Manitoba Committee Hansard — 29 October 1996 (Public Utilities Committee, Sitting 5, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-pu5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources Chairperson Mr. Frank Pitura Constituency of Morris Vol. XLVI No.5- 6:30p.m., Tuesday, October 29, 1996

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATH LIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE. Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosano MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Coostltnrnq Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Rob lin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Ross mere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River P.ar4 N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

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

101 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC UTILITIES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Tuesday, October 29,1996 TIME- 6:30 p.m. LOCATION- Winn ipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON- Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris) VICE-CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek) ATTENDANCE -10- QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Cummings, Ernst, Findlay, Hon. Mrs. Mitchelson Messrs. Ashton, Dewar, McAlpine, Pitura, Sale, Tweed WITNESSES: Mrs. Theresa Ducharme, People in Equal Participation Inc. Mr. Bud Shiaro, Private Citizen Ms. Shelly Blanco, Private Citizen Ms.

Paula Mallea, Save Our Telephone System Mr. AI Mackling, Private Citizen Mr. John Nicol, President, Union of Manitoba Municipalities Mr. Ron Rudiak, Private Citizen Mr. William Sharpe, Private Citizen Mr. Eduard Hiebert, Private Citizen Mr. Ross Martin, President, Brandon & District Labour Council, CLC Ms. Martha Owen, Private Citizen Mr. Garth Minish, Private Citizen Ms. Connie Gretsinger, Private Citizen Ms. Karen Minish, Private Citizen Ms. Gail Cherpako, Private Citizen Ms. Emile Clune, Private Citizen Ms. Maggie Hadfield, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 55 Ms.

Debbie Maruntz, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 7 Mr. Sel Burrows, Private Citizen Mr. Rod Fritz, President, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local435 Mr. Lance Norman, Manitoba Chamber of Commerce Ms. Mary Pankiw, President, Manitoba Society of Seniors Ms. Emile Clune, Private Citizen Ms. Holly Cain, Private Citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Mr. Bud Shiaro, Selkirk, Manitoba Ms. Paula Mallea, Brandon Committee, Save Our Telephone System Mr. John Nicol, President, Union of Manitoba Municipalities Mr. Ron Rudiak, Retiree, MTS Mr. William Sharpe, Steinbach, Manitoba Mr.

Eduard Hiebert, St. Francois Xavier, Manitoba Mr. Ross C. Martin, President, Brandon & District Labour Council, CLC Ms. Martha Owen Ms. Winnie M. Chanas Ms. Maggie Hadfield, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union ofCanada, Local 55 Ms. Mary Pankiw, President, Manitoba Society of Seniors, 'Inc: MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 67-The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act * * * Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources please come to order.

The business before the committee this evening is the consideration of Bill 67, The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act. At this point, I would like to inform the public that subsequent meetings have been called to hear public

102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 presentations on and for the consideration of Bill 67. Following tonight and tomorrow night's meetings at 6:30 p.m., meetings have been scheduled for Thursday, October 31 at 9 a.m. and then another meeting on the same day at 6:30p.m. Following that, if necessary, on Friday, November 1 at 9 a.m. I will repeat those dates so that you can write them down: Thursday, October 31 at 9 a.m.; then another meeting on the same day at 6:30 p.m.; following that, if necessary, on Friday, November 1 at 9 a.m. All the meetings will be in this room, No. 254.

The notice for these meetings is posted on the board outside the committee room and on the notice boards outside the Legislative Chamber. Before continuing on with the consideration of the bill, there are certain matters regarding process to clarify at this point For the committee's and public's information, there are currently 212 persons registered to speak to Bill 67. A list of the presenters should be before all committee members as well as posted at the back of the room.

For the public's information, if there is anyone present this evening who wishes to appear before the committee and has not yet registered, you may register with the Chamber staff at the back of the room, and your name will be added to the list. In terms of the order that we will hear presenters, there are currently 48 persons registered to speak who are from out of town. They are indicated as such by the asterisks after their name on the list. It has been a Manitoba practice to hear from persons who are from out of town first as a matter of courtesy for the distance that they have travelled.

How does the committee wish to proceed? Do you want to hear from all the out-of-town presenters first? Mr. Steve Ashton (fhompson): I have a motion that is relevant to out-of-town presenters. Perhaps I might move this at this point in time and perhaps we can deal with that. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Mr. Ashton: Yes, we have stated in terms of the particular interest of many people in rural and northern Manitoba on this particular bill, something that I believe is demonstrated by the number of out-of-town presenters listed.

Given the fact that rural and northern Manitoba is going to be very directly affected by this sale if the government pushes it through, we feel that this committee should not only hold hearings here at the Legislature but throughout rural and northern Manitoba. I can indicate to you that I have talked to people throughout Manitoba who have indicated they would make a presentation if hearings were held in their own community. I was in Brandon on the weekend; I was in Portage yesterday.

There were a number of people I spoke to there who said they would register to make a presentation, but they could not make it into Winnipeg. In the case of Thompson, I know there are many people who would like to make a presentation, but it is an eight hour drive. Given the weather conditions, I do not think even eight hours would be an appropriate amount of time to have in that case.

I belie ve, given the historic nature of this particular bill, that we need to do what we have done, what we will be doing, for example, in the Child Advocate, what the government has done with various committees of appointed backbenchers travelling around the province on various different issues. I think we should do the appropriate thing and that is have hearings on Bill 67 throughout rural and northern Manitoba. That is why I move that this conunittee urge the provincial government to hold hearings oo Bill 6 7 throughout rural and northern Manitoba. Mr.

Chairpenon: I have received the motion, and it is in order. Motion presented. Mr. Chairperson: Discussion on the motion? Don. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corpora te Affain): Firstly, for the edification of members of the public if no one else, the fact is that the Manitoba Legislature is the only Legislature in Canada that has public hearings on its bills after second reading to allow for the input of the public.

As the government House leader, I have today called a number of committee meetings so that we can accommodate the 212 people ·who wish to make representation to this committee, but I cannot concur with my honourable colleague from

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 103 Thompson that the committee should be travelling throughout the province. That has not been done in the past with respect to legislative committee hearings. We have provided, we hope, sufficient opportunity for everyone to be heard through the calling of a nwnber of meetings for consideration of presentations on this bill. *

(1840) Mr. Ashton: I want to say to the government House leader that I do not believe the government has done anything as drastic as this, certainly in the time I have been an MLA. The government is selling off the Manitoba Telephone System without once campaigning on that as part of its mandate in the last provincial election. In fact, the government said it was not going to sell MTS. I mean, I would like to see a lot more than public hearings. I would like to see a vote of the people of Manitoba on this issue.

But if we are not going to have the vote, if we are going to be denied by the government, I think the appropriate thing to do would be to hold the hearings. I want to stress again that it has been done on other matters. We are talking about the Child Advocate's office doing the same. The government has no problem sending out people throughout Manitoba on other issues. I do not understand why the government would want to avoid having hearings in rural and northern Manitoba other than the fact that it is obviously afraid to face the people.

I want to point out that this decision to sell MTS was made without a single public meeting being organized by the government. In fact, it is only the opposition, including the official opposition, and grassroots people throughout the province who have been part of meetings, organizing meetings, getting something going with a democ ratic process. This government has not had a single public meeting on this issue of the sale ofMTS. So I ask through you, Mr.

Chairperson, to the government and to the public of Manitoba, how can we have any democratic legitimacy on the sale of MTS if, first of all, you have a government that did not tell the people of Manitoba what it was going to do in the election, in fact denied that repeatedly even after the election?

A government went and made the decision to sell MTS based on a report from three investment bankers from Bay Street in Toronto, Ontario, made the decision within two days of receiving that report and are now saying, on the most fundamental process we have in this Legislature, with the only chance that the public has to have input on this, that they will not hold rural and northern hearings. I would remind you, Mr. Chairperson, every time I have asked questions about this, and we have asked questions, do you know what the response has been? Well, we are going to have hearings on Bill 67.

Well, in case anybody from the public thinks that is very generous, I would just point out that we hold hearings on every bill. The bottom line here is though, this is an absolutely historic decision. I think the government should reflect on the fact we have owned MTS since 1908, and without any mandate whatsoever, they are now proposing to sell it off as of November 7. Mr. Chairperson, is there no sense of democratic process left with this government? What are they afraid of? Are they afraid if they go to rural and northern Manitoba that they are going to fmd out the reality of what people think about MTS?

I can tell you, Sir, and the rest of this committee, why I feel the government is not supporting this particular motion. They do not want to hear from the people of rural and northern Manitoba because they know a lot of people are opposed to this sale, absolutely opposed. Otherwise I would suggest to you, Sir, that there might be some agreement on this, but you know, the tough facts of democracy are that sometimes governments when they are elected have to do more than sit around a cabinet table and decide on the future of one million people, 20 people around a cabinet table making that decision.

I believe they have an obligation to consult with the people of Manitoba. I will go further than that. I would say on something as important as MTS, to get their direct approval of anything as drastic as the sale. So, Mr. Chairperson, I find it absolutely amazing that the government will not hold those hearings. I can indicate right now-I mean, the government House leader indicated there were a nwnber of other hearings being scheduled in Winnipeg, three of which were scheduled, incidentally, without any discussion whatsoever with the opposition.

I would say to the government, as well, and we can deal with that in a few moments, that I would hope they would not try to ram through Bill 67 during

104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 morning hearings in which many people, many working people, cannot attend. You know, Mr. Chairperson, we have the opportunity right now to go and hold those hearings. I am quite prepared to discuss with the government House leader tonight which communities we could visit. We have raised this before in the Legislature. We raised it yesterday, so it is not like we are raising this without any notice.

I do not know how the government can go and fuce its constituents, the rural members and-well, they do not have any northern MLAs-but how you can have rural MLAs do anything other than support those hearings. What has the government got to lose by holding those hearings? We can accommodate that. We have the weekend coming up, for example. I would suggest we look at holding hearings throu ghout rural Manitoba this weekend. We can deal with committees in different communities. I would suggest that what we could do is something that was considered a few years ago, I know, during the Meech Lake discussion.

We do not have to have one committee. We can break up into subcommittees, whatever it takes. I say on the opposition side that we are prepared to hold hearings, no matter where, at whatever time, throughout Manitoba to accomplish this. The government cannot just turn around and say, oh, well, we normally proceed this way, we normally only have hearings in the city of Winnipeg. There are precedents that have been set. I mentioned before in terms of the Child Advocate. I could mention other examples of committees that have travelled the province-municipal assessment.

I was part of that committee that travelled throughout the province. You know, Mr. Chairperson, I want to stress again that this is not a nonnal committee. This government has no mandate to sell off MTS, has no right to sell off MTS and has most definitely no right to abuse the democratic process by refusing to allow, as the government House leader would do, the people of rural Manitoba to have full opportunity to have discussion on this issue. Do not kid yourself, the bottom line is, if you do not approve rwal hearings you will not be allowing the people of rural Manitoba to have a say on this issue. Mr.

Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Chairman, having allowed the member for Thompson to put his comments on the record, I would ask that you call the question. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Sdki�): Mr. Chairman, I would like to support this motion put forward by my colleague the member for Thompson.

As he has stated, this administration has no mandate from the people of Manitoba to sell off the Manitoba Telephone System, a publicly owned utility since 1908, a utility that was created to bring chaos to that particular industry in 1908 and was created by-I believe his picture is on the wall here this evening, the fellow right behind me here-Premier Roblin, who was a Conservative Premier.

The reason he did it was-I remember reading a quote from him-to keep the profits that would be generated froot telecommunications in the province; then the profits would be used by the govenunent and for the people of Manitoba. As was mentiooed, we know that when the government will be reviewing legislation they will send, they may have a make-work project for governm ent members. They will send them out throughout Manitoba. There is a number underway currently. I know on Friday a government member will be in Selkirk reviewing legislation. This piece of legislation is very important to the people of Manitoba.

It is very important to my constituents who live out in rural Manitoba, and the question is, what are you afraid of. You know what you are going to hear if you go out there. You know that there is only a handful of indivi duals who support you on this. It is very frustrating that the rural Manitobans and northern Mani tobans, who will unfmunately have the most to lose by the privatization, will not have the opportunity to appear here today and will not have the opportunity to have their voices raised.

So I appeal to the rural members opposite and I appeal to all members here that we continue with the hearings here but, as well, we hold hearings throughout Manitoba to allow rural and northern Manitobans the opportunity to speak to this legislation. Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson- Mr. Chairpenon: Before you start, Mr. Sale, I would just like to interject here. I would like to beg the

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 105 indulgeoce of the public who are here tonight that part of the procedures within the Legislative Assembly is within committee hearings and within the Assembly itself, in terms of applause, that this be kept to a very minimum, in fact, none at all if it is possible. We would appreciate the public's co-operation in this regard. A

(1850) Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate your role as Chair but having sat through another committee last Thursday where there was not any difficulty expressed with people doing the basic thing of applauding, I do not think people are wanting to be disruptive here. I think there are a lot of frustrated people in Manitoba who want to have their say on the telephone system. When they applaud it is because this is their only chance to have a say on MTS, and if they are frustrated to the point of applauding the opposition when we speak out on behalf of MTS, I would suggest that we let them applaud.

Let the people have a say. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, obviously, I support strongly this motion for all the reasons that our two members have already said but for some other reasons as well. You know, Mr. Chairperson, some time in the fall of 1995, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister responsible for Telephones (Mr. Findlay) awoke to find that 70 percent of the revenues to the telephone system were suddenly up for competition. Now that did not happen in the summ er of 1995; that was not new. They awoke to discover that there was technology rapidly changing in the whole field of telecommunications.

I do not really think that was terribly new, either. So suddenly in the course of a very few days, we had to hire some stockbrokers at public expense, at the expense ofMTS, to find out what the value of this company is and to make a recommendation about selling it. Now you do not hire stockbrokers to find out the value of a company; you hire stockbrokers to sell it. They are going to now profit to the tune of $25 million or so, as we have pointed out.

So there is a strange combination in this whole process of selling of incredible lethargy and then blinding speed, the lethargy of holding onto the telephone system and interfering in virtually everything that it does, crippling it in terms of the selling of crucial assets, strategic assets like the cable system, crippling it with contracts with companies that perhaps do not really need to have nine years of guaranteed cash flow, crippling it by agreeing to have it suffer low rates of return on its toll lines by putting it into a 20-80 percent partnership with Clifford Watson and Associates in Toronto through a new company called MB Communications.

So there is a great deal of interest from the government to interfere in the daily running of the operation, occasionally for good, for example, in the putting of single lines throughout Manitoba and getting rid of the old rotary switch systems and getting into digital switching and putting a great deal of fibre optic into the company.

There is this funny schizophrenia of our company is a vital asset and we are going to make it better for rural Manitobans, our company is a political tool and we are going to use it to reward our friends, and then all of a sudden waking up and saying, my goodness, we better sell this company because it is vulnerable to technological change, and in the space of a short week end, three days worth of time, we went from the report of the stockbrokers to the decision to sell. Now government clearly can move quite quickly when it wants to.

So government is quite capable of organizing hearings in rural Manitoba even on relatively short notice.

But what I really want to focus on here in support for this notipn that people ought to have their say is that I think vexy clearly the reason the government does not want to do this is the immense embarrassment it would suffer for not having a single study, not one single study from the Manitoba Telephone System itself, who presumably knows its business, about the merits or the lack thereof of selling this corporati on- not a single ind ependent study about the risks in the telecom munications industry today and the reasons therefore why the Crown corporation ought to be sold.

You know, we just got today the Public Accounts for 1996, and lo and behold, the Manitoba Telephone System's value to the province has risen. The last six months, the profits of the corporation are up over last year. Yesterday in the Winnipeg Free Press, we learned of the newest of digital compression technology being field-tested by this company, one of a very few field tests of this technology in North America. For a company that

106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 is supposedly greatly at risk and in danger of falling behind, putting our assets at risk, this is very strange behaviour for this terribly vulnerable corporation we keep hearing about. It seems to me to be perfectly clear that technology is moving very quickly, but it also seems to me to be very clear that the Manitoba Telephone System is evolving and challenging the most competitive companies in North America in its own capacity to use technology.

The government never tires of standing in the House and telling us about the new high-speed fibre optic link to the United States and what wonderful numbers of jobs this is bringing. These are not high-tech jobs. These are tele marketing jobs, but they are jobs. They do pay wages. The government seems to be very pFpud of the tele phone system's capacity to invest in technology that allows it to be so competitive that it has gained, according to gove rnmen t, 5,000 telemarketing jobs in the last few years.

Now this does not seem to me to be descr ibing a company that is so at risk that we have to run quickly to the stockbrokers in Toronto and sell it.

What this seems to me to be speaking of is a company that is very competitive, that is very aggressive in its technological development, that has positioned Manitoba well to be a leader, as the government likes to keep telling us we are in the area of telecommunications, and that a little bit of due process and a little bit of democracy and a little bit of travel through rural Manitoba to let people have their say, to hear the government, maybe for once, make a cogent case as to why this is good public policy-they simply do not want to have any more exposure to the ridicule they will face for not having any clothes on.

The emperor, Mr. Chairperson, is quite naked. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, while I was speaking on this, one of the government members made some reference to turning this into a circus, and I want to say to the government members on this committee, this is not a circus, this is the one little bit of democracy we have left in this province. This is the only opportunity members of the public are going to have to speak on MTS, because this government will not put the issue to a vote of the people, will not run on a campaign on the sale ofMTS. You know what offends me, Mr.

Chairperson, and the member for Crescent wood (Mr. Sale) referred to this, and I have a copy here-and I actually hope to be able to share this with as many members of the public as possible-of the people who have had the opportunity to speak on the future of MTS. It is called the MTS Financial Advisory Group-now you might think that was based in Manitob a-care of BCE Place, P.O. Box 500, 161 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2S8. This is the group of three investment bankers who sent a report to the Treasury Board-and I notice Mr. Benson was in the back, the head of Treasury Board-on April 30.

Treasury Board made the decision on that day. They went to cabinet the following day, and two days after they received this report frmt the investment bankers, the government announced the sale ofMTS. Now this is the same governmen t, minister who was writing to people in MarciHmd I have a letter here which was written to a resident of Westman saying that contrary to some reports no decisions have been or will be made about the privatization without public discussion.

I had a senia at a meeting in Brandon who used a term which I cannot use because it is unparliamentary, but I just do not know how the government can justifY making a statement like that-and that is March l-and April 30, 1996, the only people they would listen to prior to making the decision were who? The three investment bankers. As the member for Crescentwood pointed out, coincid entally, the three investment bankers from Bay Street, Ontario, are going to be some of the prime bene ficiaries of the sale. They are going to be making commissions on the sale.

I do not think you have to be an expert on ethics to see that that stinks, Mr. Chairperson. I also do not think you have to know much about the democratic process. There is something fundamentally wrong when basically this government has listened to three Bay Street investment bankers, made a decision in two days over a company that served us well since 1908. When the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) made reference to Rodmond Roblin who was a visionary-be was a Conservative, too.

I imagine right now he is probably rolling over in his grave looking at this government dealing with the legacy that he left this province. You know, MTS does not belong to this government; it belongs to all of us. We are all shareholders, Mr. Chairperson, and I want to say, you do not have the right to do what you are doing, and I say

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 107 through you to the committee, you most defmitely do not have the right- and I am speaking here on behalf of a lot of my constituents in northern Manitoba and a lot of the rural Manitobans I have talked to, and, yes, people in Winnipeg, too, are concerned about this-you do not have the right now, after you have said one thing in the election, after you appointed a review of three investment bankers, after you promised public consultation, public dis cussion, and you had absolutely none, not a single meeting.

Not one single Manitoban was ever consulted over this decision other than the 20 members of the ca binet, Mr. Jules Benson, the head of Treasury Board, and Tom Stefanson, the chairperson ofMTS. You know what, with this decision? It did not even go to the MTS board. *

(1900) Not only did it not go to the MTS board- we filed a Freedom oflnformation, which I have here. We thought at least somebody must have been asked about the sale. You know, we asked for a Freedom of Information request October 10 for any studies that were done by MTS on privatization. You would think that there would be some study, right? One study, any study. I want to read into the record what was said: In this application you requested access to a copy of all studies on privatization that MTS is using for the privatization of MTS. I want to emphasize this.

You know what the response was: MTS has not had any studies done on privatization and is not using any studies for the privatization ofMTS. What we have here, the only basis of the decision essentially is the MTS Financial Advisory Group, Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario. You did not even go, Mr. Minister, to MTS. So you wonder, Mr. Chairperson, why we might suggest that hearings be held in rural Manitoba, in northern Manitoba. I know why the government does not want that. It is because you do not want to face the people on this issue.

But I have one thing to say to government members on this committee, and particularly those who might suggest it is a quote, circus.

There is something in this province called democracy and, you know, governments are custodians of the public assets, public services, the trustees and I want to say to the government, you may use your majority on this committee to stop us from having these kinds of hearings, you may even try and use your majority to do other things to limit those hearings, and I know you are going to try and use your majority to make sure that your government members do not vote with their constituents but vote with the government line, but I am just saying to government members on this committee, you can run but you cannot hide.

At some point in time, you are going to have to face the people and if you sell off the Manitoba Telephone System without any mandate whatsoever from the people of Manitoba, you are going to pay the price. Mr. Chairperson: Ready for the question? An Honourable Member: Question. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Mr. Ashton: I request a recorded vote.

