Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 6 (36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-6

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No.6 - 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, December 12, 1995

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

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

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

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

233 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, December 12,1995 The Bouse met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Emergency Health Care Services Community Hospitals Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Linnea Rindall, Charmaine Fast, Lindsay Dolhun and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to consider maintaining 24-hour access to emergency health care at community hospitals, as was promised in the 1995 general election. Emergency Health Care Services Concordia Hospital Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition ofW. Cameron, J. Cameron, Rose-Marie Natyna and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to consider maintaining 24-hour access to emergency health care at Concordia Hospital, as was promised in the 1995 general election. Emergency Health Care Services Community Hospitals Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lillian Wittman, Kathy Taylor, Shirley Sawchuk and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to consider maintaining 24-hour access to emergency health care at community hospitals, as was promised in the 1995 general election. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Diane Cook, Destinee Parisien, Karen Grouette and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) to consider maintaining 24-hour access to emergency health care at community hospitals, as was promised in the 1995 general election. Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Kathy Katchurowsky, Janiro Kowalczyk, Genoweta Zemla and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to consider maintaining 24-hour access to emergency health care at community hospitals, as was promised in the 1995 general election. Retention of Bogs Single-Desk Selling Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Brownie Kafara, E.T. Minish, Donna Ferriss and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) reverse his decision and retain single-desk selling for hogs in Manitoba under Manitoba Pork. Emergency Health Care Services Community Hospitals Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Teresa Cwik, Kelly Allardyce, Gavin Panchuk and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier to consider maintaining 24-hour access to emergency health care in community hospitals, as was promised in the 1995 general election. Mr. George Dickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I would like to present the petition of T.G. Sewell, I.E. Schultz, M.

Brewer and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record to request the Premier to consider maintaining 24-hour access to emergency health care at community hospitals, as was promised in the 1995 general election. *

(1335) 234 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Emergency Health Care Services Grace General Hospital Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). It complies with the rules and practices of the House (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: No. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election the Premier promised not to cut health care services; and THAT following the election the Minister of Health promised that emergency services would not be reduced at community hospitals in Winnipeg; and THAT the Minister of Health on October 6 announced that emergency services at these hospitals would be cut back immediately; and THAT residents of the Grace Hospital vicinity depend upon emergency service at this hospital.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier to consider maintaining 24- hour access to emergency health care at Grace Hospital as was promised in the 1995 general election. Emergency Health Care Services Community Hospitals Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election the Premier promised not to cut health care services; and THAT following the election the Minister of Health promised that emergency services would not be reduced at community hospitals in Winnipeg; and THAT the Minister of Health on October 6 announced that emergency services at these hospitals would be cut back immediately; and THAT residents of Winnipeg and surrounding communities depend on emergency service at these community hospitals.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier to consider maintaining 24- hour access to emergency health care at community hospitals in Winnipeg as was promised in the 1995 general election. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election the Premier promised not to cut health care services; and THAT following the election the Minister of Health promised that emergency services would not be reduced at community hospitals in Winnipeg; and THAT the Minister of Health on October 6 announced that emergency services at these hospitals would be cut back immediately; and THAT residents of Winnipeg and surrounding communities depend on emergency service at these community hospitals.

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 235 WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier to consider maintaining 24- hour access to emergency health care at community hospitals in Winnipeg as was promised in the 1995 general election. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Madam Speaker: Yes. The Clerk will read. *

(1340) Mr.

Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election the Premier promised not to cut health care services; and THAT following the election the Minister of Health promised that emergency services would not be reduced at community hospitals in Winnipeg; and THAT the Minister of Health on October 6 announced that emergency services at these hospitals would be cut back immed iately; and THAT residents of Winnipeg and surrounding communities depend on emergency service at these community hospitals.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier to consider maintaining 24-hour access to emergency health care at community hospitals in Winnipeg as was promised in the 1995 general election. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election the Premier promised not to cut health care services; and THAT following the election the Minister of Health promised that emergency services would not be reduced at community hospitals in Winnipeg; and THAT the Minister of Health on October 6 announced that emergency services at these hospitals would be cut back immediately; and THAT residents of Winnipeg and surr ounding communities depend on emergency service at these community hospitals.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier to consider maintaining 24- hour access to emergency health care at community hospitals in Winnipeg as was promised in the 1995 general election. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. THAT emergency health care s�rvices are the core of Manitoba's health care system.

THAT Manitobans deserve the greatest possible access to this care. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister responsible for Health consider making a commitment to the people of Manitoba that emergency health care services in Winnipeg's five community hospitals will remain open seven days a week, 24 hours a day.

236 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT on at least six occasions during the 1995 provincial election the Premier promised not to cut health care services; and THAT following the election the Minister of Health promised that emergency services would not be reduced at community hospitals in Winnipeg; and THAT the Minister of Health on October 6 announced that emergency services at these hospitals would be cut back immediately; and THAT residents of Winnipeg and surr ounding communities depend on emergency service at these community hospitals.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record requesting the Premier to consider maintaining 24- hour access to emergency health care at community hospitals in Winnipeg as was promised in the 1995 general election. *

(1345) TABLING OF REPORTS Bon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), I would like to table the Quarterly Financial Report for the Twelve Months Ended October 31, 1995, for the Manitoba Public Insurance. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw all honourable members' attention to the public gallery where we have with us this afternoon sixteen Grade 11 students from Immanuel Christian School under the direction of Mr. Jeff Dykstra.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). We also have 25 students from Winnipeg Adult Education Centre under the direction of Mr. Ed Buchel. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Health Care System Emergency Services Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

Dealing with the closure of emergency wards at our community hospitals, we have had a number of contrary announcements by the government over the last 18 months. In July of 1994 the Minister of Health said, I could not dare possibly close any of the emergency wards in our community hospitals at night I use those wards myself, he said to us. After the election in October of 1995, the government decided to close five out of the seven hospitals in the evening. They said they had a consensus, and then we found out later they did not.

