today to waive private members ' hour. Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to waive private members' hour? [agreed] House Business Mr.

Ernst: I would like to announce that for Tuesday, October 29, at 9 a.m., the Standing Committee on Agriculture willmee tto consider Bills 18 , 40, 51, 70, 77 and any other bills that may pass between now and the end of today's business.

That is 18, 40, 51, 70, 77 and any other bills that may pass later today. [agreed] Madam Speaker, simply for now, refer Bills 18, 40, 51, 70 and 77, and if there are other bills passed later, I will announce them as being referred but for now just the bills that I called. [agreed] Madam Speaker, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Public Utilities-no cannot announce that one yet. Sorry. The Committee on Industrial Relations will meet tomorrow evening at 6:30 p.m. to continue consideration ofBill 26. [agreed] Madam Speaker, would you call Bills 67, 59 and 68.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 67-The Manitoba Telephone System Reo rganization and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate, Bill 67 (The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant Ia reorganisation de Ia Societe de telephone du Manitoba et apportant des modifications corre latives) , on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister respons ible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), who has 23 minutes rem aining.

Is there leave to permit the bill to remained standing? An Honourable Member: No. Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied. Also standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake, who has 16 minutes remain ing. Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, appreciate the opportunity to continue comments on Bill 67 and MTS. Madam Speaker, very ironic over the past couple of days, the constituents, my constituents have spoken loud and clear to the disgust that they fee l over how this government has reacted to MTS and what its intentions are for the future ofMTS.

The comments , of course, that I have received are the comments that we have brought prior to this debate to this House. We have asked questio ns. We have been told, no, we are not going to privatize MTS or any part of it.

Madam Speaker, what I have heard from the constituents is, how can this government run on any mandate, how can this government say that they are good managers of governmen ts, of business, et cetera, when they themselves did what they could prior to the election and prior to their announcement to privatize MTS, how could they say that they are good managers when they themselves made every effort to destroy the cre dibility of MTS by forcing MTS to sell off certain assets, to sell off things for a dollar on a hundred? The people in this province and people in my area know the agenda .

They fee l and they say that the agenda is strictly to help its corporate frien ds. We have seen that in the past week . We have seen issues come out indicating that this is the way it is going to be. * (1 440) I have had phone calls, I have met people on the street saying to me, Clif, what can you do, what can we do, what can anybody do to stop this government from going

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4539 ahead with its privatization? I have indicated to them that we are in the process of doing whatever we can to make sure that this government is aware that you, the people of Manitoba, do not want privatization of MTS. We have told this government that the people of Manitoba do not want to have the availability to buy shares in something that belongs to them, something that has belonged to the people of this province for over 80 years. The corporation itself has made money.

The people that work with MTS, over 4,000 people, have been diligent in trying to be able to provide the services for this corporation to provide the services for the people of Manitoba. There is a good phone service, a cost productive phone service and a service that MTS has so diligently also made every attempt to increase the technology, to increase the capabilities of MTS, to be able to provide not only your regular house service. Our rates are one of the lowest, if not the lowest in this country. Our technology department within MTS, from what I understand, is one of the best in North America.

Why do we want to sell an asset off that is doing so well in so many aspects within the realm of this corporation? The bottom line to all of this is again, and I repeat, it is so that this government's neoconservative agenda can be serviced and can provide those corporate friends, those stakeholders, those future shareholders, large corporations, large companies, people with an enormous amount of wealth perhaps that would want to take and go and buy shares.

But the common person, the people on the street, the people in Arborg, the people in Ashern, the people in Fisher Branch, and I am sure people in the ridings of some of the government members cannot afford to buy shares, do not want to buy shares; they own it already. Again I say, how can members opposite, how can government backbenchers support a mandate such as this, support a government and a cabinet such as this who told the people and ran on in the election that they would not sell MTS. Lo and behold, after the election was over, MTS is up for sale.

How can the members opposite also support the mandate of this government and its Leader when we have the same situation with the Jets, we will save the Jets? Madam Speaker, the people of this province, the people in my constituency, the people from Riverton, the workers, the people who work for MTS in my constituency, cannot understand nor fathom one tiny bit why this government would want to sell such an important asset. The people of this province are tired of this government's smoke and mirrors: We will do this; we will not do that; we are doing it for you.

They know that this government, this Conservative governm ent is not doing anything with any legislation, with any decision making for the people of this province. I will tell this government that we will do and make every effort to make sure that the people of this province, come the next election, tell this government that they do not want them anymore to govern because they are sick and tired of being run by corporations and not by human beings. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill also to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood?

An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak to this bill. It is with some trepidation that I deal with this issue, because I can tell you that this is a fundamental and very large change to the way business is conducted here in the province of Manitoba. What we are talking about is a telephone system that has been in the province, it has been under the ownership of the people of Manitoba since 1908. It has approximately 4,000 employees, and it is a mainstay of the Manitoba economy.

It is a company that generations of people in Manitoba can identify with. People have worked for this company; people have retired from this company, so it has a long standing tradition in the province of Manitoba. So one would have to be very surprised to think that a government in Manitoba would eventually sell the province ofManitoba's-Qne of the jewels in the crown.

Now, Madam Speaker, the issue of rates is a very, very important issue in this whole debate because what we see here is a company that will be turned over to private interests, and in short order, over a period of two or three years, we are going to see rates double and triple for service in this province. We are going to see rates that have been maintained for rural people and rates that have been maintained for people in the North over the years,

4540 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 19 96 subs idized rates changed to where rates will go up tremendous amounts for rural people and northern people, and this is a consequence of turning the corporation over to private hands. We have been opposing this initiative since it was first announced, and I want to talk about how it was announced, because during the election, this government at no point made any suggestion that it would privatize the corporation.