Formal Vote A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 3, Nays 6. Mr. Chairperson: I declare the motion defeated. How does the comrnittee-Mr. McAlpine. Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Chairman, I move THAT we hear all out-of-town presenters in the order registe red with the Clerk's Office this evening and hear all other presenters as they have been received. Ea ch presenter will be given 10 minutes for a presentation with five minutes for questions. Mr. Chairperson: I have a motion that is in order and it states by Mr. McAlpine and moved that we have all

108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 out-of-town presenters in the order registered with the Clerk's Office this evening and have all the other presenters as they have been received. Ea ch presenter will be given I 0 minutes for a presentation with five minutes for questions. Don. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Chairperson, as has been the practice in other committees, I know that we have Theresa Ducharme here who has some special circumstances that I think should allow her to make presentation first so that she has the ability to go home.

So I might add that to the recommendation ifthat is appropriate. Mr. Chairperson: Is that in agreement with the mover? Mr. McAlpine: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would allow that. Mr. Chairperson: I have been advised that we have a motion before the committee that we should deal with it and then we can deal with Mrs. Ducharme's request as a special request. Point of Order Mr. Ernst: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I believe Mrs. Mitchelson amended Mr. McAlpine's motion. Mr. McAlpine agreed with it so the motion is now, as amended, and then we should deal with the question on it. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr.

Chairperson, might I amend that motion to indicate that before hearing the 51 presentations from outside of the city of Winnipeg that are listed on the agenda to make presentation that we hear from Theresa Ducharme and then move to those who are here from outside of the city of Winnipeg. Mr. Chairperson: Does everybody understand the motion? Mr. Ashton: I would like to indicate we certainly agree to the amendment. We have had similar provisions in other committees for people who cannot return or other special circumstances. We would certainly agree with that, with the amendment to the motion.

I would like to address the motion afterwards, too, please. Mr. Chairperson: We have an amended motion before the committee. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the amended motion, please signify. Some Honourable Memben: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: I declare the amendment carried. Now on to the main motion, as amended. Mr.

Ashton: I want to indicate, first of all, in terms of time limits, I remember a time not that long ago when it was standard practice not to have time limits in committees and to suggest, as the mover did in the motion, this is standard practice, well, it is standard practice because the government has used its majority in the various committees we have been faced with, parti cularly in this session, to make this a standard practice.

It is not standard practice for us and, in fact, I think if there is any bill in this session of the Legislature where there should not be this kind of restricted time limit, it is this bill. It is historic. It is the last chance for people. November 7 this bill, if the government has its way, is going to be ramm ed through the Legislature. So, Mr. Chairperson, I think the time of it in this particular case is absolutely unfair. I want to stress the detail of this particular bill. I am sure the mem bers of the public who have had a chance to read it through in its detail-this is a bill that is 30 pages long.

Now, you get 10 minutes. That is 20 seconds per page. I look at some of the names that are on in terms of pres entation, and I know I have talked to some people with some pretty detailed comments to make. I just do not think it is fair or reasonable to apply these kinds of time limits. I want to stress again, as I did when I spoke to the previous motion, we are prepared to sit whatever reasma ble hour to accommodate members of the public.

Reasonable to my mind is not three, four in the morning but is at a reasonable time in the evening which is accessible to the many people who due to work obligations cannot come back. But the bottom line is this kind of restriction we feel is far too restrictive. I also want to indicate that in other committees, we have had clear provisions not having names dropped off You know, there are going to be some people I am sure who will be here tonight who may be able to stay until, say, eleven o'clock. If their name is called at II :0 I, they

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 109 should not lose their opportunity to speak. In fact, I know in at least one committee we have allowed names to be called at least three times, and we have had a number of restrictions in place by agreement of all parties that names not be called after midnight. I want to indicate that we oppose these limits. * (1910 ) Mr. McAlpine: We do not want to work after midnight. Mr. Ashton: Well, the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) says, we do not want to work after midnight.

I do not want people who have to work tomorrow to sit here while you ram the bill through, to the member for Sturgeon Creek. I want to have them have a chance to get heard. Mr. Chairperson, I want to indicate that we oppose the time limits, particularly on this bill. I also have a motion which I will move once this matter is disposed that hopefully will prevent the kind of thing that we are concerned about happening with people having to sit here till two, three, four in the morning. I do not think that is reasonable. What we have normally done is allow a certain time when you assess at eleven or twelve o'clock.

If it is to accommodate members of the public, we will sit longer. But I can tell you one thing, I will not sit one second longer to accommodate the members of the government in ramming through the sale ofMTS. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I understand from some nods that the suggested hour that the government is putting forward is some time around 12 or 12:30. We can discuss that after this motion goes through, but I want to express a concern about the process of reading rural names. The notice for this committee was yesterday evening, basically, and today.

The bill cleared the House yesterday, as the House leaders know. For those who are planning to make presentations from rural Manitoba, this is incredibly short notice. So it would seem to me to be very unfair to rural people to have their names read tonight and if they do not appear, to drop those names. I think that if they do not appear, they simply do not appear, and we do not drop those names. I am not clear whether that is part of the member for Sturgeon Creek's (Mr. McAlpine) intent in his motion in terms of process. Mr. Chairperson: Any more discussion? If not, are you ready for the question?

An Honourable Member: Question. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: Question. All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Formal Vote Mr. Ashton: Request a recorded vote. A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 6, Nays 3. Mr. Chairperson: The vote is 6 to 3 in favour of the motion. I declare the motion carried. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I already referenced trying to get some process in the committee that is fair to the public.

I do not believe it is fair for the public to have to sit here at all hours in the morning or risk having their name dropped if it is called. I have sat in committees where this government has called names at four o'clock m the morning just a few years ago on a particular bill, although in those days there were no time limits on presentation. But the names were called at four o'clock in the morning, and people who could not stay at four o'clock in the morning lost their right to speak.

What I want to do is move a motion that was adopted the other night in the committee dealing with The Labour Relations Act, Bill 26, and, actually, the motion was moved by the governmen t members after they voted down a similar version from our side and, in fact, if that is what it takes to get it agreed to, I do not mind if they introduce it. I would move THAT this committee assess its progress at midnight and not call names after that time.

110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 Motion presented. Mrs. Mitchelson: As has been the case in many other committees and many bills that have been heard this session, we have made accommodation for those with special circumstances, those who have travelled the distance to come and make presentation, and we have never dropped them off the list if they were not here but moved them to the bottom of the list and called their names again. So let us not have on the record the comments and the innuendo that was left by members of the opposition.

I do want to indicate that, if there are people after a certain hour who would rather stay tonight and make pre sentation than come back again at a11 other time, I think we want to accommodate those individUals. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, that is exactly what this motion does, that is exactly what happened in The Labour Relations Act, and I would suggest the government members support this motion because the intent is that we sit until midnight.

We assure members of the public if they cannot stay after midnight, their name will not be called and dropped, but if there are people who cannot return-and I note there are some out of-town presenters here that have a long distance to travel back-we are willing to sit after midnight, but the key thing is that the names not be called.

The other point I want to stress to the Minister of Family Services is, in fact, to raise what the government's intent is in terms of how many times the names will be called because I have a concern about that as well, particularly now that the government has scheduled two- they have scheduled three committees which were not agreed to by the opposition which start at nine o'clock in the morning. This may be news to the government, there are a lot of working people who cannot come down during the day at nine o'clock to present.

I want to ensure that those people do not lose their right to speak on this bill because their name might happen to be called Thursday morning at 9:05 when they are at work or 10:05 or 11 :05 or the same thing on Friday morning, so I would like to ask-and perhaps if the government would enlighten us on this before we have the vote on this-what their intention is because I think it is absolutely imperative to ensure that everybody who wants to speak on this bill gets a chance to speak on this bill.

So I ask the government if they can perhaps clarifY what the intention is going to be in terms of when names will be dropped, not just to the bottom of the list, but for the information of the Minister of Family Services, in other committees, names have been dropped entirely after they have been called two or three times. I do not want to see people denied their opportunity because of their name being called, say, tonight at 12:30 in the morning and then again at 9:05 on Thursday. What is the intention of the government on that particular aspect? Mr. Ernst: Mr.

Chairman, the purpose for scheduling a variety of meetings was to try and accommodate 212 people who have indicated a desire to speak to this issue. Committee has been prepared to sit until two and three o'clock in the morning to accommodate people who cannot come back at another time. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, the intent is to progress through the list of names. For those people who wish to make presen tation, if they cannot come during the daytime, we have scheduled another evening meeting tomorrow night to accommodate those people.

We have scheduled two evening meetings and two daytime meetin gs in <Yder to try and accommodate everybody, but at some point there has to be some finality to this issue. So the intent, fr001 my perspective, is to have all of those meetings available to everyone, and at the end of that period of time if the person is not here for the second time, then their name is dropped from the list. Mr. Ashton: Once again, the motion refers to not calling names after midnight. Is the government agreeable on that score at least? Tonight I think it is rea sonable to have some notice to the members of the public.

I am indicating once again we are willing to sit past that time only to accommodate the members of the public, but we do not want their names dropped from the list. Some Honourable Memben: Agreed. Mr. Chairpenon: The motion then is agreed to that committee will sit to midnight and then not call names after that time with the aspect of dropping off the list, okay. I guess I will have to require a little bit of clarification here because, prior to midnight then, we are of the

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 111 understanding that if a person is called who is not here, their name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Is that agreed? The next item is that there is agreement that there will be two calls for the name, which has been the standard practice? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Ashton: No, Mr. Chairperson, my understanding is the government House leader was saying that he will not drop names. The purpose of having these four hearings is to allow people to appear. I am very concerned again, and I cannot support having names dropped.

People have to work Thursday and Friday during the day; I do not want to see them lose their opportunity to speak on this bill. Quite frankly, we can sit evenings. We have sat wee kends on other bills. I think those options are far fairer to the public, so I want to urge the government not to do that. I thought the intent was to sit as long as it takes, and if that means sitting evenings and on weekends, I think that is probably the most reasonable thing to do. *

(1920) I want to put on the record again, we did not agree in the opposition to these additional committee hearings. There was some agreement on this hearing tonight and having a hearing tomorrow night, but none of these additional hearings that were put in before were agreed to by the opposition. If it means that people are going to lose their right to speak, Mr. Chairperson, we do not agree to having names read twice. We want to make sure that everybody gets a chance to speak, within reason. I think we have done this before in many committees. We have sat the additional hearing; we have come back on weekends.

We are prepared to do that. Mr. Chairperson: What is the will of the committee? An Honourable Member: Standard practice. Mr. Chairperson: Standard practice, which is the practice of the committee that in such a situation the name is dropped to the bottom of the list if it is called and they are not there. Then, if the name is called a second time and the person is not present, the name is dropped off the list. Mr. Ashton: Just on that, it is not standard practice. We have sat on committees where names have been called three times. It is also not standard practice to

schedule commi ttee hearings without the agreement of the oppos ition. Well, there is absolutely no agreement on this. I am the opposition House leader. I was not consulted on any of these additional committee hearings. I had people, members of the public, ask me about this today. It is the first time I heard of it. So, if the government is going to do anything, it should not be by calling it standard practice. They should move a motion to that effect, and we can debate the motion. I hate to continue with these procedural wrangles, but, quite frankly, Mr.

