Manitoba Hansard — 12 February 1990 (Sitting 123A, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-123a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, February 12, 1990. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I di rect the attention of Honourable Mem bers to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today the 1990 Labatt Tankard Provincial Men's Curling Champions, the Duane Edwards team from Deloraine who will be representing Manitoba in the Labatt Brier to be held in Sault Ste. Marie. The team is composed of skip, Duane Edwards ; third, Kelly McMechan; second, Don Williams; lead, Jack Edwards; and fifth, Philip Edwards.

On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this after noon and wish you all the best at the Brier . NON-POLITICAL STATEMENTS Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): I wonder if I may have leave to make a non political statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member for Arthur have leave to make a non-polit ical statement? The Hon ourable Member for Arthur. Mr. Downey: I first of all want to thank all honourable colleagues for allowing me this opportunity for a non politicai statement at a very important time tod ay.

I just want to, as the Member for the Arthur constituenc y, congr atulate Duane and the team members on an excellent good sportsmanship curling game and wish them well in the Canadian championships which are to be held in March. We all wish you very much the best in those games. Thank you, Mr. Speaker . * (13 35) ***** 11/ir. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Spe aker, I wish leave to make a non-politic al state ment. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Mem ber have leave at this time to make a non-political state ment? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Concordia. Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Spe aker.

I also want to offer our congratulations to the Edwards team. Many of us watched the game last even ing. It was a ve ry, very exciting game. We knew the Member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) would be stan ding toda y to offer the congratulations. 5176 We are all very, very proud of the Manitoba Bonspiel, the tremendous competition throughout our province. The fact that it went down to an extra end to decide the championship was very, very exciting. All the best in the Sault on behalf of all Manitobans. Thank you. ***** Mr . Speaker: Does the Hono urable Member for Transcona (Mr.

Kozak) have leave to make a non political statement? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Transcona. Mr. Richard Kozak (Transcona): Mr. Speak er, I just want to make it clear that this is a non- partisan feeling here toda y. We wish the Edwards rink all of the best in Sault Ste. Marie. We are very proud of them. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: I would like to dr aw Honour able Mem bers' attention to the gallery where we have from the Pointe des Cht!ines High School and from Prince Edward Island, twenty Grade 11 students, under the dir ection of Giselle Craft.

This school is located in the con stituency of the Ho nour able Mem ber for La Verend rye (Mr. Pank ratz). Also, from the Minn edosa Collegiate and also from Prince Edward Island, we have fifty-six Grades 11 and 12 students under the direction of Pat Heuchert. This school is located in the cons tituency of the Honourable Member for Minn edosa (Mr . Gillesham mer). We also have 11 students from Inter-Culture Canada. They are part of an international cultural exchange. On behalf of all Honourable Mem bers, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Health Care Surgery Delays Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker , a young boy breaks his leg playing hockey on Wednesd ay. Thursda y, Frid ay, Saturday and Sunda y all go by without this child receiving appropriate surgical attention. Meanwhile, he is given morphine to alleviate the pain and subjected to 22-hour fasts. On what basis in this province is a 16 -year -old denied appropr iate treatment and at what cost, emotionally and physically to the boy, and financially to the Province of Manitoba? Hon . Donald Orchard (M inis ter of Health): Mr .

Speaker , those are exactly some of the questions that I have posed upon learning of this situation from the news this morning.

Monday, February 12, 1990 I say without equiv oca tion th at I find th ose circumstances at the Health Sciences Centre to be most di stres sing. I have asked for management and the physicians involved in the care and treatment of that indi vidual to provide me with a full detailed report as to the natur e of the de lay tha t young man has experienced, much to his personal dis tress and no doubt the dis tress of his family. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr.

Speaker , under this Min ister's admin istration of the Health Department, elective surgery waiting lists have gotten longer and longer causing un necessary pain and suffering. Now the wait for emergency patients equally gets longer and longer. Does each and every incident have to make the front page of the Winni peg Free Press before this Min ister responds to the necessity of providing approp riate care? Mr. Orchard: It is with interest that I take my honourable frie nd's questions.

What my honourable friend fails to acknowledge is that in the last two years, because of a substantial increase in funding to health care, we have un dertaken mo re surgical procedur es as a guideline than ever before in the history of the Province of Manitoba. That range is from such procedur es as open heart bypass surgery to other more routine and sometimes called elective surgeries. Mr. Speak er, within the He alth Scienc es Centre budget this year, there was an in crease of 7.78 percent year over year. That is almost twice the inflation rate.

In addition to that an additional $1 80,000 was provided to allow the Health Sciences Centre to un dertake 20 hours per week of more surgical theatre operating time. Mr. Sp ea ke r, this Go ver nment has adeq uately resourced the health care syste m. We have not cut back, as my hono urable friend would allege, but provided more resource for more procedures to be un dertaken. Underspendin g Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speak er, this Min ister unde rspent in the health care budget last year, some $28 million plus. Now he will argue that hospitals spent their full budgets.

Howe ver, he had the flexibility to use his savings in other areas to alleviate pain and suffering and to provide additional funds, already fully budgeted and appr oved by this Assembly. Why did he not do it, and why does he allow this deterioration in our health care system to continue? * (13 40) Hon. Donald Or chard (M in ister of Health): Mr . Speaker , I can un derstand the weak applause for that question because it comp letely belies her unde rstanding of the health care budgeting.

Possibly she should let these questions go to her Health Critic who unde rstands the system and the way hospitals are budgeted and funded a lot more than she does. Mr. Speak er, let me tell my honourable friend, because she is now backing off of the original position that she took, that the lapsed funding was in the hospital system because that was false when she made that allegation some six months ago. The hospitals spent their entire budgets, and indeed some more mon ies, which we provided for them to un dertake the kind of care of citizens in this province that we believe is appropriate.

The savings we achieved in the health care budget, in general, were because of maintaining vacancy rates of civil servants, hardly an area where we want to continue to spend mone y. Maybe the Liberals do, but we have chosen that to be an appropriate place to achieve some semblance of financial control. Federal Funding Zero Growth Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): My next question is to the Premi er.

All Manitobans were shocked on Friday when our Premier stated, and I might add the only Premier in the nation to do so, that in order for the federal cousins to get on with the economic priorities they have set thems elves, this province was prepared to accept zero growth in funding ,. from the federal Government. � Mr. Spea ker, zero growth to the provinces would result in $79 million less monies to the Province of Manitoba. Just how does our province and our Premier intend to maintain services if he allows the federal Government to cut almost $80 million in funding? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr.

Speaker: Ord er, please. Order. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speake r, we now have an ind ica tion of wha t Libe ral economic understanding is all about. The Liberals, and I might say that in this particular case we agree with them, say that there ought not to be an in crease in taxation in this cou ntry. The fact of the matter is when they had an opportunity to vote for a reduction in taxes in this province, they voted against it in our provincial budget. I will assume that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr s.

Carstairs) is being honest when she says she does not j favour increased taxation in this countr y, such as the � GST. The fact of the matter is that you have two choices then, either to in crease the taxes or to keep your spending down. The fact of the matter is, she has to decide what she wants. I have said that we are against increasing taxes. Our people in this province, in this coun try, spend too much on taxes as it is. Therefore I am prepared to be consis tent and to be fair and to say that we do not want the spending to go up.

If that spending does not go up for the federal Government, it does not go up in transfers and equalization payments to the provinces. We are prepared to be treated fairly; that is all we ask, to be treated fairly. You treat yourself the same way as you treat the provinces and we will accept that, but she cannot have it both ways. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker , without any increase in taxes, there will be additional revenues to the federal Government. What we want is our fair share in the 5177

Monday, February 12, 1990 Province of Manitoba. Where is the Premier (Mr. Filmon) going to come up with the $22 million loss in revenue to post-secondary education and health care if he allows zero incr eases from the federal Government? Mr. Filmon: We have said that the federal Government must treat the provinces exactly the same way it treats itself. If the federal Government is able to keep its spending incr eases to 4.5 percent, which would be less than what their in creases were last year, then we would have to be prepared to accept that.

The fact of the matter is that we are going to judge them based on fairn ess. They must treat the provinc es fairly, Mr. Speaker . That is the issue that we are dealing with. (i nterjection)- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; ord er, please. Mr. filmon: Well, Mr. Speaker , I would hope that the y will be fairer than Liberal Governments were, because it was the Liberal Government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau that started to reduce the equalization and trans fer payments in this countr y.

It was the Liberal Government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whom she worships, who started to uni laterally change the method by which equa lization payments are made across this countr y that resulted in reductions to provinces that we think are wrong. That kind of negative policy we do not agree with. *

(1345) Mrs. Carstairs: The federal Liberal Government kept the rate at or above the rate of inflation. This Premier (Mr . Filmon) is prepared to accept zero rate of inflation when the inflation in this community is 4. 7 percent. How is he going to accept zero percent in equalization when the entire purpose of the equalization system is to provide equality of services from one province to another? Mr. fiimon: Mr. Spe aker, I said that we are prepared to accept the same rate of in crease of trans fer and equalization payments as they provide to the mselves, to their own expenditures.

If she is telling me that the federal Government is going to bring in a budget with no in crease in its own expenditur es, then that is a great surprise to me. I would be very, very surprised if they are going to be able to keep their rate of expenditures at zero percent. The fact of the matter is we will be judging them based on fairness of equality of treatment versus us, versus their own budget.

We think that is the only way that we can be rea sonable and consistent, unlike the Liberals who want to incr ease expenditures by $700 million in this province alone, which means $700 million of in creased taxes for people. We do not think that is a reaso nable way to go. We do not want to see the taxes of people in this province increased. Health Care Surgery Delays Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Second Opposition): Last May we tabled do cum ents in this Cham ber 5178 demo nstra ting a cutback in terms of the budget at the Health Scienc es Centre.

Eventually that was rectified, but there has been the longstanding problem of the resou rces and staff at the Health Scie nces Centre for needed operations, a claim that was made by over 500 nu rses outside of this building in the April period in 1989, Mr. Speaker . My question to the Premier (Mr . Filmon) is this. Is he satisfied with the statements of his Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) today in terms of the situation at the Health Scienc es Centre and other health care facilities, or is he believing or starting to listen to the statements of the Health Sciences profes sionals the mselves who said there is a shortage of cash at the Health Scien ces Centre preven ting staffing of operating rooms for longer hours? My question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in terms of that position in our health care system. Hon. Donald Or chard (Minis ter of Health): Mr. Speaker , the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr.

Doer) last Ma y tabled some whatever sou rced information on budget at the Health Sciences Centre, which never was id enti fied as being any official documentation of the Health Sciences Centre, and uses it today as some sort of a justification for our providing the Health Sciences Centre 7.78 percent incr ease in their budget in the past year. Mr.

Speaker , my honourable friends with the New Democrats, if they do not believe that 7.78 percent incr ease in budget at the Health Sciences Centre is sufficient, then do they believe that the additional $18 0,000 above that to provide 20 hours per week more operating room time is insufficient? If they believe all that, then I simply have to ask my honourable friend at what point in time does the New Democratic Party indic ate what is enough in the health care field, because that is the critical ques tion- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; order , please. * (1 350) Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker , what is enough in the health care field is operating rooms are working to the benefit of Manitobans. My question to the Premier (Mr . Filmon) is: is he now listening to the nur ses and health care people and the articles that are coming forward in the media everyday about the crisis in our health care system?

