Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 26A (35th Legislature, 1st Session)

35-1-26a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 First Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XXXIX No. 26A -10 a.m., FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 16,1990 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Me mbers, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON , Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIR S, Sharon CERIL LI, Marianne CHEE MA, Gulzar CHOM IAK, Dave CONN ERY, Edward , Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRI EDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARM E, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS ,C iif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDL AY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN , Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAM MER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA THLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTI NDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda MITCHELSON , Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD , Donald, Hon. PENN ER, Jack, Hon. PLOHMAN , John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REI D, Daryl REIMER, Jack REND ER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROS E, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON , Eric STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY , Rose mary WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosan n CONSTITU ENCY Os borne Thompson Wellington Cresce ntwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste .

Rose Seine River Roblin-Rus sell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood lnterlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wols eley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas lnkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assi niboia River East Rossm ere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Glad st one Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY.

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Libe ral PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, November 16,1990 rhe House met at 10 a.m. PRAYERS ROUT INE PROCEEDINGS MATTER OF PRI VILEGE Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader) : On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate, in accordance with our rules, my matte r of privilege will be followed by a motion. Yeste rday, Mr. Speak er, in the House, the Minister of Consu mer and Corporate Affairs (Mr.

Connery) was recognized by yourself , was called to order in terms of comments he was making in the House, resu med his sea t and made what I consider to be gestures that were totally uncalled for and were totally undignified, that had the character of threatening gestu res towards yourself. In fact, I was able to confirm this with other Members of the Legislatu re and- Point of Order Mr. Speak er: The Honourable Member for River Heights, on a point of order. Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): What the Member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) is doing is one of the most se rious events to happen inside this Legisla ture. I think there shou ld be absolute order. *** Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I was able to confirm that fact after Question Period in talking to both Members of the Legislatu re, members who had been in the gallery, members of the public.

The Ministe r also made comments outsi de of the House indicating that- confirmed that whi le he deni ed making gestures with his clenched fist-he had made ges tures towards the Speaker in terms of pointing his finger at the Speaker, which many of us in this House saw, and stated that he was not given the opportunity to finish and further that he thought that was wrong, in explanation for his conduct. * (1 005) Mr.

Speaker, a matter of privilege has a number of other requirements in addition to being finished by a motion. lt mus t be raised at the first opportunity and it mus t be of su fficient importance that it est ablishes a prima facie case of privilege, therefore being able to have precedence over other matters before the Legislatu re. I would sugg est, and I will jus t go through som e of the citations in terms of privilege, that it is indeed a prima facie case of privilege.

Beauchesne's is very clear in terms of reflections on the Chair, reflections on the Speaker in particular, being matters of privilege. lt relates, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that essenti ally a matter of privilege is one of contempt of Parliament. In particular, it relates to the fact that privilege is a reflection of the collective rights of Parliament, in particular to have its ability to discipli ne Members and provide for an orderly functioning of the Hous e. In fact Beauchesne's, as I said, is very clear.

Beauchesne's Citation 16 8 states very clearly that reflections on the character and actions of the Speaker are clearly a matter of privilege . I want to indicate that the Manitoba precedents are also clear on this matter. September 5, 19 86, Speaker Phillips cited that particular

section of Beauchesne's; March 25, 19 87, Speaker Phillips als o cited that citation in Beauchesne's. So it is clearly a matter of Manitoba practice that reflections on the Speaker are a question of privilege. I would su gges t, Mr. Speaker, that the actions of the Minister in the House and the state ments made by the Minister outside of the Hous e were a clear reflection on the Speaker. Beauchesne's does state , and I want to deal with the other aspects of privilege here, that statements made outside of the House are not sub ject to a matter of privilege. I want to submi t to you, Mr.

Speaker, that I am raising this as the first opportunity both in terms of not jus t the state ments made outside of the House, but the conduct of the Member inside the House. I also wish to point to a number of citations in Beauchesne's which indicate that in regard to refl ections on the Speak er, ther e have been

1321 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN IT OBA November 16 , 1990 precedents , certainly in the House of Commons, wher e pre ss st ate me nts, par ticularly press state ments made by Members against the House, have been conside red in terms of a matter of privilege. Beauchesne's Citations 71 (3) and 71 (4) specifically cite press references in terms of matter s of privilege that have been raised involving comments by Members and reflections on the Chair. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there is Manitoba precedent for this.

On March 16 , 18 86, the Hous e dealt with comments that were made by a Member, a previous Member for Portage, outside of the House . In fact that Member was brought forward before the House on a matter of privilege and required to explain his comments, comments which were reflections on the Chair. More recently there have been a number of sim ilar case s in the House involving press state ments, but in both cases they were ruled out of or de r, largely because the Mem bers had apologized, referring to a 19 70 decision by Speaker Hanuschak and by Speaker Phillips, March 24, 1987.

In both those particular cases an apology had been given for the sta teme nts before a final ruling was required in terms of a matte r of privilege. In fact I would sugges t, Mr. Speaker, before I do move my motion, that that opportunity is now open to the Minis ter of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Connery) to provide that apology to the House. I would also indicate that there is very little doubt of the importance and the need for the Chair to be able to exercise his or her authority without such challenge. In fact the Member for Portage (Mr.

Connery) should well know that because he was ejected from the Chamber July of 19 86 afte r reflecting on Speaker Phillips at that particular point in time. I would hope that the Member would reflect on that and perhaps consider an apology before this House. I would submi t then that the evidence est ablishes that a prima facie case of privilege does exis t. As Members will be well aware, our procedures, our rules and Beauchesne's provide that where a prima facie case does exist, it is then put forward to the House . Mr.

Speaker, I believe that unless the Minis ter does apologize, we indeed do have to deal with this particular matter because you, Sir, cannot function with the kind of challenge, reflection to your aut hority , that took place in Ques tion Period yeste rday, and took place again outside of the House. So I therefore move, seconded by the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) , that this House censure the Minister of Consu mer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Connery) for reflecting on the Speaker and that this House direct the Member to apologize for his actions. * (1 01 0) Hon.

Clayto n Manne ss (Gove rnment House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, this is a very se rious matter that the Opposition House Leader (Mr. Ashton) brings before the Members of the House . Before you rule I would ask you to take into account certain matters of information and, in my mind, fact. I believe that the matter of privilege that the Member has brought forward fails in two respects. First, the House Leader of the Opposition indicates that this is the first opportunity to bring forward the issue. Mr. Speaker, that is incorrect.

The first opportunity to do so was yesterday during the time when this alleged event occurred. Members at that time-a nd I will move into the alleged offence, to use the word-Me mbers opposite , when it occurred, were laughing. They were making merry of the situation and did not at any point take that particular alleged action se riously. Mr. Speaker, that is a fact but, more importantly, as to the behaviour of the Members oppo site , is the fact that at that time, if they thought it was so se rious, should have risen in their place and stated their matter of privilege. They failed to do so. Second, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to a prima facie case , Beauchesne's 31 (1 ) says : "A disp ute arisi ng between two Members as to allegation of facts does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege." What we have here is the inte rpretation of Members opposite as to a certain action of a Member of the Government. They do not know on what basis a certain physical display was made. They do not know the intent behind it. They do not know what was in the mind, indeed , of the acts behind the action. Mr. Speaker, they claim they saw a physical reaction to you. Let me say, I did not see that. You may have; I did not.

I would think for the Oppositi on House Leader to quote precedent by way of Beauchesn e's that third parties som ehow can bear witnes s to an action in this House is out of order and really has no prese nce on the decision . Th ir d, Mr . Speak er, Beauches ne's Rule 31 (3)-and it was referred to by the Opposit ion

November 16, 1990 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 1322 Hous e Leader (Mr. Asht on)-said "s tatem ents made outside the Hous e by a Member may not be used as the basis for a ques tion of privilege" are se lf-explanatory. I would say that that information, whatever it is that the Member for Portage (Mr. Connery) may have said outside of the House on this iss ue, has to be discarded and cannot be taken into account in any respect with regard to your ruling. So, Mr.

Speaker, on those three points I would claim that the matte r of privilege is not supp ortable by the arguments put forward by the Opposition House Leader and that indeed he has not brought forward this issue at the first opportunity and that a prima facie case has not been made. * (1 01 5) Mr. Speak er: I want to thank both Hous e Leader s. This, as was quite-or der, please . This is indeed a very, very serious matte r.

Numerous precedents were quoted, and I will take the opportunity to rese rve my decision and come back with a ruling at a su bs equent sittin g. lt will give me an opportunity to peruse Hansard and check out the diffe rent parliamentary rule books that we do have available and we will come back to the House with a ruling. PR ESENTING RE PORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr s. Loulse Dac qua y (Chairm an of Committees): The Com mittee of Su pply has adopted certain resoluti ons, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye (Mr.

Sveins on), that the Report of the Committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Glen Flnd lay (Minis ter of Agriculture) : I would like to table the Supplementary Esti mates of the Department of Agriculture. Hon. Ger ald Duch arme (Minis ter of Urban Affairs): I have the pleasur e of tab ling reports of the Department of Urban Affairs and of Manitoba Housing for '90-91 . Hon.

James McCrae (Min ister of Justice and Attorne y Gener al) : I am tabl ing today Supplementary Information for Legisla tive Review for the 19 90- 19 91 De partm ental Expendi tu re Estimates for the Department of Justice . INTROD UCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Ques tions, may I direct the atte ntio n of Honour able Member s to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us this morning the Honourable Dr. David Carter, the Speaker for the Alberta Legisla tive Asse mbly. Also we have Mr. Alex McEachern, who is the MLA for Edmonton Kingsway for Albert a.

Also we have with us this morning Laura Lee Swain, who is a high school st udent from the Swan Lake School who was a recipient of the Royal Bank Award for her work in 4-H. On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this morning. Also with us this morning we have from the R. B. Russe ll Vocational School thirty-five Grade 11 st udents. They are under the direction of Jerry Hays . This school is located in the constitu ency of the Honourable Member for Point Douglas ( Mr. Hickes) . On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this morning.

ORAL QU ESTION PERIOD Rafferty-Aiameda Dam Project Government Action Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Oppo sition) : Manitoba has had a history of standing up for its water quality and quantity. We have been very suc cess ful in the Garrison Diversion project. We are still facing challenges on Shoal Lake, which the Premier is addressing today in Ontario. We have been set a major setback in terms of the court de cision in the Pr ovince of Sask atchewan yesterday . We had urged the Government to ask the federal Minist er to withdraw the licence four weeks ago.

We had urged the Government to join in the court decision so that the Manitoba environmental impact of the Rafferty-Aiameda dam would be consider ed by the courts in Saskatchewa n. Instead we have a decision yesterday on the injunction, ruling that constru ction costs will be a priority over and above the environ mental concerns, parti cularly of Manitobans, Mr. Speaker, who were not even represe nted in the court in the last four weeks.