Chairperson, I do not know what the governm ent's problem is. I mean, what are they afraid of? Why do they want people's names to be dropped? Names will be dropped, I can tell you, under this system on Thursday morning and Friday morning. I think that is absolutely unacceptable. We are prepared to sit here and listen to all 212 Manitobans. Actually, we would be prepared to sit and listen to all one million Manitobans. I think that might be one way of finally persuading the government to change its mind. But, if they do not want to listen to the one million, I think they should listen to the 212. Mr.

Sale: I think this last five minutes has been an example of why people lose some faith and trust in government. We raised the concern about the process of rural speakers, and the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelsoq) �dicated that this would not be a problem, we would 'not drop names. We raised the concern through our House leader, Mr. Ashton, that there are many people who canno t be here during the daytime, who work, and members opposite indicated, the government House leader (Mr.

Ernst) appeared to be indicating that he understood this, and that is why there were meetings in the morning and that is why there are meetings in the evening, so I thought we were moving to a reasonable consensus that names would be dropped at the end of the committee hearings. If no one was there at the last meeting that was scheduled and they could not be there, well, then, I guess they have lost their place, and we understand that would happen.

But if so-called standard practice, which clearly is not standard-I have only sat on five committees so far and there has not been a standard practice, it has been varied each night in terms of how it has been handled,

11 2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 and it has been varied in terms of numbers of times that people have been called, so I do not know what standard practice is. But, if it is what it appears to be, then people are going to be dropped tomorrow from the ability to be heard, and that is not fa ir. It is not democrat ic, and it is not what these members opposite were indicating was their intent . It certainly is not what the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) was indicating was her intent . So you have r amm ed through the idea that we will not have rural meetings.

You have r amm ed through time limits so that people will not have a chance to speak to the compl exity of this bill. Are you now go ing to ram through closure so that people who are on this list will not have a chance to speak because they live somewhere where it is too difficult fo r them to get here tonight, and they will not be here in the morning on Thursday morning? Is that the intent of this comm ittee because I do not think that the democratic proce ss is well served by that kind of high-handed approach to an historic debate about the future of the telephone system?

Now we know that there will be people dropped from the list. It happens in every committee hearing, and we recognize that at some point the names will be called, and if they do not appear, they will not get a chance to speak . We accept that.

What we do not accept is that a committee that has scheduled fo ur or five meetings will start drop ping peop le bef ore they have gotten to the fo urth or fifth meeting when it might be possible fo r people to have made the trip to Winnipeg; to have arranged fo r child care; to have arranged fo r time off work; to have arranged to be here to speak at a time that makes sense.

So, if we could agree that we will indeed drop name s, but we will not drop them until at least our fo urth or fifth meeting, I think that makes all kinds of sense and all kinds of fa irness, given the way you have circumscribed this process already. But, if standard practice means we are going to read through the names at 11 :55 and then again tomorrow night at 11:55 and those that are not here are gone, that is not standard practice; that is simply dictatorial ramm ing through of legislation that you cannot support by any other mea ns. Mr.

Tweed: My unders tanding that the motion brought fo rward was that we would not call names after midnight, but we would listen to people that still wanted to make a presentation . Is that not correct? Mr. Chairpenon: Yes. Mr. Tweed: Then tomorr ow we would start where we finished tonight to call the names again. I guess, based on my limited experience with 200 people on the list, we will not read through the list with the time frame that is allowed. We would not be completely through the 200 names probably fo r three or fo ur days. Mr.

Ashton: You will on Thursday morning when people cannot come, let me tell you. [interjection] Maybe there is some hope. Maybe the member fo r Twtle Mountain will support our position because I tell you you will run through names if you call it on a Thursday morning. A lot of the people here tonight I am sure are wor king during the day and will not be able to come, and there is a real danger that the list will be run through a couple of times. That is exactly our point. I would strongly urge the gov ernmen t to fo llow what it was talking about bef ore, which I thought was going to happen. If they are going to

schedule these com mittee meetings, the least they should do is make sure that names are not dropped until the heari ngs are completed. If the government still does not see some need fo r flexibil ity, perhaps I would sugge st-and I think the member fo r Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) pointed out accurately -there is no standard practice especially with this government that we not decide on these matters, perhaps hold this off. We have the procedure set fo r ton ight, reas sess tomorrow.

I think at that time we may get a better sense of what is happening in the committee so perhaps as a compr omise I would suggest that we not vote either way on this yet and deal with the rules we have fo r tonight and come back to this tomorrow. Mr. Chairpenon: Is there agreement that we deal with this matter at a subsequent meeting? [agreed] We will now begin the presentations and as agreed earlier on, I would ask Theresa Ducharme to come fo rward to make her presenta tion. Mrs. Theresa Duchanne (People in Equal Participation Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I cannot

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 3 wait to speak. It was very short notice. I am here representing all the institutionalized, all the disabled, ailing, elderly and frailing to have a lifeline dependency on MTS which is our lifeline. Now if you could ask everyone to stand up, they all will stand up, sir and/or madam, and I cannot do that. I cannot have the privatization and the system and it was short notice, so short that I will be offering you the receipt of my transportation bill which is $60 to bring me here by special circumstances.

At the same time, MTS, for 42 years of my disability-and I am going to ask each and every one of you at this committee, have you ever been dependent on anything else but your own mobility so that you do not have to say, MTS is my lifeline? Could anyone say nay or yea or hurray? Could I hear some voice to say, yes, I needed the lifeline ofMTS? No, you did not. So you would know what you are talking about and you do not know what you are doing here and you are not even sure what direction you are going.

First of all, the people we voted into power, a majority of government, must conserve their energy for their own immobility, because Mrs. Ducharme is very contagious and she is infectious and there is no cure for me and it is called love. I love to live and I live to love. There is not a policy or a bill such as 67 which will go without being recognized or reinforced or reinstated. Have you ever tried getting rid of a political hemorrhoid? Well, that is exactly what Mrs.

Ducharme is and she will not let MTS leave this province regar dless of what. * (1930) -When these gentlemen were asking for a second meeting, a third meeting or even any other kind of meeting, going out to rural Manitoba is wonderful, but have you considered going into an institution for those who are bedridden and have the telephone at their lifeline side to talk to their relative, talk to their friend or even have a moment to speak to someone under the circumstance of goodwill? Is that not wonderful? Where is your clap, people? I thought you died. [applause] There. At the same time, gentlemen, and Mr.

Chairman, you are the one that is going to have the headache after all this, because you have been here two hours longer just like I have. At the same time I am very concerned that when this privatization and the stockholders came in, I was making phone calls like crazy. I even had to phone the Citizens' Inquiry. Why do you think I am 21 1? It is not because I am late, I am unintelligent. It is because the circumstance of trying to conserve the active people to be there who are going to make an impression and make the change and also reinstate the facts that you will not be able to remove and privatize.

Now, I have three repor ts. We are going through 300 health care changes. My wheelchair breaks, the wheel has to take four days to get repaired. Now, how would you like your leg tied up around your neck and say, well, you cannot move for three days but get to work? Go and do something and you can live with your leg around your neck and say, yes, you can do something, but for four days you have to sit there and wait. Now you phone repairs for respirators. You ask for any kind of service, and you phone the private agency. They say, well, I am sorry, but you are not our customer and we want money frrst.

I said, well, you can come and pick up the money. They said, we do not have an account with you; now we do not see that you are registered; we see that you are with the Health Care department, but you need more services than we can afford because we want to make a profit on you, Mrs. Ducharme. You use the telephone. We know you use the telephone. I have inquired. I have even phoned the top chiefS, everybody in charge, and they said, well, we know we look after you 10 0 percent, and they do. Now I have tried the private agencies.

We even had to remove ourselves from-and I have a medical alert attached to my chair so that if l require somebody within 24 seconds, a minute or two, they are right at my lifeline. I cannot live in the community, and we are being moved into the community, so we have to have MTS, not a private profit-making agency that says-the first comment they say is, we are here to serve the customer but how much can you aff ord? Now everybody is here. We have paid for MTS. We own MTS.

I have shares in MTS, and if you remove it, Sir, we can take everyone here to court because I have every telephone bill I have paid all my life, every telephone bill. I have shares in MTS, Sir, and Bonnie, you had better wake up soon because you are the only lady at this table, darling, besides myself, and at the same time-no, no, she is behind the board there, the board with the Chairman. There you go-at the same time, I am very angry that this came up.

11 4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 I approached other major organizations, and they said we cannot get there, Theresa. You go out there, and they will have to call more than one. They will have to move it maybe to 1998, 1999, because if they want to make changes, and by that time Conservatives will have another election, and we will conserve our energies till then. We will have no conserved energy in power because Mrs. Ducharme is on a very, very tight-my husband is not employed, we cannot afford-we own MTS.

It is our property, and it is our purposeful prosperity that we have taken care of fo r our whole lif eline. Now, we are not asking fo r any, begging or cheating, because we have paid fo r that system. I will turn over and every individual of Manitoba who has an MTS lif eline will sue the government, and we will ask them to become privatized. Is that not wonderfu l? Yes. We will make the government go out. Is that not wonderfu l? They will get their wages according to how much energy they have put towards the public, and we will privatize the politicians . Would that not be constipating?

That is right, because out of all the services that they are wanting to privatize, they fo rgot to look at their own wages, their own income that they raised. See, they even gave themselves a raise in pay. Now, is that not marv ellous that you look at the neighbours but you do not look at your own self and say, hey, we can do better if we cut everybody else off. Now, you know, it is painful to me that I have to come here when the people from the institutions ask and say, wiD you go out there and make sure they do not take our lif eline, and they said, Theresa, you do not know how angry we are.

We do not even want to come. I said, I promise not to break down because it is painful to me to have to argue and then go to a private agency and say, are you going to stay open aU day and they say, no, we do not have enough staff. No, we cannot pay this. Today, I had a problem with the Better Care service that are supposed to start in November. They said, no, our office, we did not have enough staff ready so we are closed at twelve o'clock. I said, oh, is that not wonderfu l, you are going to open November 7 and here you are not even ready to prepare, and they said, oh, no.

I phoned other agencies fo r a circumstance and they said, well, we have to make money fi rst. We do not serve just anybody . We have to know if you have cash. Where is your account or do you use Visa? But do you know how painful that is, Mr. Chairman and committee members, because I hope to God-and I would like to ask, have ever :1.t1yone of you been without any cash? [interjection) You have been without cash. Why, because you slept over and you fo rgot your wallet, right? That is right. There.

So at the same time, you know, it hurts my feelings, my husband being unemplo yed, I am unable to do anything fo r myself In order fo r me to have 24-hour care, 365 days of the year, everything I require for 42 years, I have had to ask and be polite and receive and also offer in return. That is why I killed myself to come here today under circumstanc es, that is why I did not want special treatment, but I said, you know it is very costly to me.