Even months after the election, the government was standing pat, saying that privatization was not something that it had in mind when, in fact, we all know that that was not true, that this government was planning the sell off, the privatization of this company all along.

In fact, we have to be very suspicious about the way this governm ent, the methods this government uses when it comes to such fundamental questio ns, because we are aware that in Ontario, the Ontario government is looking at privatizing the Hydro corporation, and we know that this government, in the run-up to the next election, will do what it did with the telephone system. (Mr.

Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) It will tell the public that it is not planning priva tization when, in fact, the wheels are already in motion, and we see that with the breakdown of the Hydro corporation into component parts, in fact the very same sort of system that was employed for the telephone system in this area. Manitoba Public Insurance is another area that they say they are not planning to divest them selves of, but we know that that is what is in the cards. We know it is in the cards.

We know that they would dearly love to reduce the size of the "civil servants" in Manitoba, and by getting rid of 4,000 here and another 4,000 with Hydro, they will be talking about a remaining 4, 000 left who work for Crowns in Manitoba. Now, the reason that we know that this initiative of theirs would be in the wind is because of the free trade agreements that have been in place now for nearly 10 years, and we know that ultimately that is what is driving this.

We are locked, the national economy, the provincial economy are locked into the Free Trade Agreement, into trade agree ments which in a way are forcing us to divest ourselves of Crown corporations. What it is in effect doing, at the end of the day what will happen is, this corpaatioo will in fact be owned by a large American or a large international conglomerate. *

(1450) The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enos), who has been around here a long time, will recognize this, that in 20 years time there will be next to no business owned in Manitoba, that in fact the telephone system will be owned internationally, the hydro system will be owned international ly and, with that, rates will rise across the board, wages and benefits will fall across the board, and people in Manitoba will basically be serfs to international capital. That is essentially where this government is driving us, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that there will be a reaction.

There will be a reaction on the part of the people in Manitoba. The government can tinker with the education system , the government can tinker with the medical system but, at the end of the day, a year bef ore the next election, it can run a million-d ollar adverti sing campaign and delude people into believing that it is restoring the servi ce, the system, to where it was in the past and attempt to fool people one more time. But with the telephone system, that is not possible. This is a system that once the cows are out of the barn, they are out, they cannot be put back in.

Once this system is sold, it is not coming back. In fact, this telephone company \\i ll be sold to private-Manitobans will be given first choice. Certain Manitobans will buy shares as happened with the Brick situation in B.C. a number of years ago. Over a period of time , maybe a short period of time, big groups of shareholders will buy out the little people, and the shares after a while will be owned in foreign hands or will be in large corporations, and the governmen t's intention to have the system owned by Manitobans will be to no avail.

It will not work at the end of the day, and people around here, if they do not recognize it, should recognize it, that once the system is sold, once the shares are sold, there is no turning back, and this governm ent will have to carry the can three years from now in the election when the telephone rates double and the telephone rates triple, -

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4541 because it is not going to be possible fo r them at that time to explain that we had nothing to do with it; it was not our doing. In fact, the public will know that it was their doing. So this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may in fact be their undo ing. Another reason why it might be their undoing is that this issue transcends the whole economy . This issue deals directly with every single person in Manitoba who has a phone.

So, in the education area, for example, not all people have people going to university or going to school so you miss some people here and there, but with the telephone system, every single person, or every family in Manitoba, most every family in Manitoba- An Honourable Member: Ninety-seven percent. Mr. Maloway: Ninety-seven percent have telephone s. They pay their bills every month, and they are going to notice the rates increasing time after time.

We will be out there reminding people, people in the rural areas, people in the North, people in the city, we will be taking great pains to remind them whence these increases came. We are going to tie these increases, we are going to tie the service questions into the people that broug ht it to them, the Progressive Conservative government, the Progr essive Cons ervative Party, and they are not going to be able to hide on this one .

They may have some sati sfaction in the short run of knowing that they can ram this decision through the House, that they can proceed and sell off the corporation, but at the end of the day, they will not have the last laugh on this issue, and that is something that I think is fairly clear at this point. We look at other jurisdictions that have privatized corporations such as this. We look at Alberta, we look at England where Margaret Thatcher in 1979 started privatizing everything under the sun, and we see the messes that have developed because of that.

In Alberta we have seen major increases in the telephone system rates as a result of what that government had done . As a matter of fact the government wants to do this because this is part of their ideological agenda. They were held back fo r the period of the Sterling Lyon years, they have been held back because they have not been the government fo r a number of years, and when they did fo rm the government, they had a minority situation so they were not confident of their ability to be able to get these things through.

So finally, fo r the first time in many years, they find themselves with a majority government and now they want to do all those things that they have been wanting to do so badly fo r so many years, and we are seeing it by the bushel at this point. Now the telephone company has also been divested of some of its assets that it owned.

It owned a cable company which the government sold off, and I wanted to get into that fo r a moment, because why the corporation would sell off a cable company in this day and age is beyond me because cable will be competing actually with the telephone company for subscribers in a major way fo r the use of the Internet. Currently, with the current computer technology available, computers use modems at a rate of 28.8 bauds and the telephone company is going to be able to use a 50 0 baud modem.

So, unless the telephone companies are able to do something with their own lines and get back in the game, what will happen is, the cable companies will come in, in major wa ys, and take over a large

section of the Internet applicatio ns. The cable companies have the hookup s currently to the houses, and people will very willingly, I think, sign up with the cable com panies to be able to get on the Internet at a much, much faster rate than they can right now through perso nal comput ers. So the telephone companies are rushing to catch up, and in fact they, too, have developed now a new modem this past summ er that is capable of using existing lines at a comparable rate.