They said it was because of 4 percent volume in terms of emergent cases; then we found out that was not true. Now they are saying they have to reopen four of those hospital emergency wards at night because the holiday season is coming. I would like to ask the Premier, is it possible for the people of Manitoba to get a Minister of Health who can plan our health care system on the basis of knowing that a holiday season has greater volume? There was no reason to close those emergency wards at our community hospitals at night to begin with in October. Bon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the planning has not been done in isolation. It never has been with this government, unlike the

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 237 planning done by honourable members opposite when they had an opportunity. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, this is the minister of chaos in terms of the Conservative government. He cannot plan 10 weeks ahead. He does not even know whether Christmas is coming or not when he makes his original decision. He is now 10 weeks later planning some reopening.

In light of the fact that the government is saying that this is not our final decision, our full plan-this next full plan, I might add-will be announced early in the new year, said the Minister of Health, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), can he tell us what that full plan is? The Minister of Health told us last week he did not want to open emergency wards and then close them down again in the new year. Does this mean that we have a guarantee that the four out of the five that were announced today will be permanently reopened in our communities in Winnipeg? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable Leader of the Opposition should be aware that the emergency planning team has recommended that there be five sites for emergency services in addition to Children's Hospital. Those five sites would include two tertiary centres and three community hospitals.

Because we are during the Christmastime and during a time of transition, for that intermediate time we have chosen to open four community hospital emergency rooms at night, but the configuration in the future will be two and three, and much work needs to be done in the meantime amongst the health care professionals involved in the process. The honourable member may be interested to know that there is more than just emergency services carried out at our institutions.

There are programs like psychiatry, pediatrics, cancer, medicine and critical care, obstetrics, geriatrics, surgery, various support services, diagnostics, and laboratory services. All of those are programs of their own, and we are trying to get integrated planning throughout the city for each and every one of those programs. Each of those programs will have a planning team like the planning team we have for emergency services. We appreciate the input these people are making. They are very, very qualified people to do that.

They do not run the health system based solely on political considerations like my colleagues opposite would have us do. *

(1350) Mr. Doer: The minister, in the last few weeks, has said that he did not want to open or reopen community based emergency wards at night and then close them again in the new year; we needed a long-term plan. Today he is again contradicting his own words where he is saying that we are going to reverse ourselves on one of the hospitals in the new year with the anticipated so-called full plan. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), will today's announcement be the full plan in keeping with the minister's own words of last week?

We do not need these decisions to keep the emergency wards open and then close them and then open some and then close some again. We need long term stability for our communities. We need predictability for our patients and for our citizens. Can we get that from the Premier today? We certainly cannot get it from the Minister of Health. Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, you see, the honourable member has to understand that we are following the recommendations made to us by the Urban Health Planning Emergency Services team. That is exactly what we are doing here. So the honourable member wants us to close something.

Let him tell us which one he wants us to close now or let the public know which one. He is asking that we close one; let him tell us which one that he would have us close. He now seems to agree that that is the thing to do. Health Care System Emergency Services Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) my questions because the Minister of Health has been wrong so often that perhaps the Premier can try to straighten out the situation.

238 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 Madam Speaker, can the Premier explain to members of this House and the public of Manitoba which of the many secret committees this minister has that made the recommendations that have the temporary reopening that was announced today, because he has not been listening and does not have recommendations from his Emergency Task Force committee? It is obviously the urban planning committee they set up, the executive committees that are making all of the executive recommendations about the future of health care in this province.

Can the Premier tell us which committee made the decision, and will he table the results of those recommendations and the data to back it up? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Kildonan attended the forum last week facilitated by KPMG, which discussed some of these matters. He knows, unless he has forgotten already what he learned when he attended that forum, that we had an Emergency Services Task Force composed of all kinds of people providing all kinds of input. Madam Speaker, not all of the input was the same. There were competing views put forward.

The honourable member should not be surprised by that, so that the emergency planning team had the benefit of the input of all of the players of the Emergency Services Task Force before they made their recommendations to me. Is the honourable member now picking and choosing which advice he wants to take from which parties at the Emergency Serv ices Task Force table? If he is doing that, let him say which advice he wants to reject Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

Can the Premier, who did not answer the question, or the Minister of Health, who also did not answer the question, perhaps inform this House and guarantee that the two hospitals whose emergency wards are going to be closed in the new year will not be permanently closed or converted to some other type of facility or function, which are the rumours that are rampant in the health care community, and which, at those seminars I attended, everyone concluded was in fact going to happen, Madam Speaker? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, the role of hospitals that in future will not include in their role emergency services is very much the subject of discussion with the people at those hospitals, with the care providers, with the care providers at all of the hospitals in the city. I keep repeating for the honourable member because even when he goes to forums and takes

part in discussions, he comes away as if he had not heard anything that went on there. Madam Speaker, we are talking about integration of services so we can provide better services for Manitobans right here in the city, so that we can use the dollars that we have very effectively and so that we can use the talent, the training, the expertise that exists in our city to the best possible advantage for the people who need health care services in the city. *

(1355) Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

Can the Premier explain to this House why they are proceeding to close two hospital emergency wards at night on the recommendations of a minister who first said he had consensus and was proved to be wrong, on a recommendation of a minister who said he closed them in the first place because they were 4 percent utilized and he was found to be wrong-they are 11 percent utilized-on a minister who said it was closed to save money and then said it was not going to save money and now it may cost us more, on the recommendations of a minister who did not even listen to the recommendations of the Emergency Task Force Report?

Can he explain why, on the basis of not only that information and the incompetence of that minister, he is choosing to close two emergency wards in the city of Winnipeg when it is known by all health care providers those wards are needed? Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member thinks he knows more in the area of health

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 239 care delivery than Jack Litvack, the CEO of one of our tertiary hospitals, he knows more than Dr. Neil Swirsky who is the medical head of our Health Emergency Services Planning Team. The honourable member for Kildonan knows more than Betty Lou Roch, the nurse clinician manager member of this team. The honourable member knows more than all of these professionals who provide advice. Well, that is astounding, Madam Speaker. I really have to rethink everything I have ever done now because I have not always followed the advice of the honourable member.