Is he now willing to listen to another side of the health care coin, that is the patient side of the health care situation where we have waiting lists going up in elective surgery, where we have patients in hallways while beds remain vacant in other facilities, where there are thoughts now of American companies coming into Manitoba? Will the Premier please get a hold of the health care portfolio and start providing health care assistance consistent with patients' needs, not just rhetoric in the Chamber? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker , if we were to elimina te rhetoric in this Cham ber, we would disallow the Leader of the Second Opposition Party (Mr . Doer) from posing questions. Because if one thinks that the health care system had absolutely no challenges facing it on Ma�

Monday, February 12, 1990 9 of 1988, when I was sworn into this office, then one ough t to re consider some of the actions of the Government that the questioner was part of at the Cabinet Table. There were no consultations with the hospitals in Winnipeg and Brandon in 1987 when this Government said, there shall be no more deficits and you shall close 120 beds permanently in the health care syste m. The first time ever in the history of this province, Government di ctated the closure of acute care beds in the health care system.

Now that same individual with hypocrisy stands up and says, well, we should have more beds. Possibly they are the ones they closed. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with operating time at the hospitals. We are dealing with people in the hallways. We are dealing with empty beds at Deer Lodge Hospital. My question is to the Premier: will he now meet with his Min ister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) and get a handle on the situation that many of us have been alleging for a num ber of months, that the Minis ter of Health has created all these comm ittees that have been running around the province for the last two years, but there is no action, no decisive action going on? There is inadequa te staffing in many of the key areas of our health care sys tem, notwithstan ding some of the percentage increases. As the

article said tod ay, the money is going to facilities but there is a shortage of cash for staffing at operating rooms. Will the Premier get a handle on that and overrule his Min ister of Health, so we can get the adequate staffing levels so that a boy that is sitting in a hallway for four days, that kind of situation or similar situations will not happen in future? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier on I am expecting a full report from the Health Sciences Centre as to the circumstances that have stimulated toda y's question.

But it was not a com mittee that raised the amount of monies available to the Health Sciences Centre by 7.78 percent this year over last year. It was not a comm ittee that added $18 0,000 to the surgical budget to add 20 more hours per week, over a thousand hours per year of surgery at the Health Scie nces Centre. It was not a comm ittee that added $600,000 to the operating budget of the St. Bon iface Hospital to provide more surgical theatre time.

It was this Government making decisions to allow more procedur es to take place in our hospitals than ever before in the history of the Province of Manitoba, because we are funding them at more than double the rate of inflation. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speak er, one has to always look at the year-end numbers with the Mi nister of Health to know what the actual funding is, because you do not know what is under spent and what is overspent with the Government. Universal Health Care Government Commitment Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker , I have a final question to the Premier (Mr . Filmon).

It is a policy question in my opinion for the Government, not a decision for a commit tee as the Mini ster of Health (Mr. Orchard) has just outlined. Last Frid ay, the Min ister of Health outlined that they would not at this time consider the use of for-profit medicine in the Uni ted States.

Would the Premier clearly put on the record that he is in favour of universal health care and not at any time would his Government look at a for-profit system in the Uni ted States that is presently working in the Province of Manitoba or attempting to work in the Province of Manitoba with health-care patients, health-care patients, by the way, that we have alleged before are caught in undue waits for heart surgery at the Health Sciences Centre? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker , as the _. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr.

Doer) was � told by the Min ister of Health on Frid ay, his allegations were not accurate or correct about the individuals who were presumably operating within Manitoba under private health care, which is absolute nonsense. He told him about some recent gradua tes in Min nesota, and the whole premise of his discussion was absolutely false. We believe in providing uni versal health care for the people of Manitoba to the best possible level we can afford.

We have made that commi tment a very strong priority by giving increases for two straight budgets of more than double the rate of inflation to the funding to health care in this province. We have taken off the freeze that was put on the development of health care facilities in this province by the New Democratic Party when they were in Government. We have been moving consis tently over the past 21 months to overcome many of the major problems that were left for us by the New Democratic Party Government. Remand Centre � Construction Start Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr.

Speaker , my question is for the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae). Tragically, another charged but not convicted young man has died at the Winni peg Remand Centre. As the Min ister will kno w this is certainly not the first time this has happened. While ultimately not all suicide attempts can be stopped, I believe we have a duty to do what is possible to prevent disturbed indi viduals who come into our custody from killing thems elves or inde ed injuring others, yet our treatment at the Remand Centre of th ese troubled ind ividuals is emba rra ssingly inadequa te, a fact that has been well kno wn !or years.

After years of promis es from this adminis tration and the last admin istration, absolutely nothing has been done. Mr. Speaker, for the Mini ster of Justice, this Min ister has promised twice to begin construction on a new 5179

Monday, February 12, 1990 Remand Centre and twice he has broken his promise. When will construction begin? When will a new facility be available for occupation? Hon. James lllicCrae (Minister of Justice and .Attorney General): The tragic events of Saturday morning are, of cour se, a ma tter of profo und regret to the Go vernment of Manitoba, and the sympathy of the Go vernment is extended to the family of the in mate involved. • (1 355) Mr. Speak er, it is a poor time for the Honourable Mem ber to be raising a qu estion respec ting the construction of a new Remand Centre to which this Go vernment is commi tted.

The circums tances relating to the unfortunate death on Saturday morning are the su bject of a police investiga tion, the su bject of an internal investiga tion, and no doubt the su bject of an inquest. I think the Honourable Member does no service by raising questions that we do not know whether those questions have anything to do with the incident on Saturda y morning. I think it is ill-advis ed of the Ho nourable Mem ber to raise it in this context. Medical Observation Unit Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): I am sure the Minis ter does regret the question, Mr. Spe aker.

The fact is that two years ago another person comm itted suicide. There was an inqu est and a judge made a recommendation. That recommendation was for a medical observation unit which still does not exist at the Remand Centre. The common excuse has been that we are building a new Remand Centre, so we do not have to put in the medical observation unit.

My question for the Min ister is, will the Min ister now come to grips with the problem at the Remand Centre and recognize that we are at least a year and one half away from occupation of a new facility and beef up the medical observation facilities at the Remand Centre? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The Honourable Member brings into the question another matter which may or may not have any application to the incident of Saturday morning, that being medical facilities available.

Inmates requiring special or ongoing medical treatment are transferred lo the Headingley Correctional Institution Medical Unit where help is available. The decision in cases like that is made by the institutional physician who serves both facilities. So let not the Hono urable Member say or suggest or allege that medical attent ion is not available to those who need It. John Howard Society Recommendations Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speak er, let not the Minister ind icate that the reco mmendation of the judge in 1987 has in any way, shape or form been met by this adminis tration or the last one.

Finally, for the same Mi nis ter: why has this Min ister failed to respond to the proposal put forward by the 5180 John Howard Socie ty whereby individuals who are not dangerous but just unable to make bail are assisted so that we are not warehousing any more people than is strictly necessary to protect the public? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Our department is indeed looking at ways to ensure that those who are not required to be in custody are not kept in custody any longer than they need to be.

The Honourable Mem ber refers to a judge's recommendation as the result of an inquest. I should say that, I believe, there have not been any suicides in any Manitoba facilities for some th ree years, so that needs to be said as well. Mr. Speaker , the reco mmenda tion of the judge that there be medical services available, those medical services are available. If they are not available at the Remand Centre, which is true, the Honourable Mem ber should not suggest that means they are not available, because the y are available. Summer Youth Employment Services Funding Reduction Mrs.

Iva Yeo (S tu rgeon Cr eek): The federal Government once again appe ars to have moved to ma ke decisions withou t the con su ltation of the province s, Mr. Speaker; $300 million over the next five years to help fight the federal deficit, not new money but re-allocated from the Summer Youth Empl oyment services so valuable in our province to assist high school and un iversity students to earn money for tuition and other expenses.

Maybe there are more jobs than students in Toronto, but in Manitoba our eager students are known to line up with sleeping bags the day and the night before the Summer Youth Emp loyment Office is open, Mr. Speak er. To the Premi er , wha t commun ication has this Government had with the federal cou nterparts re this decision? Hon. Gary filmon (Premier): Mr. Spea ker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Min ister of Education and Training (Mr . Derkach). Mrs.

Yeo: Can the Premier tell me what moni es will our province receive, in light of the statistics that Manitoba has the highest percentage of population in all of the western provinces which has not comp leted high school, 45 percent; 44 percent is the Canadian average? What monies will be targeted for Manitoba? Mr. filmon: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notic e, as well, on behalf of the Min ister of Education and Training (Mr. Derkach). Mrs. Yeo: Well, Mr.

Speake r, 3 percent admin istration fees on Canadian student loans, cuts to federal funding for post-seco ndary education, and the GST; it is not a good time to be a student in Manitoba. * (14 00)

Monday, February 12, 1990 Native Education Student Aid Mrs. Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): Can the First Mini ster tell us what funds will be specifically targeted for aboriginal students in Manitoba, in light of the fact that the concern for Natives was highlighted in the Winnipeg 2000 Report just recently released? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I might indic ate to the Member oppo site that this Government has been very, very generous in providing program ming for Native students and in looking at new opportunities for Native programming.

We are working co-operatively with Swampy Cree Tribal Council, established a Northern Bachelor of Nursing Program which was annou nced in The Pas last fall. We have continued the ACCESS Program which allows Native students to go into specialized training at un iversities, includin g medicine, law and engineering-a program I might ind icate that we have incr eased the funding to, tha t the Leader of the Opposition (M rs. Carstairs) said she would cut if she were in Government. We have made a commitment to Native education and training and we, Mr.

Speak er, will continue to provide increased and generous funding for training for Native people in this province. Bank of Canada Rate Impact Manitoba Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker , last week the bank rate was raised to its highest level in five and a half years to 12 .79 percent. This spread between the bank rate and the inflation rate is 7.5 percentage points. This is an all-time historical high and, of course, will contribute to the decline of our economy even further . Is the Mini ster of Finance (Mr .

Man ness) simply going to live with this without any protest to Ottawa, or is he prepared to commun icate his di ssatisfaction to his Tory cousins in Ottawa, particularly the Mini ster of Finance, or the Governor of the Bank of Canada, on the eve of a federal budget? Hon. Clayton Manness (Min ister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, let me indicate to my honourable friend from Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) that this Government is alarmed at the continuing incr eases in the bank rate. It is unconscionable at the level at which we find that rate tod ay, it is approaching a status of usury almost.

Let me indicate to the Member that we are fully well aware of the impact it is having on busine sses and consumers in this province. Furthermore, specific to the question, Mr. Speake r, there has not been one occasion over the last two months, over which time I have had several conversations with Min ister Wilson, that this has not come forward as a major point, and that I have not made a strong pitch to him to influence Governor Crow to reduce the bank rate.