My point here is that by selling off the cable section, the government compromised its ability fo r the corporation to compete, because the corporation could have lost a couple of years had the cable connections been ready and the telephone side of it not been ready. So you have a government with absolutely no vision. The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) likes to talk about the sands of Saudi Arabia. Well, let me tell you that this government, that deputy minister, has all sorts of boondo ggles in the making.

They need not worry about talking about the sands of Saudi Arabia, because they have their own developing sands of Saudi Arabia which we will be dealing with in detail over a whi le. [interjection] That is right. The Deputy Premier likes to talk about the sands of Saudi Arabia, and they have their ARCOR pro jects and many others that are developing into messes right now. They have their Wang computer deal they made a few years ago, and they had a big boondoggle there and a big mess-up, so the Deputy

4542 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 19 96 Premier need not lecture us about the proper expenditure of money. * (150 0) As a matter of fact, they are the kings. The largest losses ever, I might tell you, preceded practically everybody in the Legislature here except for my friend from Lakeside (Mr. Enns). In fact, we are still looking for the $93 million, I think it was, which is still a lot of money even today, but away back in 19 69, we are still trying to sort out that $93-million loss. Nobody knows what Mr. Kasser and Mr.

Reiser actually did with it, and this was the legacy ofthe Conservative governments of the '60s. So we have nothing to learn. We have nothing to learn about the prudent management, the good management of these great free enterprisers here who claim to be able to run a good business. They stay on one issue. They stay on the Saudi Arabia telephone question and MPIC losses, and just in the last year they produced losses equal to the losses of the MPIC, being pretty much the same losses.

So I would suggest they be a little more reserved in their declarations about losses in Saudi Arabia and other ways because they have their own little little boondoggles that will be discovered over time. Mr. Deputy Speaker, how much time do I have? [interjection] I see, thank you. There is absolutely no sense in doing what this government is doing other than just plain ideologically driven motives. In fact this corporation, the telephone system, made substantial profits, more than $10 0 million in 19 90.

This government shows a lack of vision in doing what it is doing by selling off the cable, by selling off the company, knowing that it will have no control over the company over the years and subjecting Manitobans to untold increases in telephone service over the next few years. This is a classic example of a lack of vision on the part of this government. This government has no vision. In fact what it is trying to do is just sell off every asset that it owns. Like I said, the next thing-[interjection] That, as the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) says, shows a clear lack of vision on behalf ofthis government.

This government got very good at political advertising. You saw what they did back in 1994, when they were down and out in the middle of some by-elections, and they started to crank out the advertising. It looked pretty bleak there for a while. They shufiled the chairs on the Titanic over there, shufiled them around a bit.

It did not save them in the by-elections, but at the end of the day, that recognition that they had alienated a lot of voters in Manitoba and a little bit of grease from the million-dollar advertising campaign and a little bit ofluck from the Jets situation and a whole bunch of other side issues like that, they managed to come back and squeak out a win. Now having done that, now they become really confident. Now they figure they know the formula. It worked once, so it has to work again. And that is not necessarily true that it is going to work again.

Just throwing a million-dollar advertising into your problem six months before the election, it might work once or twice, but it is probably not going to work a third time. That is what they are doing here, because I can tell you that people are upset about this measure. People are upset about losing the telephone company. This has been a low-key issue for them at this point, but when people-I have seen it with my own eyes-find out about the telephone company being for sale, they get upset, because they know they own the telephone company. They are not happy about it.

In fact, what they do to counter-let me throw this out to the members opposite. If this was so popular, the Minister ofNatural Resources (Mr. Driedger) says that this is the polling saying selling the telephone system is popular. If this was so popular, then why are you spending $400,000 with your blue Tory pamphlets propagandizing, promoting? Because you know you are on the losing side. You know that you are having great difficulties with the people that you represent out there. The Tory heartland will be dead set against this.

As a matter of fact, it was Tories themselves who set up the telephone system in the very beginning. So there are only so many times that you can alienate your supporters, you know. I mean, I think we have some experience in that too, but there are only so many times that you can ali enate your supporters before they desert you. Your supporters do not like your policies on lotteries. The people in southern Manitoba do not like your lottery policies. They do not like the forest of VL Ts all over the province. It has not gone over well there. They do not like the telephone system. - -

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4543 Mr. Deputy Speaker, you people are taking a big chance here in alienating your own political base, not to mention the thousands and thousands of other people who are concerned about this issue, and that is why they have embarked on this $400,000 propaganda campaign, because they know that our efforts are having an effect. They know that the member for Thompson's (Mr.

Ashton) trips to various towns throughout Manitoba to let people know about what this government is up to regarding the sale and privatization of the telephone system, they know it is having an effect, and we know it is too because reports are coming back to us at the little meetin gs that we have been having in the towns. The member for Thompson is being told by people who have been staunch Conservatives, who have been strong Conservatives.

In fact, I am told that we had a Conservative recently who offered to run for us, who had been a staunch Conservative for many, many years, and this person has offered to run for the ND P because they are very disappointed. An Honourable Member: Kim Sigurdson, we want you to have him. Mr. Maloway: Well, the member talks about Kim Sigurdson, and as I have said to the member before, the member needs new friends. He is hanging around with a bad group, and look at the trouble he has been getting into because of it.

So the member has nothing to teach anyone in this House about what to do and what not to do about- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Maloway: This is a very serious question that this Legislature is dealing with, and it is an issue that is not going to go away. It is a very serious issue, and it ranks up there- Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hate to interrupt the honourable member, but I am having trouble hearing you. I do not know where it is coming from, but there seems to be a little bit of discussion going on. Could I ask those members wanting to do this discussing to do so in the loge or in the halls?

