Manitoba Hansard — 31 January 1990 (Sitting 115, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-115

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, January 31, 1990. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct Honourable Members' attention to the Speaker's Galler y where we have with us this afternoon Lieutenant Colonel William Sutherland, officers and men of the 2nd Battalion Princ ess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. The battalion will be departing for another tour of duty in Cypress with the United Nations peacekeeping forces and will be presented with the Order of the Buffalo Hunt today.

On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIO D The Forks Development Visitor Centre Funding Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker , my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Ernst). Last fall, the Minister only half jokingly threatened to punch Jake Epp in the nose for forgetting to consult the province on the building of a new arena. I do not know what emotions are flowing through the veins of the Minister of Sport today. We can only speculate. Yesterday again the Minister of Tourism was sandbagged by his federal friends.

The Minister told us yesterday that Mr. Hockin, the federal Minister of Tourism, had set a deadline of March 31, directly contradicting Jake Epp's letter which established today as the final day, to raise $4.2 million in private funding for the visitor centre at The Forks, thereby directly contradicting what this Minister told us in this House yesterday. Mr. Speaker, when is the deadline? Hon. Jim Ernst (M inister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, firstly, !et me say that the deadline for the expiry of the tourism agreement is March 31, 19 90, as I said yesterday. I gather that a staff person in Mr.

Hoc kin's office yesterday suggested, in conc urrence with Mr. Epp's letter, that the deadline was today. ! have been attempting to clarify that position with Mr. Hockin all and have as yet been unable to get hold of Hockin was out of his office al! morning giving an address at some other point in the Capital. I expect to in touch with him this afternoon, and we will the situation. *

(1335) Visitor Centre Funding Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Meanwhile the deadline, accord ing to Mr. Epp's letter, is today. We are left to wonder whether or not this project is on or off. Can the Minister of Tourism (Mr. Ernst) tell the House how much he has been able to raise in the private sector, 4.2 million of which is required for the project to go ahead? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the meetings that I have had and I have had personal meetings with about 20 or 25 of the major corporate heads in the City of Winnipeg over the last two weeks.

Last week we had a meeting of about 65 potential corporate sponsors over and above those original ones. The level of interest is high. The level of excitement about this very, very worthwhile project, one of a kind for Canada, gives me great comfort that this project could be put into place very quickly but given sufficient time to cross all the t's and dot the i's. Canada-Manitoba Tourism Agreement Deadline Extension Mr.

James Carr (Fort Rouge): We believe that the Minister ought to have all reasonable time to raise the money because we, too, on this side of the House, believe that the project is worthwhile and worthy of some support, but the Minister has a political problem. He has two federal Ministers who say today is the deadline. We presume the Minister's failure to answer our questions about money reveals that he has raised not enough. What is he doing to contact Mr. Epp or Mr. Hockin he should take his choice-to get the necessary time he needs?

Has he requested an extension from today's deadline to ensure that every opportunity is given to raise the money required for this project? Hon. Jim Ernst (M inister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the history certainly of Government in Manitoba, as I remember it, this Government has taken an opportunity to combine with the private sector to do good things for tourism in Manitoba. That is something that was never done by any previous Government that I am aware of.

We had very great success over the past two years with two or three very good projects in terms of tourism marketing associated with the private sector. We wish to conduct a corporate sponsorship program for this particular project. As I indicated to my Honourable friend in the first question, I have been attempting to get hold of Mr. Hockin all morning. Mr. Carr: There is obviously no money on the table or certainly not enough. The way in which the federal 4860

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 Ministers have treated this provincial Minister makes a sham and a mockery of what this Premier (Mr. Filmon) has called a new era in federal-provincial relations between Canada and Manitoba. North Portage Development Corp. Accountability Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Duchar me). Today representatives from the North Portage Develo pment Corporation are meeting a commit tee at City Hall.

Presumably the members of that committee will have a chance to question directors of the North Portage Develo pment Corporation on current and past activities. My question to the Minister of Urban Affairs is: why will he not give Members of this House the same opportunity that members of City Council have today? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Urban Affairs): First of all, Mr. Speaker, the city hears representatives from The Forks, from the Convention Board and from the North of Portage on alm ost an annual basis. The Mem ber across the way has the opportunity at Estimates to ask questions of the Minister.

While I am on my feet, I will tell the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr) that consultation with my colleague, the Finance Minister (Mr. Manness)-1 have asked the Finance Minister, in a memo dated January 29, delivered to him on the 30th, to consult with the Provincial Auditor and have the Provincial Auditor review the books of the North of Portage. The reason behind that is after review of the agreement that is drawn up that is one purpose and one way we can review the books. I would like to file that memo with the House. Mr. Carr: Mr.

Speaker, there must some extraordinary circums tance which compels the Minister of Urban Affairs to write that memo to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness} requesting that the Provincial Auditor take a look at the books. If he believes that the conditions are extraordinary for that kind of action, why will he not create the conditions whereby Members of this House can ask questions of the Chairman and the Chi ef Executive Officer of the North Portage Devel opment Corporation? An Honourable Member: And a lot more. Mr. Carr: The Premier says, a lot more.

I am sure there will be a lot more questions to ask if only we are give the opportunity. Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would have listene d. We looked through the agreement, the agreement says there is one way to look at any agreements drawn up and we feel it is the most non political to bring in the Auditor and show that whatever questions are out there that have been out there for the last couple of weeks, this is surest way they can go into the North of Portage and review all documents and all books. We figure it is the most non-political way to do it. * (13 40) North Portage Development Corp.

Accountability Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, it might be a non-political way to do it, but the decisions that were made were highly political. The problem is that this Minister or that Minister who signed the agreement have not been held politically accountable. The question to the Minister is very simple. Will he or will he not request that the di rectors of the No rth Portage Develo pment Corporation appear in front of a legislative committee? Hon. Clayton Manness (Mi nister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the Government takes this as a very serious matter.

We have looked at the shareholders' agreement which states that as a shareholder the Province of Manitoba has the right to audit such accounts. Mr. Speaker, rest assured, given the fact that we are setting up a meeting with the Provincial Auditor first thing tomorrow morning to lay before him certain allegations and will ask him in a non-political legislative servant basis to look fully into the matter and to report firstly to the Government, ultimately to all the Members of this Leg islat ure at which time they will have an opportunity to present questions to the Provincial Auditor. Mr.

Speaker, we deem that as our responsible role in this matter and we make that commitment to Members opposite. U.S. Grain Export Subsidies Impact Manitoba farmers Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) on a very serious Manitoba matter.

People across Manitoba are absol utely shocke d at the announcement by President Bush reported yesterday of the 60 percent increase in the subsidies of grain in the United States and obviously the potential impact on the economy of Manitoba, not just directly the agricultural economy , but also all the service sector throughout rural Manitoba and throughout the City of Winnipeg that depend so much on agriculture in this province. My question to the First Minister is quite specific. Given this announcement by President Bush, what Government action at the senior level has taken place? Has the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) written to the Prime Minister in the strongest possible terms about this proposal by the U.S. President and its impact upon western Canadian and Manitoba farmers and related jobs in the agricultu ral sector in Manitoba? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): The Member certainly raises a very significant and serious issue that has been technically ongoing now since 1986, when the United States got into the export enhancement program as a retaliation for what was happening in Europe in terms of subsidizing exports.

We believe, we honestly believe, that the process of being able to reduce this degree of subsidization can be achiev ed through GATT. Officials on this side of the border, although upset with the announc ement, actually 4861

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 belie ve that the announ cement is the United States' method of positioning themselves for going at the Europeans in the GATT round of discussions. What has been appearing in the paper is really just a proposal. So it is, I think, positioning themselves to deal with the GATT round of negotiations and that there is no commitment by the Americans to do that. We will wait and see what they will do on February 7, when the 1990 farm Bill is tabled in Congress in the United States. We do not believe at this time that they truly intend to do that.

We think it is their negotiating lever in GATT which will bring resolution by reduction of subsidies for export grain. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, it is not just a proposal, it is the American President's budget proposal tabled in the U.S. Congress. Free Trade Agreement U.S. Grain Export Subsidies Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). How can we possibly explain to the people of Manitoba in terms of the 60 percent proposal on the grain subsidy, in light of the Free Trade Agreement that we just signed allegedly last year which under

Article 701 deals with the agricultural sector, how do we justify to the people of Manitoba signing that trade agreement when the only impact on the agricultural sector so far has been neglecting the subsidy issue under

Article 701 of the Free Trade Agreement for grain exports and, on the other side, penalizing Manitoba hog producers a 7.9 cent per kilo tariff on hog exports in Manitoba? Hon. Glen Findlay (Min ister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, we do not condone in any fashion what the Americans have done, either in terms of subsid izing export grains or in terms of putting countervail against pork going into the United States. The countervail question-countervail was already place before the Free Trade Agreement was signed on live hogs. They have decided to put it on fresh, chilled and frozen pork.

The dispute-settling mechanism under the Free Trade Agreement is going to be used to handle that issue. We aiso believe that in that process, we will resolve the countervail issue and be able to get it reduced over time. The process of negotiation is ongoing, and Canada is making a very strong representation in that regard in both the GATT round and the free trade dispute-settling mec hanism. Mr. Doer: We have a U.S. Pres ident who never answered question on

Article 701 of the Free Trade Agreement proposing a 60 percent increase in the subsidies of U.S. grain exports, which I belie ve is contrary to the words of the Free Trade Agreement It seems the United States is getting it both ways, increasing their subsidies on one hand affecting western Canadian farmers and on the other hand increasing tariffs. 4862 U.S. Grain Export Sub sidies Impact Manitoba Grain Prices Mr.

Gary Doer (leader of the Second Opposition): My question to the Minister of Agriculture is, assuming that this is not just a posturing position as the Minister has assumed and assuming that the President follows through on his proposal, as the Minister -(interjection) let me finish the question. I do not blame these people for being sensitive, it is a lot of jobs in the economy in our province, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Minister of Agriculture is, will it be another 50 percent, and have they done an impact study on the effect on grain prices in western Canada?

Will it be another 40 percent drop in the prices of grain in western Canada in terms of exports? How many jobs and farms will be lost if that goes through with the United States? Hon. Glen Findlay (Mi nister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the proposal that the Member has read in the press and bel ieves in fact was going to happen will not be tabled in Congress till February 7, if it is tabled at all. Certainly the federal Minister of Agriculture has made strong representation to the federal counterparts in the United States with regard to our lack of desire to see this happen.

That same level of representation will be made at GATT as it has already been done. It is a significant issue for western Canadian agriculture to resolve these trade disputes. There is no question that their export enhancement programs have reduced the price of export grains over the past two to three years. This would be a further difficulty in that direction, which we have no way of being able to handle other than through the negotiation process in the various panels and opportunities that are presented to us.