Furthermore, the Governor of the Bank of Canada was in my office just previous to Christmas at which time I implored upon him to reduce this rate as it was having such a negative impact upon the regions of this cou ntry. Economic Growth Projection Downgrading Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Spe aker, the Mini ster of Finance and I certainly agree that high int erest rates do discourage business investment and pur chase of du rable goods, vehicles, re sidential construction and so on, contributing to the slow-down of our econo my.

Is the Min ister of Finance now going to revise do wnward the economic growth projections for the Province of Manitoba for the year 1990? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker , I guess the full response to that question will come when we bring forward a budget. Nevertheless, • it is obvious that the economy across Canada, across '4 the nation, is slowing down. Forecasts of the national economic growth are now in an area under 1. 5 percent, although Manitoba's economic growth was still forecast in the area of 2 percent as an average of all the forecasters.

Certain ly, I accept the fact that the national economic growth is being downgraded, yet Manitoba still is in the top two of ranking for economic growth in this coun try. All-Party Task Force Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker , the labour force survey Frida y shows that there were 8,000 less people in the labour force in Manitoba compared to last year. In other words, there is a mass exodus occurring of the work force.

Will the Mini ster be prepared now to set up a task force to add ress this declining situation and to look for ways and means to offset this decline and, particularly, this mass exodus .i of workers, 8,000 people? '4 Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker , I am glad the Member oppo site had the courage to ma ke reference to last week's labour statistics and unemp loyment figures for the Province of Manitoba, because again it points out the stable base that this Government is trying to set into place to launch itself off into economic growth for the 19 90s.

Indeed, with respect to the tax decr eases that we provided and our attempts to also ho ld back Government expenditure growth, which the Liberals in particular are insisting we incr ease, is bearing out fruit. We have a situation now where we have, again, the second best rate in unemplo yment. We have a situation today where we have an annual rate that is down below 7 percent. Obvi ously, we have a situation where economic growth in this province is well postured for the decade coming forward. 5181

Monday, February 12, 1990 Mentally Handicapped Employment Program Funding Hon. Charlotte Oleson (Min ister of Family Services): The Premier (Mr. Filmon) took as notice on Friday a question regarding Premier Personnel from the Member for St. Johns (Ms . Wasylycia-Leis) . I should remind the Member for St. Johns that Premier Personnel and their services, which are a very valuable and good service, are provided through a Canadian job strategy funding from the federal Government. Last year we had provided them with emergency funds .

I do have a letter from them and will be meeting with them shortly to discuss their funding needs . Urban Native People Government Strategy Mr. Herold Driedger (Niakwa): My question is for the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey). Between the years 1981 and 1986, Winnipeg 's Native population grew by 70.6 percent. In this population, unemployment levels are una cceptab ly high and average household incomes are astoundingly low. In fact, in the inner city, 71.9 percent of the Native household incomes are below the poverty level. My question is to the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs .

Just what, beyond the tabling of a consultant's repo rt last November , is the Government's plan to address the needs of the urban Native people? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for that question.

One has to look a little further th an just the immed iate statistics, but to why those numbers have been caused and the reason for the migration of a lot of our Native people to Winnipeg , I guess one would have to point, first of all, at the failure of the previous administration to create meaningfu l emp loyment opportunities in northern Manitoba, particularly for the Native people, still sittin g w ith some 90 percent unemp loyment as the Member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) quite often is putting on the record . They are their figures , not ours , so they are the failure of the previous administration .

Second, we are working aggressively with the leadership of the Native communities in Winnipeg to work further on the Urban Native Strategy that was struck by this Government . Meaningful options are being put in place by the Native leadership themselves supported by the province and other levels of Govern men t. Urban Native Strategy Recomm endations Mr. Herold Driedger (Niakwa ): Recognizing the validity of some of the Minister 's comments about the previous administration , which of the Urban Strategy Report's recommendations is the Minister actually acting on?

Which of its recom mendations has he actually implemented? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order , please . Order. Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we are working aggressively to put in place- Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, we are putting together aggressively the Native council. Urban Native People Government Strategy Mr. Herold Driedger (Niakwa): I missed part of the answer there, largely I think because the Minister did not have a chance to complete it. I will give him another chance . When will the Minister announce a definitive action plan?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): I regret that the New Democratic Party takes so lightly the urban Native people and the needs for employment opportunities and a real need to it. It is deplorable. I have never seen such a hypocritical Party sitting in here pretending that they are helping the Native people and laughing at everything that is being suggested in deal ing with those individuals. It is deplorable and disgusting and the Native people should get an apology from the NOP. ***** Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Thompson, on a point of order. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Minister was clearly not dealing with the question that was raised . Second of all, if we were laughing, it was at the inanity of the Member's answers and the fact he is not dealing with the concerns of Native people here in Manitoba and makes light of it by his rhetorical- Mr. Speaker: Order . Order, please. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order . *

(1410) LynnGold Resources Inc. UIC Benefits Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, in December of last year, the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) wrote to the federal Government requesting that the Unemployment Insurance Commission give special consideration to the lump sum payment that was provided to the province to workers who were laid off in Lynn Lake. I am wondering if the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld) can tell us today whether he has received a response to that letter and a request to give special consideration to that lump sum payment for the purposes of UI benefits . 5182

Monday, February 12, 1990 Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Yes, Mr. Speaker , we have received their request and we are dealing with it. The Mini ster for Labour (Mr s. Hammond) is in correspondence with the Minister of Labour in Ottawa, and we will be getting a report back from them shortly. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speak er, that is how this Government oper ates. It is about two months late.

People in Lynn Lake, laid off miners without income, are now being sent letters by the Unemp loyment In surance Com mission indi cating th ere is an up -to-$726 overpayment because of the lump sum payment that was provided by the province. Will the Mi nister now und ertake to contact the Mini ster responsible for UIC immedi ately so that these unem ployed workers are not penalized in this capricious and unfair manner? Mr. Neufeld: The Unemp loyment In sura nce Commission has taken the position that the $1, 200 given to the workers by the Manitoba Government cons tituted wages.

We are of an opinion that does not constitute wages, and we ar e ende avouring, on behalf of the workers of Lynn Lake, to obtain that money back from the federal Government. Mr. Storie: I have a further question to the Min ister. Will he take action immediately to prevent the reduction of payment to unemp loyed workers of up to $18 0 per month? Will he take action immedi ately to prevent that so these unemp loyed people can feed their families? Mr. Neufeld: Mr.

Spe aker, I have already said that we are making every effort to obtain a change of heart by the federal Government, by the Unempl oyment Insurance Commi ssion. We cannot, of course, prevent the Un emplo yment In surance Com mission from deducting any monies at all that are coming to the workers. We are making every effort to make certain that the workers are not penalized to the extent that they have been. Manitoba Driver Licences Photo ID Charges Mr. Ed Mandrake (Assiniboia): This Tory Government is nickel-and-diming the Manitoba motorists to death.

First of all, we had the 1-cent per litre tax, and now we have a $4 per year tax upon the dr iver licences. My qu es tion to the Mini ster of Hi ghways and Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger) is: why is he implementing the $4 per year extra tax on the dr iver licence effective 1, April 19 90, when the actual photo ID will not be implemented until'91 and'92? Hon. Albert Drie dger (M inister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speak er, the answer is quite simple, and I have forwarded all that information to the Member previous ly.

The fact that we will be having implementation costs that are starting now, we have the cameras that we will be establishing, we do the training that has to be done, there is a lot of work involved, and that is why we are implementing the $4 charge April 1. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please; ord er, please. Photo ID Tenders Mr. Ed Mandrake (Assiniboia): That answer , he did not provide for us in the briefing paper . So let us get that on the road. I have it right here and I can provide it for him.

Would this Mini ster please tender all of the contracts on behalf of the photo ID that he awarded to an Ontario firm, National Business Systems, and all of the bidders here in Manitoba? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I hope the Member is not indicating that we should do away with the tender system. What we did, we consulted throughout. Opportu nities were given to people in Manitoba and across Canada, in terms of who would come up with the best proposal, � and we accepted the best tend er. , Photo ID Sites Mr. Ed Mandrake (Assiniboia): Mr.

Speaker , my final supplemen tary, again to the same Mini ster. This $4 additional fee per year on a dr iver licence, is he going to assure this House that all the employees in the designated rural areas are going to be hired from the specific areas, not brought in from Winnipeg or Toronto? Hon. Albert Driedger (M inister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speak er, I have some difficulty with that question because, by and large, we have a system that we are using that we will be implementing, where we will be using these present sites where we give driver test ing.

These are the places where the photo licences will be taken. We are not looking at employing more people in the rural areas. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENTS Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker , I wonder if I might have leave for a non-poli tical statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable First Mini ster have leave to make a non-p olitical sta tement? The Honourable First Min ister. Mr. Filmon: Mr.

Speaker , as we spoke near the end of the Session of 19 89, it was a year of tremendous change worldw ide with the ma jor and exciting opportu nities for freedom and dem ocracy that opened up in eastern Europe, 1990 could be just as exciting and eventful a year in terms of world histor y. Yesterd ay, I know that all Members of this Legislature, as well as Manitobans throughout our province, joined with freed om-loving people throughout the world in welcoming the release of Nelson Mandela after some almost 28 years in prison. 5183

/ Monday, February 12, 1990 A lot of forces contributed to the release of Nelson Mandela, not the least of which is the movemen t tha t supported him in an unflagging way throughout his years and years in prison . The commitment of his family , the commitment of his friends , and people throughout the South African community, no doubt led to the changes that we are now seeing in Government policy in that area . I believe that it has been a key element, Mr.

Speaker , in this fundamental turnaround of attitude by the South African Government, that many nations throughout the wor ld have given the ir support through ca lls for sanctions and other forms of protest.

Members of this Legislature , I think , can take some sense of gratification in the efforts that have been given by all three Parti es, speaking out from time to time , in the int eres ts of assuring that the South African Government ult imately put aside the apartheid policies that they have been following, regrettably over many, many years , but, as John Kennedy once said , while we are gratified, we are not satisfied, ther e i s much more to be done . One man is out of jail, but he is not yet free. We must continue with our commitment to support the forces of fre edo m in South Africa . We must not relent.

We are mak ing progress , but we cannot stop until apartheid itself has ended . ***** Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Leader of the Oppos it ion have leave to make a non - political statement? Leave. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. Mrs. Sharo n Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speake r, free at last, free at last, thank God Almigh ty, we are free at last . Those are the words of a Negro spiritual and yet pro bably broug ht mos t eloquently to mind by Martin Luther King when he spoke on his march in Washington in 1963.

Those words , which helped in many ways to bring justice to the black people of the United States , came very quickly to my mind when I watched Nelson Mandela emerge from prison after 27 years . For the years of his life between the ages of 44 and 71 , he had been lost in his human person to his people in South Africa, but he was not lost to the ir hearts and to their minds . A qu arter of a million of them gathered yesterday to pay tribute to the ir natural leader, although he was quic k to esch ew the title stating that a leader need ed to be democratically elected .

The Liberal Caucu s welcomes the release of Nelson Man dela, and we welcome his opening words which were, " I greet you in the name of peace ," recognizing as he did that there was still much work to be done . * (1420 ) We also urge our Prime Minister to stand firm on his position th at sancti ons be not lifted until the achievement of full demo cracy in South Afric a, for both blacks and whites , is brought to frui tion.