The honourable member, to continue. Mr. Maloway: I am having an awful hard time hearing myself with all the noise coming from across the floor, but this is an extremely serious issue that we are dealing with here today, and this government has expected that it could get this-it is very interesting that in all the previous years of this government, we have never seen this much legislation coming through of such magnitude .

By pu tting all these bills together in this fashion, this government is attempting, I think, to push through 80 pieces of legislation, drive them through as quickly as possible and hope people will not catch up. "'( 15 10) Another issue is an issue of the brokerage fees and so on. The government hires three brokerage firms to draw up the rationale and the prospectus for the sale of the company, and at the same time, these brokerage firms are going to be making commissions on the sale of the shares.

We have a case of the day the government rolled this proposal out at the Convention Centre, we had the minister himself saying that he would be willing to buy shares in the corporation. One wonders what is going to happen over here and how many ministers of the Crown and their friends are going to be buying huge amounts of shares or blocks of shares in the company, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is what has happened with privatization measures throu ghout the world. What has happened is, a few people, people who can afford to buy shares in the entity, have in fact benefited while the few have paid the freight.

That is what we are really talking about here. What we are talking about is the fox in with the chickens. We are going to have maybe 500 to 1,000 foxes in with a million chickens running roughshod, running around taking advantage of those million people, because it is not constituents of mine who are going to be out buying blocks of shares. It is not constituents of mine who are going to be trading shares in MTS. There will be a lot of shareholders over in River Heights and Tuxedo who will be buying and selling blocks of shares. There will be shareholders in Toronto, there will be shareholders in New York.

When this corporation ultimately ends up in the hands of some international conglomerate these shares will be owned by people in New York and

4544 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 Toronto. These shares will not be owned by Manitoba at all. So now you have the situation where the ownerships rests, goes afar out of the country, in fact, and you have the million people here in Manitoba paying for the profits of the shareholders, paying for the dividends of the shareholders by paying extra on their phone bills. This is the legacy that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) is going to leave for his kids.

When his grandkids ask him , Grandpa, what did you do to make my life better in Manitoba, he is going to have to tell them what he did, that I sold the phone company, and I jacked up your rates I 0 times. His grandchildren will be paying for his mistake of today by huge rates increases over the years. Long after he is no longer here, his grandchildren will be paying for these things, and they will be wanting to know, Grandpa, why did you do it? Why did you sell us out? Why did you give up on one of the assets that we owned collectively as the people of Manitoba? Why did you sell that?

Why did you set us up in that sort of a deal? That is typical ofthe type of Tory deals that are set up under governments like this who claim that they are good mana gers, who claim that it is they and nobody else who can run business. They have nothing to show us in terms of ability, past or present. They have nothing to show us in their ability past or present to run businesses with any degree of efficiency, with any degree of foresight. I think that we are going to see that in spades with this measure.

We are certainly going to see it in spades with any other ventures that are undertaken by this government, particularly, the future potential sale of the other Crowns in Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Telephone System, the liquor stores, any other activities that the government has gotten itself into. With that, I recognize that my time is up, and I yield the floor to the member for Swan River. Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to put a few comments on the record with regard to the sale of Manitoba Telephone System.

I want to tell you that we have been visiting many communities in rural Manitoba across the province in the last few weeks and over the summ er, and I can tell you that it is not what Manitobans want. Manitobans are very disappointed in what this government is doing and, in fact, disappointed that the government has not made them more clear what it is that they are doing. I list ened to the advertising that we are seeing on television right now, and one of them that sticks out, the operator is speaking and she says, we will be there for you.

But what the advertisements are not telling you is that they may be there, but it will not be the same company. It is going to be a privately owned company that will be running the telephone system in rural Manitoba. It is disgrace that this is a system that we own, and now we are being asked to buy it back. Why should we buy something back that we already own? Why should the government put up this corporation without giving Manitobans a say? Why did the government not tell Manitobans during the election that they intended to sell Manitoba Telephone System?

The reason they did not tell Manitobans during the election that they were selling Manitoban Telephone, the reason that they are putting out these advertisements that make it appear that Manitoba's telephone system is going to be the same, is because they know that if they came right out and told the facts to Manitobans that they were selling Manitoba Telephone System and the private system would not be the same as the publicly owned system, that Manitobans would be very angry about it; and that is what we are hearing. We went to several communities last week.

The one that sticks out in my mind the most is the community of Roblin. When we went to Roblin, we were having a meeting in one of the restaurants, a backroom of the restaurant, but the people in the restaurant wanted to know what we were doing there. They were quite surprised that their member had not indicated to them that their telephone system was being sold, and they wanted to know what it was that they could be doing. They wanted to know why the government was not holding meetings to let them know about this.

Of course, we said that we were encouraging the government, but this is a government that now has a majority and feels that they can do whatever they please to move on their right-wing agenda, and one of the things that they are doing is selling off Manitoba Telephone. This is quite a contrast to what we see in other provinces. For example, in Saskatchewan, where the -

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4545 governm ent of Saskatch ewan, in most cases, holds public meetings and involves the public when they mak e decisions about chang ing what they are offering the people of Saska tchewan. No t her e in Manitoba. I have to say that Manitobans have alre ady sent a strong messag e. Well over 15 ,000 people have sent card s in saying they do not want Manitoba Telephone System privatize d. Municipalities have said they do not want it priv atized .

Ju st withi n the last week , municipalities have been passing res olutio ns fir st saying do not sell Manitoba Telephone System. No w they are passing re solutions saying hold public heari ngs in rura l Manitoba. This is something that we have aske d for. Un fort unately, when we ra ised the question in the House today, when my colleag ue the member for Thompson (Mr . As hton) ra ised the issue, the go vernment said they are not go ing to hold hear ing s. So they do not want to listen to those people who will be most aff ected by this.