We are supported by many other countries around the world through the Cairns group of countries, some 13 small exporting countries. They believe the Canadian position is the right position and the right way to approach it. * (13 45) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, but the Minister knows that the attempts by Australia and Canada in that group failed in'86 and'87. We were told that these kinds of problems would not exist under the new Free Trade Agreement. We were told there would be a new era with the Canada-U.S.A. trade agreement.

We would not have these unfair subsidies in terms of Canadians competing with the Americans in the world market. Free Trade Agreement U.S. Grain Export Subsidies Mr. Gary Doer (leader of the Second Opposition): My question to the Minister is, does he and the Government believe that the proposal, the 60 percent increase in subsidies, is contrary to

Article 701 of the Free Trade Agreement? If they do, have they registered that with the Prime Minister? Are they taking the strongest possible stand in terms of protec ting Manitoba farmers and the western Canadian economy?

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Spea ker, absolu tely, we are taking the strongest possible stand to protect the produc ers of Manitoba and western Canada and all of Canada. I also believe that the Americans are serious when they say they want all subsidies removed by the year 2000 and that is the direction we want to see followed. We say again that they are positioning themselves by putting the challenge out in front of the Europeans. We must resolve it between the United States and Europe if we are going to benefit here in western Canada.

Health Care Extended Care Bed Report Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildo nan): Mr. Speaker, for the last 20 months this Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has failed to provide a long-term comprehens ive plan for our aging population. For the last 10 months, he promised on a number of occasions to bring the task force report on extended care treatment. Can the Minister of Health tell us if he has that report, and when he will implement those recommendations? Hon. Dona ld Orchard (M in ister of Health) : Mr. Speaker, as my honourable friend well knows, I have not received the Health Advisory Network report.

Until the Health Advisory Network, chaired by Dr. Naimark, reports to me, I can neither accept nor discuss any recommendations because I have not received them. My honourable friend lays out this misconception of the Liberal Party that he frequently does when he

preambles a question. In two construction programs, we have incr eased by almost 300 the number of personal care home beds that are available to the citizens of Manitoba who need personal care home placement. In two consecutive budgets, we have increased significantly the home care budget in the support services for seniors budget to give us lon g-term committed care in their home environ ment for senior s in Manitoba. We ha ve introduced triplicate prescriptions, Mr. Speaker, which will help to protect those senior citizens who are addi cted to prescription phar ma ceuti cals, those measures and many more that I will answer when my honourable friend poses his next question. *

(1350) Deer lodge Hospital Extended Care Beds Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kil donan): Mr. Speaker, this Minister has, on a number of occasions been saying that he will answer the question when he gets the report. This report is dated January 2. How can the Minister say in this House that he has not read the report? Mr. Speaker, can he finally tell us and tell the families of hundreds of patients when he will come to his senses and open the 90 beds at Deer Lodge Hospital which are recom mended in this report? Hon. Donald Orchard (M inister of He alth) : Mr.

Speak er, my ho nourable friend has an excellent suggestion regarding come to one's senses, and I wish he would follow his own advice because as I have indicated all of this month that we have been sitting, that there is a task force which is reporting to the Health Advisory Network. That is not the report that is coming to the Minister of Health from the Health Advisory Network. When I receive the Health Advisory Network's Report, I will share it with my honourable friend; but until that, there is no report that has been made to me.

I want to tell my honourable friend that the one thing I will not do is blan ket-accept some of his suggestions, including the suggestion of his Leader, wherein she will turf out 40 percent of the seniors currently in the personal care homes in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Spea ker: Order, ple ase; order, please. The Honourable Member for Elli ce. Ms. Avis Gray (Ellice): Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker: On a point of order. Ms. Gray: In reference to the Minister of Health's comments, my Leader is referring to appropriate care of the elde rly, and actions speak louder than words- Mr.

Speaker: Order, please; order, please. I would like to remind the Honourable Member for Ellice that a point of order should be raised to bring the attention of the Chair and the House to breaches of the rules. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. Rivers, Manitoba Extended Care Beds Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildo nan): Mr. Speaker, this Minister has not read this report and today he has established a new task force. We have been telling him about the decreasing population, decreasing in the personal care homes, and he is sending in a task force.

Can he tell us, finally , given that the Town of Rivers is without a doctor, that 25 patients were waiting in the personal care home and that do not have even a doctor, what he will do to provide services to this town which is equally important as his own political agenda? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): A voice of sanity from the back reaches of the Liberal benches over here said-I forget what it was but it was rather good. Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Medical Manpower, for approximately six and one half years under the previous administration, operated with a steady and level budget.

We doubled that budget to the Standing Committee on Medical Manpovver from under $400,000 to $800,000 for the purpose of assisting in the recruitment of physicians to rural and northern Manitoba, a recruitment effort which was aided just last week by the Pro Show fair at the Faculty of Medicine wherein over 40 displa ys were there representing over 4863

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 50 commu nities, to point out to physicians who are newly graduating, nurses, occupational therapists, physiothe rapists, dentists and pharma cists the opportunities in rural Manitoba. That is action. *

(1355) Repap Manitoba Inc. Environmental licence Monitoring Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): My question is for the Premier (Mr. Filmon). It concerns the Clean Environment Comm ission licence that was issued as a result of the Clean Environment Commission hearings that took several months. In part the Clean Environment Comm ission in November said that a licence could be issued if a monitoring regime and ecological studies must be imposed to ensure the regulations of emissions and provide an early warning of the detections of any possible trend, unacceptable alterations, etcetera.

The licence contains nine amendments. My question to the Premier is this: what possible justification could there be to issue a licence that changes the monitoring of emissions of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere from a continuous monitoring system to a semi-annual monitoring system? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): To begin with, the Clean Environment Comm ission carried through a very full and thorough public hearing process into the changes that were prop osed in Pha se 1 of the Repap develo pment at The Pas in accordance with all of the requirements of The Environment Act, all of the regulations and all proper public practice. Experts from various sources, members of a group that I saw the Member out publicly associating himself with on television, the TREE group, they appeared.

I am not sure if the Member appeared to express the concerns of the Liberal Party or if any of their critics expressed concerns at the hearing. I know that they always come here and try and grandstand, but they never appear at comm ittees where they might have some effect - Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. ***** Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Wolsele y, 011 a point of order. Mr. (Wolseley): I think the Premier would to take this question under notice.

If have the facts, then he is mislead ing the House because he does not have the facts, and he just misled the House. Mr. Spe aker: Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Member for Wolseley does not have a point of order. ***** Mr. Speaker: The Honourable the First Minister, to finish his response. Mr. Filmon: I am informed that four Liberals were at the committee- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

I would like to remind the Honourable First Minister that answers to questions should be as brief as possible, should deal with the matter raised, should not provoke debate. Mr. Film on: If the Mem bers opposite would not stimulate further thoughts by their heckling during the course of my response, I would be much shorter, I am sure. The fact of the matter is that the licence was issued totally in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Environment Commission and their report and recommendation. That is why the licence was issued.

The Members opposite asked for that process to take place in accordance with our legislation. It did take place and the licence was issued in accordance with, again, our legislation. What is he suggesting we do, operate in opposition to the legislat ion? Do you want- Mr. Sp eaker: Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. Mr. Angus: Mr. Speaker, I did make representation at the Clean Environment Commission. It is in their record, documented. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the First Minister should be given the opportunity to correct.

The question is: is he aware that the licence that was issued changes the recommendation of the Clean Environment Commission from a continuous emission control to a semiannual emission cont rol for sulphur dioxides? What possible justification would there be for any of your Ministers to authorize that type of a change in their licence? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, questions of awareness are out of order, but I assume that since I have been allowed to respond, I will respond and say that I will take that question as notic e and have the Minis ter of the Environment (Mr.

Cummings) respond when he returns to the House. •

(1400) Environmental lobbying Mr. John Angus (St Norbert): Between the issuing of the Clean Environment Commis sion report in November and the issuing of the licence in late January, was there any communi ca tion, any lobbying, by the Repap Corporation to the Minister, or any. discussions with any of the Ministers rationalizing the practical application of the Clean Environment Commission's criteria? 4864

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any officials of Repap have done any lob bying whatsoever with respect to attempting to lessen the burden of any of the requirements of the Clean Environment Commission. In fact they have consistently told us, time and time and time again, that they will abide by all regulations, all requirements of the Government of Manitoba and the legisla tion of Manitoba with respect to the protection of the environment. They have been good corporate citizens in every jurisdiction in which they have located.

I can suggest to the Member that he call Frank McKenna, the Premier of New Brunswick, who has said publicly and privately that he endorses Repap as a good corporate citizen who abides by all the regulations and in tact does their utmost to develop envi ronmental protection and environme ntally friendl y response s to ind ustrial devel opments in which they are located. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Drought Assist ance Payment

Schedule Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, some of the Conservatives want to make jest of Members' apparel, so let them have their jest. There is a serious crisis in rural and western Canada dealing especially with respect to farm incomes and farmers losing their farms. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Findlay), in light of his remarks to my Leader about the Free Trade Agreement and the great opportunities for Manitoba farmers, whether Manitoba farmers can expect, and when can they expect, assistance in a form of drought payments that he has indicated will be coming shor tly, or do we ha ve to wait for a Saskatchewan election for drought payments to come to western Canadian farmers? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr.

Speaker, I am very appreciative of the fact that the Opposition Member s unde rstand the reality in agriculture of low incomes for a number of reasons, drought-related, export problems in the trade side. Mr. Speaker, we have this present year paid out in excess of $150 million in crop insurance in about a third of the part of the Province of Manitoba, a clear indication of the fact that crops have been low in terms of production. I have been in discussion with a number of farm people with regard to whether that is an adequate level of income for the farm commu nity.

We have received a lot of information from towns, villages and cities outside of Winnipeg saying that additional help is going to be needed. I have been in discussion with my cou nterparts in the two western provinces in regard to the impact in their provinces and have also been in contact with the Member of the federal Cabinet with regard to what they can do in this re!}ard. Those discussions are ongoing in the direction of trying to establish what is needed and how it can be done. Announcement Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Mr.

Speaker, I am assuming that announc ements will be like they were in the previous-from what the Minister tells me-program. It will take a year after the incidents before farmers can expect any type of announc ements. I want to ask the Minister, can he tell me when that announcement will be made and whether the program will in fact take the form of the previous federal program which the Minister said he was not going to participate in and now has put Manitobans in at risk in excess of $30 million under that program. Can he tell us what form that program will take and when will the announcement be made?

We are into another seeding year and there is still no announcement, the drought is long past. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. Hon. Glen Findlay (Mi nister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the Member that through crop insurance we have put out $15 0 million already into rural Manitoba to offset drought and to offset low hay production. The process of detail as when an announc ement woul d be made if the federal Government believes that they can contribute in that program is something that remains to be seen.