As we celebrate with South Africans this new ach ievement , let us rededicate ourselves in our own community to the eradicat ion of racism , and with its accompanied agony to all those who suffer from it. ***** Mr. Speaker: Does the Ho no urable Member for Concordia have leave to make a non-political statement? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Concordia . Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of t he Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker and Members of the Chamber, I want to join with the other Leaders today in commenting on the release of Nelson Mandela .

I think it was a very proud moment for all people in the free world to watch his rele ase from prison and the subsequent speech he made to the people of South Africa . I think we also have to know and pay attention to the fact that , yes, one person has been set free from prison , a very, very important leader in the struggle against apartheid, but apartheid still remains in South Africa and still today it remains in South Africa , a country that constitutionally has different provisions, different rights and different treatment for people on the basis of colour and race . Mr.

Speaker, we must rededicate ourselves to work with the community-based groups across Canada and across the free world that are continuing to make the struggle their struggle. All of us I am sure have joined in candlelight vigils in various communities across the country to bring attention to the conditions in South Africa and the conditions in the South African Const itution . We must rededicate ourselves in this Chamber I believe to continuing on, on the struggle for the South African people with Nelson Mandela's release yesterday .

We mu st continue to be vigilant on the issue of sanctions, an issue that has been a matter of debate across , again , the commonwealth countries and other countries of whether it works or whether it does not work . Nelson Mandela clearly stated yesterday that the sanctions must be kept on in order for all people to be free and equal in South Africa in terms of the South African people . Nelson Mandela also made very strong statements on the need for democracy and freedom in his country in the years to come . Mr.

Speaker, we must also work with the South African people to remove the state of emergency in South Africa , another statement tha t was made by Nelson Mandela yesterday in his eloquent address to the world. Perh aps our House Leaders today could join with other municipalities in passing certai n resolutions, because there is a resolution, Resolution No. 50, before this Chamber and perhaps today would be an appropriate day for all Parties to continue on, not just on our non political stat ements , but to perhaps pass some resolutions in terms of our all-Party agreement on apartheid and what we must do.

Thank you very, very much . 5184

Monday, February 12, 1990 COMMITTEE CHANGES Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr. Speaker , I have a commi ttee change. I move, seconded by the Mem ber for St. James (Mr. Edwards), tha t the composition of the St anding Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows: the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr) for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux); Fort Garry (Mr. Laurie Evans) for Kildonan (Mr. Cheema). Mr. Speaker: Agreed? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Gimli. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I also have some comm ittee changes. I move, seconded by the Member for Minnedosa (Mr .

Gilleshammer), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Gi lleshammer for Burrell; Helwer for Praznik. I move, seconded by the Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows: Dr iedger , the Min ister of Hi ghways and Transporta tion, for Downey; and Burrell for Helwer. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. ORDERS OF THE DAY WRITTEN QUESTIONS (No. 5) Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition)- What new programs, including inservicing of social workers, has the Department of Family Services ini tiated in order to deal with the current and growing problem of the use of the street dr ug, cr ack, by you ng Manitobans? HOUSE BUSINESS Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Spe aker, would you be so kind as to call the Bills in the following order: Bills 31, 35, 19, 84, 70, 47 to 52 inclusive, 57, 59 and 60. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): On House Business, I am wondering, in looking ahead to Private Memb ers' hour tod ay, whether there might be leave to deal with the anti-apartheid resolution move it up on the Order Paper . There was a general sentiment I think expressed earlier about concern on the issue. I am wondering if there might be agreement from all Parties to move that up to the top of the Order Paper . Mr. Mccrae: i will commit myself to discuss that privately with the Hous e Leaders. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Honourable Government House Leader.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS BILL NO. 31-THE LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT Mr. Speaker : On the pr opo sed motion of the Honourable Mi nister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), Bill No. 31, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travai l, standing in the name of the Honourable Mem ber for Churchill (Mr. Cowan). The Honourable Member for Churchill. Mr. Jay Co wan (C hurchill): Mr . Sp eaker , as un accustomed as I am to public speaking I find myself once again standing, speaking to a Bill which, if it passes this Legislature, will take away the opportunity for Manitoba empl oyers and emp loyees to resolve ir reco ncilable or at least otherwise irre concilable di fferences of opinion, that arise during cont ract negotiations, through a measure that would prevent strikes and lockouts.

That is why we once again carry on with this debate. We believe it is impor tant that if this Bill does proceed through this House it does so in a manner that every Manitoban knows exactly where the different Parties in this Legislature stand on this very important issue to them. (Mr.

William Chornop yski, Deputy Speak er, in the Chair) That is why I have taken some time not only to deal with the statements and the reasons behind the repeal of final offer selection, as enunc iated by the Government Mem bers, but also have taken a fair amount of time to enuncia te the reasons and the stated opposition to final offer selection by Liberal Members in this House. I only wish that more Liberal Mem bers had spoken on this Bill.

I really quite frankly do not need to hear much more from the Conser vatives with respect to final offer selection, because we heard it all when the original Bill was passed by this Legislature, when the New Democratic Party ad min istration was in power and working to better conditions for working people in this 4 province, and to create a fairer, more equitable society both in the workplace and outside the workplace.

We heard them talk about how final offer selection and other progr essive labour legislation, which had been brought forward by the New Democratic Party over the years, would result in a dark cloud hanging over the Province of Manito ba; it would scare business away; it would drive employers to other areas and it would interfere with negotia tions. You know we even found the Cons ervatives in the somewhat unusual position of def ending the interests, or what they believed to be the int erests, of unions with respect to final offer selection.

I have to say that it would be inap propr iate for me to talk about that position, in which they found thems elves. and sincerity in the same sentence and so I will not. I will not in any way- An Honourable Member: No sinceri ty, is that what you are saying? 5185

Monday, February 12, 1990 Mr. Cowan: We ll, now the Member for Thompson (Mr . Ashton) almost pushes me into making a statement that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker , may find somewhat unparliamentar y, and I am not going to do it. I am not going to say that they would be insinc ere when they line the mselves up with labour. I am not going to say that is a somewhat obscure rea son. An Honourable Mem ber: Hypocri sy. Mr. Cowan: Now, see, the Member for Thompson (Mr . Ashton) goes at it again and talks about hypocri sy. I am not going to do that. An Honourable Member: That is not unparliame nta ry. Mr.

Cowan: He says it is not un parliamentary so perhaps I will say in fact it is quite hypocritical for those people there, the friends of big business that the y are, the enemies of working people that they are, to sit in their place in this Cham ber and sugge st that they are doing anything that will benefit working people at the expense of big business because they just could not bring thems elves to do it under any circumstances. That do es not just -(interjection)- The Mem ber for Logan (Ms. Hemphill) makes a good point. It is a point which I am going to dwell upon in my comments for a little bit of time.

If my Hous e Leader (Mr. Ashton) would watch the quorum perhaps we could dwell on it for less time rather than more. I cannot say how many Cons ervatives are in the Chamber at the time, but it would appear to me that there would probably not be a quorum if it was relied upon them to-I am sorry, I was di stracted one moment by my colleague, the Member for Flin Flon (Mr .

Storie), who "!Sked a very important question toda y with respect to the way in which a Co nservative Government in Ottawa is taking money out of the pockets of laid-off miners and others in Lynn Lake by decrea sing the amount of their unemp loyment insur ance by the same amount which they were paid out under the payment of wages fund. * (14 30) Mr. Deputy Sp eaker , I belie ve if they had an opp ortunity to put that matter of final offer selection in Lynn Lake, the matter of vacation pay and seve rance, that they would be prepar ed to do so.

If it went to final offer selection, ! can assure you we would not have the type of situation today where the mine rs and the workers in the mill and the other emp loyees in Lynn Lake are suffe ring such dir e economic consequences of an action over which they had no control because any arbiter would see the justice and the fairness in their particular case and would also see the rea sonable way which they have approached that particular problem. guess, without fear of contradiction, that an arbiter would rule in their favour.

Why do I make that point on a some what related matter? make that point because final offer selection is all about fairness, equity and the sharing of power. I know there are certain circumstances when other groups in society who find thems elves in a position 5186 where the people with whom they are negotiating or discussing issues or trying to resolve di fferences have more power than do they and they find the mselves unable to effect the type of change they would want to be able to effect, even although what they are asking for is fair and just.

I say that not pointing my finger at any one political Party or any Government because I believe it would be a matter that would transcend partisan politics, that from time to time there are groups in society, that want to see a change in the status quo, that cannot effect that change in the status quo, even although it would be right and just and fair, because they do not have the power to do so.

They would be willing, I am certain, if we were to extend this legislation to beyond the realm of labour relations, from time to time to sit down and try to test their challenges against the process of final offer selection. I know that in those instances we would proba bly come up with a more fair and more equitable circumstance than we do when brute power is tested against brute power. There is an unstable relationship there or, as the Member for Logan (Ms. Hemphill) says, there is not a level playing field. Mr.

Deputy Spe aker, I make that point because I think it is something we should all think about and consider from time to time. I think that instead of being in this House today trying to take away an inn ovative way of resolving disputes from working people in this province, we should probably be in this House today trying to find ways to expand that process, so that others will have the opportunity to do so and to use it. I think, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , that it is the wrong approach that this Government, along with their friends, the Liberals, along with their friends, big business, have taken with respect to-I believe that we have a quorum problem right now . We are going to gi ve the Cons ervatives one chance to get some Mem bers in- 1 see that they have done that-so that I have an opportunity to continue on with my remarks. I believe my remarks toda y are very impor tant to the general public. I will caution the Conservatives that they have a responsibility to make this House work.

They are the ones who want to see this legislation ramrodded through the House. They are the ones who are forcing the sort of impasse that we have here today because of their lack of reasonableness. If they want to live up to their re sponsibility as legislators in the Government, I would hope that they would keep their Mem bers in the House so that we at !east have a quorum. The next time - (int erjecti on) - the Member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) says, how many Mem bers do we have?

The Member for Arthur was the Acting House Leader who fell asleep in his seat the last time a quorum was called in this House and let his numbers so dwindle that for the first time in my memory and for the first time in the history of the House, for probably two generations, a quorum was called. If he has some comments to put on the record right now with respect to that, let him speak. The fact is, and the history of the matter is, that he was the Member who was most responsible for the lack of quorum in

Monday, February 12, 1990 this House in the previous instance. If he cannot do his work now, then let him not take umbrage at the number of Mem bers in this House. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order , please. The Honourable Min ister for Northern Affairs, on a point of ord er. ***** Hon . James Downey (Min ister of Northern and Native Affa irs): Mr . Deputy Sp eaker , first of all, it is un parliament ary and inappropria te for this House to id entif y whether Mem bers are or are not in this Cham ber. That is unparliament ary, which the Mem ber for Churchill (Mr . Cowan) should recognize.