Michael Bessey Tuition Fees/Cash Advance Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, according to the federal employee guideline rules,

Section 28(1 ), public officeholders should not allow themselves to be influenced in the pursuit of their official duties and responsibilities by plans or offers for outside employment;

Section 28(2), a public officeholder shall disclose in writing to the ethics counsellor all firm offers of outside employment that could place the public officeholder in a position of conflict; 28(3), a public officeholder who accepts an offer of outside employment shall immediately disclose in writing to the ethics counsellor, and so on. Saskatchewan, a public employee should not let himself be influenced. Madam Speaker, does the Premier still maintain that there is nothing wrong with Mr. Bessey negotiating a material benefit with a senior officer of a corporation when both Mr.

Bessey and that officer sat on the Faneuil ISG board and negotiated other arran gements with MTS and other companies? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I note that the member opposite is quoting all sorts of legislative sources other than the Province of Manitoba, which, of course, were developed by the government of which he now bears the political stripe.

Madam Speaker, given the fact that serious allegations have been made by the members opposite with respect to the relationships and indeed the actions of a former public servant, I asked the Clerk of the Executive Council to convene a meeting with the Legislative Counsel and the Deputy Minister of Justice, and through that process, have requested that a review be made of all of the allegations and all of the information provided both in media reports and by members of the opposition. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, in the light of the Premier's answer, can he then confirm that the total value of Mr.

Bessey's arrangements this year with Stanton Europa are approximately $80,000? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I have no knowledge of that. Mr. Sale: Can the Premier tell the House whether the arrangements made by Mr. Bessey are for one year or for two years or for three years or for more years? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I have no knowledge of that. Community Colleges Funding Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

During the last election, the Filmon team, clearly knowing of the reductions in the federal transfer payments, promised the people of Manitoba that they would expand the community colleges of Manitoba. Seven months later Red River Community College, in anticipation of a $338,000 deficit, has fired an additional nine staff over and above the 27 they let go this summer, suspended courses and cut class sections. I want to ask the Minister of Education to tell the House how she intends to keep those promises she made in full knowledge of the federal withdrawal. Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member knows, or ought to know, that we have in our last go-around increased funding to community colleges. It is unfortunate that the federal government withdrew its direct purchase of seats in some instances.

240 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 199 5 *

(1400) The colleges have gone to self-governance. I think they have done a very good job, notwithstanding the current realities, of offering programming to their students, of bringing in new and innovative programs. I look at some of the things going on with distance education. I look at some of the work the colleges are doing in terms of interacting with universities, applaud them for their initiatives in that regard and for the continued high quality of service they give their students.

College boards of governors make decisions independently, as do boards of governors at universities, as do other self-governing bodies. Their task is not an easy one, but I do believe that this commitment by this government in terms of our own provincial funding to colleges compares very well with other enterprises across the country. Indeed, the increase we put into them last year for new initiatives, I believe, is very much appreciated by them. Fee Policy Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, the end result is there are fewer students, there are fewer classes and fewer opportunities for young people, and those election promises meant nothing. Madam Speaker, I want the minister to tell us whether the 10 percent increase in fees for Continuing and Distance Education proposed at Red River College-and a 10 percent increase in fees in one year is a huge amount for any student-will she tell us, is this what she had in mind when she promised, in that same election, to establish a provincial fee policy? Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I note the member made a postamble and a

preamble, but did this time at least follow it with a question, which she has not always done. I would like to say that the member should go out and take a good look at what is happening in the colleges to understand the new and innovative technologies that are being offered, the interaction, not just with colleges, not just with universities, but also with industry.

Take a look at what is happening with the connections with the aerospace industry, for example, in terms of opportunities for students at the colleges, understand that our rates in Manitoba compare extremely well with rates of colleges in other parts of the country. Madam Speaker, the tuition fee policy that we will be examining has not yet begun. She knows that we are looking at a tuition fee policy for post-secondary institutions to be delivered by the council on post secondary education which has very close understandi ngs of what is going on in post-secondary instituti ons.

She knows that; yet, she speaks as if a fait accompli has occurred for a review that has not yet begun. I think that is a bit misleading, and she should be careful to be clear and accurate in her questions. Desjardins Report Release Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the First Minister. Over the years the government has benefited greatly through revenue created from gambling and has constantly downplayed the negative social costs of that activity which this government can take sole credit for.

We understand, through talking to the commission's office, at the very latest by this Friday this government will have the Desjardins report on gambling. My question to the Premier is, in the name of open government, something that this Premier often talks about, will he make a commitment to make that report public immediately upon receiving it? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I do not have any confirmation of the information that the member is giving.

The Desjardins commission is an independent body and will operate on the timetable that they have set for themselves in order to do the job they have been engaged to do. We have indicated that report will be made public, and the process that we normally follow is that the

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 241 �inister is able to receive the report and have enough t1me to be able to review it so that he can make intelligent commentary on it and then release it to the public. Standing Committee Review Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Can the Premier allow for a standing committee to meet in the month of January in which members of the opposition will have an opportunity to question this government on its gambling policy, given that over the last number of years standing committees only dealt with Lotteries for maybe four or five hours in total duration over the last three, three and a half years? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, those arrangements are made between House leaders. I would expect that the House leaders will want to

schedule an opportunity for that committee to sit so that the member can ask his questions. Mr. Lamoureux: Would the Premier then be in favour of seeing the standing committee meet while we have adjourned for the winter, coming back no doubt sometime in the month of March? Will he make the commitment to have the standing committee meet to have this public debate? Mr. Filmon: The member knows that I cannot make that commitment. That is the subject of negotiations between the House leaders, and that is the way the process should be. Crime Prevention Government Strategy Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.

Johns): My question is for the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). With the highest increase in violent crime of all the provinces since 1989, this is the government that has refused to proclaim The Crime Prevention Foundation Act; has lots of phantom committees on crime like the Crime Prevention Council-it has never existed; promotes garage sales for youth programs and has a summit report on youth crime which has about two years of dust on it as of last week-not as much dust on it as the Pedlar report recommendations and the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report-while it cuts programs at friendship centres.