Rura l Manitobans will be dr astically aff ected, and we have seen the impacts alre ady when we see that many jo bs have been cut. Well over 300 jo bs have been cut, the maj ority of them in rura l Manitoba. Mr. De puty Speak er, in 1990, before the last election, the go vernment put forward a decentr aliza tion plan which took some jo bs out to rura l Manit oba. The ki lling of these jo bs from MTS fli es in the face of their decentra liza tion plan. Rura l Manitobans should also be ver y concerned and are very concern ed with the fac t tha t their telephone ra tes will go up dr amatically.

We have seen in other provinces wher e telephone systems are run by private cor pora tions where privatiza tion has take n place, there has been a tre mendous ju mp in the ra te for what you pay for your basic telephone serv ices. I have a few specific concerns that affect rura l Manitobans, and, in

part icular, I am concerned about what the im pact is go ing to be on distance education. We all kn ow that not all of our childre n can afford to go to univers ity with the hike s in fees to where they are, and the other optio n has bee n to offer education thro ugh distance education thro ugh telecommunications. In Swan River, there was an excellent dea l work ed out with the Manitoba Telephone wher e we could have a prefere ntial ra te to set up a test system, and it work ed ver y well. Do you believe that a private company would do that same thing ?

Qu ite frankly, I do not because a private company is beholding to its share holders , not to the public, and their intere st will be payback for their shar eholders , not serv ice to people. * (1 520) The other thing we have to look at is that under Manitoba Telephone' s plan to impro ve serv ices to rura l Manitob a, the majori ty of people in Manitoba now have private lines. I kn ow my colleag ue the member for Da uphin (Mr. Struthers ) tells me that there are a few people in the Rork eton area who still have part y-line serv ice.

I worr y about these people because under a private system I am sur e that a private company is not go ing to extend private-line serv ices to those communi ties and we will see that there wii l be a deteri ora tion of serv ice, nor will a private company ensure that far m communities, farm ers, re mote communiti es, have access to the most modem techn olog y. We hear the members acro ss the way talk constantly about technology and chang e, and there is chang e and there is-[interj ection] Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please. I am having gr eat diffi culty hear ing the honour able member.

If anyone is waiting to put their word s on the re cord , they will have lots of oppor tunity when the honoura ble member has concluded. The honour able member, to conti nue. Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. De puty Speak er. I appre ciate that. I would also encour age the members acro ss the way to speak out on thi s bill, the rura l members in par ticular, to put on the re cor d their concerns that have been ra ised by their constit uents. I think that it is a re al oppor tunity fo r rura l members on the go vernment back benches to have some say.

As we have seen on many of the bills, they have not put any comme nts on the re cord , and thi s is one that they should. This is an opport unity for those rura l members to save face with people in rural Manitoba and speak against this bill and vote against it, because all it would take is fo r two member s of go vernment to re cogn ize that this is not in the best intere st of Manitobans. It is not in the best intere st of rura l Manitobans. They could vote against

4546 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 this bill, and I would encourage members to do that, to list en to their members, think about what the impact of privatization of the Manitoba Telephone System will have on their communities, put their comments in the record and take the opportunity to vote against the bill, but I have not much hope in that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because we have seen that they have not spoken out on it and they are more interested in profit for their friends, such as the brokerage firms, who helped them make the decision to privatize the Telephones.

Instead of speaking out for the people of rural Manitoba and ensuring that we have reasonable telephone rates, that we have the opportunity to access good services in rural Manitoba, they are more and more interested in setting it up so that their friends can make money on the sale of Manitoba Telephone. I have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this government, although they say that they did not make the decision to privatize Manitoba Telephone until they got the report from the brokerage companies last September, they had plans, and this plan has been taking place over the past three years.

When you see that the Manitoba Telephone System has been systematically stripped of valuable assets such as the cable system, which was sold at fire sale prices, or the giveaway of the telemarketing system, you can see that the government had it in their plan for a long time to slowly make the company look less attractive so that they could tell Manitobans that it was not competitive and then they could move towards selling it off. I have serious concerns. If the government is moving \\ith Manitoba Telephone, where is their next move?

Are they then going to be prepared to sell off other Crown corporations that are an asset to Manitoba citizens? This government does not have the mandate to sell off Manitoba Telephone, nor do they have the mandate to tear apart many of the other assets that we have in this province such as our Hydro, our Autopac system that are working to provide reasonable rates for Manitobans and also to have profit made so that we can invest it for Manitobans.

So once again I want to encourage the rural members of the government caucus to think about what impact this privatization of Manitoba Telephone \\ill have on the rural communities and consider what the impact will be on the businesses. The members across the way were just talking about the importance of small business. What will be the impact on small business when they have to start picking up these higher phone rates? What happens to the bottom line of these businesses? Will they be as successful?

What happens to these businesses and to people in rural communities \\ith the application that MTS has filed requesting a residential rate increase of up to 80 percent for rural Manitobans? Have those rural members thought about the impact of those kind of increases on the people of rural Manitoba? I do not think that those members across the way have considered also or looked at other areas where there arc private companies. When we look across the border to the United States, we see that there are very small calling areas .

One person was explaining to me recently when we were at one of our meetings that in some areas you are allowed one phone call a day, and after that it is all long distance charges. Now, that may not be what \\i ll happen here immediately, but you have to look at those things and look at what happens in other areas where there are private companies running the telephone system. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is indeed time for the members ofthe government side to change their mind on this issue. I would encourage the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enos), who recognizes the importance of communication in the farming community, that this communication must be available at a reasonable rate. By having a system that is underneath the Crown corporation, we know that rural services are subsidized by the long-distance rates. He should recognize how important it is or what kind of rate increases we \\ill see for rural Manitobans when that subsidy is removed and they have to start pa)ing full cost of the lines.