I had to cancel my orderly calls so that I could not go to the washroom, I could not eat, I could not drink after three o'clock because anytime I want to go to a special meeting you have to change your whole mechanical and biological changes just to be part and parcel. Now, I hope you are prepared fo r tltis statement, and I want a fa x from your decision of the decision of parliament when you deliver it and what happens to all these people because there are other people waiting from institutio ns. I want to know under The Human Rights Act how you are going to serve them by going to their location. See?

A gentl eman was right to go to Brandon and go to The Pas, go other places because why sit in your nice warm Legislative Building, and why fight the weather and the conditions and the advisory- Mr. Chairpenon: Mrs. Ducharme, I am sorry. Your time is up. Mn. Ducharme: Well, I am not in jail, darling. So I want to say ooe closing statement, one closing statement. You are supposed to say in two minutes, please. If you are running any meeting, you give a person, not to cut them off their breath. Mr. Chairpenon: You are just encroaching on your question time, that is all. Mrs.

Ducharme: Okay, well, at the same time, I would like to ask, would you please consider the concerns that I have, and how under the Human Rights Act, will you cater and also allow those who are institutionalized to be heard, who are bedridden, dependent on lif eline, MTS, and they are not able to leave their bedside? Now, that is

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 5 a h uman rights act and request that has to be considered before you privatize MTS, because all people have to have a chance to be heard. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mrs. Ducharme. A (1 940) Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Thank you, Theresa. I picked up on a couple of comments you made. I just want to say that MTS will not be leaving the province, and the services now delivered by MTS will not change. Mrs. Ducharme: Can I have that in writing? Floor Comment: Talk is cheap. Mrs.

Ducharme: Hey, no comments, I can handle it myself here. I want that in writing. Mr. Ashton: I really want to thank Theresa for the presentation, and I agree, we should get that in writing, because what the minister does not say is that-he is already saying, the chairperson of MTS is saying that immediately up to a quarter to one-third of the shares of MTS will be sold outside of the province. In Alberta, where they sold off their telephone company, the shares now trade on the Toronto Stock Ex change.

What the minister does not tell you is that 25 percent of MTS under this bill that he is bringing in can be owned by people from outside of the country. They are being really democratic; they are saying you can only buy $55 million worth of shares. So I think you get some idea from that. I would get it in writing. Mind you, then again, they said in the election they were not going to sell MTS in writing too. So I do not think their word really means much. Mrs. Ducharme: May I answer your question? Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Ducharme. Mrs. Ducharme: I want to answer his question. Mr.

Chairperson: I am just recognizing you for Hansard. Mrs. Ducharme: When I asked for him to write that in writing, on October 17 , we had a private meeting with the Minister of Health, James McCrae, and we asked him if the Home Care program or any contract is like the contract ofMTS or the bank or the mortgage, and he said it is not worth the paper it is written on. That statement was said in front of all the people present, and that is how painful I am with MTS. So the day it is privatized, they will look out for a lawsuit from Mrs. Ducharme, because I am a shareholder. Okay? Mr.

Ashton: I wanted to ask you a question on that, because everywhere I have gone in the province people are saying the same thing you are saying. They are saying: Let us get this straight here, the government wants to sell off something we already own; and, if we are lucky to have millions of dollars-we are not going to buy back what we already own. Is your message to the government today that not only are you a shareh older, but you as a shareholder are voting against selling off MTS? Mrs. Ducharme: You have got it, baby. Mr. Ashton: I just want to conclude by thanking Theresa.

By the way, I have talked to many people in the disabled community, and it is unanimous. Ev erybody I have talked to said the same thing, and they realize what good service we have gotten from MTS because it is a publicly owned company. When you are here today, you are not just speaking for yourself; you are speaking for not just the disabled community, but I think for pretty well the whole province of Manitoba, so thanks a lot for coming out. Mrs.

Ducharme: Thank you for allowing me to speak first and thank you for hearing me and accepting my tears because, do not forget, I will be running in the next election and the Parliament is not accessible to me. We will start at home base. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mrs. Ducharme.

11 6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 I would like to now call, as agreed, our out-of-town presenters. I am starting with Mr. Bud Shiaro . Please come forward. Do you have a written presentation to be circulated? You may proceed . Mr. Bud Shiaro (Private Citizen): If I may before my time starts, Mr. Chairman, could you-and it is a short time that is allotted to me and sometimes I ramble on-give me a two-minute warning, please, because there are some points I would like summarize? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, I will do that. Mr. Shiaro: Thank you.

A Manitoba heritage-perhaps before we start, can I wait till the paper comes around? I am sorry. Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed as we distribute. Mr. Shiaro: Do you want to proceed? Okay, thank you. In 1908, the Manito ba Telephone System became the first government-owned telephone system in North America. The system was established by a Conservative government in order that all people in Manitoba might have affordable access to telephone communications . As a bit of an aside, I support Mr.

Ashton, and I urge this committee to hold hear ings across the provin ce, so all people who own this company, the MTS, can have some input to this committee . Much has changed since those early days of communication. The people of Manitoba have become the owners of a very valuable tech nological resource. A resource that has placed Manitoba in a strategic position envied by other provincial governments that did not have the foresight to establish a government-owned system.

A tech nological resource that would allow the government to develop the ability of the province of Manitoba to become leaders in the inf ormation age. Since Manitoba Telephone System was established in 19 08, it has met and exceeded its mandate to provide low-cost telephone service . The people of Manitoba en joyed telephone rates that are amongst the lowest in North America. While meeting the mandate of low-rost tel ephone service to all areas of Manitoba, MTS has made a profit to return to the people of Manitoba. Since 1990, MTS has made more than $10 0 million in profit.

In 19 95, MTS made m ore than $15 million profit. In 1995, MTS had nearly 4,000 employees located through the province who provided network acces s to 864,000 residents and businesses . The foresight of succes sive governments in Manitoba since 1908 is being discarded. The Manitoba Telephone System has now become a symbol of the loss of democracy in our province and nothi ng less than that. This has been accomplished in a matter of mon ths. Nearly 90 years of fairness to the people of Manitoba is being thrown aside in the name of priva tization.

The people of Manitoba are once again being put in the position of subsidizing the private sector or, as the late David Lewis said, the corporate welf are bums. Just to show you the significance of this move, last Friday, The Globe and Mail, Report on Business, their magazine for November '96, talked about interactive media, which includes telephone cable and wir eless, and which will grow to a $1. 5-trilli on industry in the next 1 0 years, page 22 of that magazine, if members on this si de of the table would care to look that up. Misp laced Trust.

The Filmon government's so-called sale of MTS is nothing short of a political con job. Telling the people of Manitoba that they can buy what they already own is nothi ng less than a shell game . It certainly is less than that which the people of Manitoba have the right to expect of a government in a democrat ic society. The most glaring example of this less than democrat ic approach to governing by the Filmon Conservatives is the fact that at no time during the last provincial election did the Filmonites state that if elect ed they would sell-off MTS-at no time. On May 24, 1995, Mr. Ashton ofthe NDP asked Mr.

Filmon in the House if he can indicate whether this government has any plans whatsoever to privatize part or all of the Manitoba Telephone System. In fact, will he assure Mani tobans we will maintain public ownership of the Manitoba Telephone System within the province of Manitoba as a Crown corporation? Mr. Filmon responded by stating: I can indicate that we do not have any plans to do that. We continue alwa ys

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA ll 7 to operate on a pragmatic basis. We continue always to look at ways in which we can ensure our economy will grow, that we will take advantage of new technology, of all the things that are important to us as an economy and a society. Now, if one was to answer that question in an obtuse manner, then one might give any manner of meaning to the words of our Premier. However, if one is to continue to believe that Mr. Filmon believes in and practises all aspects of a democratic and caring form of government, then one must believe that Mr.

Filmon clearly answered Mr. Ashton's question in an unequivocal manner. Mr. Filmon clearly stated that he had no intention of privatizing any or all ofMTS. Then Mr. Filmon went on to partition and privatize MTS. He sold the cable operations for $11.5 million, while an internal MTS report released three months bef ore the sale said the value of the cable portion of MTS to be greater than $70 million in the Winnipeg Sun, May 10 , which is attached to my presentation. The report went on to say that the wires and transmission equipment are a little gold mine in the information age.

Furthermore, the report states, cable operators could use those wires to offer local phone service and may one day steal away hundreds of millions of dollars worth ofMTS business. When Mr. Findlay, as the Minister responsible for MTS, was questioned about the report, he stated: the evaluation we had was $7.5 million. When pressed for details, Mr. Findlay stated, I cannot remember the company, but someone was hired to do it. Mr. Filmon stated that he and his government operate on a pragmatic basis. Surely, there is little sensible about giving away nearly $60 million of public money.

Surely, it is anything but pragmatic to put a person who apparently suffers memory lapse in charge of a Crown corporation with the economical and strategic value ofMTS. It must be. Mr. Filmon oversaw a deal that gave Faneuil, an American telemarketer, a $47-million contract that included the right to use the MTS customer database for seven years. The June 5 Winnipeg Sun says something about that being illegal, but that remains to be seen. Faneuil gave up $16 million in shares for the right to use the database. Mr.

Filmon gave up $4 7 million in control over the way in which MTS could take advantage of a multimillion-dollar industry. Mr. Filmon stated unequivocally that he operates in a pragmatic manner on behalf of Manitoban society. Giving up $47 million to make $16 million is less than pragmatic. Giving up control of a portion ofthe business with a multimillion dollar potential is simply a matter of operation that is more closely resembling obtuse than pragmatic. The Filmon government has chosen to ignore Manitobans who are owners of MTS.

A public utility with assets in excess of a billion dollars represents a large portion of the wealth owned jointly by all Manitobans. Surely, the Filmon government must seek approval of all Manitobans prior to making any decision to privatize MTS, or go into the rural areas and talk to people, take this committee out there. Perhaps the most important thing that MTS now represents in Manitoba is the loss of democracy in our province. This loss can still be reversed. Restoring Confidence. The government should consider the following reasons to withdraw Bill 67. (

I) The special share that the Manitoba government will hold in the privatized telephone system is likely to be relatively short term in duration.

Section 13 (8) of the bill provides for the redemption of Crown shares by the corporation. This

section is entitled Crown vote ceases. It would be better if it were noted as the public control of Manitoba ceases of Manitoba Telephone or one dollar equals one vote, because if I have a million bucks, I can buy a million votes in this company, but as a taxpayer I cannot do that and as a worker I certainly cannot do that. * (1 950) The following is an example of why Bill 67 will put the people of Manitoba at economic risk. The private insurance companies claim to be one of the most competitive private industries in Canada.