1323 LEG ISLAT IVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA November 16 , 1990 My ques tion to the Minister is: Given that he said that he was taken back by this decisi on, what action is he now going to take to stand up for water quality and quantity in Manitoba in light of the recent court decision that was handed down yeste rday? Hon. Glen Cummlngs (Minister of Environme nt): You know, Mr. Speaker, for a Leader of a Party that has jus t made a very strong case in their mind on protocol and proper process in this country, he has now chosen to reflect on the ruling of a judge of this land.

The fact is that Manitoba has taken considerable effort on behalf of this province. We have a number of options that are stil l available to us in dealing with the Raffe rty-Ai ameda si tuation. We have sai d consi ste ntly that the environmental process needs to be respected . To have it respected will give us protection that we are seeking for our water quality and quantity. We have written to Ott awa in regard to the flowing of funds.

We have written to Ott awa and we have been consi ste ntly in contact with the Ministe r of Environment's office regarding his position in the courts and the pr eval ence of th e fed er al environmental process . The Member need not reflect on the judge. What he needs to reflect on is , what do we do now? * (1 020) Licence Withdrawal Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition) : Mr. Speaker, I am reflecting on what t his Government has done for the last year. I am reflecting on the fact that this Government did not even prepare and intervene in a court case with water quality and quantity in Manitoba at stake .

They sat back as an accompli ce wi th the Devine Gove rnmen t in Saskat chewan. Now we have had no represen tation in court, and we have had no protection of the Manitoba interes ts. I want to table a letter, Mr. Speaker, from the former head of the Garrison Diversion project, who is now the co-ordinator of speci al projects in the Department of Natural Resou rces, who identifies a number of water quality and quantity concerns. This shou ld have been part of an affidavit filed in the Saskatchewan court.

My ques tion the Ministe r is : Will he ask the federal Minist er to withd raw the licence now so that Manitoba's wate r quali ty and quantity will be protected or continue to jus t pay lip-se rvice to this project and go along with whateve r Grant Devine does in terms of Manitoba's water quality and quantity on the Rafferty-Aiameda dam? Hon. Glen Cummlngs (Min ister of Environme nt): Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member refers to lip-se rvice and actions of this Government. He has not been liste ning too well to the actions that we have taken.

Precise ly, the removal of the licence has been one of the is sues that we have been discu ssing with the department. The fact is that when we go to court, you do not line up the warm bodies and count them to make a ruling, you us e the information that is prese nted in the courts. The position of this Government has consistently been that the federal authority mus t exercise that authority. lt mus t be seen to be respected.

They must use the full force and all of the available resou rces that they have, including the backup of this Government and the information that we have on our concerns to make sure that they fully enforce their environmental ass essment requirements. The Member chooses to reference Shoal Lake. The fact is, his administration is the one that left us with the responsibili ty of doing so mething about that water quality. Mr . Do er: I think al l Mani tobans hope the discu ssi ons go well on Shoal Lake, Mr. Speaker. Government Action Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My ques tion is to the Ministe r.

The Premier (Mr. Rlmon) would not even walk across the street to discuss this issue with Grant De vine when he was in town this week, Mr. Speaker. He would not go to Sas katchewan to discuss Mani toba's iss ues with the Premier of Saskat chewan. We would not file an affidavit in court. We have not yet asked the federal Minister to withdraw the licence. How can the Minister stand in thi s House and te ll Manitobans he has done anything when he has not? He st ruck out on the affidavit in the court in Saskatc hewan.

They have stru ck out in terms of representing Manitoba in Saskatchewan with our Premier meeting with their Premier. They have str uck out in terms of asking the Government to wi thd raw th e li cence. What action is thi s Government finally going to take to protect Manitoba

November 16, 1990 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 1324 wate r quality and quantity, given the decisi on yester day? Hon. Glen Cummlng s (M inister of Environment ) : Mr. Speaker, I indicated clearly a few minutes ago that there are a number of options, one of which is tha t we have alread y ask ed that the feder al Government withdraw the availability of funds under international agreement where those funds have to be part of an international agreement as opposed to a lower jurisdicti on.

We have als o indicated that the options that are available to the federal Government are in fact that they appeal thi s ruling. We are waiting for a respo nse from the federal Minister of Environment as to what his course of action is . I understand that he will be making a stat ement very shortly, and I fully ex pect tha t he wil l be acknowledging those concerns and is sues and taking a position on behalf of the province. Agricultural Assistance Government Progress Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin ) : Mr. Speaker, I have a ques tion for the Minister of Agriculture.

Ove r the past year or so the Minister has touted the GATT talks, and a suc cessfu l resolut ion of the GATT talks is the salv ation for farmers. However, we have made state ments and are of the belief that the GATT talks would not be the panacea, that they would not resul t in a solut ion for farmers and in fact that they were failing. We have demanded that the Conser vatives take action on the domes tic front to deal with the crisis facing agriculture at the presen t time and wi th the tw o pr inciples of cost-of-production pricing and guaranteed income for farmers. Now, given that this Minis ter, Mr.

Speaker, said that the safety net is the answer, I want to ask the Minister today whether in fact he has some posi tive news to report to the farmers and rural Manitobans with regard to the meetings that took place over the last couple of days in dealing with this agricultural crisi s? Hon. Glen Flndl ay (Mini ster of Agriculture): I thank the Member for the ques tion, because indeed there is an economic crisis in agriculture and it is brought about to a large extent by an international trade war which in the long term we can resolve in GATT.

I am still a hopeful and an optimistic person that resoluti on can occur in the longer term , and we are talking over a course of 1 0 years. The meaningful effect of that will probably not occur until the last five years of that 1 0-year span . ln the shorter term, there is need for some additional support for the grains and oil seed sector of western Canada in order to be able to compete in the export market.

The safety net proposal has been des igned over the past year by a task force of federal-provincial officials and farmers-and 19 of the 33 people on the task force were farmers-a safety net process consisting of GRIP and NISA and the transitional program for 19 91 which we discu ssed at some length over the past two days. I can report to the Member that all provinces have generally agreed with the principle of that process and the ongoing disc ussi ons as to how to enact the mechanism of having it in place to help the farm community, particularly in '91 , but beyond '91 . * (1 025) Debt Restructuring Mr.

John Plohman (Dauphin) : Mr. Speaker, we were led to believe that there would be spe cifics coming out of this meeting, and there has not been, and the Minister has failed in that regard at the last meeting. I ask ano ther important ques tion dealing with this is sue.

Given that the income crisis has led to a debt crisis in agriculture, with one-third of the farmers carrying the vast majority of the debt in this province, mostly younger farmers, what spe cific action can this Minister report to the farmers of Manitoba with regard to action that will be taken on the debt restructuring, on the is sue of write-down, set-asides or debt moratoriums with regard to the debt crisis that exists in the agriculture community? Hon. Glen Flndla y (Min ister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, clearly there is a problem of debt.

As I have told the Member before , some of that deb t is because the farmers paid too much for land in the past . Through the Manitoba Mediation Board we have put a lot of effort in, and some good resolutions have been attained for many farmers. Farmers that enter that process have virtually no net position on their farm, and when they leave that process they have a substan tially improved net posit ion. Over half of them that go through the process stay farming. A lot of money is put behind guaranteeing those

1325 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA November 16 , 1990 resolu tions. The farmers who get restruc tured, in many case�in fact two-thirds of the case�o not have to draw on the guarantees that are put there to sup port them. The process has been very good in terms of doing the best that is possible with restru cturing debt in the Province of Manitoba.

I can also tell the Member that in the course of our disc us sion that is ongoing, there is going to be further discu ssion on the phasing in of the costs between the various participants of the safety net proposal , and also there will be discussi on of a third line of defe nce to help the farm community through this crisis. Par t of that third line of defence may well be further considerations of mechanisms of debt restructu ring. Mr . Plohman : Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Minister to deal seri ously with the is sue of debt restru cturing. Federal Responsibility Mr.

John Plohman (Dauphin) : I would ask the Minister, will the Ministe r now admit that the federal Government, with regard to the discussi ons that are taking place, is att emp ting to of floa d its responsibi lites onto the provinces with regard to the cost-sharing formula that is taking place? Will this Minister now take the gloves off, enlist the su pport of all Parties in this House and the people of Manitoba and put press ure and demand that the federal Government live up to its responsi bilities to pay its shar e, histor ic shar e, of the costs of su pporting grain production in this country? Hon .

Glen Fl ndla y {Min ister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, that has been the essence of the discu ssion over some period of time, which means that it is still ongoing. I said there is discu ssion on the process of cost-sharing and phasing in that is going on. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have had clear recognition of our fiscal capacity being much less than the other provinces and having a greater burden of the responsi bility of supp orting the grains and oil see d sectors.

The traditional shares that have been in place have been about 45 percent by the producer and about 45 percent by the fede ral Government and 13 percent by the provinces. The traditional shar e is going to be recognized in some major fashi on in the eventual resolution of that cost-sharing that is going to take place in the next few years. Conawapa Dam Project Environmental Impact Study Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James) : My question is for the Minister of Environment.

The Saskat chewan Court of Queen's Bench said yesterday that too many millions of dollars would have been lost by Saskatchewan to force them to at this point ser iously consider the environment. Mr. Speak er , the total val ue of the Rafferty-Aiameda project was so me $1 54 million. Yet the Manitoba Government too is proposing spendi ng in excess of $1 50 million on Conawapa before completion of an environmental ass essm ent on it. Mr.

Speaker, will the Manitoba Government be looking for the same type of it is too-late-to-stop-now judgment from a Manitoba court in the event that the environmental review of Conawapa does not go exactly as planned ? Hon. Glen Cummlng s {Min ister of Environment ) : Mr.

Speaker, I am quite su rprise d at the nerve of this Mem ber to rise in the House today on an environmental ques tion after the faux pas he pulled yeste rday, trying to fool the House and the members of this public into thinking that Manitoba was ninth in an area, and in fact we have been rated as No. 4 overall on environmental is sues in this province. * (1 030) Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it is in black and white. The only pr ovince they are ahea d of is Saskatch ewan.

We know Saskat chewan's record; we know it full well today. lt has been very hard to follow the flip-flops of this Government on the Rafferty iss ue. My suppleme ntary ques tion is : Can the Minister tell us what he meant when he said on June 27, 19 89, in Meli ta, that nothing shor t of a full environmental impact review will answer all of Manitobans' ques tions about the Souris River dams? Is he willing today to do jus t that and demand that this licence be revoked by his federal counterpart and have the Mani toba Cl ean Environ ment Commission take a look at the impacts in Manitoba for the very first time? Mr.

Cummlng s: Mr. Speaker, again the Member chooses to pretend not to understand what he has in front of him. The words that I put on the record at

November 16, 1990 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITO BA 1326 Souris are in fact what I said . I meant it and this Government meant it. The process that we have embarked upon to get the best quality and quantity of water and protect the quality and quantity of water for this province is as I outlined to the previous Member who asked this ques tion. The fact is that Ottawa mus t be pushed to respect and to en for ce its juri sd ictio nal responsibi lities.