He should recognize that in his area of the province this will have a negative impact on his constituents, and he should be moving, he should think seriously before he, if he is not comfortable as a member of cabinet voting against this legis lation, I am sure that he could have influence on some of the other members and ask that they speak out and put on the record their concerns \\ith this legislation, and there are many Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the government should put this legis lation on hold, should go to the people of the province. 'They should hold public hearings and listen to the people ofManitoba and tell them the truth. They did -

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4547 not tell Manitobans during the election that they planned to sell Manitoba Telephone, but, of cours e, there are many other things that they did not talk about either. They did not tell Manitobans during the election that they intended to try to privatize home care. They did not tell Manitobans about many of the changes that they were going to bring to Pharmacare. So I guess you have to look at this govermnent, and people are becom ing very skeptical about a govermnent that tells you one thing before an election and delivers something very different.

I have to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that one of the things that bothers Manitobans most, and one of the things that people talked to me about, particularly this weekend, was the fact that the govermnent was wasting $400,000 on advertising, advertising to explain why they had decided to sell the Manitoba Telephone System. Rather than spend that kind of money on advertising, they would be much better off to go out and hear the people. It would not be nearly as expensive to hold public hearings in rural Manitob a. This bill is going to go to committee very soon.

Instead of just holding committee hearings here in the city of Winni peg, here in the Legislature, it would be much fairer to take the hearings to those people who are going to be most affected by it, and, indeed, it will be the people of rural Manitoba, it will be the people of northern Manitoba who are going to have the greatest impact. It is the people of Manitoba who are the shareholders in this comp any. It is these people who should have a say, and the govermnent should not hesitate to go out to the community and hear what the people have to say. * (1 530 ) Again, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we have to think about what the impacts will be on rural Manitoban s, higher telephone rates, poor servi ce, perhaps smaller calling areas. The expanded calling area was brought in, started under the NDP govermnent . When the NDP lost government, the Conservatives did proceed and continue with the expansion of the calling services. But what guarantee do we have that under a private company, whose ob jective is to make profit fo r the shareholders , that we will not see these calling areas shrink and, again, hig her costs to rural Manito bans? So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the people of rural Manitoba, I want to encourage govermnent members to recognize that this is not a good piece of legi slation. We are selling off assets that belong to Manitobans without them having a say. This govermnent is moving towards shifting this to a private company, and we will see poo rer services in rural Manitoba and risks of lack of opportunity fo r all the development that is taking place in the technological field. I urge members on the government side to recognize that this is wrong and vote against this legislation. Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I rise to oppose the principle of Bill 67, I rise to oppose the privatization of the Manitoba Telephone System, and I rise to oppose what is a terrible agenda by this govermnent and a terrible record of misleading the people of Manitoba on what is a very important asset that they have held fo r many, many decades. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill is part of an agenda that goes beyond really one piece of legis lation or one principle. It is part of an agenda to take away from Manitobans our equalizers, our stabil izers.

It is part of an overall effort to take away what has been proven to be both good and fair fo r Manitob ans. It is part of an agenda to rip away from Manitobans the tools that help neighbourhoods like mine overcome odds, overcome the unfairness of the marketplace. It is ripping away tools that help neighbourhoods like mine to keep up. It is ripping away a tool just as public health is, just as unions are, just as public education provides tools that can help reduce the disparity and the terrible unfairness that exists in our marketplace largely driven by market fo rces.

It is the tools that this govermnent is taking away from Manitob ans through the initiatives I have just listed that cause greater disparity and a greater gap between the rich and poor, a greater gap between those who are in despair and those who have great opportunity. With this bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought I would start by looking at the govermne nt's best arguments fo r privatizing MTS. And where would one look but at the second reading debate by the Minister responsible fo r the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay). At least that is what I thou ght.

Going to the Hansard of June 4, I see the minister's comments . I note just a few word s, but not only that, those few words are without any def ence at all of this legislation and this initiative to take MTS away from Manitoban s. It is astounding that the Minister responsible for MTS cannot rally himself to whatever

4548 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 arguments the government has to privatize MTS. Not once in his speech does he defend adequately or at all this misguided initiative by this government. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have been raising on almost a daily basis in this House evidence as to why the sale ofMTS to private interests is not in the best interest ofManitobans, but the onus must be on this government to prove to Manitobans-not just the representatives in this Chamber, but Manitobans throughout this prov ince-why the sale of MTS is in the interest of the people of this great province.

They have failed to meet that onus. They have not made their case. In the full flight of Question Period the other day, I see the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) got up and made some argume nts, arguments that I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should not just have been made in brief by the minister, but should have been backed up by solid res earch and evidence-but the Premier said one of the reasons why we have to privatize MTS is that it just requires months and months, if not a year, for de cisions, and when the market is changing in telecommunica tions, we have to have quick decision making.

Well, I wonder then, if government is so unable to make quick deci sions, how it is, as Frances Russell noted on October 23, how the government could have managed to get a report on the sale of MTS April 30, make a dec ision on a $700-million share issue May 1, and be ready with all the paraph ernalia for a full-dress news conference May 2. An Honourable Member: It came to us in a flash. Mr. Mackintosh: As the Minister of Agriculture says, it came to them in a flash. Well, it came to them in a flash all right. It was a bolt of lightning, and they still have not recovere d.

Something has gone terribly wrong with the thinking on the other side, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but no one but the Pr emier (Mr. Filmon) has def eated the argument better than he himself Decisions can be made quickly, and whether assets are held in the private or the public sphere , whether decision making can be made on a timely basis depends on your procedu res, your pr ocess, your protocol and your willingness to ensure succes s. The Prem ier also said that MTS, after all, was the highest risk Crown corporation that we had within Manitoba accor ding to an assessment by the Crown Corporations Council.