This industry has balked at banks getting into the insurance business, claiming that the banks would have an unfair advantage in an already lean, competitive marketplace. In spite of this assertion by the insurance industry, the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation states that Manitobans are paying some of the lowest insurance rates in Canada under the publicly owned Autopac. It is that Road Wise information leaflet you get with every renewal; at least I get it with my renewal. In fact the

11 8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 government leaflet which accompanies all notices of renewal indicates that we are second only to the public insurance of Saskatchewan. We are also at approximately one-third the cost as a public utilit y-one third the cost of the insurance in the newest heartland of competition, Toronto. What a place. It would seem prudent to reconsider the need for this bill and to further consider the advantages to all Manitobans of owning their own telephone system. The cable television industry is seeking cable deregulation as noted in the Winnipeg Free Press, October 10 , '96. The press

article goes on to say, the cable industry wants to charge what the market will bear in Canada's largest communities by early 199�. This

article notes major phone companies also have their eye on the market, but we are not; we want to get out of that business. It totally amaze s me. It would seem to be good business sense to attempt to lessen one's losses. A government that has literally given away its cable component- Mr. Chairperson: Two minutes. Mr. Shiaro: Thank you-of the telephone system should admit its mistake. This government should not put the people of Manitoba at further risk. The third reason to get out of this: This government has an obligation to consider the well-being of all people in Manitoba.

Presently, the profits of the Manitoba Telephone System are returned to all Manitobans. This is after jobs are created and paid for, capital is invested in and new workers are trained, along with the upgrading of present long-term employees. I would then like to flip to the last page. Withdraw Bill 67. This government should drop this bill. If the government is not prepared to drop this bill, then it should find the courage to call an immediate election. Make the sale of Manitoba Telephone System the platf orm upon which this government goes to the people ofManitoba.

Let the people of Manitoba decide the fate of this telephone system, their telephone system. Therefore, I would like to do a poll of each and every member of this committee, and I would like that poll to go on the record . Mr. Filmon stated in the May 3, 1996, Free Press that he argued against the privatization of MTS in the last election. Therefore, are you prepared, each and every one of you, members of this committee, are you prepared to advise Premier Filmon that he should dissolve the government and call an immediate election on the Conservative sole platform of selling off MTS? I want a response.

I think as a taxpayer I have a right to a response from each and every one, for the record. Are you prepared? This side of the table is. Mr. Minister, are you prepared to call an election? You are not prepared to call an election. Let the record show that the minister shakes his head in the negative. Can we start down this side perhaps. No, let the next minister, and I do not know if the seating arran gements are recor ded, but the next minister chooses not to look at me, and the next minister? An Honourable Member: He is not a minister. Mr. Shiaro: He is not a minister.

The next member of the committee. [inteljection] You are like Tim. No, you are not like Tim, by any means, sir. Mr. Ernst is a man who has been around many years in various levels of politics. Are you prepared to advise your colleague the Premiel" of Manitoba to dissolve government and call an immediate election? Mr. Chairperson: I am sorry, your time is up. Are there any questions? Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Chairperson, I wonder if you think perhaps the reason the government does not want an el ection now or any kind of vote on MTS is the same reason why they did not tell the truth to the people of Manitoba in the 1995 provincial election about MTS when they said they would not sell it off. Mr. Shiaro: Through the Chair, the reason that they will not call an election is the same reason they did not raise the issue, is they do not want to put the facts on the table. If they called an election, the people of Manitoba would know the true worth of MTS, I believe.

They would also have an opportunity to examine all the facts, all the issues, what is happening. A $1. 5 trillion industry, in the evolution-everything says this is the way to go, and we are leaving it. So, yes, I believe that the reasons are the same. It is deception. I am sorry, but it is.

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 9 Mr. Ashton: I am wondering, too, being a resident of rural Manitoba, from outside of Winnipeg, what people are saying in your community and people that you may-I think, by the way, the window slamming is probably the ghost of Rodmond Roblin. I notice his picture is right next to the window here. He is trying to send a message to the government. B ut I wonder what people in your community are saying about the sale of MTS. Do they support the sale or do they want to keep MTS publicly owned? Mr.

Shiaro: Through the Chair, the people in my community in Selkirk that I have talked to-and I live just outside of Selkirk in the municipality of St. Andrews want to keep MTS. Their understanding is that there is the potential as soon as this is privatized of having to pay approximately $30 a month more on their bill. As a shareholder, that is my dividend and I have a right to protect that as anyone does. So the support is to keep MTS publicly owned and let it be out there in this evolving industry. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Ernst. [interjection] Oh, Mr. Ashton. Mr.

Ashton: Yes, I am quite willing to give leave afterwards to Mr. Ernst if the time runs out. I just wanted to ask one further question. When I asked-1 mean, you mentioned some of the questions that I have asked in the Legislature, and I did ask that question. I also asked the minister in September, by the way. He said they had no plans to privatize MTS. He even said that the only person talking about it was myself and the only party talking about it was the NDP. This was last September, a few months before they sold off MTS.

When I asked the Premier to put it to the vote of the shareholders-and you have mentioned this. Theresa Ducharme mentioned earlier about being a shareholder. What he said in the House was we were shareholders in name only.

Now I am just wondering how you feel-you mentioned the fact that you feel that you are a shareholder-about the Premier's suggesting that you are not really a shareholder, that in effect by selling off MTS the way they are doing it here, that the only ones who really have a say over its future are the people in the Conservative government, that you as a shareholder have absolutely no say over its future. Mr. Shiaro: Through the Chair, I believe what I feel about this is that the Premier and some of his colleagues are then saying that I am a citizen in name only.

I am not a citizen, I am not a voter of Manitoba except for one brief minute when I walk into that voting booth and drop my ballot. After that, I do not count. I am nothing, and that is undemocratic. That is not what democracy is about. That is not what our voting process is about. When Mr. Filmon says that, as the Premier of this province, I think what he is saying is that he has little regard for the consequences of what this means. When you remove that form of democracy from people, when you say you are not truly citizens of this province, then what the hell alternative are you leaving people.

It is scary, and it is heading downhill fast. Of course, what they will do is pass a bill to build another prison to take care of all the people who are truly frustrated and rebel, but that is what he is saying to me. He is indicating a lot of disregard, uncaring and total disregard for democracy, and it scares me. It really scares me. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Ernst, for a quick question. Mr. Ernst: Mr. Shiaro, can you tell us who your employer is? Mr. Shiaro: My employer is the City of Winnipeg. Mr. Ernst: Thank you. Mr. Shiaro: Can we tell me who your employer is, Mr. Ernst, when you are not here? ' *

(2000) Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I would like to now call Shelly Blanco. Do you have copies for distribution? You may proceed. Ms. Shelly Blanco (Private Citizen): My day began today very early. The phone started ringing before eight o'clock in the morning, and my children used that phone three or four times to determine who had their t-shirt; what shoes their friends were going to wear to school; make sure that they had what they needed to get to school, to and from their friends. It is their network.

After they left for school, my 21 -year-old boy used the phone to take care of an airline ticket problem that he had had. A friend of mine stopped by after dropping her kids

12 0 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 off to scho ol, and she used my telephone to phone and sign up to come to this hearing today. My daughter phoned because she fo rgot her binder, maybe not her friend's jeans, but she fo rgot her binder. The fo ster care co-ordinator from Gimli called me because I am a fo ster parent . A parent in the community wishing to register her child for gymnastics phoned me to find out how she could do that now in the middle of the season. One of my fr iends called to chat, and the dentist called me to talk about my children's dental appointments today.

The telephone system is not a com modity . It is not a styrof oam cup company that we can do without. The telephone company is what all of us use to participate in our commun ities; it is what we use to run our lives; it is how we get help. The telephone service is one of our lif e blood. We cannot do without it.

We cannot risk that someone will decide that, wel l, maybe long distance is too expensive is to provide to these people, or that basic service has to cost fo ur times as much fo r people living in a cert ain area, or that we should have pay-per-call service that makes it impos sible fo r a homebound senior citizen to stay on the phone and make maybe 15 or 20 calls a day because that is the only way they can communicate to other people or shop fo r their groceries or call someone when they are frightened or sick.

I think it is absolutely shameful that this government would even consider using somethi ng as vital and as basic a resource as our communications system, thinking about it as if it were somet hing we could sell and allow anyone else to own it. The health and well-bein g of Manitoba is what we as voters ask you to protect and to nurture fo r us. I do not think that is what is happening with Bill 67, and I am here today to ask you to please withdraw this bill and do not hesitate.

The reason that I believe privatization is the thing we do not want is that the mandate that we have when we own our own company is a mandate to provide some kind of equitable service across the prov ince. It is a way of ensuring that if we wish it we can step in and have some control over the kinds of policies, the kinds of service that we will get. We can say to our own corpor ation, no, you cannot charge the people in the North or senior citizens or someone else a higher rate because it costs more to provide service to them .

What we can say is, we want a quality of lif e in our province, and we will organize this company to provide that to everyone. Now we cannot do that about an awful lot of things, but our basic natural resources and those things that are impo rtant fo r our well-being we can do that, and we should do that. That is your job when you are elected .

I was speaking today as a private citizen, but I would like you to know that I am also a co-chair of the Selkirk group that was working to save MTS, and so I would like to speak a little bit on behalf of those people in our community that I think will be aff ected if this bill were to go through. I have mentioned bef ore that one of the calls I got today was from a parent wishing to register her child. I am on the board of the gymnastics association. Our town has figure skating associations and hockey associations and every kind of sport association that you can imagine.

We have the Kiwanis Club and all of the service organi zatio ns. How do these organizations operate? On volunteer labour and volunteer time because people like myself who are not employed outside the home are making hundred s of phone calls every year to make sure that the services and the sports that take place in our comm unities happen. We do that with our telephone s, and if there is anyt hing done to that telephone to increase the rate that I will have to pay in order to do that, I will not be able to provide that volunteer service to my commun ity, nor will an awful lot of other people.

That will mean that a very, very serious effect on my community will happen. We need that. It is how we talk to each other. It is how community groups orga nize. Our cooununity has a lot of senior citizens as do most. Many of those people have difficulty getting around. They rely on the telepho ne. They can shop over the telephone. They can talk to friends . They can call doctors . They can order drugs through the pharmacy. They can call fo r help. They can arran ge rides. These things are important, and these people are on fixed incomes, many of them .

How can we possibly say that this particular thing, the telephone , is something you do not really need or you do not need full service? That is not fair. That is not the quality of lif e that we want to say we have here in Manitoba . We have a mental health facility in our commun ity, and probably because it exists there, we have a crisis unit as we ll. We have many people living in our community with mental health issues, and the phone is also a lif e line

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 121 to them in very much the same way as it was to the first woman who spoke tonight. The phone is what allows them to live independently in their own home because they can use that phone to get the help they need when things become too tough. There would be a huge cost to the province if these people had to go back into institutions because they were no longer able to freely use the telephone to seek the hdp and the organization they need to carry on their lives with the disabilities that they live with. We have rural residents attending Selkirk.

We have a huge rural area around our community and farmers for whom that telephone is what is used to order parts, to talk to one another from long distances, people who are not able to drive in and out of town where there are other people. Many friendships take place over the phone. I know many of my friendships take place over the phone. I do not think that we want to change that. We also have in Selkirk one of the MTS facilities, and I have a huge concern over the effect that privatization will have on the workers at MTS.