The fact that one court has not accepted their arguments means that they should now proceed to the next step to make sur e that is done or we will have environmental chaos in this country. This province's record, Mr. Speaker, has been fairly clear. If the Member wants to ask another ques tion, I will put a lot more of the information from the Ottawa Citizen on the record. Mr. Edwards: The unfortunate

part is that this Government has had two and a half years to act, and all they have ever done was put words on the record. Will the Minister admit today that what he should have done and what he was advised to do by this side of the Hous e on July 27, 1988, two and a half years ago, was to authorize a made -in-Manitoba impact study on Rafferty, one which has never been done ? Will he commit today to never again abandoning the pr otection of Mani toba's environment to the U.S. Corps of Engineers and joining his bumbling counterparts , both in Regina and Ottawa? Mr. Cummlng s: Mr.

Speaker, this is quite amusing that the Member for St. James is now purporting to say that the Mani toba Clean Env iro nmen t Comm ission could enforce regu latio ns in the Province of Saskat chewan. That is precisely why we are us ing the federal authority to make sur e that Manitoba's interests are guaranteed . We are doing every other possible means of protection that we can short of going to war with the Province of Saskat chewan. For goodness sake , Mr. Speaker, we get our water from the sou th. We get it from the United States.

The fact is that river quality and that river water quantity is very much controlled downstream by the Americans. This is one more additional impact that we have to have that larger authority involved in. To indicate that som ehow this province in two and a half years has not take n some large environmental strides means there is no recognition on his part that we have gone from No. 1 0 to No. 4 in two years. Department of Agriculture Staff Layoffs Ms. Rosann Wow chuk (Swan River) : Mr. Speaker, my qu estion is to the Mini ste r of Agriculture.

On November 5, this Government sent layoff notices to four employees of the Soils Branch of the Department of Agriculture. Considering the fact that rural Manitoba is in a ser ious crisis and conse rvation of soil and soil management is a priority for all of us, how can this Government cut staff in a branch whose work is so neces sary for effective land planning, drainage and soil management? Hon. Glen Flndla y (Minister of Agriculture) : Mr. Speaker, in the course of the past year we have added five positions as soil conse rvation speci alists across the Province of Manitoba.

We have put an emphasi s on conse rvation and environmental orientation. We are trying to do the bes t for the far m community to conserve our soil . We have put those conse rvation specialists in place, plus we have st ructured 42 soil conse rvation associations across the province consisting of farmers coming forward and working with those conse rvation specialists to do the right things for conserving Manitoba soil . Ms. Wowch uk: This is the worst drought we have had in many years in Manitoba.

How can the Government lay off long-time, experienced staff at a time when we are going to have seri ous soil er osion and water problems thr oughout the province and farmers need support in these difficult times? Mr. Fl ndla y: Farmers need su pport. We have jus t increased our budget by some $40 billion to help the process of farmers. The Member says this is the worst drought we have ever had. As I recall, the drought was in '88 and '89, and 1990 has been a bumper year of pr odu ction-a bum per year of production-b ecause the rainfall was appropriate at the right time.

We spent the money to suppor t the far m community. We worked with the farm community in a very aggressive and pro-active form, not like the

1327 LEG ISLAT IVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA November 16 , 1990 for mer Gover nmen t who ignor ed the far m community totally and utterly. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question is: Why are you laying off staff? I have a form here I would like to table that there are staff that have experience of up to 33 years, and all they have received is a callous generic notice and nothing further. This staff is needed at this time. Point of Order Hon.

Clayton Man ness (Gove rnment House Leader) : On a point of order , although I know Member s opposi te believe that the hiring of staff can somehow prevent the soil from blowing, I would like to indicate to the Member and to you, Mr. Speaker, that very same ques tion was asked in the first two questi ons posed by the Member. I would say it is repetitive and shou ld be ruled out of order. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Lead er): On the same point of order, I hope the Government House Leader will recognize that it is difficult for Member s-and the Member did not comment on the fact that she had not received an answer, which is against our rule�but it is difficult when a ques tion is placed and the kind of answer that is requested is not received, instead rhetoric is received in regard to other is sues. 1 believe the intent of the Member was sim ply to ask a very straightforward questi on, why thes e people were laid off, and as such would be in order. -(interjection)- Mr.

Speaker : Order, please ; order, please . On the point of order, the Honourable Member's question is repeating in su bstance a ques tion which was previously ask ed. Therefore, would the Honourable Member kindly rephrase her questi on, please . *** Ms. Wowc huk: Will this Mi niste r rever se the de cision of laying off this staff? Mr. Fl ndla y: Mr. Speaker, as I told the Member when she asked the ques tion the first time, we have added fi ve new people, five soi l conse rvation ·speciali sts , and set up 42 soil and wate r associations to deal with exactly that . We have brought on five .

Five minus four is plus one. That is called an increase in staff. Prairie Places Funding Ms. Becky Barrett (Welli ngton): Mr. Speaker, since February 19 90 Prairie Places has provided licensed 24-hour community residential service for three women with mental and physi cal disabilities. Their st art-up funding from the Manitoba Marathon and the CEIC job strategy fund expires March 31 of next year.

I am tabling six letters from Prairie Places written to the Minister of Family Services over the last 18 months and a letter from a Fa mily Services staff person recommending that since projections for funding for Prairie Places had been made in 19 89 that the money actually be spent.

My ques tion for the Minister of Family Services is: Why, when the province states over and over its commitment to community based ser vices and when the per diem rate for Prairie Places is $89 versus $1 40 at the Manitoba Development Centre, has this Minister of Family Services not sup ported this project with money, not jus t empty rhetoric? Hon. Harold Gllle shammer (Min ister of Family Services): The Member is correct that the funding for Prairie Places came from the Manitoba Marathon and the Canada Employment and Immigration Commis sion .

I understand that they provided the start- up funding and the continuing funding. At this time there are no funds available in the 19 90-91 budget to provide either oper ating or su pport staffing costs for new residential beds. * (1 040) Ms. Barrett: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister of Family Se rvices explain to the Mem be rs and th e representatives of Prairie Places who are in the Hous e today why his department has recently hired a full-time staff person whose job is to find alternate sour ces of mo ney ou tside the pr ovin cial Go ver nment for these commu nity re sou rce ser vices, funding which should be provided by his department? Mr. Gll lesham mer: Mr.

Speaker, to address the long-term solut ions in the community living area the previ ous Minis ter stru ck a working group on community living who will be looking at this entire area and reporting later this year on any long-term sol utions that we can put in place. Ms. Barrett: Is this Minister of Fa mily Services aware that this staff person hired recently refers

November 16, 1990 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 1328 gr oups li ke Prai rie Places to the Mani toba Community Services Council, funded by Lotteries money, and that the council will not even consider these groups' fu nding applications without a commitment of funds from this department? What are these groups to do? Mr. Glllesham mer: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Member that when the Welcome Home Program was put in place there was a distinct lack of planning, and we are stil l str uggling with the resu lts of that.

The previous Minister has put in place the working group on community living, which is going to study the situation and find these long-term sol utions, not implement a program without the whole picture. So these long-term solu tions have to be put in place. We will be looking at this when they report in December. sexual Assaults Sentence Lengths Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition}: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Jus tice.

Unli ke the Member for Wellington, I would like to congratulate the Minister for his initiative yesterday to stu dy all aspects of domestic violence in order to direct the system in a posi tive way, to address the needs of women and families in our society . Howeve r, like all parents I am once agai n disma yed at a sentence which clearly implies that sexual abuse of children is not considered a ser ious offence.

Can the Minister give us as sur ances in this House today that a se ntence of two years probation for a se xual ass ault on an 8-year old girl, which resu lted in her being given a sexually transm itted disease , will be appealed? Hon. James McCrae (Min ister of Justice and Attorney General}: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Carstalrs: I thank the Ministe r for that . Family VIolence Crimes Against Children Mrs.

Sharon Carstalrs (Lea der of the Second Oppos ition}: Is there at the present time in the department a study being conducted comparing the se ntences of children who have been sexu ally abus ed with other violence such as man against man, woman against woman, woman against man, so that we can develop and define whether there is a patte rn whi ch se ems to be emer ging that children's is sue s are not taken seri ously enough? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.

Speaker, I can answer today that our department is undertaking a domes tic ass ault tracking project, which will give us the kind of information the Honourable Member is talking about with respect to domes tic violence, and I will ascer tain whether that includes crimes agains t children. Mrs. Carstalrs : Again, l thank the Minister. If it does not include crimes against children, will he give assu rances to this House that it will be extended to cover crimes against children within Manitoba? Mr.

McCrae: I will accept the Honourable Member's ques tion as a posi tive represent ation and consider the question carefully. Vldeon Cable TV Negative Option Sales Mr. Jlm Mal oway (Eimwood): My ques tion is to the Minister of Consu mer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Speaker, on June 20, 19 89, Videon Cable TV announced a new package of sports, news and entertai nment which was available to subs cribers on a negative option basis. The Minister's Rese arch and Planning Department is investigating negative option offe rs . Can the Ministe r report on the progress of this investigati on? Hon.

Edward Connery (Minister of Cooperative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs}: The Member knows very well in Estimates last night when they asked me a ques tion on the philosophy or policy of the department that I was in a conflict of interest because I am a shar eholder in a cablevision company. Vldeon Cable TV Negative Option Sales Mr. Jlm Mal oway (Eimwood) : Well, in that case then, which Minister on the other side will answer that ques tion? Hon. James McCrae (Acti ng Min ister of Cooperative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I took the place of the Minister last evening in response to a question put by the Honourable Member for Cresce ntwood (Mr. Carr) and made the point that there have been a handful of cases dealt with by the Consu mers' Bureau

1329 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA November 16 , 1990 dealing with this particular matte r, dealt with satis factori ly, and that the De par tm en t of Coope rative , Consumer and Corporate Affa irs continues to monitor the situati on with regard to this type of arrangement the Honourable Member refers to. Fuel Price Increases Price Monitoring Mr. Jlm Malow ay (Eimwood ): I would like to direct a supplemen tary then to the Ministe r of Consumer and Corpor ate Aff airs . The Corpo rate Affa irs Minis te r's answer to the increasing gas prices has been to sim ply monitor the prices.

Will the Minis ter at this time explain to the Hous e what exactly is involved in the monitoring process? Hon. Edward Connery (Minister of Cooperative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, that questi on was ans wered last night in the Esti mates process. lt was ans wered that we have two and one-half people in our department who on a part-time basi s, two and a half staff years, are doing that monitoring, and they are doing the monitoring on an ongoing bas is. The ques tion was answe red last night for the Member for Elmwood. Regulations Mr.

Jlm Mal oway (Eimwood ): Well, the number of people was one and one-half last night, and now it is two and one-half this morning. He obviously picked up another person overnight. Mr. Speaker, lately the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and his Minis ter have been bumping into one another backtracking on whether to place gasoline prices before the Public Utilities Board for review. How long is this ministeri al buck pas sing going to continue and will the Ministe r agree that regulation is imminent? Hon. Edward Connery (Minister of Cooperative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, it is rather ironic that a Member from the NDP would be aski ng a question or making som e of those silly state ments that he has made . As you know, they had a review done by a member, Mr. Costas Nicolaou, that had to be tabled by our Government. Let me tell the Members opposite that this week we sent a letter to all of the gas companies reques ting a meeting with them. We followed that up with a phone call, and this coming week we will be meeting with all of the ma jor oil companies to discu ss the gas pricing.