My question to the First Minister is, how has he the gall to write in last week's throne speech such nonsense as: The government has, and I quote, "an already impressive record of crime prevention"? Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to reiterate what was in the throne speech last week in terms of this government's record in the area of crime prevention. Let me start in the area of policing.

Money for 40 more police officers in the city of Winnipeg; more money to the RCMP; work with communities in terms of work where citizens can participate; continued work in terms of youth justice committees in the effort to make sure that young people do not return to a life of crime. The list is very long. The member across the way has never supported any of the programs but the citizens of Manitoba certainly have. Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, since the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon) will not now stand by his puffery, care to explain why these gestures have failed to impress the national victims' rights organization, CAVEAT, which has reviewed the crime prevention efforts of all Canadian governments and issued a report card which concludes there is little evidence of a commitment to crime prevention in Manitoba, and instead of getting an A or a B like some governments this government got an F? ' Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, the member is quite wrong. This province did not get an F. However, we did get aD, and I will tell you why.

The reason this province got a D is because we would not support Bill C-68, compulsory federal gun registration. CAVEAT made it very clear. The member is wrong. He does not ever stick to a single position; he talks out of both sides.

242 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 *

(1410) Point of Order Mr. Mackintosh: I am sure the member does not want to mislead this House or suggest that I am misleading this House. This government got a D-minus overall, and I will table the report card on crime prevention which is what I am talking about where it got a big fat F. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St Johns does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. *** Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, to quickly complete her response. Mrs.

V odrey: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to table also CAVEAT reality check, and the efforts that-they said, contact your M.P. today; I would like to register with CAVEAT my support of Bill C-68, the firearms act. The provinces that got a D were Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, provinces which did not support Bill C- 68. An Honourable Member: What did Saskatchewan get, Rosemary? Mrs. V odrey: My understanding was that they did not support it either. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Before recognizing the honourable member for St Johns, I want to remind all honourable members in this Chamber that today we have in our public gallery a number of high school students who I am certain do not appreciate rudeness, and I would ask the co-operation of all honourable members. There is no room for shouting in this Chamber. Point of Order Mr. Mackintosh: I want the record straight, Madam Speaker, and I am sure the Justice minister will do so. Just to confirm that she is misleading this House when she says that the provinces opposed to the gun control bill got Ds, Saskatchewan got a C-minus.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. May I please ask the honourable member for St Johns for co-operation in standing on points of order. Now this is the second point of order he has been recognized for, knowing full well that is not a point of order. It is clearly a dispute with the minister over producing facts. *** Mr. Mackintosh: Madam Speaker, would the Justice minister then, who tactically, I note, never mentioned her so-called Crime Prevention Fund, confirm that she has at least impressed her own constituency, which last year received over one-quarter of all the funds expended by that hush fund? Mrs.

V odrey: Madam Speaker, the Crime Prevention Fund is available to provide some funds, not ongoing funds, to communities who have a project which qualifies according to some criterion. So that is adhered to. This government, Madam Speaker, I believe, has continued to follow our positions, our positions as stated. This government did not support gun registration. The other side we are not sure. This side believes in consequences for young offenders. The member for St. Johns, in November, ended up saying all they need is love. We simply do not know where he stands.

Department of Natural Resources Staff Biologist Dismissal Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission. Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Natural Resources told us that Dan Soprovich was fired for, quote, huddling with members on this side of the House during the Clean Environment Commission hearings.

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 243 Is it your government's policy to terminate civil servants' contracts on the basis of who they sit with at public hearings? Bon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): My learned friend knows that is an improper question to ask at this time when this matter is in fact being considered, that the employee may in fact have rights of appeal. I am certainly not going to interfere in an independent government agency. Mr.

Struthers: Madam Speaker, can the minister responsible for the Civil Service tell the House whether there is a new government policy in place that makes talking with members of this Legislature a dismissable offence? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I have answered that question already. Mr. Struthers: He did not answer the question, Madam Speaker. Could this minister respectively inform his colleague the honourable Minister for Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) as to what does and does not constitute a dismissable offence in this government? Mr.

Toews: My honourable colleague may in fact think it is improper to interfere with those kinds of decisions. I do not. I will let the employee take any steps that he is legally entitled to and let an independent board make those decisions. Copyright Canadian Distribution Rights Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, Manitoba's rich cultural life is clear in our small presses, for example, Turnstone, Pemmican, Watson and Dwyer, Blizzard, and the excellence of our writers: Governor General's Award winners and nominees like Patrick Friesen, Margaret Sweatman and Di Brandt, just to name a few.

But the arrival of monolithic booksellers like Barnes and Noble and Borders could obliterate the presses and the opportunity for young, talented writers to publish. My questions are for the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. Has the minister pushed the federal government to reform Canadian copyright to include Canadian distribution rights and therefore provide a measure of protection to Canadian publishers and writers, particularly of course Manitoba publishers and writers? Bon.

Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, indeed, our government's support for the cultural community is well known within the province and across the country, that as other levels of government both municipal and federal reduce their funds for cultural and artistic events, we have maintained our funding through the Manitoba Arts Council and through our department to encourage writers, artists of all sorts, to practise their trade and profession here in Manitoba On the issue of discussions with the federal government, we were about to have a ministerial meeting, the first one in some three years, early this month in Saskatoon.

That meeting has been rescheduled for January, at which time we will have an opportunity to talk to the federal government about some of their policies involving the arts. Bookstores Canadian Purchasing Policy Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Will the minister then negotiate with Ottawa to encourage incoming U.S. giants to exact commitments that they buy and must buy all their Canadian and agency books from Canadian sources? Bon.

Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): I would say to my honourable friend that we have been in discussions in a number of departments and within my department with the federal government on a number of issues. We have not at this point had a lot of success in dealing with the federal governm ent in terms of changing some of their policies and certainly affecting any of their funding decisions. Publishing Industry Employment Protection Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Will the minister table in this House his plan to protect Manitoba writers

244 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 and presses and so protect the economic spin-offs which are somewhere in excess of $2 million and also protect the 31 jobs in the publishing industry? Bon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, our commitment to that industry has been maintained through a number of budgets. As I have indicated earlier in my first answer that

whereas other levels of government are withdrawing their funding, reducing their funding, the best support that we can give them is to maintain our funding and I am optimistic that we will be able to do that in the upcoming budget. *

(1420) Real Estate Industry Fraud Investigation Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer Affairs. Madam Speaker, dozens of first-time homeowners own overpriced homes that they cannot sell, thanks to the lack of action ofthis government. This government has known about this since it started; it has done nothing while this ring is operating to this day. Will the minister finally take responsibility for this mess and tell the young, first-time home buyers who are watching this Question Period what you plan to do about it? Bon.

Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, subsequent to the member for Elmwood raising this issue, I had a discussion yesterday with the chair of the Manitoba Securities Commission. She told me that in fact it was the Manitoba Securities Commission investigator who uncovered this whole issue. They were the ones who blew the whistle on it. They were the ones who caused action to be taken and is now under investigation by the RCMP. Mr.

Maloway: I would like to ask the minister whether this government has made any recommendations to the Law Society, the real estate association and the CMHC over this ring that has been operating under his nose for the last two or three years. Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I think we will wait for the RCMP to conduct their investigation to determine what appropriate actions are necessary after that investigation is completed. Education System Transportation Policy Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

Madam Speaker, this government has made a number of changes to the funding policy for school buses in the province, including eliminating a 22-year-old clause in the agreement to ensure there is funding for school buses in outlying areas in the city for Grades 7 to 12 students. This would mean that they are not going to have to rely on public transit for school buses. This has been bad enough, but now the City of Winnipeg is going to eliminate some 36 Transit routes in the city. Six of those are in the constituency of Radisson.

This is going to mean that many students and others will have no way of getting to school or to work. I want to table a copy of the various Transit routes that are being eliminated. I want to ask the Minister of Education if she has had any discussions with school divisions, trustees or staff with the school divisions or the City of Winnipeg to address this problem so that students attending schools in the city of Winnipeg will have transportation. Curr ently, there is no school bus or public transit. Bon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member knows or the member ought to know that the Department of Education funds transportation for students in Manitoba if they live in rural Manitoba over a certain distance, if they live in the city of Winnipeg over a certain distance, 1.6 kilometres or one mile. If the school division in Winnipeg decides that they wish to transport their students, the school division can make decisions on routes. The school division can make decisions as to whether to contract out busing, to acquire their own buses.

There are criteria for buses in terms of the kind of bus that must be purchased for

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 245 students' safety, and school divisions are elected and are accountable to make decisions with the funding provided by the government of Manitoba for transportation purposes. We do not tell school divisions what routes to choose or whether indeed to bus certain grades of students. That decision is for.them to make. Ms.

Cerilli: Madam Speaker, given that this government has contributed to this problem by eliminating the funding for suburban school divisions for Grades 7 to 12 students, I want to ask the minister, what is her approach going to be to solve this problem so that students throughout the city are going to have access either to public transit or to school bus transportation? Currently, there is a problem- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, it is true that some divisions in the city of Winnipeg had been transporting students in the high school arena, in the junior high arena.

Other divisions in the city of Winnipeg have never transported students after they get to the high school or secondary level. That choice is the school divisions' to make. They make those decisions within their available funds. Funding is provided for students up to a certain grade level within the city if the school division has a transportation policy, Madam Speaker. Again I reiterate, that decision is made by school divisions and some urban divisions have never bussed students in those upper grades. Hog Industry Marketing System Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is taking action that is going to hurt the pork industry in this province. In fact, he himself has stated that 85 percent of the producers in this province are against moving to dual marketing, but he is going to move to it anyway. He has set up a group of people whom he knew in their ideology would support the vertical integration and big business in the pork industry. Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister why so few producers were contacted in the study.

In the spirit of disclosure, will he list the people who were contacted, the independent producers who were contacted and whose opinions are reflected in this study? Hon. Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I want to make it clear to the honourable member for Swan River that there is only one industry, and that is the pork industry and it is inclusive. It includes packers, includes producers, it includes the feed mill companies that provide the feed. It is one industry that we are concerned about making sure that it is vibrant, that it is healthy and contributing to the economy of this province.

The instructions to the three-person commission that made that extensive report, not just for me but for the Economic Development Board of Cabinet, the instructions were that the very first party that they sit down to meet with was with the members of Manitoba Pork, with their executive and with their staff. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, through you to the member for Swan River, that they met on numerous occasions with Manitoba Pork, along with many other stake holders in the industry in arriving at the conclusions, the recommendations in that report. Ms.

Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, since the minister bases his decisions on this report, I want to ask him why it is only the one reco mmendation-when there are many, many recommendations in this report, why he has just taken the one to move toward dual marketing when there are many people, members, letters coming in from across the province saying that producers have not been consulted and this is not good for the independent producers. It is not good for the pork industry in Manitoba. Why is he only taking that one recommendation and acting on it? Mr.

Enos: Madam Speaker, you know how I like to pay close attention to your rulings and the rules and traditions of this House. This is a subject matter that would be most legitimate in the debates on my Estimates, or on any issues, but let me tell her just one example.

246 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 The report also indicates that some $300 million to $400 million will be required in new capital on the farms. One way of securing that, of ensuring that the producers can get the millions of dollars needed for the expansion we talked about in that report, is to have stability in the marketing of the hogs. The report refers to that as one way of achieving that, is through long-term contractual arran gements to secure the kind of :funding that is necessary.

That is one of the recommendations, Madam Speaker, also one of the reasons why the other recomm endation with respect to a more flexible marketing system was accepted by this government. Madam Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. Speaker's Ruling Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. I am ruling on a point of order raised by the honourable member for St Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) on November 1, as well as a matter of privilege raised by him on November 2 concerning the same matter. The issue concerns words the honourable member for St.