I know that the farm commu nity wants to know something by spring. That has come from my discussions with them. I have delivered that message to the federal Members and we await their response in terms of further discussion. Free Trade Agreement Grain Transport Subsidies Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, the recent announcements that are emanating from the United States can only have greater uncertainty as to grain prices for Manitoba and western Canadian farmers.

Does the Minister in his review, now that it is going rural-wide, consider that the shift to pay what is known as a transportation subsidy to a production subsidy, whether it is countervailable in light of the Free Trade Agreement, and in light of the discussions that are ongoing now in Manitoba and across this country? Hon. Glen Findlay (Mi nister of Agriculture}: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Members of the House that there is suspicion that maybe the United States or Europe is going to raise that western grain transportation payment as an issue in the GATT round of discussions.

Clearl y, what we are doing in the Province of Manitoba is carrying out a series of studies and meetings to educate the farmers as to what the real issues are in this program and not to ask questions so that they can understand the issues. In terms of the response I hear back from the publ ic meetings is that they are very satisfied with our 4865

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 presentations that are made because it is neutral. It gives both sides of the question and puts all the issues on the table, and farmers are finding that they are getting good answers in terms of the educational process of understanding the impact of how that method of payment is done and what the implications for changes will be in the future. Cross-Cu ltural Understanding Government Initiatives Mrs. Gwen Charles (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, most Manitobans like most Canadians do not support racism.

However, as many events have proven, particularly over the last months, racism and discrimination unfortunately do exist, whether it is systemic or blatant. All Governments, as this Government, must be responsible for taking a leading role against racial discrimination. Can the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation detail the programs put in pl ace by this Government to actively promote cross-cultural understanding? Hon . Bonnie Mitchelson (Culture, Heritage and Recreation): I agree that everyone plays a

part in working together toward understanding and awareness of every culture. With that understanding and awareness will come the acceptance, Mr. Speaker. That is not something that a Government can legislate or anything that anyone can force anyone else to do. It is through a process of education and making awareness and understanding available. We have initiatives under way. We are working and we are supporting those organizations that do want to do cross-cultural training and understanding, but we also have entered into an agreement with the Manitoba Federation of Labour.

We have seconded a staff person to them for a period of two years so that they can work on anti-racism initiatives within the Federation of Labour. That staff person will be able to come back and shar e those resources with the Manitoba Government in all areas. Civil Service Cimmission Affirmative Action Mrs. Gwen Cha rles (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, in Estimates of the Department of Civil Service figures showed that this Government has hired fewer people who can be identified as visible minorities than in the previous year.

Can the Minister of Culture, Heritage Recreation explain what action her department has taken to include her fellow Government Ministers in taking a leadership role in affirmative action? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Mi nister Culture, Heritage Recreation): I believe I answered in detail the questions regarding the Department of Culture, Heritage and Recreation in my Estimates. We, in that department, are doing very well. The Civil Service Commission is very actively to include all members from every soci ety. Mrs.

Charles: When you hire fewer visible minorities, you are not promoting affirmative action. 4866 Human Rights Program Curriculum Development Mrs. Gwen Charles (Selkirk): My question is to the Minister of Education. Can the Minister tell this House when a program for human rights will be part of the Manitoba educational curriculum? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Mi nister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Education and Training, we have embarked on several initiatives to ensure that racial discrimin ation is wiped out.

Indeed at our community college level we have promoted programs to ensure that staff at those institutions understand the importance of the negative aspects of racial discrimi nation. When the Memb er asks about a human rights program, there are several divisions, I think Evergreen School Division is one which is piloting a program on human rights education. As we go along, indeed this is an important issue that we will be addressing. * (1410 ) Manitoba Data Services Divestiture Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): The Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) persists in proceeding to give away a valuable public asset, namely Manitoba Data Services, to the private sector, thereby threatening the confidentiality of public records while guaranteeing monopoly profits to the buyer. Will the Minister confirm that two companies are now negotiating with the Government, STM Systems Corp. of Markham, Ontario, and Systemhouse of Ottawa, since both are based outside of Manitoba that a sale to either of them will effectively transfer control of the operation to outside of the province? Hon. Cla yton Manness (M inister of Finance): A number of points are wrong in the

preamble, Mr. Speaker. One of them is right. I will confirm that there are two companies with whom we are discussing the possible sale of Manitoba Data Services. That has not been yet presented to Cabinet as a recommendation that one of the two would be a preferred purchaser. Let me also say the Member opposite is not privy as I am to many of the negotiations going on and many of the contents of a potential agreement, which of course could possibly give the Government incredible c ontrol with respect to saf eguarding its interest regardless to whom the MOS might be sold. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr.

Speaker, I would hope that the Minister would be tabling a legal opinion on this matter contravening The Legislative Library Act in Manitoba. Confidentiality Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I would like to table a partial list of the kinds of personal data that

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 will be involved, and is involved, with MOS, namely thanks incidentally to the Ombudsman, who insisted that the Government had to make this available to the public- hospital claims, files, personal care home, drug history files, doctors' master'files, farm credit files and so on. Why does the Government believe that private firms should be able to control such confidential personal information? Hon. Clayton Manness (Min ister of Finance): Again, Mr. Speaker, the Member's conclusion is wrong. I can ind icate wha t the Omb uds man said. Wha t the Ombudsman said is that

Section 43 of The Freedom of Information Act, the integrity of that section, had to be maintained; that there was legitimate cause for the Government at the time not to disclose information when it was negotiating very sensitive matters. That is why the Ombudsman did not give a blanket recommendation in the sense that all departments should provide information. Certainly there was an indic ation that some departments should provide the information at hand. That has been done and that is the list to which the Member opposite refers. Mr. Speaker, let it not be said by anybody that the Ombudsman has ruled against the intent of

Section 43. Indeed, the Government has been ruled to have taken the right action with respect to this matter. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. NON-P OLITICAL STATEMENTS Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Can I have leave for a non-political statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member for St. Boniface have leave to make a non-political statement? (Leave) The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. Mr. Gaudry: M. le president, c'est un grand honneur pour moi aujourd'hui de rendre hommage a un grand citoyen du Manitoba.

Le juge en chef de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba, Alfred Monnin, prendra sa retraite aujourd'hui. Au cours de ses nom breuses annees comme juge en chef et juge de la Cour d'appel du Manitoba, le juge Monnin s'est distingue non pas seulement au Manitoba, mais a l'echelle du pays. Ses immenses capacites de synthese et d'analyse, ainsi que ses immenses connais sances juridiques lui ont merite le respect de la communa ute juridique entiere au Canada. Les decisions qu'i l a rendues ont toujours ete app uyees sur un raisonnement profond et une recherche meticuleuse. (Translation) Mr.

Speaker, it is a great honour for me today to pay homage to a great citizen of Manitoba. The chief justice of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, Alfred Monnin, is retiring today. In the course of the many years he has spent as chief justice and as a justice of the Court of Appeal, Mr. Justice Monnin has distinguished himself not only in Manitoba but at the national level. His immense capacities for synthesis and analysis, as well as his extensive legal knowledge, have earned him the respect of Canada's entire legal coml')l unity.

His decisions have been at all times based on profound reasoning and meticulous research. (English) Over his long and brilliant legal career, first as a lawyer, then at Queen's Bench, and then as a justice and chief justice of the Court of Appeal, his commitment, sense of duty and desire to achieve perfection, he became known as a hard-working judge; one who would not close a file or give a ruling until he was satisfied that all the facts were known, and that the law had been canvassed as thoroughly as possible.

Chief Justice Monnin was appointed to the highest position on our Court of Appeal at a time full of new constitutional challenges. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms meant a major rethinking of many of the laws and legal precedents, which over the years have shaped and guided legal opinion in this country. Mr.

Speaker, Chief Justice Monnin took up this challenge in a manner which was unparalleled and many of his decisions would influence lower courts across the country and would be endorsed by this country's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada. (French) Le juge Monnin avait joue un role critique a une epoque ou le Manitoba etait bouleverse par ses propres crises, un temps ou l'A cte du Manitoba a cree de nouveaux defis pour la Cour d'a ppel du Manitoba qui devait trancher une des plus importantes questions constitution nelles du siecle.

Le juge Monnin a su dem ontrer une tolerance et une sensibi lit e exceptionnelles aux droits et aux relations qui etaient en cause. (Translation) Mr. Justice Monnin played a critical role during a period when Manitoba was overwhelmed with its own crises, a time in which the Manitoba Act created new ch allenges for the Manitoba Court of Appeal, which had to resolve one of the most important constitutional qu estions of the centu ry. Mr.

Justice Monnin demonstrated exceptional tolerance and sensitivity to the rights and the relations at issue. (French) Mais ce n'est pas seulement comme juge et juge en chef que le juge Monnin s' est distingue. Pour la communa ute franco-manitobaine, le fait qu'il avait une enorme charge ne l'a pas empeche de continuer a rendre service a la commu naute. Pres de sa communa ute, le juge Monnin a continue a lui rendre service comme l'a ttestaient ses services sur le Conseil d'admin istration du College Saint-Boniface, du Centre hospitalier Tache, le Centre St-Amant et bien d'autres organismes.

Nous en cette Cham bre avons eu !'occasion d'etre temoins aux heures qu'il a consa crees comme membre de la Comm ission de la division electorale. Alors je demanderais a mes collegues de la Chambre de lui souhaiter bonne retraite. Merci, M. le president. 4867

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 (Translation) Chief Justice Monnin has distinguished himself not only as a justice and chief justice. He is close to the Franc o-Manitoban co mmun ity, and his enormous workload has not prevented him from continuing to render service to it. That he has done so is attested by his service on the board of directors of the College Saint-Boniface, the Tache hospital Centre, the St. Amant Centre and those of many other organizations. We in this House have had the opportunity to witness the many hours he put in as a member of the Electoral Divisions Boundaries Commission.

I would therefore ask my colleagues in this House to wish him a happy retirement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Attorney General have leave to make a non-political statement? (Leave) The Honourable Attorney General. Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I would join with the Honourable Member for St. Boniface (Mr.

Gaudry), and all Members of this House, in extending a big thank you to Chief Justice Monnin on the occasion of his leaving the Bench at, I think it is, 12 midnight tonight when that would take effect. Certainly Chief Justice Monnin's contri bution to judicial matters in Manitoba for the last 32 years should not go unrecognized . Indeed, I have said it before, I do not mind reminding Honourable Members, I was nine-years old when Chief Justice Monnin became the judge at the Court of Queen's Bench for Manitoba. Througho ut those 32 years, the gentleman distinguished himself well.

Prior to those 32 years, he distinguished himself as a leader in many community associations and activities. A leader from the beginning of his judicial career, he went on to attain the highest judicial position possible in the Province of Manitoba. As chief justice, Chief Justice Monnin displayed qualities of leadership, qualities of mercy, qualities of humanness that we could all use as an example for ourselves in the everyday conduct of our liv es.