The concern that we have as the depar tment is tha t the consumer s are treated fairly in the pricing of gas when we have a crisis in the world on the price of crude oil. Archeolog ical Assessments Payment Responsibility Ms. Jean Frlesen (Wolseley): My question is for the Minis ter of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mrs. Mi tchel son) . The Acting Mi nister? -(interjection)- The Acting Acting. The sp irit and lette r of The Heritage Act of Manitoba indicates tha t archeological impact as sessme nts are the respons ibil ity of the proponent.

This is equally applicable to public and private development and to Crown corporations. I would like to ask the Minister again, is she paying the bill for the archeological asse ssm ent in the R.M. of Arthur in the constit uency of the Deputy Premier? Hon. Glen Cummlngs (M inister of Environment ): I will take the response to that as notice on behalf of the Minist er. The Acting Minister is also abse nt. Ms. Frlese n: Mr.

Speake r, my secon d su pplementary is to ask whether the Minis ter will be compensati ng the City of Winnipeg for any impact ass essme nts it is currently undert aking or that it will be required to undertake in the fut ure. Mr. Cumml ngs: I will take that as notice as well, but I would indicate to the Member that these might be very appropria te quest ions for the Estima tes process, which is coming up immediately. Ms. Frles en : Mr. Speaker, my third supp lementary is to the Ministe r of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mrs. Mitchels on) as well.

I would like I think to sug ges t that the provisions of this Act are not unique in North America, and I would like to ask whether the Minister is going to undertake to inform the various jurisd ictions in the Province of Manit oba to ensur e that the y understand that this is

an Act which provides for equitable treatment, that it gives us access to the heritage of aboriginal peoples in this province and that it provides for I think public responsibili ty in the development of various parts of this province. Mr. Cummlng s: Mr. Speaker, I will also take that as notice. •

(1050) November 16 , 1990 LEG ISLAT IVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 1330 * (1 050) St. James-Asslnlbola School Division Provincial Auditor's Report Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan) : Mr. Speaker, my ques tion is directed to the Minister of Education. According to media reports, officials of the St. James- Assiniboia School Division have apparently concluded tha t the principal at John Taylor Collegiate was som ehow responsible for padding of figures. Yet it appears almos t impossi ble that officials of the school division itself could not have known tha t these fi gur es wer e inaccurate .

Therefore, I am asking the Minister if the Auditor's review will also do a review of the official action at the St. James -Assiniboia School Divisi on. Hon. Clayton Manness {Act ing Min ister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the Government tends to act on factual information that comes forward rather than outside , third-party reports . I want to indicate though that the auditor has been given a very broad mandate to inquire as to what may have occurred.

Indeed , if he finds anything untoward outside of the accounts , even in the methodology brought forward as to how the numbers came into being, he will be given licence of course to delve further if he so wishes. Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, my supplemen tary is to the sa me Minister. Since the school division has put a muzzle on teachers and staff and not allowed them to talk to outside officials, can he indicate to me when the Auditor's Report will be forthcoming so that these individuals who may have been given accusations in the media can defe nd themselv es properly? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Speaker, I cannot give the Member any indication as to when the Provincial Auditor may be reporting. I know that the Provincial Auditor will be reporting to the Legisl ature as to the Annual Report or as to the accounts of the province hopefully before Christm as. If we have a public accounts meeting sli ghtly before or into the new year, maybe the Memb er would like to be in attendance and pose that ques tion at that time. Sexual Assault Police Repo rting Guidelines Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdon an) : My final sup plementary is directed to the Minister of Jus tice. Mr.

Speaker, in light of the alleged child moles tation incident occurring at Tuxedo recently, can the Ministe r outline for this House what the police practice is with respect to notification of persons in authority of incidents of this kind? Hon. James McCrae (Min ister of Justice and Attorney Gener al) : I do not mind, Mr. Speaker, inquiring of the Winnipeg City Police on behalf of the Honourable Member to obtain that information for him. Natural Gas Pipeline Consumer Protection Mr. Jerry Storle (FIIn Flon): Mr. Sp eaker, my question is to the Acting Minist er of Energy and Mines. Mr.

Speaker, the National Energy Board has preapproved the construction of a pipeline to TransCana da Pipelines. That approval follows on the heels of a decision as well by the National Energy Board to allow consu mers to be charged for the construction of this pipeline which will benefit largely the northeastern portion of the United States. My question to the Acting Minister is: Will this Government intervene in the PUB hearings which will deal with this matter to ensur e that Manitoba consumers are not charged for the implications or the ramifications of the Free Trade Agreement? Hon.

Glen Flndla y (Acting Minister of Energy and Mines) : Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Mines. Mr. Sto rle : Th is Govern men t has had an opportu nity to inte rve ne on many occasions, including in the court decision that was jus t rendered in Saskatc hewan. My ques tion is: Will this Government actively pursue the interests of consumers in the Province of Manitoba when it comes to natural gas? Will the Mi nister assu re thi s House that they wil l be interveners when this matter comes before the House? Mr. Fl ndlay: Mr.

Speaker, I will also take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Mines, but I can assu re the Member that as Government we will be pro-active in the interests of protecting the consumers of the Province of Manitoba.

1331 LEG ISLATIV E ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA November 16 , 1990 Mr. Storle: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to hear the word pro-active come from the benches opposi te . My ques tion is to the same Acting Minister. Can this Minister table any information that is being made available to hims elf, to Cabinet, to the Mi niste r of Energy and Mines, coming from the energy policy

section in the Department of Energy and Mines, which indicates that this decision is justified or that the decisi on of the National Energy Board to pass this price on to Manitoba consum ers is justifi ed? Mr. Flndla y: Mr. Speaker, I will take that ques tion as notice also on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Mines. Portage Avenue Commercial Vacancy Rate Mr. James Carr (Crescentwood) : Mr. Speaker, I have a ques tion for the Minist er of Urban Affairs.

Should any Winnipegger or Manitoban take a walk down Portage Avenue from Main Street to Memorial Boulevard they would find an incredible proliferation of for sale and for lease si gns. Does the Minister of Urban Affairs have any plan at all to begin to mitigate the effects of the North Portage Development Corporation and the ensui ng number of squa re footage which is vacant, for sale or for lease ? Hon. Gerald Ducha rme (Minis ter of Urban Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, if the Member would not only have jus t walked down that particular avenue but if he walked down any subur ban area in the City of Winnipeg, he will find vacancies in the whole area. If he wants to go to other cities, that is the way commercial space is . If he wants to go to any city on the North American continent he will find the sam e thing. However, there is a pro-active study going on with north of Portage. They have the south side being st udied at the present time, Mr. Speaker.

I will give him all the information of what has been going on in the past year to help with that situation when we get to the Estim ates. North Portage Develop ment Corp. South Portage Initiatives Mr. James Carr (Crescentwood): The Minist er is making us feel better because there is more vacant space so mewhere else than there is on Portage Avenue, which has five times as much vacant space today as it had a few years ago. The North Portage Development Corporation has within its budget $1 .2 million to help the merchants of the so uth side . Could the Minister tell us how much of that $1.2 million has been spe nt?

Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minis ter of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, first of all the north side of Portage has been carrying on their st udy. They have a report. They have gone through that. I will give the information to the Member during the Estim ates process. Portage A venue Commercial Vacancy Rate Mr. James Carr (Crescentwood) : Mr.

Speaker, a number of mo nths ago we had offer ed the sugges tion to the Ministe r that if Government is consi de ring centralizing so me of its Winnipeg operations, for example the Manitoba Telephone Syste m, or looking for a home for Government employees, Portage Avenue would be a very good place for the Government to look. Can the Minister report any action at all which would move Government employees to Portage Avenue? Hon. Ger ald Duc harme (Minis ter of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker , thi s Member or thi s Government do not have to apologize for any construction north of Portage.

The Member I guess forgets very quickly when he wrote an

article in the Free Press several years ago asking for urbanization north of Portage . This Member and this Government has been very, very forward and very progressive on that matte r. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDE RS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. Clayton Manne ss (Govern ment House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, I would have you call Bills 12 and 6 in that order. I believe that will consume the normal Friday morning sitting time. However, as I indi cated yester day, we will be considering Estimates this afternoon. However, before I make an announcement with respect to the Estim ates , I would like to formally announce that the Standing Committee on Public

November 16, 1990 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANIT OBA 1332 Utilities and Natural Resources will sit Tuesday , November 20, I believe is the accurate date , at 10 a.m. to consider Manitoba Hydro . That same committee will sit Thursday, November 22, at ten o'clock, also to consider Manitoba Hydro, and that same day, Thursday, November 22, the Standing Committee on Economic Development will sit to consider McKenzie Seeds, 1 0 in the morning. Mr. Speaker, because I made a formal motion yes terday , I will probably require the leave of the House to alter some of the order with respect to the Esti mates.

I see k leave to change some of the Committees of Supply to the following: that in the Hous e, once the Supply Motion is called, whether that is before the hour of 12 :30 or indeed at one o'clock, that in the House today we will consider the Department of Heritage , Cultur e and Recreati on, and that in committee we will consider Workers Compens ation Board under the Minis ter of Consu mer and Cooperative Affairs, to be followed thereafter by the Department of Family Services. Mr. Speak er: Does the Honourable Government House Leader have unanimous consent to alter the sequ ence? Mr.

Kevln Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, my understand ing from the Hous e Leader and the Hous e Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Ashton) was that we would go into Family Services, Workers Compens ation. This is the first that I have heard of it. We would be unable to go into Workers Compens ation. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I had erroneous information. I was led to believe that the Liberal Par ty could accept going into Workers Compens ation Board. lt was my error obviously, and conseq uently we will go dir ectly to Family Services in the committee . Mr.

Speak er: Does the Honourable Government House Leader have unanimous consent to alter the sequ ence for the Es tima te s? That is agreed ? Agreed . DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS BILL 12- TH E LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDME NT ACT Mr. Speak er: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Ministe r of Labour (Mr. Praznik), Bill 12 , The Lab our Rela tions Am endmen t Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, st anding in the name of the Honourable Member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) . Stand. ls there leave that this matter remain stan ding? Leave. * (1 1 00) Ms. Judy Wasy lyc la-Lels (St. John s) : Mr. Speaker, I enter the debate on this Bill, Bill 12 , The Labour Relations Amendment Act, with a great deal of regret.

All Members on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party regret very much that this Government has chosen to reintroduce a Bill to repeal final offer se lection agains t the wishes of the majority of people in Manitoba. lt is indeed regrett able that we mus t repeat his tory, that we mus t use the valuable time of this House to put on record again the opposi tion of Manitobans everywhere to any attempt to repeal final offer se lection. Mr. Speaker, it is but a few months ago, six months ago, that this Government heard from a widespr ead cross

section of Manitobans about their views on the us efulness of final offer selec tion as a labour relations mechanism , as a labour disp ute mechanism . Jus t about every presen tation made to this Government demonst rated su pport for final offer selection.