Johns stated he heard the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) use. Having reviewed the printed Hansar d and the audio tape, I find that neither attribute any words to the minister in question. Because there is nothing recorded nor did I hear any words uttered by the minister, there is no basis for a point of order nor for a matter of privilege. Also, Beauchesne Citation 485.(1) and the appendices to our rule book are explicit on the point that unparliamentary words must be brought to the at tention of the House as a point of order and not as a question of privilege.

I would also like to say to the House that if something has been taken under advisement, it is not good procedural practice to raise it again in another mode but to wait until a ruling is brought in on the matter and then perhaps to take further action. ORDERS OF THE DAY THRONE SPEECH DEBATE (Fifth Day of Debate) Madam Speaker: To resume debate on the proposed motion of the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) for an address to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in answer to his speech at the opening of session and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr.

Doer) in amendment thereto, and on the proposed motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in further amendment thereto, standing in the name of the honourable member for Riel who has 15 minutes remaining. Mr. David Newman (Riel): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate which held members opposite spellbound last night till ten o'clock. The honourable Leader of the official opposition should take a look at exactly what the profits recorded by the banks will mean for Manitobans.

Also, he can calculate and hopefully appreciate the significant amount banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions pay in this province towards payroll tax and all variety of taxes in this province for the benefit of Manitobans. The honourable Leader of the official opposition should also calculate how much they donate in time, dollars and gifts in kind to our charities, our arts and our people, including their education, training, motivation, self -esteem and, of course, the jobs and the income earned from those jobs.

Surely, with a little bit of discipline, honourable members opposite so inclined can resist condemning success, degrading excellence and provoking negative emotions. This Assembly and the people of Manitoba deserve and expect more from their elected representatives. As I have already stated, it is an honour for me to rise this afternoon to respond to the Speech from the Throne. The people of Riel and the people of Manitoba have indicated their confidence in this government to lead the province in the right direction, to lead it into

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 247 the 21s t Cen tury. I look fo rward to the upcoming session. We will continue no doubt to make decisions which are intended to be fa ir fo r all, beneficial to all, and which will build good will and better friendsh ips. That, Madam Speaker, is the truth. I wanted to pick up on a fe w points that have been raised in the response to the Speech from the Throne. I heard one of the honourable members opposite make a comment about labour legislation. In his remarks on December 6, the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer), in discussing a proposed amendment by the official opposition party, was suggesting that there should be more disclosure . There was sort of a pooh-poohing, a nit-picking in a very simplistic way about how there should be a disclosure of virtually everything. All of this growing out of the throne speech initiative to have public organizations that are supported by the public purse virtually, totally, disclose more about salaries and those sorts of things, and another proposal in the labour area that unions should disclose what they do with dues .

Now to suggest that this is an opening fo r the opposition party to advance an argument that everything should be disclosed in that simplistic way, it is submitted, is not a reasona ble or sensible sugge stion. Disclosure is a very complex issue in our kind of society, and disclosure, of course, should be made when appropriate and in the public interest. But it is complex because there are other matters to consider, always other matters to consider.

I have referred frequently to the deli cate ecosystem, the economic system that we have in this province and in this country and in the world, the most respected system at this time in our history and one that has stood the test of time. That ecosystem is dependent on proper nurturing and certainly, above all, knowledge and support of the people who have the power to make laws and regulations. The sunshine and oxygen of entrepreneurs is in the hands of legisla tors. Just to give you an example in dealing with this whole question of union dues deductions.

There seems to be a lack of apprec iation fo r the government involvement in that, legisla tive involvement in that, and what that means . The sole source of income, the revenue source of unions in this province, is union dues. The legislation that we have had fo r some time in this province is called a compulsory checkoff, a mandatory checkoff.

It really means that, unlike most employer organizations, whether profit or nonprofit, the employer by law, by statute in this province, is required without any fee fo r service to pe rf orm a sort of administrative services function fo r the benefit of unions and deduct from employees' salaries and remit to the union, and that is to go through the process, deducting, remitting to the union, the sole revenue of unions.

I mean, it is enormous, an enormous benefit to unions to have that privilege granted by legisla tion. * (1 430) If we put it in terms of what if a private-sector business wanted the same benefit, the same sort of treatment under the law. Well, that would mean that we would be legis lating that customers must pay, that customers must be members of a protector employer, that all of this is done free of charge. Let me tell you, every business as the beneficiary of that sure thing would not be taking any entrepreneurial risks. But we are not just talking about busine sses.

We are talking about nonprofit organizations that pay the same price in the public interest-if the legisla tion is in the public interest-to support unions in that fa shion and union causes in that fa shion. So we are talking about hospitals. We are talking about charities that are unionized. We are talking about women's shelters that are unionized, resource centres that are unionized, nonprofit organizations that fo r nothing, fo r no fe e, allocate a portion of their budget to support unions in that way because of the legislation that we provide.

Now this is not the time nor the place to deba te whether that is good or bad legislation, or whether with the experience that we have had with it over many years that is a matter that even deserves to be debated in this Legislature . But the point is that is an enormous privilege that unions have. I can assure you that prof essional groups do not have that privilege . The prof essional groups do not have that kind of mandatory dues deduction process. In the old days, even unions used to go out and collect the dues. So this is a very, very privileged position and a very, very distinct position.

So, if we take that very distinct, that unique

248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 sort of situation in our province, which has been expanded recently with canola producers and Keystone Agricultural Producers bef ore that, I would concede should disclose where they have mandatory deduction, should disclose inf ormation, just as the union should. In logic it just makes sense. Where you have that privilege, you should also have that responsibility fo r disclosure.

But to use that as a premise to advance an argument that everything should be disclosed because this proposal is made in the throne speech, I submit, does not stand the test of common sense. A meaningful debate should not, cannot be generated from that sort of argument that is submitted. Now, another point that has been raised is a concept about process. We have had just recently in the Question Period a misunderstanding it seems to me of the role of this Legis lature in matters that aff ect the rights and freedoms of individ uals who are seeking remedy through judicial and quasi-judicial proce sses.