That is the point of order which I am rising on. He may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, want to make a lot of to-do about whether there is a quorum or whether there is not. I can tell you that he just has to look at the support that he has for the speech that he is giving and the Members of his Party that are here before he starts to criticize other individua ls. Mr. Richard Kozak (Transcona): To the same point of ord er, Mr. Deputy Speaker , there is unq uestionably a quorum in this House at present. It is certainly unparliamenta ry to refer to the absence of Mem bers.

I would suggest that no point of order exists at present, and that we get on with the extremely interesting comments of our colleague, the Member for Churchill (Mr . Cowan). Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Member for Transcona is quite correct. The Honourable Mi nister did not have a point of order . POINT OF ORDER Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Speak er, on another point of ord er. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Ho nourable Mi nister of Northern Affairs, on a point of ord er. Mr. Downey: Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the point of order that I was trying to bring your attention to, Sir, was the fact that it is un parliamentary to talk about the presence or absence of Membership in the Assemb ly. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Member for Thompson, on the same point of order . Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): If I might be of assistance to the Min ister of Northern Affairs (Mr.

Downey), who may not have read his Beauchesne's recently , and I do apologize, I have the Fifth Edition of Beauchesne's, not the current edition, but the Fifth Edition of Bea uchesne's, 316 Subsection (c), states that it has been sanctioned by usage that a Member while speaking must not refer to the presence or absence of specific-specif ic-Memb ers, Mr. Deputy Spe aker. What the Member for Churchill (Mr . Cowan) was pointing to was the fact that this Government, which has been trying to push this through, ram this Bill through, could not even get a quorum of its own Members in this Hous e.

There were about four or five Government Memb ers, which is quite parliamentary to refer to without refer ring to the absence of any specific Mem bers. There were only four or five Government Members sitting here on the deba te that they have decided is so important that it has to come first on the Or der Paper, that th ey are going to refuse adjournments, they are going to deny Mem bers the oppor tunity to speak. Mr. Deputy Speaker , it is highly irregular, not only for those Mem bers not to have a quorum in here but then to get up and criticize the Member for Churchill (Mr .

Co wan) for making reference to that. As I said, Beauchesne's is clear, there was no reference by the Member for Churchill to the absence of any specific Mem ber. His comments were totally in order , and I would suggest before the Mini ster of Northern Affairs (Mr . Downey) in terrupts the pr oceed ings of this Legislature again he get out his Beauchesne's, get out his Rule book, and learn the Rules, something he has not done in the many years he has been in this Chamber. * (1 440) Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order , please; order , please. I thank all Honourable Mem bers for their advice.

The Honourable Minis ter did in fact make a point that you should not refer to Mem bers. However, I recognized the Honourable Member for Churchill. The Honourable Member for Churchill has the floor . ***** Mr. Cowan: I very deliberately did not reference specific Mem bers, or at least I attempted not to reference specific Mem bers.

If I ina dvertently did so, I certa inly apologize for that, but I believe that if I did not do so, those who have suggested that I have violated the Rules, and in fact I have not vio lated the Rules, should apologize to the House for disrupting what is a very long speech that will take some time to unfold and causing a digr ession and extending the time which is required to make the points even further . I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have some familiarity with the Rules. I do not know them all, but I do know the ones that come into effect more often than not. One of those Rules is relevancy.

The rule of relevancy is such that I must really address myself to the princip les of the Bill before us, and I would like to get back to that without being di stracted by Mem bers of the House unduly so that I cannot keep my remarks as relevant as they should be. When I sat down the other day-it seems like so long ago-I was addressing my remarks and dir ecting my attention -(interjection)- no, the Member for Logan (Ms. Hemphill) says the Liberal position, but I did that previously and people have taken note, and I will do it further and people may take note as well.

I was addressing myself specifically to the comments of the Member for Po rtage la Prairie (Mr. Con nery) when he introd uced the first Bill to repeal final offer selection in this House a couple of years ago. 5187

Monday, February 12, 1990 I was at point six, I believe, so I will carry on from there. I do not want to repeat myself and go back over the first five points other than to say that in each of those instances when I laid out for the record aga in what the Minister of Labour had said when making his comments on the Bill , either in committee or in a news release or in this House, I also attempted to show where others either agreed or disagreed with that particular comment.

The trend that was created throughout those remarks and my commentary was that he found agreement most often with Liberals and big business with what he had to say and disagreement most often between those who had actually studied final offer selection, as it has been used here and in other jurisdictions , and understood the process and the record of final offer selection a bit mor e than either, I might add, the Conservatives or Liberals or big business do . (interjection)- As the Member for Logan (Ms . Hemphill) says, the Manitoba experience is very clear. Let me just come to that when talking about point six.

What the Minister of Labour , the Member for Portage (Mr. Connery) , had to say at that particula r time was that the final offer selection will create division between unions and their members . I find that som ewhat hard to reconcile with the process of final offe r selection, which can only take place at a time when the majority of the members agree to the final offer selection process under the legisl ati on.

If it needs the majority of the members to agree to that particular process and the majority of the members are also the majority of the union , which they are, then how is it that the majority of the members are working against their own best interests? How does the fact tha t there is an option for final offer selectio n create a division between unions and members, unless the re is a misguided sens e of what unions and members are, unles s there is a bias that separates unions from their membership? -(interjection)- As the Member for Logan (Ms.

Hemphill) says, in the vast majority of the instances the unions agreed-well , the membership agreed with the recommendation with respect to final offer sele ction , and I think that in fact was the case, Mr. Deputy Speak er. I want to comm ent just a bit on the exact comment by the Min ister of Labour a few years ago, and what the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) said just a few weeks ago in this House with respect to final offer selection, because again what we find is the criticism that they hold of final offer selectio n is fairl y much one and the same.

They have again bound together in spirit and in mind and are approaching this issue from the same perspec tive. What the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) said , and I quote , he believed that final offer select ion weak ens unions. That is pretty much the same . What would vou do with a union except weaken it if you create ·division between unions and their members? That consequence has to flow from the act of weaken ing the union. I will suggest , Mr.

Deputy Speaker , that anything that creates division within a union , and you notice I used a somewhat different terminology than the Member , because I think unions and the members are the same I thin k perhaps what he was trying to say is that it would create division with in a union itself-but anything that does create division within a union weakens a union . Anything that creates division within a group of individuals who have a common objective, whether it be labour negotiations or whether it be negotiations for other principles and issues, will tend to weaken the group .

Anything that weakens the group will in fact tend to act to the detriment of their ability to negotiate fairness and equity, whatever the question might be . (interjection)- Well, I am going to put th at comment from the Member for Transcona (Mr. Kozak) on the record very clearly, because I want the Members of the rail union in Transcona to know where their MLA stands with respect to final offer selection. He said we do not support outside interference in the unions-in their internal affairs , he now adds.

Now I would ask the Member for Transcona, does he believe that final offer selection creates that sort of interference in the internal affairs of the union? He could nod his head yes or no or stand and take his feet and answer the question if he wishes on a point of order, but I am looking to him . Is that what he believes?

The Member for Transcona says they will save debate for later, but what we have been asking them to do all along is get to their feet and say what they think and say what they believe and make the ir case and defend their suggestions, their allegations and their assumptions with respect to final offer selection. They sit on their feet day after day after day after day refusing to enter into the debate, because as the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) has said and the Member for Transcona (Mr. Kozak) believes , as does the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lam oureux) , St. Norbert (Mr. Angus), the Member for Kildonan (Mr.

Cheema) and those others on that side, they believe that final offer selection is wrong . They have said they believe it is wrong . They have said they believe it does intrude into the internal affairs of a union, unless the Member for Transcona disagrees with the Member for St. James . Yet when we ask them to stand to their feet in the trad itional practice in this House and make those comments known, to live or die politically by their convictions and their principles, have they any, they refuse .

When we ask them from their seats to clarify it does not take much courage to nod your head yes or no, does not take much intelligence to nod your head yes or no, either you believe it or you do not believe it - they say we will save our comments for the debate later. Well the fact is they have had lots of opportunity in all sorts of different ways to put those comments on the reco rd , and they have refused.

I think that itself belies either the fact that they are in disagreement among themselves , and that wou ld tend to weak en a caucus just as it would tend to weaken a union, or they really do not believe what they are saying. Sure they are all Honourable Members , and I assume that they believe what they are saying or they have nothing to back up that which they say and they are afraid of 5188

Monday, February 12, 1990 getting out on the record a statement which has no substance in fact and cannot be docu mented and cannot be backed up and cannot be supp orted in any form whatsoever by those who take an unbiased and impartial view of final offer selection. I will tell the Member for Transcona (Mr . Kozak) right now that he may have the luxury of silence in this Chamber on this issue, but he will not have that luxury on the door step during the campaign that is going to be coming up in this province to determ ine who is best suited to represent the constituents of Transcona, and others in this province.

An Honourable Member: When? • (1 450) Mr. Cowan: Well, the Member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) says: when? I do not particularly care if it is this week, next week, next month or next year, to the extent that when it happens, the New Democratic Party will be the only Party that will be able to say that it has consistently defended the rights of working people in this province at every occa sion, while the Li berals and the Co nservatives have jumped into bed together-that is a political bed, Mr.

Deputy Speaker-in a very generic sense, jum ped into bed together to fight against the inte rests of working people in support of big business, and it goes beyond just the dic hotomy , or the dialectic in society that exists between working people and big business. What it really typifies is the approach to power because there are people in this coun try, and people in this province, who historically have had power and been able to exercise their will, and been able to influence the way things happen. They have done so on a number of occasions at the expense of those without power.

I do not care if it is a union or if it is an organization representing different groups in society, or if it is an indi vidual who stands up for their rights, whether those rights be labour rights, or whether those rights be societal rights, or whether those rights be Treaty rights, or aboriginal rights, or whether those rights be the rights which we all take for granted. Consis tently, it has been the New Democratic Party, and the CCF before it, who have stood up for the rights of those indi viduals in those groups, because we believe that there is not an equal sharing of power in society tod ay.

We believe that there is an imbalance. We believe that it is not entirely fair out there. Let me tell you, we do not have all the answers, Mr. Deputy Speaker -(interjection)- The Finance Mi nister (Mr. Man ness) says, we do not have any of the answers.

He would be far better suited heckling the Prime Mini ster and his Tory cousin, the Mini ster of Finance, Michael Wilson, than heckling Mem bers on this side of the House who are trying to stand up for Manitobans against what is going to be a very devasta ting budget that is going to come down from the Conser vative Government in not too many days, and coupled with the goods and services tax is going to create economic hardship throughout this land. So he wants to best use his time.

If he wants to make the most effective use of his criticism, let him crit icize tho se in Ottawa wh o are bringing such destruc tion, economic destruction, to people throughout this province, and not worry qui te so much about what it is we stand for, or do not stand for, with respect to this particular debate.- (interject ion)- Mr. Cowan: Well, now the Mini ster of Ind ustry, Trade and Tourism (Mr . Ernst), and I think I heard him right- 1 will ask him to clarify if I do not- An Honourable Member: He does not have to. Mr. Cowan: As the Member for Arthur (Mr.