That worries me because now that they are going to dump MTS, what is the next highest risk? Are we just going to go down the line? Of course, corporations will have varying degrees of risk, but we would assert that, when a corporation with a track record as good as MTS has risk, it is time for a recommitment by government, by the people of Manitoba, to ensure the long-term viability of corporations like MTS. "'( 15 40) I want to just spend a moment ref lect ing on the government's misle ading statements during the election .

I notice that there is a lot of concern about the events in Ontario, a lot of grave, deep concern about the evil policies of the Harris government but, you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, most of what has been done in Ontario was promised by that government. The government by and large but certainly not in every area, and I think in terms of their health care cuts, but the government by and large in Ontario during the provincial election said, here is what we plan to do; if you like it, vote for us.

Now, if a government believes that what it is saying is valid and is in the public interest of a province, not only does it have an obligation but surely it would be rallied to present those plans during a provin cial election. This is a government that surely was afraid of rai sing the issue of privatization of MTS with the Manitoba population. They knew then and they know far better now that this plan is ill-advised. It is tremend ously unpopular. But not only that, there is nothing driving the privatization except some kooky, radical worsh ipping of all things private and all things for eign.

There is no respect for the integrity of the province by this government. There is no respect for an independent economy when we have a government that is prepared to pull away decision making from Manitobans and pull away the benefi ts, financial and otherwi se, including employment for Manitobans. This is a government that is prepared to say that we do not have a vision, a home made vision for the Manitoba economy. Where are the big thinkers? Where are the people who are thinking long term about what Manitobans are going to provide to the world?

What goods and services will we be providing to ensure that Manitobans will continue

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4549 to have employment here at home? Where are the big thinkers? This is a govermnent that says they are in New York, let someone else, let us let a foreign corporation decide. Now, we are aware of the arguments that have been advanced in the last couple of days by some of the govermnent backbenchers and, by the way, I welcome their participation in debate. I know it was contrary to the plan of the govermnent to allow any debate on motions from the govermnent backbenchers. It was interesting that the member for Morris (Mr.

Pitura) said on October 16 , the telephone companies across Canada over the next 10 years will probably have to invest in the neighbourhood of about $8 billion in new technology. He uses this as an argument for the sale of MTS, because he goes on to say, can the citizens of Manitoba afford to risk an investment in excess of perhaps $1 billion in MTS? I wonder, where did he get those figures? Certainly even if the expected requirement was $8 billion over the next 10 years, how could he possibly conclude that MTS will need $1 billion? Was he talking about an annual amount?

Was he talking over the course of 10 years? Because if he was talking about over the course of 1 0 years and he does his math correctly, we are talking about capitalization which should be available. It will cost more to raise capital through share offerings than through bonds. You know, we have HydroBonds in this province. Manitobans have accepted those. They have invested. I have not seen any proposal for bonds for the telephone system. I have not heard that the govermnent looked at any other options for capitalization, assuming that that was the gravest concern by this govermnent.

You know, there is in this province a Crown corporation with an excellent track record. That is MTS. It has an excellent track record with new technology and it has often been at the forefront of the development both of new technologies and customer service. At the same time, we have the second lowest rates in all of North America next to publicly owned SaskTel, a record unbeaten except perhaps by our neighbours to the west. We were looking at a profit last year of approximately $15 million. It �·t broke, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, but I reiterate, when there 1s an enhanced risk for a corporation with a track record like this, with service like this, proven service, with approximately 4,000 workers with decision making occurring in our own province, this is a time to recommit to the public management, public ownership of our telephone system.

Otherwise I ask, in the area of telecommunications and the great opportunities that sector holds, why must Manitobans now relinquish not only the benefits but the control of the development of what could be a very successful sector for Manitoba to bring us into the next century with Manitobans at the forefront rather than putting the interests of the shareholders in New York at the forefront? Thank you. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak on Bill 67, which is unfortunately one of the pieces of legislation that this govermnent has brought forward which I believe will turn back the clock in the province and turn it back to a time when Manitobans had to struggle along without the services that had been provided to them by various Crown corporations in the province of Manitoba.

I want to start off by thinking back to the time when during the 1995 provincial general election, we on thi� side of the House were quite worried that the governm ent had intentions to move towards the privatization of various Crown assets and that this provincial govermnent, of course, as they had the tendency to do during that campaign and have done since when they were-had a tendency to stretch the truth extremely. An Honourable Member: They were being fraudulent. Mr.

Reid: Well, the term "fraudulent" about the election campaign in reference to the govermnent and the campaign they run, I think, accurately depicts what took place during that campaign. We only need to think back to, of course, the questions that have ensued in this House with respect to the Jets and the financing of the Jets and the promises that were made in this House to various voters throughout the province and the commitments that this govermnent made to saving the Jets. Of course, we know where the Jets are today. An Honourable Member: The Phoenix Coyotes. Mr.

Reid: Yes, it is true, they are the Phoenix Coyotes now, and not only that, they are not doing that well since

4550 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 28, 1996 they left Win nipeg. Neverth eless, the bills continue to rack up, the bill continues to climb as a resu lt of this government's involvement in the document that they sig ned, the agreement they signed in 19 91, that would ensure that Mr. Shenkarow, et al, were profiting at the expense of taxpayers of this province.

Now, I think back to the time during the election campaign in '95, and prior to that, when the Premier of this province, the current Premier, said, read my lips, we will not sell MTS. * (1 550 ) An Honourable Member: I do not think you read them properly. Mr. Reid: The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says, we did not read the Pre mier properly. He must have meant something else. Perhaps the Deputy Premier can stand up here and tell us exactly what it was that the Premier meant when he said- [inteJjection] Well, maybe he did not mean what he said.