So we say good bye in the sense to a gentleman, to a human being whose dedication to the betterment of society is unquestioned and matched by only a very few that anybody could name. So we wish Mr. Justice Monnin well in his retirement years, well-deserved retirement years, and we thank him for his many years of service to our province. ORDE RS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS Hon. James Mccrae (Govemment House leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to canvass the House, you might find that there would be consent to dispense with Private Members' hour today. Mr.

Speaker: Is there leave of the House to dispense of our Private Members' hour today? Leave agreed? Agreed. The Honourable Government House Leader. 4868 Mr. Mccrae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the Law Amendments Committee would meet, if this is agreeable with Members of the House. I prefer to do this with the agreement of Honourable Members, but it is our proposal to have the Law Amendments Committee meet tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. in Room 255 to continue consideration of Bills 63, 64 and 83. I will just pause momentarily to see if that is indeed the wish of the House. Mr.

Speaker: The Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), on that matter of house business. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House leader): We have no problem in terms of the calling of the comm ittee, but my un derstanding was that the committee, itself, had been discussing dealing with Bill 83, and I would suggest that there be some clear direction of which Bill or Bills are going to be dealt with because there are still presenters I believe on 63 and 64. Our recommendation would be that we deal with the ozone layer Bill tomorrow and come back in with 63 and 64, possibl y, Tuesday.

I believe that was the Minister's suggestion, as well. We would agree to the consideration of Bill 83. Mr. Mccrae: Mr. Speaker, if the suggestion made by the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) would facilitate the consideration of Bill 83, we would refer Bill 83 to that committee, and perhaps at a subsequent sitting deal with Bills 63 and 64. Mr. Speaker, would you call the Bills in the following order, please: Bills 31, 73, 65, 39, 60, 59, 81, 77, 78, 82, 6 and the remainder as they are listed on the Order Paper. * (1 420) DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill NO. 31- THE LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMEN T ACT Mr.

Speaker: On the propos ed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), Bill No. 31, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), the Honourable Member for Flin Flon. Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 31 is an important piece of legislation. It is important in a very negative sense in terms of what it tries to acc omplish, but I think it is an important point of departure philosophically between certainly the present Government, the Liberal Opposition, and the New Democratic Party.

I say it is important because it underscores the very fundamental difference in the way we view how the world works, how we co-operate as individuals, how business and labour interact in the employment field, and it is important to note, and it has been noted by

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 my colleagues and by others, that in this respect the opposition to this particular Bill comes from the New Democratic Party. Now, I am not saying for a minute that there are not Members of the Liberal Party who belie ve that final offer selection has some merit. In fact, when the Member for Radisson (Mr. Patterson) spoke at first to this particular amendment one would not have been able to discern from the majority of his remarks that, in fact, he was going to join his colleague, the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), and vehemently oppose this particular

section of The Labour Relations Act, that he was going to support the Tory amendment to kill one of the most important pieces of labour legislation introduc ed in the last decade in the Provinc e of Manitoba. (Mr. Neil Gaudry, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) It was quite ironic, I need not tell you, Mr. Acting Speaker, to sit here and listen to the Member for Radisson (Mr. Patterson) extol the virtues of final offer selection. I should indicate that he indicated in his speech that he had some experience with final offer sele ction. It had been used at the Un iversity of Manitoba.

He was cognizant of the fact that it was a workable solution, it was a solution that limi ted the necessity for disruptive, expensive, costly, divisive strikes in the university setting. Mr. Acting Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Member for Radisson had his particular views on the subject of final offer selection overridden by the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) and the more right-wing Members of the Liberal Party like the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), who incidentally gave one of the most misleading, misinformed speeches on final offer selection that we have ever heard.

One of the points of misinformation that continues to be spread by Members of the Government, Members of the Liberals, with respect to this Bill, is the question of the unity of the labour movement in Manitoba on this piece of legislation. The Manitoba Federation of Labour speaks for the vast majority of working union people in this province.

It has been said before that the vast majority of the delegates to the Manitoba Federation of Labour Congress Convention in 1987, when this piece of legislation was introduced, supported final offer selection in its present form, supported the Government's intentions to proceed with final offer selection, and that was passed overwhelmingly by the delegates at that convention. It was true, it is true, that certain individuals in the Federation of Labour and the Canadian Federation of Labour were opposed initially to final offer selection.

I can tell you now that even those within the labour movement, including the Canadian Federation of Labour who did not support final offer selection in its initial phase, now having regard to its performance, believe that it is going to work in the best interests of working people in the Province of Manitoba. That is the goal. Mr. Ac ting Speak er, there are those on the Government side and in the Liberal benches who will say that well, yes, maybe it works to the benefit of working people, but what about the bus iness commun ity. We are not surprised.

Frankly, we are not surprised that the Liberals and the Conservatives are concerned about their corporate friends. What is more important in this debate is not a question of who wins in this legislation, because if we believe that it is quite possible that both Parties will win-and I think our experience in Manitoba to date with final offer selection tells us that, yes both Parties do win, but it is the attitude of the Liberals and the Tories that working people should not win somehow if that is the final result. Mr.

Acting Speaker, the overwhelming evidence is that final offer selection is working in Manitoba, it has worked in Manitoba and it will continue to work if it is given an opportunity. Why do I say that? I say that first of all because we now have some history from which we can examine the usefulness of final offer selection. The fact is that final offer selection has worked. There have been more than 50 cases of final offer selection where the items in dispute have been resolved prior to the implementation of final offer sele ction. So on the first point, Mr.

Acting Speaker, we said that final offer selection is simply another tool to be used in negotiations. It is another tool to help the negotiators on the empl oyer's side and the employee's side focus on the issues in dispute. It is a way of getting people to think about the bottom line, about a realistic position. It elimina tes posturing in the bargaining process. Mr. Acting Speaker, the fact is that in the majority of cases where final offer selection has been filed for, in other words there was an impasse in the negotiations, both parties supported an appli cation for a decision under final offer selection.

What is the result? After they have filed for their final offer select ion, what has been the result in terms of the negotiation process? In the majority of cases, even after final offer selection has been filed for, the two parties came to an agreement. Why does that happen?

That happens very simply because, despite the fact that in the negotiations process, offers, proposals get refined, despite the fact that that happens normally during the bargaining process, out of necessity when parties put their final offer on the table for consideration they know for a fact that if a selector is to choose one or the other, there is the potential for serious loss. The negotiators for the union, the negotiators for the collective bargaining unit, stand to lose considerable not only face, but financial dollars, lose concessions in the bargaining process if their final offer is not selected.

If you go to the other side of the table, you have an employer who is sitting there with a bottom line. He understands what his potential losses are from any set of negotiations. He understands what he can legitimately offer and what he cannot offer. Even after the final offers have been put on the table, there is an incentive to continue bargaining, to see if you can narrow that gap even further. Mr. Acting Speaker, over the last few years we have had example after example after example of 4869

,I Wednesday, January 31, 1990 negotiations that have continued after the application for final offer selection.

In January of 1980, the agreement between the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 901 in the Rural Municipality of Springfield, the Blackwoods Beverages , the Manitoba Food & Commercial Workers, the Northern Stores and the United Food and Commercial Workers, I could go on, a whole list of disputes that were settled after the filing of final offer selection, after the two parties have agreed to choose a selector and that selector will choose one of the two parties' final offer , the fact is that the negotiations continue .

To those who criticized final offer selection by saying that this in fact was a way of imposing the will of one party or the other, an outsider choosing proposal A from the employer or proposal B from the employees , it is ridiculous. The fact is that the vast majority of cases have proven that supposition to be in error. The fact is, negotiations continue because no one wants to lose in negotiations. In fact, it is neither party's interest to have the other party lose. This is a form of win-win negotiations for both parties because it encourages realism in collective bargaining.

It encourages real good faith bargaining and it has worked in Manitoba. *

(1430) Mr. Acting Speaker, there are all kinds of arguments that have been used to suggest that final offer selection does not work. We have seen some extreme rhetoric used around this issue . When it was first introduced back in I believe it was 1987, the Chamber of Commerce was am ong those who used the line , "th e dark cloud over Manitoba", suggested that the introduction of final offer selection was going to create an unhealthy atmosphere . My colleague, the Member for Churchill (Mr.

Cowan), noted with a great deal of irony that the only time in Manitoba when the Chamber of Commerce or the Conservative Party ever support working people, ever indicate any interest in labour relations, in collective bargaining, in personnel management is when someth ing else is on the horizon, something new and progressive is suggested to alter the stat us quo. In 1982, 1983 and 1984 we had the Conservatives belittle every attempt on the part of the New Democratic Party to improve the lot of working people .

Every time we increased the minimum wage , every time we introduced new expedited arbitration, expedited mediation, under The Labour Relations Act we were told th is was adding to the burden of the busine ss community, thi s was destroying the balance between labour and management in the Province of Manitoba. No initiative that supported working people was ever good enough . The only time things are rosy in Manitoba is when we propose something new.

When final offer selection was propos ed all of a sudden th e Chamber of Commerce said: no, everything is great in Manitoba , the labour management climate is great, the number of days lost due to strikes is fairly low, everything is great, do not add anything else to the process. Of course, Mr. Acting Speaker, final offer selection was implemented in Manitoba, it was passed into law. What has been the result of that law? Has the prophecy of gloom and doom come to pass? Have the number of days lost due to strikes increased dramat ically?

Have businesses and their collective bargaining units been at odds and created turmo il in terms of labour management in the Province of Manitoba? Have the re been mass outcries of frustration and anger over the final offer selection portion of The Labour Relations Act? Have working people themselves complained , shown any concern over the implications of final offer selection since its passage in the Province of Manitoba? The answers are clearly no, no, no, no. The fact is that those workers, those unionists, who opposed final offer selection now understand that it can work to their benefit .

It can work to create harmony in the Province of Manitoba. It can work to lessen the tensions between management and unions. It can be a useful way of resolving disputes that might otherwise lead to strikes. The question was: has it created more days lost due to strikes? We saw only yesterday a confirmation of statistics, that we saw start coming in in 1985 and 1986, that in fact, other than Prince Edward Island, Manitoba has the fewest days lost due to strikes of any other province in the country. The fact is that our labour legislation is not unbalanced as the Tories and the Liberals would have us believe.

The Liberals are in on this too. They want to attack labour legislation. They do not like final offer selection . They do not want anything progressive in legislation that might interfere with the Bank of Montreal 's right or the Royal Bank of Canada's right to make a billion dollars . The fact of the matter is that we have seen fewer strikes, we have seen less days lost and we have seen a better relationship . Those unions and employers who want to use final offer selection have not been shy about using it.

They have used it to their advantage, and they have used it to resolve disputes in the Province of Manitoba. There has not been more days lost . There has been no major outcry from the business community as a result of the implementation of final offer selection . We had the initial reaction from the Chamber of Commerce, the traditional reaction, who opposes any change, wants the status quo , wants to make sure that it has the upper hand, can see no benefit in equality and fairness being part of the collective bargaining process.