Downey) says, he does not have to clarify if he does not want to, but I think he would have the courage to do so. I think he suggested I was being an apologist for the unions, and I should stop being an apologist for the unions. He shakes his head, yes, in concur rence with that, I believe. Actually, if I could refer to his absence, I would welcome him back because he told me he was not going to be listening to my words tod ay, and yet I find myself honour ed and privileged to have him here listening to those words. I hope that, without referring to his absence -(interjection)- okay, ok ay.

As the deba te unfolds it becomes more and more interes ting, because what we are talking about now, and the Member for Ind ustry, Trade and Tourism (Mr . Ernst) talked about union bosses -now I un derstand better what the Member for Portage (Mr. Con nery), in his own ina rticulate way and stumbling manne r, was trying to say when he said that final offer selection creates division between unions and their members. Excuse me, Mr. Deputy Speaker , I would be prepared to give my commitment to the Mini ster of Northern Affairs (Mr .

Downey), or other Min isters who have to attend to their business, that we will not call a quorum in the House tod ay. They can go to their meetings, because I note that they have people waiting for them. I do not want to subje ct any more people than I have to to this very long and labourious speech. We will not call a quorum for the rest of the afternoon. Why are all those generic Members rushing for the doors, not to refer to any specific Member? Have a good mee ting. An Honourable Member: Turn it on and listen . . .. Mr. Cowan: No, no, the Member for Logan (Ms.

Hemphill) says, to turn it on and listen in her office but wait, I did not mean to create a stampede here. I know there is other business that has to be taken care of, and we do not want to, in any way, stall that. (interjec tion)- You may have missed some, but you will not have missed it all. I can guarantee that to the Minis ter of Finance (Mr. Mann ess), who said that he is certain when he listens again to this in a hour he will not have missed a darn thing. An Honourable Member: I think that quote is on the record. Mr.

Cowan: What the Mi nister of Ind ustry, Trade and Tourism said when I talked about unions was-he 5189

Monday, February 12, 1990 clarified himself, and he said union bosses. So I am going to gues s-and it is only conjecture-if it is unfair, let the Member for Portage (Mr . Conne ry) come in and tell me that is the case. I am going to suggest that what the Mem ber for Portage really meant to say was that it creates division between union bosses and their mem bers, becaus e tha t is wha t I belie ve is the philosophy and the approach of the Conservatives.

They believe that uni ons are not groups of individuals who band together in perhaps one of the most democratic proc esses possible to ensure that the collective good of all the mem bers is dealt with in a fair and equitable fashion. The fact is that the y do not believe that. They believe that there are uni on bosses that try to control the membership, that try to hold sway over the workings of the union. I think they believe those union bosses do not believe in democratic process. I will tell them, there are no union bosses in the way in which they believe there are union bosses.

There are leaders within the union movement, and there are leaders who ask for this type of legislation, not because it benefited union leaders per se, but it benefited the union membe rs per se. There is an old saying in the union movement. It is one which I have tried to shape a large part of my approach to public policy issues around.

That is, and I quote, "An injury to one is an injury to all." The conv erse of that saying is, "A benefit to one, indeed, can be a benefit to all." -(interjection)- We ll, I only wish that the Mini ster of Ind ustry, Trade and Tourism would have the opportunity to take to his feet to speak to this Bill again, because he has I think some very insightful comments to put on the record. I would like him to be honest, open, forthright and frank with how he feels about unions when he has an opportunit y. I think, Mr. Deputy Spea ker. that I am the last speaker on this portion of the Bill.

If I were to sit down to allow him opportun ity to speak without leave I might lose my opportunity to conclude my remarks, so I will not do that Perhaps there is another way that we might be able to offer him another oppor tunity to speak, and perhaps the Liberals other opportunit ies to speak over the next number of days. If we do, I hope they will take advantage of that offer. Mr. Deputy Speaker , finai offer selection does not create differences or division between unions and their members because unions and their members are one and the same. It would be impossible to separate them.

It is a process that calls for and requir es a majority vote, and the majority vote imp lies the collective will, and the collective will should be followed, just as we have majority votes in this House. It is the same process. Deputy Speaker. I alone do not say that. Mr. Be!lan, in his comments-and I will just reference the

article again, because it has been a couple of days since referred to it-the Osgoode Hall Law Journal, an

article entitled, "Final Offer Selection: Two Canadian Case Studies and an American Digres sion ." It is an unbiased article. What Mr. Bellan says, and I will have to get the point in front of me, that both favoured the use of FOS for the next round of contr act talks. Now that is a reference to two groups that had used final offer selection. It was the union that favoured the use of final offer selection, along with the employer. Both groups favoured it Now why would a union favour something that in their exp erience had cr eated di vision among its membership? They would not.

It would not be in their best in terest to do so. Why would the Mani toba Federat ion of Labour come out so strongly for final offer selection if they felt it created division between members in a union? They would not, because it would not be in their best interest to do so. * (1 500) The fact is that unions are supporting final offer selection because it does just the opposite. It results in a more fair set of negotiations which benefits their members. It avoids strikes which oftentimes splits mem ber ship up terribly , particu larly, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , if you have a situation where you have scabs trying to take away the jobs of workers who are on strike. Think about how that splits a membership. I have seen a fair number of strikes. I have studied a few. I have been involved in labour dispu tes from a number of different perspe ctives. I can tell you that there is no more animo sity created in any circumstance in the workpla ce between me mbers of a union them selves than when there is a strike where the employer attempts to continue to keep the operation going through the use of strikebreakers, scabs, or replacement workers.

However you want to term them, they are one and the same. Jack London had a very good poem or description about scabs. I do not have it with me at this particular time, but there may be an opportunity to read it into the record later on. Mr. Deputy Speaker , if you are not familiar with it, or if there are others who are not familiar with it, I recommend it to you. That poem in itself shows how much animo sity and how untenable a workp lace can become when scabs are used just by the way in which it describes scabs. Final offer selection is a way to avoid that situation.

As a matter of fact, it has been used to avoid that situation. It do es prevent strikes and lockouts. I have seen strikes where members of a group, a work team or family take di fferent sides on the issue, sometimes because the y are forced to, sometimes because some are mana gement and some are employees, sometimes because the y have different philosophical approaches and different princi ples with respect to labour unions, their right to strike and their right to un dertake work action of any sort.

I do not believe that final offer selection, if it was every thing negative that both the Liberals and the Cons ervatives, and big business as well, say it is, could ever create the type of division that is created when families are split because of a labour dispute, when brothers fight with brothers, when sisters fight with sisters, when mothers and fathers fight with their children. The tensions of a strike are so incredibly hard on the family itself that that sort of bitterness is inevitable if the strike goes on long enough and if there is a division of opinion as to how to proceed through it. 5190

Monday, February 12, 1990 Even at its worst, even at the worst sort of image that Liberals and Co nservatives can conjure up in their mind, final offer selection is not nearly as disrup tive and could not result in nearly the division that the alternative does, the alternative being a strike or a lockout. When the Mini ster of Labour says that he believes final offer selection creates division between unions and their members, and when the Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) says he believes it weakens unions, what they are doing is ignoring the democratic nature of the labour movement in this province, across this country and ind eed throughout the world in almost every instance. It betrays a rather cynical view of unions. I want to read the notes that I had written in trying to focus my comments before I heard what the Mini ster of Ind ustry, Trade and Tourism (Mr . Ernst) had to say, and I will read them verba tim. They are speaking notes that allow me try to focus in on an issue.

Under item 6, creates division between unions and their members, under the heading of Member for Portage (Mr. Con nery), final offer selection. The notes I wrote in red, in handwriting are: (1) it ignore the democratic nature of unions, (2) it is a cynical view of unions, (3) it is a typical Tory perc eption, and next to that I have, labour boss, and next to that I have, leaders take direction, and

(4) I have, why would unions support it if it created divisions? I did not even have to hear the Mi nister of Ind ustry, Trade and Tourism say from his seat today that he believes union bosses are the problem because that is a historical percep tion of the Co nservative Party. It is an ideologic al approach that has resulted from the blinders that they have put on them by big business, and it is one that is being shared by the Liberals. I do not know why, but I think they may come to change their mind on that over time-if not on this particular Bill, over time.

I think there is probably a bit more hope for them than there is for the Co nservatives because it is so ingr ained in the Co nservative ideology and philosophy, but they are becoming to look more and more like Co nservatives every day. While I believe there is hope, it is something that I cannot be assured of, given the experience with this particular caucus and particularly their Leader who tends to take a fairly right wing approach to economic issues, and the experience that we have seen in this House over the last little while, particularly the experience around final offer selecti on.

We have heard the Liberals say and the Conservatives say that it is going to weaken unions by creating division. We have heard that the opposite takes place and we see that the unions themselves do not believe that.

What is interesting is that the Conser vatives and the Liberals, in the way in which they are approaching this debate, suggest to us that they know more what is better for the unions than the unions thems elves, because I can tell you that it is most likely that I would not be stan ding up here def ending final offer selection if working peopie thems elves di d not supp ort it to the extent that they do, if the majority of trade unions in the Province of Manitoba did not support it, because I consider the "ma jority will" to be something that should be considered very strongly.

The "ma jority will" of trade unions with respect to what they would like to see happen with labour relations does provide some guidance to all of us if we believe that those democratic institutions have wisdom that comes with collective responsibility and col lective decision-making. We do believe that to be the case. Now continuing on with what the Member for Portage (Mr . Conn ery) had to say in his comments, he said that he was concerned that final offer selection would be, and I quote: an imposition of third parties on the other parties.

I actually paraph rased that rather than quoted it because I did not have all the wording in front of me. It would take me a minute to look it up in my notes here and I do not want to delay this any more than it has to be in order to make the pertinent points. The fact is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what he is saying in that is that the Conser vatives are op posed to final offer selection because they believe the arbitration decision, the decision of the arbiter, is an imposition on the other parties -(interjection)- Well, the Member for Logan (Ms. Hemphill) says exactly what it is.

It is not an imposition but it is an agreement to have, in effect, one of the party's decisions. It may be the union's party in one instance, it may be the employer's in another but the fact is it is not something that the arbitrator pulls out of the air . That is as oppo sed to conventional arbitration, and that is the di fference. I would be far less sup portive of this type of legislated arbitration if it was conventional arbitration, because that in fact do es allow for and encourage the imposition of an agreement on both parties rather than the choice of a final offer package.

Now, what did the Liberals have to say with respect to that concern? Well, the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) said, and I quote, that final offer selection, quote, subverts the underlying principle behind our labour relation system as it stands toda y. That is to say the parties do not know what is best for the workplace. A third person, someone who may have no knowledge of the workplace both from the employee side and the management side, is the person best able to decide how this workplace is run. Again that is a bit longer and a more convoluted way of saying what the Member for Portage (Mr. Conner

y) said, but in fact it leads us to the same suggestion that there is an imposition by a third party which cannot therefore be nearly as good as what the other two parties would come up with thems elves. The Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) also says that, and I quote, with final offer selection "what you get is a cont ract that the parties do not feel they have partici pated in," which again implies that there was an imposition of that cont ract on the parties, rather than the negotia tion.