I have two particular concerns : one is the possibility of massive layoffs, and I fail to see in any way, shape or form how a growing number of unemployed people in my community could benefit my community at all. I also have a concern about the quality of the work life of people working for phone companies under privatization- Mr. Chairperson: Two minutes. Ms. Blanco: Not too long ago, I saw a program from the United States where there are private phone companies.

It. was a show about sweatshops and the resurgence of sweatshops in the United States, and they were talking about the contracting out of various parts of the telephone service. It was absolutely dreadful what was going on there, people working at less than minimum wage for piecemeal work, and that is what is going to happen to our MTS workers if we privatize this company. I have a family. I have seven children; I foster another. We have a phone bill already over $10 0 a month that we can ill afford. Any change in that will be a lowering of the quality oflife that we have.

I want to say that we are average Manitobans on an average income, and I do not think that we should have to pay with the vital services in order to be residents of this province. So I would ask you again. There is no harm in withdrawing a bill. I know you want to ram it through, but I think that I speak for many people. One last comment before my time is up. I want to tell you that you have 212 people on this list, but you have thousands more who would like their voices heard, but the democratic process here has become so difficult.

There are at least 20 people I personally spoke to who do not have the courage to come into a building as ostentatious as this and speak to you with any kind of comfort. It is not that they do not have opinions; it is not that they want to see MTS privatized; it is that this is not an environment in which they can operate. So I would like to say that I speak on their behalf, and I am sure so do everyone else of the 212 who are here. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Are there any questions? Mr. Dewar: Thank you, Ms.

Blanco, for both your presentation this evening on behalf of the residents of Selkirk and your work on the SOS campaign. I want to ask you a question about that campaign. Could you tell me the budget of that campaign, please, in Selkirk? Ms. Blanco: Yes. We have spent $1 57. Mr. Dewar: Can you tell me how that $1 57 was raised? Ms. Blanco: It was raised out of the pockets of people donating that money to us. Mr. Dewar: Thank you. Could you tell me how that money and where that money was spent? Ms. Blanco: We had a little bit on postage. I cannot remember. [interjection] Yes, I had some long distance charges.

No, Greg, I cannot remember. Sorry. Mr. Dewar: As I recall, the coalition, they purchased balloons- Ms. Blanco: Oh, that is right. Yes, we went in the parade in Selkirk. We purchased balloons that we gave out to the kids. *

(2010) Mr. Dewar: This $!5 7-campaign, the government was so threatened by that $!5 7-cam paign in Selkirk that they

12 2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 spent $400,000 of taxpayers' money to counter it, to counter the campaign in Selkirk and to counter campaigns like this campaign throughout the province. Do you have any comments on that? Ms. Blanco: It is rather unfair competition, I would suggest. Mr. Ashton: This is a follow-up question. Who are the people of Selkirk believing, the government with its $400,000 advertising campaign or the Save Our Telephone System committee in Selkirk with its $157 campaign? Ms.

Blanco: Well, I can tell you I know that, when we began our sign campaign a couple of weeks ago, I personally did the phoning to ask people if they would take signs. I made probably 15 0 calls, and I only had two people who did not wish to have a sign put in their yard. That says an awful lot to me about whom we are representing when SOS is here tonight. Mr. Ashton: As you know, one ofthe issues that has been raised even tonight is the fact that we are all shareholders in MTS and we had no opportunity to vote on whether to sell it off in the election because the government said it was not going to sell MTS.

What is your sense of Selkirk? You mentioned in terms of the signs and what-not, but if people had a chance to vote on this in Selkirk and surrounding communities, how do you think they would vote? Would they vote to sell off MTS or to keep it publicly owned? Ms. Blanco: I do not think there is any question whatsoever that the Selkirk community wishes to keep MTS. I would like to respond a little bit to what you said about having hearings around the province.

While I can absol utely concur with your request that that happen, I would suggest that it is absolutely unnecessary to have hearings around the province, and I think the people of the province have spoken quite loudly . I do not think the people of the province want MTS sold. I think they want it in public hands. I think they want to keep it in public hands, and I do not think there is any reason to believe otherwise.

Now if the government is going to attempt to ram this bill through anyway, then certainly I think you had better have public hearings so that you understand quite clearly as a government that you are doing it against the will of the majority of Manitobans. Mr. Ashton: I am wondering, have you had the opportunity to talk to some of the government MLAs privately, and reco gnizing the fact that right now it would taken two governm ent MLAs to vote against the bill and this bill would not pass, because they have 30 members on the government side?

I know all 23 NDP MLAs oppose the bill; there is a member from the Liberal Party here as well, and all three Liberal MLAs have opposed the bill, but if you had a chance to talk to those MLAs and tiy and persuade two of them to vote to save MTS, to keep it publicly owned, what would you say to them? Ms. Blanco: I think when I am making a decision in my home, one thing I have to ask myself first is, how will this decision affect the health of my family, the health and well- being of my family?

Will the sale of MTS into private ownership contribute in some very clear way to the health and well-being of the lives of Manitobans, not to the li ves of people who own it, not to the lives of people who might profit by that system, but we have to look then, what is the quality of our telephone system, and do we have any reason to believe that the sale of this will improve that or improve its accessibility to people in our province? If we cannot demonstrate very, very clearly that the sale of this company will in fact contribute in some very clear and definable ways-you should be able to list those.

There should be a nice big list of how will our service be better, how will the cost of the system-can we guarantee that that will not be increased? What will be the benefits? If we cannot determine that there will be benefits, then we should not do it. I think there must be MLAs out there who can make that decision-two, I would hope. Mr. Chairperson: The time is up. Thank you very much for your presentation. I would call Paula Mallea to come forward. You have handouts. Please proceed. Ms. Paula Mallea (Save Our Telephone System): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I would encourage people not to try to read that thing right now; save it for your bedtime reading. It is far too long. I would rather have your attention here, if I may. There was a lot of eloquence coming from those previous speakers. I will not try to match that. What I want to say, though, is that I have lived in Manitoba for

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 3 ll years now, and I chose it among the many places in the country that I have lived as the place that I wanted to be. I am beginning not to be proud to be here. I am beginning not to be very proud of this government. Mr. Ernst commented that this is the only government in the country which would provide us with an opportunity like this to present to a committee.

I would like to suggest to him that this is about the only government in the country as well that would try to pass this type of extremely important legislation without ever telling the people that was in its plans. This government is distinguishable, I think , from the Harris governm ent in Ontario only by the fact that at least Mr. Harris had the brass to tell people what he was up to, and they got to vote on those things. We never had that chance and I think we need to have it now.

I am not one of those who feels that every piece oflegislation that the governm ent wishes to put forward has to be taken to the people. You have been elected to be leaders and we expect you to lead, so that is not my point. This legislation is different in kind. It is an essential service we are talking about; it is essential for all Manitobans. It has an effect distinctly and directly on every single Manitoban. We own it; we have owned it since 1908. This is not the kind of legislation that you do not take to the people, my friends, and I would ask you to reconsider, with all respect.

Now, I guess, because my expertise is as a lawyer that I would like to address some of the legal aspects of this thing. I have read this legislation backwards and forwards, and I have heard the honourable minister in charge of telecommunications say, as he said today, that Manitobans will continue to be in control of our telephone system. Sir, with all due respect, there is nothing in the legislation to guarantee that. You have every intention of passing the legislation before ever doing anything about such guarantees.

We have no way of knowing whether you will put such guarantees in the prospectus for this company that goes before the Securities Commission after the legislation is passed. There is nothing in there, Sir, that is going to keep this company either physically in the province or in the hands of Manitoban people. Just to be specific for a moment, I would ask everybody in the committee to please reread Sections ll and 14 of the act because they permit anything, virtually anything, to happen with respect to ownership once the debt is paid off.

You and I both know that, if AT&T Canada gets interested in this company, as they are, and they can be, they are now cited to be, and approved by the CRTC to be in fact a Canadian-owned company, Canadian controlled company-and if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you-if AT&T gets interested in this company, that debt is going to be paid off so fast, you are not going to have time to think about it. Once that happens, the head office can go anywhere, the jobs can go anywhere, it can be fully owned by a single individual.

That is what the legislation says, Sir, and I would challenge anybody at this table to show me where it says otherwise. lit

(2020) Now, there is a certain arrogance attached to your efforts to do this without consultation of any kind. I am personally insulted, and I am insulted on behalf of all of the people behind me by the fact that it is clear to me that you feel that none of us is smart enough to understand this business, that none of us can distinguish between public and private enterprise, that none of us has ever run a successful business, that none of us can read a balance sheet. Sirs and madam, I think not. We do know what we are doing here.

You underestimate our intelligence, and it is quite breathtaking the way in which you are doing this. You say,'tw6 days after the last annual report ofMTS came out, which said that it was competitive; it was paying its debt down and it was making money and providing the best service in the country. Allowing for the fact that we tend to exaggerate a little in our annual reports, all of those can be demonstrated to be true. Two days later you are selling the company. Why? Because we cannot be competitive, because our debt is too high, because we do not have good service, because we cannot afford technology.

Give me a break. Here is Grade 2 arithmetic, just for what it is worth. A private company is going to buy our telephone system. That private company is going to immediately waltz to the CRTC saying, please, sirs, we must have some more higher rates, please, in Manitoba because we have additional costs. We have costs of providing this service that the publicly owned corporation did not have. What

124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 would those costs be? Nwnber one, a private company will be paying corporation tax. You know that we do not do that right now. That is a big chunk of money, and any private enterprise getting into this busine ss . is going to be very concerned about it. That is one . Two, they also are going to be paying a whole lot more fo r whatever debt they have to take care of, and that is because, of course, our system benefits from the credit rating that your government pro vides . That is a big diff erence; it is a lot of money.

It matters and it is going to come out of our pocke ts. Finally, and not least-and I hate like heck to be the first one here to mention that word "profi t," which is not a dirty word; I am a businessw oman, I knaw what profit is-but a profit fo r a publicly owned service that is supposed to be provided aff ordably and accessibly to all Manitobans is not on, sirs; it is not on. We cannot have them going to the CRTC and saying, you have to let us raise rates because we have to give our shareholders a return. Our system right now does not have to give us any more return than we require to run a good servic e.

It is service at cost. We are prepared to support that service, and we have great difficulty unders tanding how any pri vate organization is going to be able to provide better service more cheap ly to anybody here. Now, I come from Erickson. I just drove fo r three hours to get here and I am going to have to drive three hours back through God knows what kind of weather to get home, and the people where I live stand to have their local rates triple under private owners hip. People living in the North where Mr. Ashton and Mr.