Every organization repres enting working people, every organization represen ting women of this province, every organization representing pr og res sive min ded, commu nity min de d individuals, expressed their su pport for final offer selec tion as an effective labour disput e resol ution mechanism and expr essed the ir ve hem ent opposition to this Government's determined effort to repeal such an effective labour dis pute resol ution mechanism .

That kind of decision on the part of a Government to ignore the sen timents of the people, to consul t, to receive the views, and then to deliberately act in contrary fashion is that which contributes to the cynicis m on the part of so many people in our ele ctorate today . This comes at a time when Cana dians and Man itobans are faci ng a simi lar-alth ough som e would argue a far worse delibe rate slap in the face to the people of this province and this country by way of the federal Government's decision to move on the GST. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

1333 LEG ISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA November 16 , 1990 Although we are dealing with two different areas of policy, and although there are dif ferent effects for differe nt parts of the population by these two policy decisions, the pattern is the sa me. The process is the same and the end resul t is just anoth er contributing factor to people's mistru st of politicians and people's cynicism about Gov ernmen ts representing their wishes . For, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is clear the people of Manitoba have a vision and an insigh t about what is needed in the 19 90s and beyond.

The people of Manitoba have indicated their strong sup port for any kind of forward-looking mechanism that will ease labour management te nsion s in this province.

Des pite that, this Gov ernm ent has chosen delib erately to ignore that input, to ignore those views and has rejected out of hand and in a most arb itrary fashion the fee lings of the people of Manitoba. lt is a shame that we mus t put on record again the views of all of those Manitobans, that we have heard put to us so eloquently over the past year in the discussions around the forerunner to this legislation Bill 31 , also an atte mpt to repeal final offer se lection, a failed attempt to repeal final offer se lection.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to reflect and put on the record again som e of those views expressed because it is obvious that the Government of the Day was not lis tening to the people of Manitoba when they stood and spoke up about the necessary policy tools and actions required for their own situation and for the good of their community as a whole.

Madam Dep ut y Spea ke r, presenter afte r prese nter, throughout the hearings on Bill 31 , raised the strongest possi ble objections to any repeal of final offer se lection, and presenter after presenter indicated how final offer selec tion had worked well in their own in dividua l workplaces and circumstances and was indeed a model in the area of lab our di sput e and labou r resol ution mechanism s.

The umbrella group for labour in this province, the Manitoba Federation of Labour, expressed in a very clear, concise way the benef its of final offer selec tion and called upon this Government to come to its sens es and let that effectiv e disput e mechanism continue on to ensu re peaceful, harmonious labour relations in the Province of Manitoba.

I can recite statistics about the numbers of days lost as a result of strikes and lockouts, but Members opposite , Members of the Gov ernment, are fully aware of the benefits of final offer selection and how that most progressiv e labour dispu te mechanism has actually reduced days lost in this province thr ough strikes and lockouts and Mem ber s opposite , Members of the Government, know deep down in their hearts that final offer selection has contribut ed a great deal to a more peaceful approach to labour issues in the Province of Manitoba .

They are, however, bou nd by a very strong alliance with the business community of Manitoba and that, Madam Dep uty Speak er, for them becomes the domin ant factor in the ir decision-m aking.

Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can all understand alliances, coalitions, and liaisons but when that liaison or that rela tionship becomes the prevailing reason for action, when that relationship on its own det ermines one's course of action, without consider ation to su bstance of the is sue at hand, without consider ation to the impacts of that decision that came about as a res ult of a particular liais on or relationship, then we mus t all stand up and voice our concerns and regis ter our opposi tion. * (1 110 ) The pattern is becoming clear. lt is not si mply a case of one particular piece of legislation that this Government has made a commitment on to the busine ss community of Manitoba.

This consis tent and repetitive effort to repeal final offer se lection is now very clearly a part of a much broader agenda to work in very close co llaborative ways with the bus iness sector in Manitoba. lt is becoming abundantly clear that kind of collusion is one of the prevailing themes, one of the prevailing agenda items, of this Government. One only has to turn to the developments as presented by the Government of the Day over the past sev eral months. Let us look at the indication by this Government of its intentions to review labour law in this province.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it would be much more satisfy ing to know that reference to labour law review in the Province of Manitoba was based on the gaps in our laws today and the need to upgrade and revamp our legis lation in the employment and

November 16, 1990 LEG ISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANI TOBA 1334 labour areas of this province in order to bring them more in line with the realities of the 19 90s. We know that there are clear areas requiring change and action. We know that our labour laws and our employment legisla tion have not kept pace with the changes of the working family in our society today .

We know tha t ther e is a need for a Government of the Day to act with respect to parenting respon sibili ties, parental resp onsibil ity leave provisions, to improve maternity and paternity provisions, new approaches to the work week, and to new ideas around helping families combine their work and parenting respon sibi lities.

If there was any se nse or any notion that this Government was looking at labour law review, with respect to bringing our policies and our legislation in the labour and employment sec tors of this province up to date with those changes, then we would certainly have offered our appreciation and congratulations to the Government of the Day. However, it is clear that the intention of this Government to review labour laws in this province is not to go forward, not to improve our laws, but indeed to go backwards, to move towards more regressive provisions around labour law in this province.

That reference by this Government, in the Speech from the Throne, to review labour law can only be interp reted as a signal by this Government to introduce regres siv e changes in a very critical area. That has further been reinforced and given more credence by more recent actions of the Government of the Day. I think of the Premier's (Mr.

Film on) state ments of jus t a couple of weeks ago when he sugges ted, dur ing the deba te on his Esti mate s, on the Esti mates for Executive Council, that he was looking at the use of the notwithstan ding clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be us ed in cases where, in his view, workers needed to be legislated back to work. Madam Deputy Speaker, that was another signal of this Government's intentions and long-term agenda when it comes to labour issues in the Province of Manitoba. When it comes to presenting and encouraging the interests and needs of the business community, that has us very worried.

We have not seen a singl e indication from this Government that it is prepared to address the needs and issues of working people in this province. lt has made to date no announcement on increasing the minimum wage to reflect cost of living. lt has made no attempt to extend pay equity to health care profess ionals in all facilities beyond the 23 health care ins titutions that reached an interim pay equity agreement. lt has rejected out of hand any extension of pro-active legisla tive pay equity into other sectors of our economy, in to our school boar ds, ou r municipalities, our external agencies and the private sector.

To me, Madam Deput y Speaker, and to all Members on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party, that is a further indication of this Government's anti-working-people agenda and its pro-busi ness strate gy. This Government has also not proposed a single strate gy, a single idea, a single program that addresses the concerns of worke rs at a recessi onary time in our economy, at a time of unprecedented layoffs, at a time of incredible plant closures in the Province of Manitoba.

At that very time, when workers and working families in the Province of Manitoba turned to the Government of the Day for leadershi p, for direction, for innovation, for creative proposal s, this Government has been silent, sil ent on the issues facing working people, silen t on the issues of workers in Manitoba. While it has been silen t on any of the demands, concerns and needs of worki ng families and workers and labour in this province, it has been very vocal, very up front, very direct about resp onding to the needs of busine ss. lt has been very one-sided.

All of the Government's initiatives on the economic front, on the budgetary front and on the labour front have been very positively respond ing to the demands of busine ss in this province, the Chamber of Commerce, the large corporations.

Whether one looks at the tax provisions and the budget that we have jus t voted on, and the $8 million tax relief for the busine ss sector in Manitoba, whether we look at their employment or their economic strat egies which clearly focus only on the competitive free market interests of the busi ness se ctor of Manitoba, or whether we look at Bill 12 , another attempt to repeal final offer selection, it has clearly been a point of contention in the busi ness community, in the corporate sector for many years . There has been no su pport, no encouragement from that sector of our economy for innovative

1335 LEG ISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA November 16 , 1990 approaches to labour relations in the Province of Manitoba.

From Day One, there was a hue and outcry from the corporate sector in Manitoba, from the Chambers of Commerce about the attem pts by this political party, the New Democratic Party, when in Governmen t, to forward such progres siv e legis lation and introduce such a new and innovative and creative approach to labour relations in the Province of Manitoba. * (1 12 0) Without considering the record, which very clearly demons trates the positive impact of final offer selec tion, without lis tening to the working people and families of this provi nce, this Government has once again chosen to act only on the basis of its relationship with the busi ness and corporate sectors of this province.

As I said earlier, one respects, and I certainly respect, alliances and cooperative action with groups where there is some sim ilarity of beliefs on philosoph y and long-term plans and intentions. One understands that. We understand the need on the part of this Government to res pect and lis ten to the people that it is philosophically aligned with, and from which it gets considerab le support, financial and otherwise . As the expression goes, "you dance with the one who brung you." I think we are clearly seei ng that, Madam Deputy Speaker. An Honourable Member: Talking about grammar in this Hous e. Ms.

Was ylycla -L els: The Memb er for Cresce ntwood (Mr. Carr) has commented on the gram mar of that expression, but I remind the Member for Cresce ntwood I was certainly quoting from a -(interjection)· but I was using a well-known expressi on. I think it is appropriate in this case , because we have seen time and time again the level of contributions on the part of the busi ness sector in this province to the Progressive Conse rvatives across the way. I think it is clear that for Members opposite and the Conservative Government, they are going to dance with the one that brung them.

I als o want to say that with respect to- si nce the Member for Cresce ntwood (Mr. Carr) has entered this debate , I think that colloquial expression holds true very well for the Liberals in this Chamber. Madam Deputy Speaker, let us not fail to ma ke the connections bet ween the Libe ral Party's approach to Bill 12 and formerly Bill 31 , attempts to repeal final offer se lection, with the level of financial su pport they receive from members and companies in the corporate sect or.

In fact, let us not forget that the Liberal Party gets even more of its contributions from the business and corporate sector than do Progr ess ive Conser vatives in the Province of Manitoba. So when one is making this connection between one's actions and financial support and the source of one's financial sup port- Madam Deputy Speaker : Order, please ; order, please. Ms. Wasylycla-L els: -let us not fail to make that connection for both the Progressiv e Conser vatives in this Chamber and the Liberals in this House.

Let us not fail to acknowledge that their responses to final offer selec tion and to the ques tion of repeal of final offer selection are really, in the final analysi s, very sim ilar. There is no ques tion in my mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, that for both the Conser vatives and the Liber als in this Chamber their commitment is first to the people who back them financially and secondly to the people of Manitoba, when it comes to labour laws in this provi nce, and when it comes to employment st andards.

If one can separ ate-if it was poss ible for the Conse rvatives and the Liberals in this Chamber to separate their financial backing from the su bstance of the iss ue, then I think both political Parties and the represe ntatives of both political Parties in this Chamber would come to the conclusion that final offer selec tion has worked very well in the short time that it has been with us and that it is indeed worthy of an extension in Manitoba today.