That initial reaction has not prov en to be true and in fact we could go thro ugh the list of companies and organizations and municipalities and non-Governmental organizations that have used final offer selection, and we find that it has worked to their advantage as well. They, despite their initial concerns -and they may have been legitimate , certainly anytime there is change there is pause for reflection . The fact of the matter is that no significant negative impact has been felt. In terms of the reaction of the business community and those who act as emplo yers whether they are an 4870

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 ind ependent busi ness or no n-Govern mental organizations or municipalities have not experienced any difficulty in und erstanding final offer select ion, in using it to conclude negotiations in their particular colle ctive agreement. Mr. Acting Speaker, the whole purpose of final offer selection, the whole purpose, was to ensure that there was every opportunity for employers and employees to come to a mutually acceptable agreement. The whole purpose of final offer selection was to limit the number of days lost due to strikes in the Province of Manitoba.

That was its sole purpose, its sole purpose, and it has been effective. It has been effective in doing that. Mr. Acting Speaker, the Members of the Opposition, and particularly the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), wants to leave the impression and it is quite mislea ding, quite misleading, that final offer selection is somehow responsible for the fact that six of these stoppages, work stoppages, that lasted more than 50 days had applied for FOS. The logic at work in this particular piece of propaganda that was released by the Minister on Jun e 20, 19 89, is unb el ievable. The logic is unbelievable.

We in Manitoba enjoy one of the highest percentages of unionized work forces in the country, one of the highe st, and cer tainly much hig her than most jurisdictions in the United States. Yet, we enjoy one of the lowest percentages of days lost due to strikes in the country. Those two statistics simply do not make sense if final offer selection is the cause for some incr eased work stoppages.

The fact is-and the Minister knows this and if she consulted with any of the parties involved in these protracted disagreements would learn that there were many, many other issues involved that were long standing, that were perhaps outside the jurisdiction, the control of the parties involved, outside the control of the parties involved. Yes, there are some fundamental issues that are not going to be solved regardless of what mediation techniques that you use, or regardless of what other techniqu es you migh t use to get people to the bargaining table.

If the division is so wide that it cannot be breached, then final offer selection is not always going to work, nor is any other means of dispute settlement other than binding arbitration.-(interjection)- Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am reminded that it should be arbitration because arbitration implies binding. I accept that admo nishment from the Mem ber for Radisson (Mr. Patterson)-arbitration. The fact is that even arbitration cannot resolve all disputes, because if one party or the other cannot accept the results, financially in particular, the prospect for plant closures and so forth are still there.

We have to ask ourselves, has the addition of final offer selection been of benefit to the Province of Manitoba in total. It seems to me that the answer, the obvious answer is, yes, it has been. It has been particularly successful in the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to refer again to the perspective, the spin, that the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) and the Conservative Party and the Liberals may want to attach to final offer selectiqn.

Again, it comes from the press release that was issued by the Minister of Labour in June of 19 89, and the first line of this press release says that the Government has moved to fulfil its commitment to restoring fairness to the collectiv e bargaining process by appealing final offer select ion. * (14 40) The obvious question is, what does restoring fairness mean? Does that mean that there was not fairness before? Is that what the Minister is saying? How is the Minister judging that, given the record that we have in the province, a good record with respect to days lost due to strikes.

How can the Minister be restoring fairness when final offer selection (

a) has been shown to work in situation after situation, even with groups that did not believe it was going to work for them? How can they argue that final offer selection is not working when the numbers of days lost are lower than every province except P.E.I? How can they argue that final offer select ion is not working when it is being used by so many groups, when it is being used as a tool in so many collective bargaining situations? Mr.

Acting Speaker, the Government would like to pretend that restoring fairness means that somehow this legislation gave, particularly working people, some inherent advantage in the collective bargaining process. The fact of the matter is that the right to strike that was given to those involved in collective bargaining has not been diminished by this, nor has it changed the ci rcums tances really for those invo lved on the employer's side. Unionized membership can still strike if they wish.

All that final offer select ion does is give them another alternative, give them an alternative which brings the people to the table. It does not require the changing of one single proposal, one single clause of a proposal from the empl oyer themselves. The only obligation it puts on the employer is to make that he, or she, or it, the company, must make sure that its proposal is realistic. That is the only obligation, the only obligation on the part of the empl oyer. The fact is that the employer still holds control over the operation itself, its hours of operation and whether in fact it stays operating.

The only obligation under final offer selection is an obligation of what I call reasonableness, and if that reasonableness is contained in a final offer that comes from an empl oyer, then I predict, and we predicted that the selector chosen by the two parties would apply it in a reasonable and a consistent manner.

The question is, in those situations, and there have been relatively few, but in those situations where the final offer selection process has been requested, when the parties have filed their final offers and the selector has been forced to make a choice, did the final offer selector choose disproportionately for one side or the other? The answer is no, that when the employers put together a final offer that was reasonable under the circu mstances, reasonable from all perspectives in 4871

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 terms of fairness, in terms of equity for the people that they were bargaining against or with, in terms of the financial circumstances of the company and its viability and long-term viabil ity, the selector chose appropriately. In other words, it was not always the bargaining agent for the union that won nor was it always the employer that won. In fact, selectors have chosen both ways. I emphasize again that in the majority of cases final offer selection has worked to resolve the negotiations before the selector has actually made his selection.

In many, many cases when you start looking at individual appl ications, it says, received notification 880420, the parties have reached agreement prior to selector; reached agreement prior to selector making decision; Order No. 710, reached agreement prior to selector making a decision; Order No. 78, 721, notice received agreement reached prior to selector making a decision; 719 , negotiations concluded before the selector made a decision; Order 726, agreement prior to selector on and on and on.

So the supposition, the suggestion, the implic ation by the Liberals and the Tories that this is not working, that it works against negotiations is absolutely and patently false. It is absolutely false, it is not true. All kinds of evidence is now there to support the usefulness of final offer sele ct ion. So why the intransigent, particularly of the Liberals? I can think of only one reason and one reason that consis tently comes to the fore, because really when it comes to working people's issues, they do not give a damn.

In fact, they will side with their corporate buddies every time, where 70 percent or 80 percent of their financial support comes from incidental ly, and they will side with them every time. They want to present themselves as the defender of working people's interests but, Mr. Acting Speaker, the facts speak for themselves. On issues of long-term importance they do not stand with working people at all. In fact, they are on the other side of the fence. A Liberal is a Tory is a Liberal and that is the unfortunate fact of the matter. An Honourable Member: Do not insult the Tories. Storie: Mr.

Acting Speaker, I am not insulting Tories. No, I do not think by calling a Liberal a Tory I am insulting Tories at all. I think they are the same. This press release, this propaganda piece that was introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), supposedly in a defense of the Government's position that final otter selection should be repealed, goes on to say that Hammond said-I refer to the Minister of Labour-that while the intent of final offer selection introduced by the previous Government, January 1988, was to shorten work stoppages, there is no evidence that this has been the result.

First of all, the primary purpose of the introduction of this legislation, for the Minister of Labour's information, was not to shorten work stoppages, it was prevent work stoppages, it was to promote col lective bargaining, it was to promote negotiations at the table, it was to promote the successful negotiations between the parties. That was what it was designed to do.

The 4872 evidence that the Minister supported as factual the other day is the evidence that should be used to judge whether final offer selection is working and that is how many days of work stoppage have there been in the province compared to other jurisdictions and compa red to our historical averages in the Province of Manitoba. The facts are indisputable. The facts are that final offer selection is working. Second ly, Mr. Acting Speaker, this is such a facetious kind of argument. Hammond said, the intent was final offer sele ction introduced was to shorten work stoppages.

The only reason that particular lang uage is used in this press release is because it is the only kind of evidence the Go vernment could mount whatsoever to suggest that is was not working. On what basis is that? It is because six of the work stoppages in the province seem to be longer than 50 days and final offer selection had been applied for. The Minister knows, as everyone in the province knows, that there is absolutely no conne ction between the two incidences. They do not necessarily coincide because of final offer selection.

There are many, many good reasons why parties go into work stoppage, why disputes are not resolved and they have nothing to do with final offer sele ction. I want to say that this is not only my view and the New Democratic Party's view, but it is the view of many, many people who have studied the nature of final offer select ion and what it does. I have said, and this is quite ironic that the Minister belie ves the introduction of FOS was to shorten work stoppages, because it was to prevent them. It also is rather amusing for the Minister to use that as an argument for repealing final offer selection.

Final offer selection works exactly the opposite. Final offer selection results, as I suggested before, in a convergence of proposals. No one, frankly, in the negotiating process wants to get caught with their pants down. No one wants to get caught in a situation where their proposal is so lu dicrous, so off the wall, so out of touch with reality that it is dismissed out of hand. The proposals that come to the final offer selector have to be reaso nabl e, rationale proposals, given the circumsta nces and the context of bargaining. What do experts say? What do those who have studied final offer selection say?

Well, Professor Bellan, who writes in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal, talks about the significance of final offer selection as a means of conc luding negotiations. He said , what does this process lead to, and he said that there are four significa nt-and he cal led them "signi ficant" processes-inv olved in final offer selection which lead to an agreement. * (14 50) First of all he said, and this is directly from that article, there were significant convergent pressure to appear reasonable in the eyes of the selection officer.

Number two, he said, both sides felt strongly motivated to settle the agreement themselves for personal satisfaction and to avoid the risk of comp lete loss at arbitration. Yet both felt final offer selection gave the parties a large

Wednesday, January 31 , 1990 measure of control, a larger measure of control than did conventional arbitration. Both felt that the time frame set in advanc e prevent a stalema te from developing that kept talks progressing even though they may be making slow progress. Numb er four, both parties felt compelled to justify their position during negotiations by reference to concr ete financial data. In other words, parties involved in negotiations where final offer selection is a part of the process have to be reasonable, they have to be rational and they have to reflect reality.

I cannot understand for the life of me, what anyone, Liberal, Conservative, small business, big business, has to fear from the proposition that negotiations should be cond ucted on a reasonable, rational basis. That is what we are asking for, that is what we asked for in final offer selection, that is what we hoped that final offer selection would acc omplish, and that is in fact what it has accomplished. So why the need to repeal it?

Why the headlong dash to satisfy a commi tment that was made by a political party on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever of what the final implic ations, the final ramifications of this legislation were going to be? The Conservative Party and the Liberal Party opposed final offer sele ction. They did so from an ideological point of view. They did so because it was going to impact, they thought. I emphasize that "they thought" on their contributors, the people who supported them politic ally, financiall y, but those assumptions and those presuppositions proved to be in error.

My question is, and what I cannot for the life of me figure out, Mr. Acting Speaker, is why in the face of overwhelming evidence that final offer selection works can there not be a change of opinion? Why can these people not, my coll eagues in the Lib eral and Conservative Parties, use their own logic to determine the facts for themselves and change their minds if the facts warrant? I believe the facts warrant a change of mind, a significant change of mind.