Robinson, who is here, and others who are representing their people tonight are likely to have their rates quadruple. That is a lot of money fo r somebody on a fixed income. That is a lot of money fo r peop le up there who do not have the kinds of income that you have sitting here in Winnip eg. Mr. Chairperson: Two minutes . Ms. Mallea: Here is what is going to happen when this thing gets sold to a private enterp rise. All the jobs- just like happened when Unitel came to town-are going to go some place else. Any that do not are going to be reduced to a shambles. They are going to pay less.

They are going to have fe wer benefi ts. They are going to be part- time and have no benefi ts. That is the first thing that is going to happen . The second thing that is going to happen is any self respecting private corporation is out there properly to make a profit fo r its shareholders. It is not there committed to Manitobans . It is not there committed to providing ser vice. It is going to take one look and say, right, these services are not paying. These services are costing us mooey. That is me in Erickson; that is the guy in Tadoule Lake and Churchill Falls and every place else.

Those people are either go ing to have 50 bucks a month to pay fo r their local phone, or they are just not going to have a servi ce. This is 1996. You cannot even do a decent job search without a telephone, so let us get serious about this. I mean we are talking about saving people their phones here. I know other people are going to mention this, but the other thing that the legislation does do is it puts into some jeopardy the benefits that people who have worked fo r MTS over their lif etimes are expecting to receive, and they have every right to rece ive. These people have paid dearly fo r those benefits.

I know that the legis lation is set up not to reduce the amount of mmey that goes into those bene fits, but that is all it does. It does not protect what benefits are provided. It does not protect the erosion of benefits . It says nothing about what would happen to the surplus that might arise from superannuation funds. Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. Your time is up. Ms. Mallea: I am just very disappointed that I have driven the minister from the room. Let me say that right now, and I will take your questions . Mr. Chairperson: Questions? Mr.

Ashton: I would like to thank the presenter. would also ask that the brief be accepted as a written brief to be printed in the Hansard, which is the practice because I was listening, and I am just going through it. It is certainly a well- researched brief. Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave? An Honourable Member: Sure . Mr. Chairperson: Yes, leave then to have the presentation by Ms. Mallea entered into the record.

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 5 Point of Order Mr. Sale: Point of order, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Sale, on a point of order. Mr. Sale: Without encroaching on the time of the presenter, it is my understanding that by convention all written briefs are accepted without the need for a motion on each one. If that is not the case, could the Chair so advise so that we could move a single motion and not have to do this each time? Mr. Chairperson: I think it is customary that all written briefs submitted are entered into the record. * * * Mr.

Ashton: I want to focus on the issue of rates because I do not know if you have received a copy of the so-called MTS Answers that was sent around. I assume everybody in this room has. This is one of the things they are spending the $400,000 on. I notice one of the members of the public at the back has a copy with her currently. What is interesting about what that document says is: trust us-I am just paraphrasing it here-the rates are set by the CRTC.

I want to focus in on that because I have before me-and you reference this in the written brief-and I want to reference the specific decision on the 19th of February, 1996, with AGT. You said a private company is going to be able to go to the CRTC and get those additional costs recognized. Well, the 19th of February, 1996, AGT went and got a $6 a month increase because of tax liabilities that went back to the privatization.

Not only that, the CRTC stated that it regulates, basically it guarantees AGT -which used to be publicly owned and now it is privately owned-a return on equity of 10 .2 5 percent to 12 .25 percent. Now, I want to just briefly mention what the invest ment bankers said about the return on investment in Manitoba. They said it is about 6. 7 percent. This is not my figures; this is the three investment bankers.

So are you saying then that under the regulations that the day that MTS is privatized that private company will be able to go to the CRTC and say, hey, look, we are only getting a 6. 7 percent return on our investment; we need to get between 10 .25 percent and 12 .25 percent as AGT is allowed? Ms. Mallea: I fully expect that. In fact, there you have the precedent, of course. Further to, I think one of the things that has been missing from the debate is that we should be learning from our history.

I think that, if there were examples of privatized telecommunications companies that have been beneficial, the government would be trotting those out as we speak. They do not exist. The Canadian examples that I am aware of that are recent and are, I think, useful to us are British Columbia, which since privatization has raised rates at a much swifter rate than ever has happened in Manitoba and also which is requesting, as we speak, to be able to charge consumers for each and every single local telephone call.

Think what that would do to a small business, a nonprofit organization or even someone just trying to run their lives with their children in schools and everything else, it is just-it is beyond the pale. Also, in Alberta, I am aware that since they privatized five or six years ago they are now paying some 34 percent higher rates than we pay in Manitoba as between their last effort to raise rates and the one which will take effect in February, that is, from December of last year to February of next year, 14 months, their local rates have been increased from between 70 percent to over 1 00 percent.

That is in just over a year. Now that is what we can expect a private company to bring to us in Manitoba. *

(2030) Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Ashton, for a very quick question. Mr. Ashton: Also, AGT is the same model they are following in Manitoba, but since I am obviously running out of time here. I want to ask you, you mention you are from Erikson. Your MLA would be- Ms. Mallea: Mr. Gilleshammer. Mr. Ashton: The Minnedosa constituency. He is one of the government members. He is one of those potential two who could save the Manitoba Telephone System. I am wondering what you would say privately to Mr. Gilleshammer as a constituent of his, as a rural Manitoban, that might try and persuade him to be one of those two people to save our telephone system.

12 6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 29, 1996 Ms. Mallea: Well, everything that I have said up to now, but also just that people are very restless about this. I mean, he was elected to office to do the things that he said the government at that time was going to do, not to sell the telephone company. When I speak to Progressive Conservative supporters in the area, they are, first of all, swprised that anyone would even try such a thing without going to the people and, secondly, amazed that they are not given an opportunity to say anything about it at all.

When they see that what the arguments are, they are virtually 10 0 percent unanimous that this is folly, and they know it. I regret to say it, I think this government is going to go down in history for this one, and you heard it here first. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I would like to now call Mr. AI Mackling to come forward and make his presentation. Do you have notes? Mr. AI Madding (Private Citizen): No. Mr. Chairperson: Then proceed, please. Mr.

Madding: The present administration says it want to privatize Manitoba Telephone System because it now faces competition in a deregulated system. MTS has proven itself successful despite competition. We have had deregulation in long distance for some many months, but MrS is winning in this competition. What about this whole principle then of competition? Did it just start in this year, 1996? No, it was alive and well in 1908 when a Conservative government said, we own a government telephone system.

They were operating a government system, a very limited system, but they said we are going to buy out the competition, private competition. They were doing the reverse of what this administration is now doing. Why were they doing that? Here was a competitive telephone system in Manitoba, so the Manitoba Free Press-it was not the Winnipeg Free Press then-had a reporter that questioned Premier Rodmond Roblin about this: Will you tell me why the government purchased the Bell system instead of completing the public system already begun? In effect, why are you eliminating the competition? Mr.

Roblin said: We purchased the Bell system for the purpose of avoiding the necessity of having a dual telephone system in the province, and in that way preventing the waste of several million dollars of capital as well as the extreme cost to the telephone user. In effect, he was saying, telephone competition is going to cost money to the users. It is not going to save any money. He was right. It costs money. You have to invest in a business; you have to have a marketing agency; you have to have advertising; you have to have publicity. You have to have all the infrastructure and all the office staff.

So he said, we want one system. In effect, that is what he was saying. He went on to say: I believe also that it is a good commercial proposition and whatever profit there is-you know, Conservatives were not afraid to shy away from the word "profit"-in the operation of the telephone system from this time on will belong to the people of Manitoba rather than to a private company.

I am also proud of the fact that we have been able to secure for the people of Manitoba, the first complete system�mplete system he is talking about-of government-owned telephones on the continent ofNorth America, and I am sure from the information that is being secured that the result, as years go by, will prove more and more beneficial to the people.

A Conservative governmen t launched the MTS, despite the fact there were services out there, to provide a complete service, to provide a unifYing force in the province, to make sure that everyone in the province would have an opportunity one day to have telephone service . And you have heard eloquent testimony tonight as to the essential nature of the telephone industry in this province as an important social and economic sinew in this province.

When the Roblin government started out with the Manitoba governm ent telephone system and then bought out Bell, it was operated as a completely tightly controlled government system. There was no regulatory board looking over what they did. They set the rules as to how much people would pay. Only after a time did the government give up control because it wanted to make sure that the system was built to provide service to the people. Service to the people of Manitoba was the criterion, not as would be the case now. Under privatization the operation would be based on a return of the bottom line,

October 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 12 7 on profit-and there is nothing wrong with profit-but not a concern to provide an essential service throughout the province, but to register a profit for the shareholders. Now the present administration says that MTS cannot meet the technological challenge. Think of the challenge in 1908. Think of the uncertainty about the advancing technology then. That gentleman was not afraid as a Conservative to launch a government enterprise to provide services to the people. What about MTS's position in respect to technological challenge?

I think the present administration is hoping that the people of Manitoba have very short memories. I remember about 20 years ago, the Manitoba Telephone System being the pioneer in respect to a system- I believe the code name or the acronym was Iris-and we had a community, I believe it was Headingley, that as an experimental model was completely wired into the new technology. You could do everything from your home by the telephone. Now that technology was not taken up. It was too expensive.

It was too far ahead of its time, but the MTS as a corporation has not only lived with new technology, it has been at the leading edge of new technology. So this argument that this minister and this government are making, that the MTS cannot cope with the new technology is not worth listening to. Just by the way, to underline it, just in today's Free Press, MTS gives net speed a big boost-right up in front on the technology. That argument just does not wash at all. *

(2040) What about this public debt? The other argument that they say is that the poor corporation has a great debt-to eqUity ratio. We have to admit around this table and in this building that successive Liberal coalition, coalition of Liberals and Conserva tives, Conservative governments and NDP governments have said indirectly to the corporation: Did you provide service at cost? You are not there to make a profit. You are to provide a blanket of service throughout the province, and they have done that and done that very, very well.

The debt-equity ratio could have been changed over the years by Conservative, Liberal or NDP governments if they wanted to by a moderate change in the basic telephone rates- Mr. Chairperson: Two minut es. Mr. Madding: -but that was not the foremost need. The need was to expand and to en joy a sophisticated modem service throughout the province. When we talk about debt-equity ratio, the minister who-I will not ref er to the fact where he is, but it was he that forced the telephone company to advance

schedule the introduction of private line service . I happened to live on party service-and I was Minister of the Telephones at one time-and I was prepared to wait and we were going to be waiting another two years, but this government said, you had to do it right way. It was a political act to force the corporation to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to advance private telephone connections. Now they criticize the corporation for part of that debt. I want to underline my concerns about the lack of consultation in respect to this legislation.

Nowhere was there any hint that if elected a Conservative government would launch privatization of the telephone system. Where privatization had its earliest beginnings, I suppose, was in England. At least they had the courage and the will to state this is what they were going to do. This was a hidden agenda on the part of this administration, and I want to say, as Sterling Lyon used to remind me across the Chamber, that governments do not own public asset

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-pu5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf pu5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	67bbae382fbb709ce402be78df3fdb8e3ff42cd9

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