I think if they could som ehow sepa rate themselves from their commitments to the busi ness and corporate sector of this province, they would indeed have heard the voices of working people who came to the hearings day after day last spring and appealed in very emoti onal, human terms to represen tatives around that committee table to stand up and represent their interests and ensur e that final offer se lection was kept in place as a most us efu l, creati ve , progressiv e lab our dispute resolution mechanis m . Some Honourable Members : Oh, ohl Madam Deputy Speaker : Order, please . Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: Madam Deputy Speaker, let me try to categorize the presen tations made to us

November 16 , 1990 LEG ISLAT IVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 1336 at that time and st ill with us today.

The feelings are as st rong today if not stron ger. let us lo ok first at labour's broad concerns and working peoples' prese ntations and represe ntations to all of us over the last six months or more. lab our, representing working people everywhere in this province, came armed with the statis tics , came armed with the evidence that final offer se lection was indeed working and there was no reason to end, to terminate , to rid our legislativ e books of such an effective policy tool, of such an effective labour disput e resolution mechanism .

I refer Members again to so me of those statistics and those appeals made by many of labour organ izations and individual worki ng people's prese ntations to us at that time. I want to sin gle out a couple of those prese ntations and a couple of the views articulated at that time. The Manitoba Federation of labour came forward with a very thoug htfu l brie f and a ve ry we ll researched posi tion.

I do not think there has been any disp ute of the facts as prese nted by the Manitoba Federation of labou r, that clearly stated in its paper entitled Brief to the legis lative Review Committee , legis lature of Manitoba, Bill 31 ,

an Act to repeal final offer se lection-! quote now, Madam Deputy Speaker: The Manitoba Feder ation of labou r represe nts and speak s on behalf of 85,000 worke rs and their fam ilies in Mani toba, the province's largest labour organization. (end of quote) The Manitoba Federation of la bour applauded the enactment of final offer se lection provisio ns within the Manitoba labou r Relations Act in January 19 88 .

Its ob jectives were simp le and straig htforward: Provide an innovative method to encourage good-faith bargaining and the settl ement of collective agreements. 1t enhanced the lis t of bargaining aids already provided for in The Labour Relations Act such as conciliation and mediation. * (1 13 0) The MFL is convinced the experience under final offer sel ection has met the expectations that the labour community had for it before it was proclaimed into law, and Department of labo ur statistics bear that out, end of quote, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Referring to, singling out some of those stati st ics, it is clear that we have the data, we have the information, and we have the sta tistics. There is no need for further study of the effectiveness of final offer selection.

There is no need to pay any heed to the position prese nted by the Liberal Party of Manitoba in this Chamber for another study to a well-documented situa tion. let me quote again from the Manitoba Federation of labour's paper at the committee hearings : Of the 58 FOS cases disp osed of by the Manitoba lab our Board, the vast majority, 49, or 85 pe rcent of applications, resu lted in two parti es reaching agreement on a new contract before the sel ector appointment decision stage was reached or the applications were withdrawn.

As the MFL said at that time: "This statistic, more than any other, makes the case for final offer selec tion's positive impact on the collectiv e bargaining process. lt clearly sho ws that faltering negotiations can be, and are , revi ved by the presenc e of final offer selec tion bringing good-faith bargaining back to the negotiation table ." Rnally, the MFl said in this context: "Contrary to the expectations of some FOS critics, it has not result ed in intentional foot dr agging at the barga ining table in anticipation of having an agreement imposed late r by a third party." That view was repeated over and over again. lt was repea ted by the Man itoba Food and Commercial Workers local 832 in another excellent brief to the committee. ! also want to quote from their brief to all of us last spri ng.

That brief stat es: "There are no logical reasons to elimin ate final offer selec tion from The Manitoba labour Relations Act. The doom and gloom predicted by employers when it was introduced and now echoed by the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce never materialized. "There is not one single example of an employer being put out of bus iness, or suff ering in any way, as a result of final offer selec tion existing in the Province of Manitoba.

There is not one si ngle example of an employer being compelled to accept a sel ector's decision which detri mentally affected his business." I could go on with documentation to back up those state ments, but Members oppos ite, Members of the Conse rvative Party and the Liberal Party, have heard thes e arguments and seen the facts. Given that, it can only be said that the approach of the Government of the Day, in its decision to once again attempt to repeal final offer selec tion, is based on illogic. lt is base�s I said earlier-on the overriding, ever-present need to adhere to and jump

1337 LEG ISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITO BA November 16 , 1990 to the wishes of the Chambers of Commerce in this pro vince, busi ness and corporate sector in Manitoba. Madam Deputy Speaker, the same can be said about the Liberals in this House . The promis e was made very clearly by Liberals in this Chamber, by the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) early on in the whole process of final offer selec tion to respect and jump to the wishes of the Chamber of Commerce and the busi ness and corporate sector in this province.

If one looks at the statistics and one lis tens to the impact that final offer selecti on has had on the lives of working people and their families in this province and comes to the conclusion, has to come to the conclusion, that there are no logical reaso ns to eliminate final offer selection from the Manitoba Labour Relations Act, then we can only come to the conclusion that the actions of Cons ervatives and Liberals in this Hous e are illogical.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if the statistics around fewer days lost as a result of st rikes and lockouts do not mean anything to Members of the Conse rvative and Liberal Parties in this House, if the feelings of working people and the organizations that represent them do not mean anything, then let me appeal, as I have done in the past, to Members in the Conse rvative and Liberal Parties in this Chamber to lis ten to the voices of women.

If they will not list en, if they have thes e blinkers on when it comes to labour, when it comes to working people because of their ideological beliefs and their commitment to act in tune with busi ness , then I say, lis ten to the women of this province who have said time and time again, we need in this soci ety a cooperativ e community, collaborative approach to all kinds of decisions in the Province of Manitoba.

They have said to this Government, they have made briefs to this Government, that final offer selec tion is one exam ple of a co-operative , peaceful, collaborative approach to an otherwise very diff icult decision-m aking arena. If the Liberals and Conse rvatives in this House are not interested in lis tening to working people and labour, then I say, lis ten to the good advice and the vision of women in this Province of Manitoba and keep in place something which has proven to bring peace and harmony in Manitoba today. Mr.

Gulzar Cheema (The Mapl es) : Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise and sp eak on this Bi ll. I will be very objective and be very honest, because we have heard many things about this Bill. I think this is a Bill which has been most widely criticized by various Parties, various organizations. Above all, the people of Manitoba were not given a chance to scruti nize this Bill, because it is very complicated . * (1 14 0) I want to jus t start by sayi ng that we su pport the repeal of final offer selec tion. -(interjection)- The Member for Flin Flon (Mr.

Storie) is sa ying, that is right, but I think you mus t underst and that at least in this House , when we all came during the last Sessi on, everyone made a commitment to their constitue nts that they would lis ten to the people, and that is what we did. For three weeks , what you guys did was to maneuver the House , maneuver the political process for your own political gain. You were almos t, in a technical sense, bought by some people. They were pulling the st rings, and you were playing for them.

Ma dam Deput y Speaker, we have never heard--it makes common se nse that you have a trial of three years of a particular Bill. You do not want to study it. If you think of that, that this is a very essentia l matte r, it is one tha t is lifesa ving . -(interjection)- Madam Dep uty Speaker : Order, please . Mr. Cheema: Madam Deputy Speaker, basically, I will give you a sim ple example. If it is a simple, lifesavi ng drug and you wanted to experiment for three years, do you not want to study the results? Simply, we are not asking you to blindfold and follow someb ody's sugges tions.

We are sim ply asking you to stu dy it and make- Point of Order Madam Dep uty Speak er: The Honou rable Member for Flin Flon, on a point of order. Mr. Jerry Storle {FII n Flon) : I am wondering if the Member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) would allow me a ques tion on his analogy. Madam Deputy Speak er: Does the Honourable Member for The Maples agree? Mr. Cheema: No, I do not, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deput y Speak er: The Honour able Member for A in Flon does not have a point of order.

November 16, 1990 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 1338 *** Mr. Cheema: Madam Deputy Speaker, if they had adhered to quest ioning and answeri ng-! do not think they need to ques tion me now. A sim ple thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was sayi ng that you do not want to study after three years of experiment. Simply, if they had followed our advice, we could have achieved the same thing now as what they have done for short -term political gain, what they did, because a very complex matter was given to political people. lt was said that the Liberals are antilabour, antiworker. That is not true.

The only people who are not thinking about the public is the New Democratic Party in this House. I want to be very clear. I have never been critical of a political Party to that extent. This issu e, they have exploi ted to the ir best, and they were success ful to some extent. They were succes s ful to some extent, becaus e once you have a number of organizations sending their message clearly to the public and sayi ng that a political Party is opposed to workers, I think the worker defi nition has been abus ed by this Party.

If they think that every other person who does not supp ort this Party is not a worker, I think they are fooled. -(interjection)- Madam Deputy Speak er: Orde r, please . Mr. Cheema : We are workers also, Madam Deputy Speaker. Everyone works for their living, so tha t worker definition must go away from their own political spec trum. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to go back to that thr ee week s of public hearings. Most of the prese ntation they made -(interjection)- Madam Deputy Speak er: Orde r, please . Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St.

Norbert): Madam Deputy Speaker, if you could ask some order in here, we are really having trouble hearing this enlightening speech from the Member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema). If you could please bring this House to order. Madam Depu ty Speaker: Than k you . Orde r, please. I have reques ted "order, pleasen on sev eral occasions, and I would appreciate the cooperation of the Members of the House. I am experiencing difficulty hearing the Honourable Member for The Maples. Mr. Cheema: If my speech is hurting a particular Party's emotional feeling, so be it.

We want to jus t make som e facts very well known, because it was only a three-week period. There were a number of organizations who made their appearance, and some of them made very valid points, but you do not lis ten to one side of a story. lt was very well planned to make sur e that every person who was su pporting the final offer sel ection was on that list, and that is not the way to do public bus iness. -(interjection) Well, you mus t go to the public at large. Madam Deputy Speaker, if they had followed our amendment, today we would have a stu dy.

We could have been st udying today and that study could have impact on the future , but the NDP lost their part too, and the only gain was made by the governing Party and their agenda and they have not lost anything. The people who have lost is the workers of Manitoba. I am not saying that everything is wrong with final offer selec tion, but why not stu dy the experiment that you did for three years? Madam Deputy Speaker, I jus t wanted to go through som e of the press clippings that are very important: The Winnipeg Sun, February 14 . The headline is that the MFL had warned the Liberals.

Madam Deputy Speaker, no person should be warning or threatening people to make a decision. Because we do not agree with the policy, that does not mean that you are going to warn them and also threaten them . Madam Deputy Speak er, the Member from Concordia is righ t. We lost few seats, but 28.6 percent vote does not mean that they are Government in waiting. lt does not mean that some of their Members are becoming very arrogant, and I think that is not right, because ultimately the same thing could happen to them.