What that shows to me is that he does not very well under stand final offer selecti on, and he has some ide as about final offer selection which are not in keeping with the reality of the Bill that legislates a process in the Province of Manitoba and is not in keeping with the reality of what has actually happened when final offer selection has been used in Manitoba. * (1510 ) 5191

Monday, February 12, 1990 I am going to spend some time, if time permits, going through the case histories of where final offer selection has been used in Manitoba. What the Mem ber for St. James (Mr. Edwards) will find when he listens to this and we will help him to that conclusion, what conclusion I believe he will have to come to, in spite of his bias and his prejudice against final offer select ion -h e will have to come to the conclusion that in fact in almost all the instances what final offer selection did allow for was successful negotiation at the table. How is that an imposition on the parties?

What it is-well, let me answer my own question. It is not entirely a rhetorical question. It is an imposition, and the imp osition is on the parties that do not want to negotiate, and it imposes upon them a very strong and compelling reason to negotiate. When final offer selection is applied for, what you find in mo st in stance s is tha t the negotiations thems elves finalize without the necessity of the se iector choosing a package. Oftentimes they conclude without it even having gone to a selector.- (in terjection)- The Member for Logan (Ms.

Hemphill) says only five out of 72 went to the selector , and that is probably in the range. The fact is that a very small min ority went to the selector because the others were success fully negotiated. Let us take a look at what we have. We have one of the parties applying for final offer selection because they feel that the other side is not bargaining in good faith with them. That is the essence of it. Remember we go back to the phi losophy of negotiation.

Negotiation is a process where one or more parties wish to change the status quo and have a di fferent idea of how those changes should take place or even whether or not changes should take place. What they do is they sit down, the y outline the issues that they have a disagr eement on, and then they begin a compromise, a trade-off, a quid pro quo. Some are crunch issues, some are strike issues, some are lockout issues, where one party says to the other party we will go no further and there has to be some sort of disruption the workplace before we will be able to resolve this one.

We are not going to change just on the basis of wanting to negotia te a deal, and that happens. It happens more where final offer selection is not an opportunity or an option, but it does happen even in those cases. So what happens in final offer selection is that when you reach that point, normally you would have to have the following occur: one side would cave in, maybe both sides cave in on di fferent issues, but there would be a caving in on certain positions, or they have to exercise some sort of power.

The power available to the workers thr ough their union is a strike or a slowdown, a work to rule or other sort of job action. What that does is, it disrupts the workplace. It creates un rest in the workp lace. It lessens producti vity. It creates an economic di sadvantage, not only for the workers the mselves, but for the employer and for society as a wh ole. It ottentimes results in violence th at is 5192 unne cessary and can be prevented. That is because we have come to the point in the negotiations where brute force becomes the factor which is going to determ ine the outcome of the negotiations.

Now that force do es not have to be physical force. It could be economic force, or it can be psychological force, or it can be a public relat ions force, but it is force nonetheless. On the other side, if it is the employer that wants to stand by an issue to the extent where negotiations are impossible, their options available to them are to reduce the work force in some way or another as an economic penalty and a financial disinc entive to the employees, or to lock them out. We have seen that happen far too much.

If you want to talk about an unbalanced, unfair, inequitable tool, then it is the lockout where the employer himself or herself, notwithstan ding where they may be from, notwiths tanding what influence it may have over them di rectly, can lock out their employees, shut down the place and throw them all out of work at their whim. They can do it in a capricious way or a well thought out way. They can articulate it or they can just put a sign on the door , but the effect is the same. At their whim they are shutting down the workp lace and throwing others out of work. That is unfair. That is inequitable.

There is no vote there. There is no majority decision. There is no democr acy involved there. It just happens. So there could be the lockout, or they can do something else. They can shut down the plant. They can shut down the plant and walk away from it, and tha t has happened too. Whe ther the y lock employees out or shut down the plant, what the y have done is use their economic brute force from their position of power in order to impo se their will on working peo ple in this province. It affects not only those indi viduals and their families, but it affects our entire socie ty.

We believe, as do labour unions for the mo st part believe, that there has to be a better way than "duking" it out in the streets or shutting down plants or throwing up picket lines around plants in many instances. Now let me reiterate and reinforce my last phrase, "in many instance s," because final offer selection is an option but it is not an alternative to the strike in every instance. You will not have issues of principle or major shifts in policy come out of the final offer selection process, and I will explain why that is.

What you will have, where those are not issues under contention or issues that can be resolved in another fashion, is a number of minor issues that are holding up the negotiations, blockading the negotiations being resolved by a third party. I would suggest to you that a union that takes major issues and issues of principle to final offer selection or an employer that does that would probably be not acting in their own best inter ests, because you can lose as well as gain in the process. The fact is, we have talked about the winn er and loser syndrome, and that works well on minor issues.

It is far less painful and there is far less of a difference between the winners and losers with final otter selection

Monday, February 12, 1990 than some of the other methods of rea ching agreement. The fact is that it should be used in those instances more so than where major issues are at stake. What happens when you do not have final offer selection is that those groups have to resort to brute force. I believe, Mr. Deputy Speak er, when that happens we are all di sadvantaged , and it works to all our detriment. To get back to the point of the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr . Conner y), you do not find that there is tha t sort of imp os ition, because the participants thems elves shape the final package.

They decide what goes in that final package. Most of the issues do not get to the selector . There are only a very few minor issues that get to the selector that may be major in the eyes of the participants but really can be resolved through an arbitration process. Let me go back to where I was a moment ago. I was talking about how you get into final offer selection. You sit down and you start to negotiate and you want change. Let us say there are 10 items on the table from management and there are 10 items on the table from labour. They sit down and five of those items are compr omise items.

In other words, let us assume that position 1(

a) and position 1(b), 1(

a) being management and 1(

b) being labour, are on- let us pull something out of the air. The easiest thing to talk about is wages. Let us assume that one of the issues is wages. The employer says: I can afford to provide an incr ease in this set of negotiations of X dollars. The union comes back and says we need an incr ease of Y dollars. They have arguments that will back up their requests. The employer will use the argument of the necessity to remain economically viable and profitable, because that is, in large part, their reason for being in business. They will have selected facts and figures that back up that argument.

I would like it much more if they open their books entir ely to their employees to back up those arguments. That very seldom happens. So we have to take our information from what they tell us and from what we can conjecture through the use of third party research documents, whether it be a stock report or whether it be some sort of other documentation, ind ustry trends or some sort of public domain informa tion.

On the other hand, the employees will say we require Y amount of an incr ease because the cost of living Is such and such-and that is usually what it is based on in most part-or we are behind industry standards and they will use information as to what other emp loyees in like ind ustries under similar circums tan ces receive, or maybe it would be in a dissimilar ind ustry but one which would set a general economic trend. * (1 520) They will also say that in some instances they require a catchup. No w wha t usually happens in mo st negotiations is there is a bit of give and take and a tug of war that goes on.

Somewhere along the middle line between X and Y, in other words X plus Y over two, you have an agreement reac hed. That is general. That does not always work that way, but that is generally what happens. The parties going into negotiations know that they are going to pad their side of it, because they are going to come down to find some middle ground. They want to try to buy their own offer, which set up th e parameters, established the middle ground where they want to be in the end. That is what is called splitting the di fference. It is a very common tec hnique in negotia tions.

As a matter of fact, you and I may use it in our own negotiations from time to time if we are going to buy, say, an item wher e ther e is some judgement allowed as to the value of the item-a car. We offer a thousand dollars less than the person is asking for. We oftentimes do that on the assu mption that we are going to end up paying $500 more than we offer and $500 less than that person would like. That is a very common technique at the table and in all sets of negotiations. As a matter of fact, let me tell you why it is almost necessary to do that from time to time. I hope the Mem ber for Lake side (Mr .

Enns ) has a series of questions on this, so I am going to elaborate on it just a bit. Let us assume, Mr. Deputy Speaker , that you wanted to buy a car for $10 ,000, and the person offering the car wanted $12,000 for the car. You went in and you offered the individual $8,000 for the car figuring that he or she is going to want to split the di fference, and you are going to end up at 10 where you want to be, and the person says I will take the $8,000.00.

Well you have a problem, because if that person does not want to negotiate a bit, it tells you that they had either way overinflated their original price and you offered too much while trying to split the di fference, or they did not have a car that was worth $8,000.00. Otherwise, they would have tried to get even an extra $1 00 or $200 or $1 ,000 from you. Splitting the di fference not only is a standard negotiating technique, but it is a good negotiating technique because it allows both parties to walk away feeling they have gotten something.

It allows one party to walk away saying, you know I got $2,000 off the price that guy was asking, and it allows the other party to say, you know I got $2,000 more than that person was offering. That makes good negotiations. That is win-win negotiations. Oftentimes it has very little to do in what the value of the car is, or the item. That is splitting the difference. We have taken item 1(

a) and 1(b), the two di fferent negotiating positions, off of the table by splitting the di fference. Let us assume that there are a number of other language items in there. One, the employer asked for wha t is commonl y termed to be a rollback or a concession. Let us say that there is a clause in the collective agreement that says there is to be a 35-hour work week, and the employer wants to be able to have their employees work for them 37 hour s. What they do is they say, let us move back, we want to take that 35- hour clause out and we want to put in a clause of 40 hours, hoping to split the difference.

Unions have fought very long and hard for reduced work weeks. It used to be that when people went to their jobs, they went 5193

Monday, February 12, 1990 to their jobs for 16 hours a day or more, seven days a week. Outside of MLAs and Cabinet Min isters, that is not the practice very much more, but in fact-and those who worked within the Chamber-but the fact is that over the years there have been historic and monu mental struggles on the part of working people for a shorter work week, culminating in what is the standard work week now, the 40-hour work week. That could not have been one without strikes and lockouts. That was a type of issue that required that sort of resort to economic force. It was a battle.

If you are interested in the history of it, I can probably bring in some books and read about some of the more significant milestones in that particular battle, but I will not on this occasion. I will say that in my sense most unions would very much resent that and would not agree to it and would not go to final offer selection where there was an opportunity for the employer to impose that in that way. They would say no.

It may be that the union is trying to strive for a 32- hour work week as op posed to the 35-hour work week, because that is the next goal with respect to trying to create better working conditions for working people. The reason they would like that is because a 32-hour work week allows us all to have more time with our families and to carry on with other pursuits that are im portant to us. By the way, I should also mention that doc tors probably work that 16 -hour day, seven days a week, from time to time, as well as others in our soci ety. I do not want to elevate any or to isolate any by those comments.

The fact is, a 32-hour week would allow us to have more time with our families, more time at leisure pursuit. More importantly, because labour is a collective -and labour does not only think about itself in its own individual circumstances but it thinks about what its circumstances might be under different scenarios. It knows it may be that the y are out of work for a period of time, because the economy suffers either temporarily or in a more structural way. The fewer hours that we work as individuals, the more hours will be available to others as a collective.

In other words, if you have 10 indi viduals and they are working 40 hours a we ek, that is 400 hours. If you want to get those same 400 hours out of ind ividuals who are working 20 hours a week then you need double the amount That formula would hold true in varying degrees with respect to any number that you wanted to choos e. The lesser the work hours are generally in society, the more jobs there wiil be for ind ividuals. They do not want lesser work hours at the expense of wages.