To somehow suggest that there is something dishonest or irregular or inconsistent with standards of integrity when there is an unwillingness on this side of the House to disclose inf ormation about a matter that is either bef ore the courts or about a matter which is bef ore an arbitrator or in a grievance process is probably demonstrative of a lack of understanding, I would hope, not a delibe rate attempt to use this fo rum to just create publicity, negative publicity, fo r the government and perhaps have a negative impact on the individual who is being publicized and others who are associated with that individual.

We are just one part of a bigger process as legislators. Some of us have come from other parts of that world, whether it be the world of academic freedoms, whether it be the world of self -governing bodies where you are a doctor or you are a lawyer or whether it be you are a member of a judiciary with the independence of the judiciary being a primary concern.

Certainly, when you are dealing with someone who has been terminated by an employer, and if that employer happens to be the Province of Manitoba, and the civil servants fo r the most part are in a bargaining unit and have a bargaining union representing them, and if someone then fee ls that they are mistreated under the proce ss of the employer-employee relationship, they can grieve. When they grieve, they have the ultimate judicial process, which replaces the broader judicial process by ch oice.

That is done by choice under a collective agree ment The collective agreem ent, by virtue again of our legislation, says that that then is a substitute fo r access to the court system. So it is really the final recourse of an individual who fe els mistreated. No one, I would venture to suggest, in this Legisl ature with a complete enough knowledge of the roles of unions and the roles of the grievance and arbitration process would suggest that that is not a reasona ble and fa ir process to deal with these matters.

After all, it is agreed to between the union and the employer in the fo rm of a collective agreement, and unions are the democratically chosen, or rep resentatives at least, through a democratic process in representing the employee's interest.

So, when a matter goes to a grievance and ultimately it is to be decided by an adjudicator, we know that there is a process where the fa cts will come out The fa cts will be determined either by agreement or ultimately by an adjudicator, and, if there is something wrong with that process, that is, whether it is handled in a less than competent manner, then there is recourse under an unf air representation provision of The Labour Relations Act There is a recourse within the union itself if someone fe els treated politically wrong by the union.

In other words, there is a process out there that does the job of attaining justice when some civil servant or some employee belonging to a union fe els improperly treated. It is submitted that there should be respect fo r that process. It should not be dragged into a debate on the throne speech, or it should not be dealt with in Question Period. That is not showing proper respect fo r the other process which is out there designed to bring about justice. From time to time, we all need reminders of how those processes work in relation to the Legi slature.

I am one of those that has had to try them all to learn, so I have had that advantage, but I commend The Labour Relations Act and the many

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 249 learned and experienced union people in the official opposition party fo r guidance and counsel to those on the other side of the House that have not had that education or experience themselv es. But, hopefully, we will not have further attempts to disrupt and interf ere with due processes through these other means which iU'e more deserving and more suited to bring about the attaining of justice. The use of those processes here in the area of debate will be a disservice to the participants and to the process.

I thank you very much fo r the attention that I have received last evening and today, and I have been very privileged to participate in the debate in this House again, an Assembly which I respect, not only its traditions but all honourable members and the roles that they try to play to the best of their ability. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to address a reply to the Speech from the Thro ne.

In doing so, I would like to wish you and your staff well in the holiday season and as you continue your work in presiding over this House, and I would like to wish all members and their fam ilies a refreshing and a rej uvenating holiday period. * (1 440) Madam Speaker, a throne speech should esta blish direction, we might even say vision. A throne speech should paint the big picture, should allude to the big issues, should provide some insights into the government's direction in addressing those large issues.

Robert Browning, in his poem which I am sure so many of us studied in high school, My Last Duchess, wrote lines that I think are emblazoned on all Grade 8 students' minds: One's reach should exceed one' s grasp/Or what's a heaven fo r? So a throne speech should esta blish some sense of what that reach is, what that vision of the broader fu ture public good is. I would like, in beginning my response, to address the question of whether this speech does in fa ct have much vision. First, Madam Speaker, let us address the question of health care.

This government has had seven long years, long years fo r Manitobans, long years as Manitobans have waited and hoped and in some cases have prayed that the government would find some way out of the wilderness into which they wandered in 1988 when they took office. In 1992-93, a fo rmer Minister of Health tabled a paper that was supposed to give direction fo r this government, a blueprint, one of two disastrous blueprints authored by this government.

In that blueprint, Madam Speaker, the government quite correctly pointed out that health in the long term was related pre-eminently not to the functioning of the health care system but to socioeconomic well-being, to adequate income, healthy housing, clean and safe workplaces, adequate education, above all, to employment. That same paper indicated a need to address within the illness care system, what we call the health care system, certain systemic drivers of costs. It identified these drivers very accurately. They were the fe e fo r serv ice, payment of physicians. They were the role of private laboratories.

They were the inappropriate rates of unne cessary surgery . They went on and they addressed all of the systemic cost drivers which have been well identified by many health economists across Canada over many years, and then they proceeded to ignore them all. They proceeded to do nothing about any of them. Instead, they concentrated on what might be called the deck chairs of the health care system. They concentrated, Madam Speaker, on re arran ging the deck chairs instead of getting at the questions as to why the ship was leaking.

Manitobans have now gone through some fo ur months of incredible uncertainty about the most basic aspect of their health care system, namely, the function and availability of emergency wards. Manitobans have suffered in the fo rm of poorer health care, poorer access to health care. They have suff ered in terms of the uncertainty as to whether they will have access to emergent care or not. They have not known what is open and what is closed. The staff s of those emergency wards have suff ered a great deal of anxiety and have

250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 suffered from the sense that they are not free to do what they do best, and that is to care for sick people. Manitobans have suffered, too, from a Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) that cannot seem to see that there is a material difference between 4 percent and 8 percent and 11 percent and is not apparently willing to acknowledge, Madam Speaker, that some 58 percent of Manitobans who go to emergency wards at night have a serious enough illness that their diagnosis depends on medical intervention immediately.