We suffered a loss and we know that there were some deficiencies, but at least we were honest and we will be honest. In this hous e -(interjection)- No, I am jus t putting the facts on the record, and I am reading from the clippings from the presentation from som e of the Members who spoke very well from their philosophy . I respect their point of view, but you mus t listen to what other people have to say. Simply, I am quoting a Winnipeg Sun story from February 14 saying that if you do not vote for this we are going to punish you.

Madam Deputy Speaker -(interjection)- When you have a special group, a number of individuals who are going to work for a particular Party-and I want to discuss something that the Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) said , and she said that the big corporations are

1339 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA November 16 , 1990 su pporting Liber als and the PC Party, but she forgot that the major organization in this country supp orts only one party. That is the NDP. If you count, not the financial things, but countthe people who take leave of absen ce, who get paid leave to come and work on campaigns, and it was in this year's campaign too. So if you think that giving one month of their livelihood or one month of their job is not a donation, I think you are jus t dreaming. An Honourable Member: Working people support the NDP. Mr.

Cheema: What do you think, we are not working people? Absol utely, absol utely nons ense. An Hono urable Mem ber : What does Dave say about that? Does Chomiak agree with you? What does Dave Chomiak say about that? Mr. Cheema: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am having some dif ficulty because the Memb er from Concordia (Mr. Doer) , whom I like very much personal ly but not some of the is sues they have been deal in g with recently -(i nte rjection) abs olutely. I jus t wanted to go back to the speech made by the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) .

He is one of the Honourable Ministers whom I always listen to very carefully, and he said so mething which I am always going to keep in mind. He said you should be honest. What promis e you made with the public in the campaign, keep that promise. They kept their promis e, but this Party made their promis e, but the men who played it, when they had the chance to achieve somet hing for the worker, they did not. There was a short political coup. lt did work for a sh ort time, but for the long run it will not work, because people are not stu pid. They know exactly.

If you look at the polls, why do they not like politicians? That is one of the examples. His tory will tell you in 40 years time, it is not going to be the two parties, right and left. Many people right now jus t want to have som ebody who will listen to them, and the balance of power will be kept by the people who are middle of the road. We are going to be here for a long, long time. So I think it is important, even though we have suffered a defeat, but in the long run we will gain. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to go back to that one blue book they call the Rules of the House.

That book, the Rules of the Hous e, the previous Member for Churchill, Mr. Cowan, a good Member, a good parliamentarian. He almost manipulated the whole syste m in a way to make political gains. lt was three wee ks of maximum media exposur e and that worked very well. You know the headlines, the Liberals flip-flopped, they are anti-worker and they are anti-union. -(interjection)- That is not true. In my constitu ency I have a fair number of people who are working for CN, CP and many other organizations and they worked on my campaign too.

So, somebody who says that we are not for workers , that is not true. * (1 15 0) Madam De puty Speak er, I want to go to something that the Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) always sa ys, it is a sweet deal for a doctor, the binding arbit ration. I think there is a bas ic di ff erence bet ween bindin g arbit ration and arb itra tion of final offer selec tion, and in any negotiation there is always the pos sibilit y of a failed deal but no rights and wrongs. Final offer selec tion always produces rights and wrongs and winners and losers, and that is not right.

Madam Deputy Speaker, FOS clearly produces winners and loser s and those are not right in labour negotiati on. You must try to achieve a common cause , a common goal, because without good companies we will not have jobs, and if you are going to push people because of a stu pid legis lation that does not mean you do not want to work. lt is a very sim ple analogy. -(interjection)- Well, you can manipulate the way you want it. I am not going to be manipulated; I am not going to lie here; I am not going to be dish ones t. I am telling you exactly. -(interjection)- Madam Deputy Speak er: Order, please . Mr.

Cheema : Madam Deputy Speaker, I am having a tough time to speak becaus e there are a lot of Members scr eaming and shouting in this House . -(i nterjection)- The Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) is sa ying that the big unions are going to come after me. So be it. I will work for my constitue nts and all the people of Manitoba , but not for one group of people .

I will not work for a special group of -(interjection)- my job is to work for all people, that is our philosophy. -(interjection)-lt is not a ques tion of voting for the Tories , it is a ques tion of voting for the general public and if you follow our advice now, at le ast change your mi nd and follo w our amendment and make sure that- An Honourable Me mber: You did not vote for the amendment when it came to the Chamber or it

November 16 , 1990 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 1340 would have been enacted. We would have that process in place righ t now. -(inter jection)- In committee he voted for it, but when it came to the Chamber- Mr. Cheema : Madam Deputy Speaker, ! want to go through an

article of December 16 , 1 988. The

article is written by a very well-known assistant professor of Economics. That

article tells you many things and one of the factors clearly outlines that FOS in the prese nt form-if many of the people see it is working, why not stu dy it? Why not study it and make sur e that if the workers will get benefits, why not? You know, we have to be very objective. We cannot have two policies, one insi de this House , one inside the caucus, and one inside the committee room, one inside at some other meetings, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is not honesty . We have to be very, very honest and that hones ty mus t come because as the Member for lakeside (Mr.

Enns) said , if we are not honest, we will not be back in this House. We should not be here then, we shou ld do somethi ng else. Madam Deputy Speaker, as the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) the othe r day was sayi ng- and he said it very well. I do not think I can say it the same way because he is a very good sp eaker. He said that the philosophy of our Party is to lis ten to people, have a public hearing, and that is what we did on Meech Lake. That is what we did on this very important legislation if it is sup posed to be working for people.

At the same time, the New Democratic Party, within 1 0 minutes on the final days of the last Ses sion, they changed their mind. They had champagne and they sai d, you know, the big victory for the 12 Members, and they jus t scr eamed in this Hous e without realizing that they were hurting workers . Ultimately workers were the los ers. lt jus t tur ned them- the Memb er for St. James (Mr. Edwards) is anti-worker; the Member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is anti-worker. That was a big lie. lt sho uld never be said . There mus t be some facts.

Well, you know, the short -term pain for a long-term gain, who will take that kind of pain? Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very clear, we have two Parties. One Party is being run by the Chamber of Commerce, the other Party by the unions. We are the only Party that is run by the workers of the people of Manitoba, workers of people. An Honourable Member : Try to walk down the middle and you get run over. Mr. Cheema : The Memb er for Burrows (Mr . Martindale) is sa ying that people who run in the middle , they are run over by the cars.

Madam Deputy Speaker, any pers on, it does not matter which Party they are, if they are honest, they will always be in the middle of their own political spectru m. 1t is very easy to be extreme left and extreme right, but it is very, very difficult to be extr eme mi dd le. lt is very easy to be a common-sens e middle. Common-sense middle is not a difficult thing to do. So, Madam Deput y Speaker, I just want to reaffirm our supp ort of the repeal of final offer selec tion. I want to make it sur e that if the NDP followed our advice, we could have the process in place now after three years' experiment.

Then we may have a chance in the future to look into this very serio us matter. I hope that the Government of the Day will change their mind if they have the interes t of workers on their minds, because they have their own specific ideology. They have some Members who are very extreme and they want to not care for some of the workers. Basic ally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will end my remarks with that.

At committee ti me we will hope that the two other Parties will follow some of our amendments, so that we can achieve what is best for the people of Manitoba, but not necess arily what is best for one or the other Party in this House. Thank you. Mr. Kevln Lamou reux (ln kster): Madam Deputy Speaker, it was not my intention to speak today on this particular Bill, but my colleague for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) has inspi red me to put a few remarks on the record in regard to final offer sel ection and the repeal of it through Bill 12 .

I will say from the onset, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will be su pporting Bill 12 and will be voting in favour of it. The Leader of the Third Party has said on numerous occasions, while the Member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) was st anding up giving his remarks, that the Liberal Party is the Party that is doing the damage to the workers in the Province of Manitoba, that it is the lib eral Party's fault for the demise for the final offer selection . lt is quite the contrary. In fact, if we take a look at it, you will find that it is the New Democratic Party

1341 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITO BA November 16 , 1990 that has put the final nail in the coffin on final offer selec tion. I will tell you why. The New Democrats had an opportunity to ensur e that there would have been a study, so that there would have been some hope for final offer selec tion to come back in. * (1 200) We had proposed an amendment after hearing extensive public hearing process. We sat through hours, the then critic of Labour spent hours, and so did the Government and the New Democrats in committee lis tening to what the people of the province had to say.

We were criticized for list ening to what the people had to say . We brought forward an amendment that could have done jus t ser vice to the final offer sel ection. What I find the most ironic thing about it all, Madam Deputy Speaker, is how the New Democrats have been playing politics when it comes to final offer selec tion because when it came up during committee, our critic at the time, the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) propo sed a legitima te amendment, and the New Democrats supp orted the amendment when it came into committe e.

They said that they could not support the repeal of final offer selec tion, but they recognized that what the Liberal Party was proposing, som ething that they never even took into account, they sugges ted final offer selec tion come in, serve for five years and after five years, who knows what was going to happen. The Liberal Party sugg ested that there needs to be a stu dy, that we have to look at final offer selec tion from an independent body to take a look at final offer sel ection and to come up with something in terms of recommendations that would make it finer, a better piece of legisla tion.

The New Democrats recognizing the fact that, yes, they made a mis take when they did not have any study agreed with us in the committee. They said, yes, we will vote and, in fact, they voted for our amendment in the committee . Then what happens, Madam Deputy Speaker? We come into the Chamber and we have a-you know the Premier someti mes amazed me in some of his changes of mind. In a short period of time, we had a somers ault, flip-flop like I have never se en before .

We had the New Democratic Party in the Province of Manitoba play politics on final offer selec tion by voting agains t what they voted ior in the committee hours previously. As a dir ect res ult, Madam Deput y Speaker, because we have the Bill before us currently, final offer sel ection is going to come to an end. lt is going to come to an end, and there is not going to be any stu dy. Had the New Democratic Party been consiste nt, we would have at least had a study .

We would have had a mandate for that group, for that independent body to bring back the study and the resu lts to the Chamber so that Manitobans would have known if final offer selection is a good Bill, if final offer se lection could have worked in the future. The New Democratic Party in this Chamber destroyed the opportunity for the workers of this province to be entitled to hearing that. The New Democrats shou ld be ashamed. We have to ask why final offer selec tion came into being in the first place. Many in this Chamber will say it is because of an individual-! often heard the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) refer to Bernie Christ ophe, Bernie Christ ophe's legislation. I am not one to ques tion if it was , in fact, Bernie Christ ophe, but I have to take some of the remarks from the Government when it comes to final offer selec tion at face value. Madam Deputy Speaker, the current Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) , responded to the demands of a few individuals in bringing forward final offer selec tion. They did not go out to find out what was important. They did not go out to all of the unions to find out what they thought of final offer select ion. No.

They liste ned to a few se lect people in the union movement and brought forward final offer select ion. If they had any integr ity at that time, they would have lis tened to hear what the union leaders-not jus t a few select union leaders-but the large component, all of the union leaders had to say. I say that because when final offer selec tion was introd uced, the then and current Leader of the Liberal Party, the Member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) had union representatives banging at the door sa ying to oppose final offer selec tion, that it was not in the unions' best interests.