I can see no evidence, not any evidence, to support a contention on the part of the Li berals or the Conservatives that this somehow gives an unfair advantage to working people. That is the message that the Minister wants to lay out there, that somehow there is some unfairness in the system. The unfairness is only in the minds of the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) and her colleagues and the Liberals. There is no inherent unfairness in this legislation.

The fact that all Parties are using it, that em ployers who seemed to be apprehensive in the first instance are using it, that emplo yee groups who at first were apprehensive about the impacts of final offer selection, all of them are using it and it is working to their advantage. Mr. Acting Speaker, there are a whole series of questions that need to be addressed by Members opposite when they speak to this legislation. I must say that I am puzzled. I am puzzled.

If the Liberals and the Conservatives are so certain of their information, their data, the factual basis for their arguments, their rationale for opposing this legisla tion, if they are so certain of it, why have we seen no Liberals and no Tories speaking on this particular legislation? What we saw was again, as my colleague from Concordia suggested, we heard from twQ Liberals on this issue, one for, one against. We have heard from virtually no Conservatives because they know the basis for their arguments is wrong.

There is such uncertainty in the Liberal Party, we have heard from one of each, one for, one against. Mr. Acting Speaker, to those of us in the New Democratic Party, to those of us who have been involved in amending and improving labour legisla tion, workplace health and safety legislati on, minimum wage laws in the Province of Manitoba, those of us who have worked and su pport work ing people in the Province of Manitoba, we believe that this legislation is important.

The re is a very, very im portant princi ple in this legislation, a principle of fairness and equity, a principle that says that preventing strikes is the most important thing we can do as legislators. It is best for working people. It is best for business. It is best for our own econo my. That is why the legislation was introduced. It is working. Not only that, it is working. It is irrefutable, it is working.

Not only that, but the Government, when it was introduced, acknowledged, when the Minister of Labour stood and introduced final offer selec tion, he said, this is an innovative and creative step in the history of labour relations in the Province of Manitoba, and it was. He also acknowledged that like any piece of legislation, you can only use the best information at hand. You can only get a feel for what ultimately is going to happen with that legislation and what its impact is going to be.

You cannot foresee with any accuracy how courts are going to interpret the legislation, what challenges there might be to the legislation, but we recognized it was new. Mr. Acting Speaker, what we did, we said, let us put a sunset clause on this legislation. A sunset clause in provincial statutes is quite unusual. It recogn ized the fact that this was new; that we were entering a new stage in terms of ind ustrial relations in terms of collective bargaining in the province. We wanted to make sure that there was not unnecessary fear that someho w this legislation would be difficult, if not impossible, to overturn.

What we did is put a five-year sunset clause in the legislation, which means that after its introduction, five years from the date of its introduction, this legislation ceases to exist-five years. We have about three years left, less than three years left now, about two and a half years left before the legislation expires. Then it will require

an Act of the Legislature to reintroduce that legislation. Why the undue haste? It appears to be working. There is no hue and cry from business or anybody else to see this legislation killed, other than from the Conservative benches and with the support of the Liberals. This legislation is working. Why the fear? Why can we not allow this legislation to be evaluated after this five-year period, about two years, two and a half years, from now? Why can we not start then to have an independent comm ittee of the Legislature analyze the data and draw some rational conclusions about the evidence and then present its recommendations to the 4873

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 Legislature? Why the undue haste? Who is being supported by the repeal of this legislation? If it is working to prevent strikes, it is for the benefit of the Province of Manitoba. If it is working to prevent strikes, it is for the benefit of working people in the Province of Manitoba. No one wins by a strike. We all agree on that. Why the undue haste-to fulfil! an empty political commitment that was given on the basis of absolutely no knowledge and no experience with the legislation? Does that make sense, Mr. Acting Speaker? It does not make sense. It is not rational.

When we sit here, we have no rebuttal from the Members of the Liberal Party, no rebuttal whatsoever. They cannot think of a single thing to say in their own defence which makes sense. We hear nothing from the Conservative Party about their proposal to repeal it. What are we supposed to conclude? -(interjection)-the Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) says, give me a break. I will give the Member for Wolseley a break. I want him to stand in his place as a Liberal and tell me why he is voting against working people.

I want him to stand in his place as a Liberal and tell me why he wants to defeat legislation that is preventing strikes in the Province of Manitoba. I want him to stand and tell me why he does not agree with his friend, the Member for Radisson (Mr. Patterson), that this is good legislation. Mr. Acting Speaker, the fact is that the Liberals are on the wrong side of this issue. They may have figured it out, I do not know yet, but the Conservatives are definitely on the wrong side. They are supposed to be governing in the interests of the Province of Manitoba, and they are failing to do that on this issue.

They are !ailing dramatically and unfortunately. Evidence sugg ests-and I beg Members in the Government to look at the evidence. Do not listen to the Member for Kirkfield Park (Mrs. Hammond). Do not listen to the Minister of Labour's (Mrs. Hammond) propaganda when it comes to this; that they want fairness when there is fairness and it is shown to be fair. Do not listen to them when they want to say it is not working because six work stoppages have been more than 50 days. It is a specious, foolish, manufactured argument for the repeal of this legislation. This legislation is working in Manitoba.

We have the best record when it comes to work stoppage in the country. We have very few days lost. It would be extremely unfortunate if this legislation was lost because of a political commitment that was made on the basis of ignorance, Mr. Acting Speaker, ignorance. This legislation needs to stay in Manitoba. Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): move, seconded by the Member for The Pas (Mr. Harapiak), that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. Bill NO. 73-THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMEN T ACT

(6) The Acting Speaker (llllr. Gaudry): On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Al bert Driedger), Bill No. 73, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (6); Loi no 6 modifiant le Code de la route, standing in the name of the Honourable Memb er for St. Vital (Mr. Rose). The Honourable Member for Assiniboia. * (1 500) llllr. Ed Mandrake (Assiniboia): The Honourable Member, my colleague from St. Vital, stood the Bill on my behalf, so with your permission I would like to place some comments on the record on behalf of our Party with respect to Bill No. 73.

I, with all sincerity on behalf of this side of the House, sincerely appreciate what the Minister has done in Bill No. 73. That is bringing in legislation with respect to photo ID. I think it is slow in coming. His Bill certainly addresses a very, very important issue, that issue being of displaying a "mug" on your driver licence, whereby it is going to certainly be of a great value to the police. They will be able to do their job more expeditiously. The handling of cheques of course is another good avenue. It has so many ramifications to this idea that the average person cannot comprehend it.

It is a wonder that we did not do this years ago. The photo ID is a commendable avenue to take. As I said, I certainly would not have any faults with the Minister with that respect. The awarding of that cont ract of course, the only one thing that I am a little bit concerned about is that in the past several months, that being 20 months, ever since this Government has taken office it seems to be on a slide to always be giving contracts to other provinces. I think we can go back into other contracts that were given. They were given to Ontario, the golden triangle, and it seems to me here is another example.

National Business Systems of Toronto has been awarded the contract to do this new photo licensing system. Mr. Acting Speaker, I am going through the notes that the Honourable Minister provided me. It is going to cost, the set-up on this is going to be close to three point-some-odd million dollars. There is going to be an annual cost on that of $2 million. Again I emphasize that I certainly think it is a good way to go, but the only question I would have is, why do we have to go to the golden triangle and offer these people the contracts?

We do not have anybody in Manitoba that can undertake a venture of this nature with the same type of con tractual agreement as National Business Systems got? I am simply baffled by the Minister to have to go that route. Mr. Acting Speaker, in going through some of the comments that the Minister of course provided us, again I would like to be on record as finally seeing the wisdom of providing both critics with briefing notes. I think it 4874

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 is very important. In fact all Honourable Members on the Government side who are Ministers maybe should take a step forward in the same manner which has been done in Hig hways and Transportation. It would make the critics' job that much easier and far more comfortable to be able to stand and offer suggestions that maybe we could improve the system. I know my colleague, the Honourable Member for ln kster (Mr. Lamoureux), makes mention about the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme). Apparently he is not doing it.

I am amazed that the Government would not see the wisdom to provide the Opp osition Party with a working agenda, but unfortunately the only department that is doing it of cou rse is the Highways Department as far as I know, that is providing the critics with information regarding any piece of legislation that is being proposed and put into the House. With that, Mr. Acting Speaker, I hate offering any kind of compli ments unless they come from my heart. I mean, a compliment coming from just the lip is not sincere.

Now what I just finished putting on record comes from here, because I think this Minister is trying to work with his colleagues in the Opposition. That I think is worthwhile mentioning because I think all Honou rable Memb ers from the other side could probably take a lesson with respect to what the Minister of Highways is doing. I noticed that this program, the Minister of Highways (Mr. Albert Driedger) says it can be self-financed. There will be an additional $4 charge on an annual driver licence fee as of the 1st of April, 19 90. Now $4 I think is acceptable, I do not think I would have any problems with that.

Probably the only concern I would have is, how long would these photo ID s be in the hands of the driver? Let us say that the person has a disfigurement of some sort. Will it be compu lsory for him to go back and get another photo? I presume that would be the case. I know he is laughing because he knows exactly what I am thinking of. If they were to take a picture of this "mug" it would probably break the camera. Mr. Acting Speaker, as I sa id, there are 12 9 camera systems that will be manufactured and shipped and installed at the facilities.

My concern with respect to this is: why could we not have had a company here in Manitoba which would have been able to acquire these type of cameras and provided the services for people in Manitoba for Manitoba? It just does not seem right why we have to go to the golden triangle again, offer that company in Ontario to bring people into Manitoba to do the training, et cetera, et cetera, where our own citizens in Manitoba, our own small entrepreneurs, probably could have performed this type of a job.

I am sure if I was to go out there today and talk to some of the photo compan ies some of them probably would be more than happy to do it. I do not know maybe I am wrong in that, but I think I am right in what I am saying. * (1 510 ) Mr. Acting Speaker, going on further onto this legislation I find very hard to understand why we need a two-part system for our licensing. I have always belie ved that if you are going to have a photo ID and it is ironic that we are talking about that, because I will go back to my mili tary days when I was in the services and we also had to have a photo ID.

It was the same size as a credit card. It had your name on it and everything was in French and English in accordance with the laws of the land at that time. All of the information was placed on that, but it used both sides. From all the research that I have done this two-part licence system is a carry through from Alberta. I might be wrong in that, but I will be corrected. I am sure that the Minister will certainly correct me on that aspect. I would appreciate if-we will be discussing this further of course, Mr. Acting Speaker, in comm ittee.

With that, as I said, my Party and I certainly do not have any objections to a photo ID. In fact, we have been, I should not say harassing the Government, but we certainly have been very supportive of the photo ID in the past 20 months. We certainly would not stand or object to the principles of a photo ID for drivers licensing. I am sure that all my colleagues and myself would support this Bill in moving out to comm ittee to show this Government that we are a working Opposition.