What they try do is incorpor ate some wage incr eases into the cont ract so that when they work 32 hours a week they are maintaining at least an equiv alent hourly wage and an equiv alent weekly wage or salary wage, as the case may be. I would suggest that in most ins tances -and now we have positions 2(

a) and 2(b)-where that happens you 5194 will find -I am sorry, what you really have is positions 2(

a) and 3(

a) and 2(

b) and 3(b)-you will find that both parties drop those particular issues. In other words, they say now is not the time to go for the 32-hour week. Now is not the time to go for the 37-hour week. Those issues are taken off the table. Throughout the cou rse of negotiations di fferent issues are taken off the table and put on the table as indi vidual cir cu mstan ces warrant and as the negotiations thems elves unfold. That leaves us now with seven issues that are left to be di scussed under this scenario that results in final offer selection under the present legislation.

I am not going to go through all the specific issues. Let us say that the same process is used to get us through 4(a), 4(b), 5(a), 5(b), 6(a), 6(b), 7(a), 7(b), but 8, 9 and 10 (

a) and (

b) we cannot get through. They may be relatively minor issues or they may be more major issues, but the fact is, for some reason it just cannot be agreed upon by the parties as to how they will resolve those issues, and we have what is known in the business as an ir re concilable di fference.

The ir re conci lable di fference, because it is not easily resolved, is going to result in either one of the sides caving in entirely or perhaps sharing the caving in or a resort to economic force, whether it be strike, walkout, work action, work slowdown, temp orary work stoppage, rotating work stoppage, the shutdown of a plant, or cutbacks in the work level in the production at a plant. In all of those instances the employer suffers, the emp loyee suffers and society suffers. Do you know the way the issue is resolved, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Do you know how we finally come to a conclusion?

One side beats the other side into submission or so threatens to beat the other side in to submis sion that they crumble- that they crumble. What does that mean? * (15 30) While they are standing there beating each other into submission, society as a whole suffers, because we have violence on the picket line, because the emotions run very high because the stakes are very high. We have lost production; we have families that are living off strike pay or in some instan ces not at all. If you want to see how that affects a communi ty, just go to a one-i ndus try communi ty such as the Member for Logan (Ms.

Hemphill) is fam iliar wi th from her experience, or I am familiar with, or even Dauphin. Where you have a major employer that goes out on strike you can see the economic hardship that is created for commu ni ty res idents ripple throughout tha t commun ity from one end to the other, bounce back itself, and as that strike contin ues over a longer and longer period of time, oscillating back and forth, crea ting more and more disruption, creating more and more hardship, you can destroy a communi ty just because the parties do not have a way to resolve their di fferences without resorting to economic warfare. (Mr.

Speaker in the Chair ) An Honourable Member: And the services are lost to the communi ty. Mr. Cowan: As the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) says, during that period of time in many in stances

Monday, February 12, 1990 services are lost to the commun ity. You know, there are strikes where the emp loyer and the employee thems elves never fully recovered, never recovered what they lost during that period of time. There will be, even under final offer selection, strikes of that nature because those are strikes that are fought over the crunch issues. If we can do anything, and final offer selection is not perfect, it is another tool, but if we can do anything, let us at least move toward reducing the ind ustrial conflict rather than putting in place circumstances that exacerbate it.

Let us at least do that, and that is what final offer selection did. It took us in a step along a path, and there were other things that could and should be done over time, but the fact is that it was an option that we felt had come of time and one which I believe has worked and will continue to work if given the chance. So what the Liberals and the Con servatives are saying is that they either do not belie ve it is working, and I have tried to show them how it is, or they do not want that option. We start this part of my comments on the basis of the Member for Portage la Prairie's (Mr .

Conne ry) concern about the imposition of a third party's decisions on other parties. As the Member for Logan (Ms. Hemphill) says, the Liberals and the Cons ervatives and their big business friends do not want this legislation even if it does work, even if it does make things more fair generally. The question is, why? We have tried to deal with that. I think we are going to have to come back to some more philosophical discussions later on in my comments in order to truly flesh that out, but we will have time to do that I am certain, Mr. Speaker .

Without commenting on any absence or presence in the Cham ber, it is nice to see you back in the Chair. I am wondering how much time I have left. I just want to remind, while I have the floor, that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr . Enns) did promise to ask some questions when he came in the Chamber earlier on-I am sorry, I cannot refer that he was out of the Cham ber. When I first noted the Mini ster of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) talking to me, he did prom ise to ask some questions.

I have been trying to provide a bit of a basis for those questions but even some joyful and good-natured heckling might help. ***** Hon. Harry Enns (Min ister of Natural Resources): Mr. Spe aker, I just want to advise the Honour able Member that I am indeed working on a series of questions that I hope to put to the Honourable Member later on in the week. Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. The Honourable Min ister does not have a point of order . ***** Mr. Cowan: I can tell you, Mr.

Speak er, because I know the ques tions will be relevant, I look forward to the op portunity to ans wer them at length when they are first posed, or even perhaps throughout a series of de bates and di scus si ons following their first presentation in this House. However, I want to go back to what Pro fessor Bellan has to say with respect to those who believe that final offer selection results in the imposition of terms and conditions on two parties, both parties which are going to create problems. What he has to say first I think it reinforc es what I said about the process of final offer select ion.

By the way, let me just continue my scenario because we no w-I was di stracted momentarily-ha ve three issues that are outsta nding. We can resort to the strike or the lockout or other type of economic force or we can take it to final offer selection. How does the process work? Within the time frames that are allowed for under the legislation one or more of the parties ask for final offer selection. That is the right way it should be.

It should be the ability of either party to ask that the majority of the workers consider whether or not they want final offer selection to be used to help them resolve wha t are otherwise ir reco ncilable, or at least di fficult to reco ncile, differences of opinion that have arisen during the course of the negotiations. It is also I think fitting that the majority of the workers who are going to have those terms and conditions, if it is agreed upon to have a selector and the selector makes a decision, put into effect in their workplace to determ ine whether or no t they want that to happen.

What we have is a situation where they ask for but when we developed the legislation, and our legislation di ffers from other jurisdictions with respect to this particular part of it and I think it is an important difference with what happens elsewhere under final offer sele ction -what we legislated mandatorily into the process is that the parties can continue to talk even though they have asked for a selector .

We did that because we believe that the request for a selector itself forces the parties to bargain harder because parties do not like to give up their ability to shape their own future if there is at all an opportunity lo do so. Because the strike and the lockout and the di fferent forms of them, economic action by either the employer or the employee, do create a risk for the participants in the process. Oftentimes you will see a strike vote taken or a threat of a lockout presented, but you will not see it actually take place.

What the parties have done in either in stance or in both instances, if they do both, is they have incr eased the level of risk for the parties to negotiate. Quite often you will not see serious negotiations take place unless there is the threat of a strike or a lockout. That is part of, what I like to refer to in my experience as, the dance of the negotiators. That dance happens right from the very first time when they trade proposals to the shaking of the hand when they conclude the agreement.- (interjection)- The Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) references to other dances from time to time.

I think in a lot of ways there is some simi larity. What you have is a negotiator or a team of negotiators for either team, for other side, looking at each other , eyeing each other and sort of putting their proposals, 5195

Monday, February 12, 1990 sliding them forward, on the table in such a manner so as to not tip their entire hand, but to make clear wha t the y believe are the issues th at should be dis cussed during the negotiations. Then that carries on in a whole series of di fferent ways, including some posturing from time to time. Body language is very important in negotiations, including verbal dancing as well as actual physical movements that betray the process that is unfolding. The reason that the strike vote or the threat of a lockout works is because it does incr ease a risk.

The difficulty is that sometimes it increases the risk to the point where you have a strike or a lockout. What would be nice, I think what would work better, is if you were abie to incr ease the risk in a more gentle fashion, build it up in a di fferent way and not have to resort to the actual use of economic force which has such dir e consequenc es from time to time. Mr. Speaker , I just want to put back on the record a com ment I made earli er, becaus e I no te some Government Members are counting before they are leaving the Cham ber.

I just want to give them my assurance that our Party and I do not think the Liberals will either call a quorum this after noon. I know that I am speaking at some length and some of them have business to attend to, and we do not want to have to keep them in the Chamber just to listen to what I have to say, because there is going to be more opportunity to do so. So note they are counting; it is not nece ssary. We will not be calling a quorum.

If you have other business to attend to or if you have to go back to your offices, meet with constituent groups or constituents -(in terjection)- I said that for this afternoon on ly. If necessary, we will continue on with that, if it works well. I think that is a respo nsible way of carrying out what we believe is action necessary to stop the repeal of final offer selecti on, but at the same time no t disadvantaging third parties who are not party to this de bate and discussion to the extent that they have to wait around to listen to what is being said here.

I will not take it as a philosophical, as a personal, or as a practical affront if they leave. That includes Members of my own side. I would just ask that one stay in the Chamber to heckle from time to time and keep things moving.- (int erject ion)- We ll, the Min ister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has been strangely quiet throughout this debate, but I think he knows there is more to come and he is saving himself for a more appropriate- • (15 40) An Honourable Member: Why do you not read a telephone book, Jay? The NDP Mem bers are beginning to. Mr. Cowan: The Min ister of Finance (Mr.

Manne ss) says NDP Mem bers are beginning to read telephone books. I would ask him when that has transpired. I would also ask him in this House -(interjection) - it has not. I will also ask the Mini ster of Finance if he wants to, cares to, to listen to my comments, because I have tried to, and I think I have, put more substance in my comments to date than has been provided for in a lot of the debate in this House in all the times that it has been deba ted here before. As a matter of fact, I was just about to read from an unpub lished paper with respect to the risk factor.

Had he been listening to me earlier , he would recall that I was talking about the fact that there is already a risk factor that sometimes causes negotiations to conclude on the basis of what would happen if they do not conclude. In other words, you have put some pressure on the parties to make them give up a bit of their positioning in order to find the common ground. I am speaking from an unpub lished paper which was actually a paper done by a un iversity student in labour relations with regard to final offer selection.

I quote from that paper , and it is quite recent is within the last year and a half, I believe. It deals with the Manitoba experience as well as experiences in other jurisdic tions. I quo te, generall y speaking most of the literature concedes that FOS does increase the risk factor and therefore creates a strike-like effect with respect to the cost of disagreement. He quo tes an

article from a Mr. Clifford Donn and that

article is from a publication called In du strial Relations which is a resource book for labour relations personnel, for those who like to review the area of labour relations. It is the 19 77, Volume 16, October edition of the Ind ustrial Relations magazine. The

article by Mr. Donn is entitled Games Final Offer Arbitrators Might Play. What he says and I quo te from the book itself now, refere ncing that it has been taken from the paper. This is Mr. Clifford Donn speaking. Consequently objections to the lack of discretion and su bsequent likelihood of poor quality or inequitable arbitration awards means that final offer procedur es are functioning exactly as the y were designed to function. In some, the evidence reported here sugge sts th at the lack of arbi tral di scretion has been having its intended effect. So the intended effect, and that is why final off

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-123a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 123a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	65dd5491a400ee967f19967433a54c0336c06c2b

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