We had unions like CUPE, MONA. We had individuals-! believe the past president of the New Democratic Party resigned in shame sayi ng: Why did they bring it forward ? Why did they not consult with all the unions? Why did they have to lis ten to a few selec t people in the union movement?

November 16, 1990 LEG ISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITO BA 1342 They shou ld be ashamed of themse lves and to say that they repr esent the workers of this province-! have a very tough time believing that, especially when you take a look at their actions. We do not need to just talk about final offer select ion. We brought forward an amendment on the budget that we sug gested "ignored the need of a Manitoba labour adjus tment strategy in the wake of the Free Trade deal". Did they supp ort it? Not No, they do not think Free Trade is going to have an impact, at least the way they voted on this particular amendment.

They failed to address the need of the ski lled work force, failed to take any measur e that would lead to job creati on, so we can retain Manitoba jobs for Manitobans. They voted agains t that. Why did they vote against it, Madam Deputy Speaker? Because they felt it was in their political best interests, not the best interests of the workers of this province. They felt it was in their own selfish pol itical best interes ts to vote agains t an amendment that was jus tified . That is the only thing that the New Demo cratic-or the offi cial Oppositio n-ca n operate.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the leade r of the New Democratic Party likes to conside r his party as the Government in waiting. I would su ggest to you that .62 percent does not make you party in waiting. let us not forget that 28. 1 0 percent of the Manitobans selec ted the libe ral Party, and 28.72 percent of the people selec ted the New Democratic Party. If you take a look at the City of Winnipeg, I believe you would place third.

This does not make the New Democratic Party the Government in waiting, and thank goodness for that, because if they were ever restored into office in the Province of Manitoba, once again the bigge st loser s will be the workers of the Province of Manitoba. We need moderation. We need to have in the Pro vince of Manitoba a Government that is going to listen to all sides, that we are not going to be in -(interjection)- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please . I know the Honourable Member for lnkster wishes to continue debate , but it is very diffi cult lis tening to it. Mr.

Lamoureux : Madam Deputy Speaker, I am hoping it was difficult to hear because of the noise not becaus e of the content of the spe ech. lt is time in Manitoba to have a Government of moderation, a Gov ernmen t tha t will provide ho nes ty , a Government- the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) says "where?". ! would suggest that he look just to his left over at the liber al Caucus as a real alternative to the current Government. I think we have seen in terms of the past performance of the now official Opposit ion, or lack of performance from the official Opposition si nce the election.

When FOS was introd uced there was a lot of controversy. Now that FOS became law, we felt that it was in Manitoba's best interests to lis ten to the public hearings process-a nd the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) and the Member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) had commented on it-and that is that we have to lis ten to what Manitobans say . That is in fact what the liber al Party did. We did not go into the public hearings with closed minds.

If all of us, if all three Parties, went into the public meetings with closed minds, then what is the se nse of having the public meetings in the first place? * (121 0) We took the respons ible road and listened to what the presenters had to say about final offer se lection. I believe all of the prese nters were speaking from their hearts. They believed what they were sa ying. The Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) , who at that time was the critic, I believe was there for virtually every committee meeting, because he was very sincere in trying to come up with a compromise that would be able to serve not jus t the union movement or the Chamber of Commerce or big bus iness, but rather would do the workers of the province justice . I mus t say, my and my colleague's hat is off to the Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) for coming up with an amendment that unfortunately was not passed in the Chamber, even though it did pass the committee, because a great deal of time and effort was put into it. lt enabled the legislati on to su rvive. lt would have allowed final offer se lection to come to an end at the end of this year. Then a study would have been commis sioned, at which time we would have had a report back to this Chamber, I believe, within four months. Then we would have had an oppor tunity as legisla tors to review the recommendations from this committee and, unfortunately, we will not get that chance.

Now we have to rely on the current Minister of labour (Mr. Praznik) and the Government to come up with some type of a st udy of sorts. I hope that this Government has not completely given up on final offer se lection, that in fact they will study the resu lts . Then, if they can-1 would sugges t

1343 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA November 16 , 1990 they shou ld- bring back to this Chamber some type of report on how well final offer selec tion worked. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know, or at least I would be encouraging my current colleague to su gges t that we once again do amend this Bill. I believe it does need to be amended and it should be repealed, but it should be st udied. I believe that the Member for The Maples (Mr.

Cheema) will do us good in terms of bringing forward an amendment that will allow for this Bill to be stu died in the future, so it does not have to die in the fashi on in which both the Conse rvative Government and, I would argue, that the New Democratic Party want it to. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) The key is that in the amendment it sa id three years . The reason why we will vote for this particular Bill or the repeal of final offer selec tion is because during the three years, betwe en 94 to 96 percent of all the unions will have been given an opportunity to use final offer selec tion.

So there is some logic to using three years as that trial period, if you will, Mr. Speaker. When the New Democrats had brought in the legislation under five years, one quest ioned, why five years? I could not come up with anything. An Honourable Member: lt came out of the air. Mr. Lamoureux: The Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) sug ges ts, it came out of the air. I think it likely did come out of the air or maybe it was something that Mr. Christop he felt was in his best interest so he could poss ibly get in a couple of contracts. I am not too sure .

There is good reason that final offer se lection, if it is going to be repealed, it be repealed at the three-year point. This way you are allowing each, or 96 percent of the unions to at least have had access to it at one point or another. What I find most ironic about this Bill that we have before us today, is when will final offer selection actually be repealed? What will happen to final offer sele ction? Some Honourable Members : Oh, oh I Mr. Speaker : Order please ; order, please . Orde r. Mr . Lamoure ux: Mr.

Speak e r, we had an opportunity, as I was sayi ng, to bring forward and pass our amendment st raight through. Now, what is going to happen to this particular Bill 12 ? When will final offer selection be repealed ? I do not beli eve tha t the Cons er vati ve Government will be getti ng it repealed by the end of the year and I do not believe that there is going to be any study unles s, now that it is a majority situa tion, it is going to be awfully tough to convince some of the Conse rvative backbenchers to su pport our amendment to have a study . -(interjection)- The Minis ter of Highways and Transport ation (Mr.

Driedger) says three months, but we have hope. We have not given up on the public hearing process. I would sugges t to the Minister of Highways not to underes timate the capabilities of the Member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) because you will find that his arguments can be very persuasive.

I would su gges t that the backbenchers lis ten to what the Member for The Maples has to say because after all the majority only being 29 and there is a total Opposition of 27-at leas t I take it the New Democrats will atte mpt at being som ewh at consisten t and will vote for us on the amendment to have a stud y-safe to assu me? An Honourable Member : Do not as sume anything. Mr. Lamoureux : The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) says, do not as sume anything, but, Mr.

Speaker, let us hope that they will vote with us for the amendment and then this way all we would really have to do is see if we can work on a couple of the Conse rvative backbenchers. The Member for Assi niboia (Mrs. Mclntos

h) I think would be a likely candidate . I do believe that there is a lot of si ncerity in that back bench and that the Member for The Maples, (Mr. Cheema), through his convincing arguments , might be able to get a couple of the Members to vote with us on the amendment. Or maybe better yet the Government might in its own wisdom feel that, yes, there is some justification to have a stu dy of this legisl ation. I would be very encouraged and first to my feet to congratulate the Government, if it did jus t that. Mr.

Speaker, the Conservative backbenchers, or the Cons ervative Government does have one Member of the caucus who was very active in the un ion mo vem ent. I would su ggest to my -(interjection)- and he says, if I sit down, he will talk on it. If I could be assu red that he would speak on it, I would be more than happy to sit down at this point and hear what he has to say about it.

November 16, 1990 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 1344 I am su re the Memb er for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) will definitely be in contact with him to talk to a couple of his colleagues because he too was an active member in the union movement. I know that is kind of scary for the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer), to see a Conse rvative on a union. I did want to conclude by saying that the Memb er for The Maples will be bringing forward an amendm ent.

I do believ e tha t it is in all of Manitobans' bes t interests that we give serious thought to this amendment, that we should not rule out final offer se lection. * (1 220) We should not be playing the political games that we have witnessed over the past couple of years , when it comes to workers' rights and what is in the best interests of the Province of Manitoba and, hopefully, that common se nse will prevail and an amendment of this nature will pass. We will propose it, and we will see what happens at that point.

I think for the first time, I encourage the two extreme Parties, especial ly the New Democratic Party to think about the workers and to stop playing politics on such an issue that affects so many Manitobans across the province. Mr. Speaker : As was previously agreed, this matter will remain st anding in the name of the Honourable Member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) . Hon. Clayton Manne ss {Govern ment House Leader) : Mr.

Speaker, I imagine there is probably a desi re to call it 12: 30, unless some body else wants to speak on this Bill, but before we do, I would formally like to move the motion to take us in to Committee of Supply so that at one o'clock this afternoon Members may consider the Esti mates of the departments that I indicated earlier on. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, ! move, seconded by the Minister of Hig hways and Transpor tation (Mr. Driedg er), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itse lf into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty and that that occur at one o'clock.

Motion agreed to, and the Hous e resolved itse lf into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for St . Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Family Services; and the Honourable Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Depar tment of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. Mr. Speaker :Th e hour being 1 2:30 p.m., this House is now recessed until one o'clock, at which time Madam Deputy Speaker will be in the Chair.

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Friday, November 16, 1990 CONTENTS ROUTINE PROCEEDI NGS Sexual Assau lt Carstai rs ; McCrae 13 28 Matter of Privilege Family Violence Asht on; Mannes s 13 20 Carstai rs ; McCrae 13 28 Presenting Reports by Standing Videon Cable TV and Special Committees Maloway; Connery; McCrae Committee of Supply 13 28 Dacquay 13 22 Fuel Price Increases Tabling of Reports Maloway; Connery 13 29 Supplementary Information Archeological Assess ments Agriculture Fries en; Cummings Find lay 13 22 13 29 St.

James -As sinib oia School Division Supplementary Information Chomiak; Manness Urban Arrairs, Man itoba Housing 13 30 Ducharme 13 22 Sexual Assau lt Chomiak; McCrae Supplementary Information 13 30 Jus tice Natural Gas Pipeline McCrae 13 22 Storie; Findlay 13 30 Oral Question Period Portage Avenue Rafferty-Aiameda Dam Project Carr; Ducharme 13 31 Doer; Cummings 13 22 North Portage Development Corp.

Agricultural Assistance Carr; Ducharme 13 31 Plohman; Findlay 13 24 Portage Avenue Conawapa Dam Project Carr; Ducharme 13 31 Edwards ; Cummings 13 25 ORDE RS OF THE DAY Department of Agriculture Wowchuk; Findlay 13 26 Debate on Second Readings Prairie Places Bill 12 - Labour Relations Amendment Act Barrett ; Gillesham mer 13 27 Wasylycia-Leis 13 32

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-1-26a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 1st hansardpdf 26a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6b02b2cd09fdaf20e4280a73005087edc3bdd032

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