Let it not be on the record that we are trying to stall any Bills, as probably has been mentioned in previous instances where the Minister of Finance, or I think it was the Minister of Finance-it does not matter which one they are all the same. They seem to always like to put on the record of how badly we are treating them, et cetera, et cetera. Wel l, this is one Member on this side that will not stand in the way of good legislation. This is a start. With that I wish the third Party would recommend also to send this to comm ittee as soon as possible. Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Speaker. Mr.

John Plohman (Dauphin): I was unfortunately not able to catch most of the words of wisdom from the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Mandrake) because of other conversations that were going on around me at the time. I certainly do not want to reflect on anyone else in the House insofar as their doing that at the time the Member was speaking. I do not think it makes a statement about the kinds of things he was saying in this House either. I just think that it was a coincidence.

In any event, I was not able to get most of the comments he made and I will apolog ize to him if some of the ones that I make do in fact dupl icate some of his comments. He can always indicate by saying, I said that, as I speak if that is the case. Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to indicate first of all to the Minister that he is embarking on a rather expensive new policy endeavour here with the two-licence system which he is asking us to approve through Bill No. 7'J.

The photo licence system, the two-licence system, which in fact is going to cost taxpayers of this province some $25 million over the first 10 or 11 years of its operation, some $25 million, over $5 million before the first year has passed, $3.5 million to get up and running and $2 4875

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 million per year operating. That is an enormous expense for what this Minister is undertaking. You have to wonder at the priorities of the Government in terms of health care and economic development and jobs in rural areas that could be created through the expenditure of this amount of money. It starts to become a major expenditure. For a Government that talks about managing the taxpayers' dollars well and more efficiently, I have to ask the question whether in fact this is indeed consistent with that compliment they pay themselves.

I do not agree with it for one thing and I think this is probably an example, a good example, of where in fact this Conservative Government is illus trating very clearly that they are not good managers of the taxpayers' money through this kind of expenditure that is not a necessity. It is nice to have the photo licence system for identification purposes. It is nice to have it because so many other jurisdictions have this system in place already, but it is not an essential.

If we were going to grade a number of services that Government should provide and you were going to rate them, certainly you would not rate this one as a 10 out of 10 when you compare it to the other needs in our health care system, our educational needs, our services to families and women, child care that is required, crisis centres that are being underfunded in the province, the need for some additional funding certainly for the poor in our socie ty, for those people who are on social assistance. Yet, here we have a Government funding $25 million over a 10-year period to pay for photos on licences.

On top of it they are going to start getting that money from us before the program even comes in. Now I understand from reading the information the Minister has sent out that the people born in even years are not going to get their photo licence until 19 92. Yet on April i, 19 90, two years in advance, they are already going to be paying an extra $4 for their licence. The Minister is going to start collecting in advance for this, !or a service that many of us are not going to see for another two years.

Well, he knows very well that money is not going to go in the bank and run the system later, that money lapses after the fiscal year and so it is gone. What the Go vernme nt is doing is using this as a revenue generating scheme when the services are not even yet being offered. Weil, there are set-up costs and the Minister is going to argue that all that money is going to go into establishing the system that there is $3.5 million to get this system off and running and then the first year another $2 million. That is $5.5 million. So he is going to say that $4 is necessary for the start up cost.

Then I look at what the Government has done and this Mini ster has done and I would like him to provide some answers and information to the House on this contract. Now I know the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Mandrake) mentioned that National Business Systems of Toronto was going to be getting the contract as indicated the information that the Minister sent to critics. Now the fact is, there is no mention made of a tender in this. I it that there is just no competition in these services in the world today.

The Minister indicates there are three companies that were, but all I can see is the, no mention of a tender, just simply that it has been awarded, that National Business Systems, Toronto, has been awarded a contract which will allow the Government of Manitoba to provide for a new photo licensing system. This company is the world's largest and undertakes over 50 percent of the photo driver licensing in the United States and medical cards and millions of credit cards and so on but no mention of a tender.

Clear ly, if the Minister says there was a tender, that is encouraging in this instance. * (1 520) The problem with it though of course is that all of this money for this, and we also do not know the terms of the contract and the length of the contract, how many years it will continue. It would seem open-ended, although it does talk about a term of the contract, so I do not know how long it is, but in any event there is going to be millions and millions of dollars going to National Business System of Toronto to provide this.

It seems to me that the Government had an opportunity here to work with the industry, trade and technology, the department that is called Industry, Trade and Tourism I believe, to develop an opportunity for a Manitoba company here. Because of the fact that there was this major expenditure on an ongoing basis that a Manitoba company certainly could have provided this kind of service to the Government of Manitoba and that is the kind of thing that the Government missed in this whole issue.

In their haste to implement this expensive system they forgot, unl ess they never had that in their repertoire of ideas in the first place, to look at the opportunities to maximize the benefits of this contract and of this undertaking to Manitobans. I belie ve that with the kinds of statements they make in this House, about Government involvement and so on, that they philosophically do not agree with the role of Government being used as a tool for economic development.

Therefore they never even thought that hey, maybe we better look at this major expenditure by the taxpayers and take a look if there is an opportunity here to establish a company or companies in Manitoba to provide this, to stimulate economic activity and to provide jobs, because we see jobs being lost from this province, people leaving the province, fleeing the province as they did during the Lyon years in Government in this province. Now the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Findlay) does not like that because he kno ws that was a very embarrassing time for Manitoba and for Conservatives in this province, when the people were fleeing and the joke was: will the last one out of Manitoba ple ase turn out the lights? There was a terrible population drain in this province. We reversed that, turned that around, with some confidenc e in this province during the early'80s, reversed that trend. As a matter of fact Manitoba's population was growing substantiall y. Now it is back to the doldrums again.

People are leaving again because they do not see any future in terms of economic development and jobs. 4876

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 Here was an opportunity, and now in the whole scheme of things relatively small-we are talking 25 million over 10 years, but that is still a lot of money and an opportunity to provide good quality jobs over a long period of time to ·Manitobans. Instead this Minister and this Government awarded a cont ract to a Toronto firm, and are ensuring, therefore, that the jobs are going to be back East, what they call central Canada.

I think Manitoba is central Canada, but let them say it is central Canada-in the areas of low unem ployment, high econ omic activity and large amounts of federal dollars. That is where they awarded their contract to and they left Manitoba out essentially . I think that is a terrible oversight on the part of this Government. I think they missed an opportunity. I think that is very unfortunate for Manitobans that taxpayers' dollars are going to spent this way to provide jobs in eastern Canada and they are not going to provide jobs in Manitoba.

The point is, if we are going to have this major expenditure on this particular program, which, as I said before, would not be rated as the highest priority for Government to spend $25 million over 10 years, then at least they could have maximized the benefits for Manitobans, and they did not do it. They ensured that the money would go East and contract the National Business Systems of Toronto instead of to Manitobans, and that is extremely unfortunate as I said before. Let us look at the other opportunities then. Having said that, Mr.

Acting Speaker, terrible oversight, now let us look at the other opportunities. They are talking about 12 9 camera systems that have to be sent out to all of the driver and vehicle licensing offices in this province. One hundred and twenty-nine camera systems have to be manufactured, shipped and installed in facilities located in 72 towns and cities throughout Manitoba. Now the question is, Mr. Acting Speaker, where are they going to be made?

Are they going to be made out in eastern Canada as well, more of this contract going down there, or is there going to be an effort to ensure that some of that stays in Manitoba, or would that be contrary to the Free Trade Agreement? Maybe that is why the Government cannot ensure that there is some Manitoba content in a contract such as this. That is an important thing. I think the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) should talk to his colleague, the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.

Alb ert Driedger), and find out about this oversight, because he did not pay attention in Cabinet or Treasury Board, obviously, when this was dis cussed. If he had he would have asked these questions-if he had the kind of brain that considers maximi zing Manitoba content and jobs as being im portant for this province, for Go vernm ent expenditures. Obviously, they did not do that. The Minister will have an opportunity to explain to this House why he did not do it. Because there are 12 9 camera systems that have to be man ufactured we can ask where are they going to be manufactured? Where are the jobs there?

I ask as well, Mr. Acting Speaker, about the fact that the Government is going to be collecting these fees two years before I am going to be able to get a photo licence in this province. Two years before, I am going to be paying $4 a licence, and I am still not going to get the service. Why and how can this Minister justify doing that, fleecing the public in this way even before the service is offered? I think he should consider very carefully whether in fact that is a legitimate way to go about this. Certainly, he will be able to do that.

The licences have been increased before because of the costs associated with operating the Highways Department. That is one source of revenue, so he can justify increasing the licence fees at any time if he wants to do that. Under the guise of this program, I think that he is misleading the people of Manitoba by increasing $4 a year prior to the benefits accruing to the people of Manitoba.

He might as well just say that there are costs in the department that he wants to recover through an increased licence fee and call a spade a spade, rather than saying it is because of this new system because it is not proper for him to do that.

I ask the Minister to explain to this House why he allocated this contract to a Toronto firm, what the terms of that contract are, what the tendering system was, what the com petitive bids were, how long that contract will be in place that they will receive the sole business for supplying this service to Manitobans through the Department of Highways; and whether in fact the Government could have taken another opportunity here, could have utilized this opportunity to provide jobs for Manitobans as a result of the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars?

I say to the Minister, in addition to asking that, and to all Members of this Government, whether in fact, when they look at their own departments in agriculture, where they see such a terrible situation, economic situation for rural families and farm families in this province, where they see a dismal drought program or feed assistance program by the Minister of some $19 million where people are getting $56 back after they pay $350 in premiums, and many other illus trations of that kind, whether in fact this $25 mill ion could not have been spent in the Department of Agriculture, instead of for photo licens ing.

Is that the highest priority the Government has at this time, to spend that kind of money on photo licensing? Is that so essential at this particular time when there are jobs that are needed out there, when there are education services, when there is support for agriculture, when there are health facilit ies and health care that needs increased funding? Is that where the Government's priorities are? I ask them whether they have looked at that, because it is nice. It sounds nice to have a photo on the licence, but it is a major, major expenditure.

How can the Members of the Treasury Bench and the Members of the Cabinet and all Members of the Conservative Caucus jus tify that kind of expenditure at this particular time? I say, was that the highest priority? They talk about being efficient in Government and there are expenditures. They talk about managing 4877

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 taxpayers' dollars so well. I say that this does not point to that kind of stewardship of the taxpayers' dollars . In fact, I say that this demonstrates to the taxpayers that they are prepared to throw money around, not save money as we were doing .-(interjection)- The Member for Steinbach says we were throwing it away. We saved, by going to a single licence plate, $200 ,000 a year. We knew that a little bit here and a little bit there adds up to a lot over a period of time . That is why we put in that decision . Those kinds of decisions were being made .