Maybe he meant to say something else like, we intend to sell MTS, but those words just did not quite find their way out of the Pre mier's mouth at the time. Instead he says, no, no, we have no intentions to sell MTS; that is not our intent. Well, I can tell the members opposite that if you talk to the current employees at MTS and if you talk to the pensioners, those that retired from MTS, they are quite worried about their pensions and the pension plan.

This particular legisla tion will prohibit those pensioners and those current employees with funds in the pension plan from having any say in how those funds are dealt with in the future. They are excluded. They are prohibited by this Bill 67 in participating and having any say in how those funds are controlled in the future .

Now, if you think that is fair, I can put you in touch with some of my own constituents who are retired from MTS, who think that this governm ent is on the wrong path and that this govermn ent should reco nsider, not only their plan to privatize MTS, but how they are treating the current and former employees of MTS who are now retired. I want to raise the point that other members of this House have raised time and again, and that is the fact that while you think you have a mandate, your mandate does not include the sale of MTS. That is what the people of my community are telling me about this government .

You do not have the mandate to sell MTS. If, in your min ds, you think you do, then set up public meetings in my community and set up public meetings in every community around this province, and let Manitobans have a say on whether or not they want their publicly owned Manitoba Telephone System sold, because I think you will find that contrary to the impre ssions that you have in your minds at this time, you will find that the large percentage of Manitobans are opposed.

In a fe w moments, I will show the members opposite what people in my community are saying, because I have brought some of their comments here to this House, and I will share them with members opposite . It is also interesting to note that there are over 50 municipalities in this province who have told this governm ent, and these are not people who are politically ali gned with the government or with the opposition.

These are people that are representing the individual communities throughout the province, and they are -[interjection] Yes, and the Dauphin Chamber is one of those groups-telling this government that your plan to privatize MTS is wrong, and it will be to the detriment of the people of Manitoba, the telephone users of this province. [interjection] That is correct. It is nice to see that the Deputy Premier understands that, one of the fe w facts that he does, with respect to this issue.

Now, the government has said that the reason they want to sell MTS is due to the debt and that it is the inab ility of MTS to moderni ze. That is one of the arguments that this government has used here and that there is going to be a problem for MTS in the future. I want to talk a fe w minutes about what this government has done to destroy MTS piece by piece and where I think they missed the boat big time .

I know that the members opposite, well, they like to say that they keep abreast of changes that are taking place in this province , but I tell you, you are completely out of touch and if you have been told this information and ignored it, it is at your own per il. When this government decided that they were going to sell the cable line network of this province, and you sold it for just under $12 million, for an asset that was valued at $63 million, you ripped off the people of Manitoba.

October 28, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4551 You took money out of the pockets of Manitobans when you short-sold the cable asset of Manitoba Telephone System for $12 million when it was valued at $63 million. So you ripped off the people of this province for over $50 million. Is that good business sense? You like to tell us in this House that you are good business people and you understand. Would you sell your business as indivi duals? You talk to us as members of this House that you are such good business people.

If you were the owner of MTS cable network system and it was valued at $63 million, would you sell it for a $50-million loss? Because if you would, you are not the business people that you like to portray yourselves as being. I want to talk for a few minutes about some techno logical changes that are coming along that members opposite obviously do not understand, and if you did understand, you would have read the trade papers dealing with the computer systems of the Internet services that are happening, the new technology, the cutting edge of what is taking place. Read the trade papers and see for yourselves.

These are not my words. These are people who are specialists in the field dealing with computer networks, computer Intemets and high-tech communication systems. In those systems, we have an ISDN system, integrated services digital networking that would utilize cable lines, is now in field testing and will greatly enhance the profitability of a cable network in field testing right now. So you either did not do your research or you ignored what was coming for future development, technology development.

Maybe you do not understand or you do not care, but there is another part that is coming as well, ADSL, asymmetrical digital subscriber lines. Now I see a lot of blank stares from members on the opposite side. They do not understand that technology either. Had you understood, you would recognize that for our telephone company, the Manitoba Telephone System, the revenue potential knows no bounds. There is the ability of the Manitoba Telephone System to utilize the ADSL technology that has now been dev eloped and is in field testing.

I am told through the trade papers that go to anyone who is interested or takes the time to read it, that the tests are proving extremely successful in the transmission of data, utilizing existing telephone company copper lines, that the transmission of data utilizing these existing copper lines will be able to allow for the transmission of movies, high definition television and LAN networks for intercorporate communications and person-to-person communications.

If you understood what this would mean, I believe you would recognize that there is untold opportunity for our Manitoba Telephone System with respect to this new technology and that there would not be the need to have the massive investment that you would like to say that they will require to keep up with the technological changes that you say are coming and we know are coming, because telephone systems, telcos throughout the world, are going to subscribe to and participate in this new technology, the ADSL technology.

They will be able to use their existing copper lines to increase the data transmission rates from the current one to two kilobytes per second, and what the trade papers tell me will go up over seven megabytes of data transmission per second utilizing existing copper transmission lines and the new technology that is already proving successful in field tests. (Mr.

Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Now, the members opposite probably do not even know how to use a fax modem, and no doubt that what I am telling them here is going way over their heads, and they are not interested in what the potential is for our telephone company, but I am telling you that there is a lot of potential. *

(1600) An Honourable Member: Albert is good at shredders. Mr. Reid: Perhaps some of the ministers opposite are good with shredders, but fax modems are not the technology to which they subscribe. So not only have you undersold our cable systems in this province when you sold it off, you failed to recognize the revenue potential that is coming to the cable network systems using the ISDN, the integrated services, and for the existing telephone copper lines, the ADSL systems, where there will be significant technology improvements utilizing existing services and lines that are in place. When members

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-71
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 71.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	62f7cf1f0d61d18d6c452bede5ad4b6cc2a70bd5

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