Here we have this Minister comi ng along saying, well, money is nothing . We will just collect it from the -(inte rjection)- $5.5 million in the first year before that system gets up and running and another $2 million a year in operating costs, if that is not throwing money around rather loosely . •

(1530) I think the Government should be thinking clearly about where their priorities are in terms of their expenditures, because they are going to find that maybe they have it good because the previous New Democratic Government left them in good position in this province . They had extra money to spend, so they think the easy times are going to be there all the time.

In fact the tax increases that led to the generation of additional dollars for this Government when they came into office which were put in place by the previous Government in an attempt to balance the budget over a two-year period, the fact that there was a windfall of additional money coming from the federal Government on a one-time-only basis that will not come again, the fact is that the economy was left in good shape and was generating a lot of wealth at that particular time. Our unemployment was the second lowest in the country, not fourth or fifth lowest like this Government has it now.

Because of those factors, they found themselves sitting in a pretty good position contrary to what they told the electorate before and during the last election. Mr. Acting Speaker, they thought that is going to last forever, this tremendous position that Manitoba was sitting in, it is going to last forever. I am going to tell them that there is an end in sight to this and they are not going to have the dollars to put out on programs such as pictures on licences. In the near future they are going to have to start making some hard decisions where they are going to spend the money.

It is not going to be easy come, easy go as it has for the last two years for them. They are going to find that they have to be respons ible for where they spend taxpayers' dollars in this province . They are going to make some decisions. There are going to be Ministers like the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) who is going to say to the Minister of Highways (Mr. Albert Driedger), I do not know whether we should spend $25 million on pictures on driver licenc es.

Maybe we shou ld spend it on facilities that are required or maybe on surgery facilities that are required in this province where people have to go out of the province . Maybe he will say that they should spend it on additional home care for the elderly to eliminate the high cost of nursing care and so on . There are many areas that are deficient because of this Minister. They are going to find that the gravy train has ended because of the good management by the New Democratic Government and the Government before them, the good position we left them in, and then they are going to have to make those decisions.

It is not going to be so easy for them if they get to stay in Government for any length of time and that of course is the bigges t if of all.- (interject ion)- You know, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orcha rd) talks about the deficit. He shcu ld go and see Grant Devine's deficit and his mismanagement . He should see Loughe ed and Don Getty's mismanagement in Alberta. He should see the deficit left by Mulroney. Then he would know about deficits and he would not point to a New Democratic Government and say somehow this Government was mismanaging

whereas all those Tory Governments in other provinces were not doing that. In fact they were doing it far worse . They were having a much more difficult time balancing their budgets, managing and staying on target for their budgets than the New Democratic Government in this province was doing. Through that, they will come to the realization that in fact they are going to have to make some hard decisions, Mr. Acting Speaker, about such things as photos , pictures, on driver licences.

They are going to have to decide whether that is wise expenditure of taxpayers' dollars , considering all of these other priorities that they have to make. Like I say, when it was sitting in their laps, this millionaire Finance Minister who walked into this good situation with all these addit ional dollars coming to the province, he thought that it was going to be like this all the time. This windfall was just going to be there . This money was just going to keep coming in. In fact, that is going to stop. They are going to find through their own mismanagement that they are going to get further in the hole .

They will not be able to get out of it this time . They will not have these additional dollars coming in. When they have a punitive federal Government hurting Manitoba at every opportunity and cutting back on jobs and commitment to our rural areas and to our communities, then they are going to have to pick up the slack. Then they are going to say, well, maybe we should not spend $25 million on pictures on driver licences . Maybe there is a better way to spend that money and to provide stewardship of taxpayers' dollars in this province. I would like them to reflect carefully on that because, Mr.

Acting Speaker , as nice as it is to have a picture of yourself on your licence in your wallet, as nice as it is, they should be asking themselves : is this the way they should be spending taxpayers' dollars at this time? That is what they should be asking. They are going to be held responsible for those kinds of expenditures in the months ahead . I can assure the m o f that. Mr. Acting Speaker , if they are intent in moving forward with this particular program , this expensive version of a photo licence system , then they shall be responsible for it.

We would like to go forward and take this to comm ittee to allow the people to make their representations . So we do not intend to speak at great length on this Bill, but to put those points on 4878

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 the record for the Mini ster's reflection and hi s colleagues' reflect ion, so they can have some sober second thought, if you pardon the pun, about the kind of moves and the kind of ways they are spending taxpayers' money in this province. I let that speak for itself, for the people of Manitoba and decisions that have to be made in the future by the people with regard to this Government. Mr. Harry Harapiak (The Pas): Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to put a few words on the record on Bill No. 73.

I want to- An Honourable Member: Do it right nolll( and get it off your chest, you will feel . . . Mr. Harapiak: Mr. Acting Speaker, the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery), as he normally does, tries to harass people when they get up to speak. I guess he does not want to make any comments on the Bill on his own behalf, so I guess he wants to distract other people so they cannot make any comments on the record either. The photo licensing is one of the issues that we were wrestling with when we were a Government. It certainly has been around for quite a long period of time.

I know that it is an important item, and I guess I just have to ask the same question as my colleague from Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) asked : is this a priority of the Government, although we recognize that there is an important role to be played for photo licensing? I think it would help in identification for people of the Province of Manitoba, but I guess when you look at the costs of bringing this program into place then you have to ask the question: is it that much of a priority that the Government would be bringing it in when there are so many other priorities that are facing us at this time?

I know that when you look at the whole area of job creation, there are some real needs out there that the Government should be looking at putting some public dollars into job creation for some of those people who are having difficulty right now because of some of the decisions that the federal Government has made when you are dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Commission. A tightening up of the regulations makes it necessary for people to be emplo yed for a much longer period of time before they can qualify for unemployment insurance.

I think that the Government should be looking at the possibility of creating some jobs in that area. * (15 40) We just had a moment to speak about some of the very intricate parts of this legislation and the Minister has corrected me on some of the misunderstanding that was there about the Bill so I am pleased that I had the opportunity to have that bit of information.

I think it is unfortunate that the Government does not look at their priorities and look at how they can priorize some of the needs out there. really think that in some of the areas there is need for employment creation and dealing with some of the people who have dif ficulty qua lifyi ng for unemplo yment ins urance, especially in the fishing industry. I know that in the Lake Winnipegosis area and Lake Winnipeg ·area, Grand Rapids, Easterville, some of the constituencies that I represent, along with the Member for Dauphin (Mr.

Plohman), there are people who are having difficu lty qualifying for some of those programs. I think that if the Go vernment took off their philo sophical blindfolds and looked at it, that would be money well spent. There are some legitimate needs out in those communi ties and some programs that could be put in place would be much better, much more wisely spent than the dollars that are being spent with bringing this program into place at this time.

I recognize that there are some benefits for having photo driver licences in Manitoba, because when you look at some of the other jurisdictions that have it, then it is quite a positive program. You know in the United States that there are over 50 percent of the states have that type of program, so I think if you look at it, then it does make sense to go in the direction. I guess all we are questioning is the priority of doing it at this time, and also the wisdom of charging people for a two-year period, increasing their licence fees for a two-year period before it comes into effect.

I think that they are asking us to finance the whole program before we get the benefits of the program. I guess I look at also some of the comments that were made by the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) about the priority for Government of letting this contract go to a firm outside of the Province of Manitoba.

I know that there are firms in Manitoba that could handle this and I think that if they were to use some of the same policies that we had used when we were dealing with the Limestone development set-up, then Manitoba firms would have received these contracts and this would have been some additional employment created in Manitoba. I guess one of the things that I have a little bit of difficulty accepting is the fact that the photo will be renewed on a four-year basis so it will be necessary for you to carry two pieces of identification then, one is the photo, and the other one is a driver licence.

Why could they not make it for a four-year period, a four year driver licence? I think it would make sense that if somebody compiled their demerits that made it necessary to give them demerits then those people should be getting an additional piece of paper lo carry around to show that there has been some change in their merit rating. The majority of lic ensed drivers in Manitoba do not have merits, so su rely, they could have come up with some system that was a simpler system than they have in place now.

They could have made your licence one piece of information that could just carry around with you instead of necessary to have two separate pieces of •ntrmn;;it1n I guess I have to ask some of the same as to the process that is going to be the next couple of years to bring this into say that the cameras are going to and therefore there is going to be the manufacturing of 129 cameras. are going to be manufactured? I hope that the 4879

Wednesday, January 31, 1990 when he gets up to make his closing comments on this before it goes to the commi ttee will tell us where those cameras are going to be manufactured and are they going to be utilizing some of the Manitoba expertise that is out there and utilize Manitoba firms to put that in place. I think that it would create some additional jobs in the Province of Manitoba.

They are going to be putting the facilities, they are going to locate those facilities in 72 towns and villa ges and cities throughout the province over the next year to put this program in pla ce and they are going to be computerizing. I think this goes along with the need to computerize the programs right across Canada, because in some instances there are people who have lost their driving privileges in another province and then they come to Manitoba and they have applied as a new driver and they have been able to get a licence.

I know personally of some people who have lost their licence here in Manitoba and yet have gone to Ontario and they have had a licence issued to them. I do not think that is fair. I thin k there is a need for computerization of our system right across the dominion so that when people who have lost their driving privileges in one province should not be able to get a driver lic ence in another province.-(interjection)- Mr. Acting Speaker, I think that if the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) would look at it then he would see that process was already in place, so the process is already starting for that to be in place. So I think he should take into consideration some of the comments he is making before he puts comments of that type in pl ace. Mr. Acting Speaker, I think it is extremely important that co-operation goes on between provinces so that we can have records that are transferred from one jurisdiction to the other.

I guess when I look at the process that will be happening, and it shows that there will be a good deal of the start-up program taking pla ce in, I guess they contempla ted it taking place in December. With the legislation not being passed it will probably be started after the legislation has been approved. Of course we have to go through the comm ittee process yet, so we do not know how many presentations there are going to be from the public. If it is any indication the amount of interest there is out there dealing with consumer Bills, on 63 and 64, there is a tremendous amount of interest out there.

I know that the Member for La Verendrye (Mr. Pankratz) was very upset the other day when the people were coming forward and making presentations to the comm ittee, but he should not try and stifle the comm ittee process. I think it is extremely important that we hear the public. I think that is the whole purpose of having commit tee meetings.

It is so people can come and make presentations, so that when we are passing legislation that is going to be affecting the citizens of Manitoba then we should not hesitate by having the commi ttee meetings come and we should not stifle those people. if there is some legislation being brought forward that is going to be affecting the citizens of Manitoba, then we certainly have to hear them. I know that some of the legislation that is being brought forward is in the area of consumer protection, 4880 but I think that while we have opened up the cons

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-115
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 115.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7c5c7b8bbb8040cd090a09a70c98b601e838d92b

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