The intervention may determine that the illness is only an urgent case; that is, it only needs to be treated within four hours. But the determination of whether it is emergent or urgent cannot be made before medical intervention takes place. It is on the basis of the cardiac tests, on the basis of the diagnosis, on the basis of the health, the blood work-ups, on the basis of X rays, on basis of clinical investigation that a decision is made whether this is urgent or emergent. So fully 69 percent of those who present to emergency wards after hours need medical attention. They are not malingerers.

They are not abusing the system. They are not coming there for entertainment. They are coming there because they have a serious health issue, 58 percent of the time which requires medical intervention to sort it out and 11 percent of the time requires urgent medical care to save life or limb. Manitobans have suffered under a lack of vision in health care, Madam Speaker. Manitobans have also suffered from a lack of the truth in regard to the costs of health care.

Madam Speaker, I would like to table today in the context of my throne speech, a chart which shows the proportion of Manitoba's gross domestic product which is spent on health care over the past number of years. This particular chart goes from 19 83, but I could have drawn it back farther if I had wished to do so and the pattern would not have changed much. This government is spending a smaller proportion of Manitoba's annual income on health care this year than it was in 19 83.

In spite of an aging population-and we know that aging is very much identified with health care consumption, in spite of new disease entities like AIDS, in spite of new technology which is very costly, like scann ers, in spite of the growth of the needs of our First Nations people for health care, we are spending less today as a fraction of our total wealth in Manitoba than we were in 19 83. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) The Minister of Health (Mr.

McCrae) opposite and his government have spent a great deal of time trying to convince Manitobans that health spending is out of control, spiralling out of control. The truth, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that their ability to manage health care is out of control. They have never had the ability to manage it well.

It has been well known in health care circles across Canada that the way to make efficient health care delivery possible is to focus on community clinics, to focus on wellness, to focus on multidisciplinary teams, to focus on educating the public so that they can both attain and retain maximum quality of life, maximum health status for themselves and for their families. It has been some 12 long years since a community clinic was esta blished in Manitoba. All were established under New Democratic governments. Promises have been made under this government to expand the working partnership. With what result?

You are going to close the Village Clinic apparently. So we are going to go from 12 to 11. Apparently, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are not going to see any new funds available for community health clinics. So where is the vision in that? More than a year and a half ago the Minister of Health had on his desk-in fact, almost two years ago-a report on midwifery. The report recommended strongly that Manitoba go to a midwifery system. It took a year, but, finally, the Minister of Health said this is a good report. We should do this. It is a year later. There are no midwives. There are no midwifery training programs.

There are no plans. There are no dollars. There are no mothers in Manitoba benefiting from the service of midwives. Where is the vision? Central purchasing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are going to be really efficient. We are going to be so efficient that we are going to cost ourselves $6 million

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 251 in tax revenue. We are going to lose over a hundred jobs of private-sector companies now serving Manitoba hospitals in their purchasing. We are going to lose the competition among the private sector of which members opposite are so incredibly proud. We believe in the private sector. We believe in competition. So what are we going to do? We are going to go to a monopoly called Medbuy in Ontario.

We are going to let them source our medical products while we wave good-bye to the medical service firms that have served Manitoba well over the last hundred years. * (14 50) We are going to cut back on employment, valuable employment. We are going to impoverish rural hospitals who have depended on the Manitoba Health Services health organization purchasing plan, who have depended on the presence of competing suppliers.

We are going to impoverish these hospitals while we save a few bucks for the seven big hospitals in Winnipeg by transferring purchasing power and transferring the taxes that went with it to an Ontario consortium. What intelligent planning. We lose jobs. We lose tax revenues. We impoverish rural hospitals, but we have Medbuy on board for the seven urban big ones. What wonderful planning. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the big issue over employment John McCallum who is the vice-president of the Royal Bank of Canada, one of those banks that the member for Riel (Mr.

Newman) was so vociferously def ending in his speech-it certainly will be interesting for Manitobans to read his speech defending the big banks in the next little while. The explanation offered by Mr. McCallum, the vice-president of the Royal Bank, is that all of the loss of real income--and I am quoting now-is that all of the declining per capita income of the 1990s can be explained by one thing and that is the reduction in the share of the population that had a job. Surprise, surprise. Employment and income are related. What a revelation. It is not a question, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, of some other arcane forces at work in the economy. It is a simple question of jobs, and if this government were willing to be honest about the employment statistics in Manitoba instead of just trotting out some nice new numbers on manufacturing jobs and was willing to say-and I notice the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.

Downey) is en joying this, if he were willing to be so clear and direct as to say that should we have the same participation rate in our employment force among young people and among adult workers as we had in 1990 our unemployment rate would be over I 0 percent, not where it is at around 7.8 percent.

In other words, most of the apparent improvement in our unemployment situation has been because young people have not rejoined the workforce or sought to join it because of their sense of hopelessness, and older workers who have been displaced have not found their way back into the workforce because their jobs have disappeared. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the employment situation facing Manitobans is not a pretty one. I dare say there is not a member in this House who does not have either a friend or a family member who has been affected by loss of either total employment or partial employment. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we should not forget that in the unemployment statistics only those who are seeking employment are counted. The discouraged worker is not. The person who has left the workforce because they have tried for years and years to find employment and have not been able to do so does not count as a statistic. Status native people on reserve are not even surveyed. They are not in these statistics. Manitobans who leave for other provinces, of course, make our unemployment pattern look better. Is that the way to solve unemployment, just to export those who are not working? I do not think so. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I want to tum now to the big picture question of imports and exports, something that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) loves to speak about. But he speaks ever so selectively. I am quoting now from the third quarter report of the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics taken from Statistics Canada. To date this year, that is to the end of September 1995, we have had a very impressive growth in exports. The minister has been proud of that growth, and I would be glad if it were stronger. It has grown by 15 .7 percent year over year. Very good.

However, what he never tells us about when he stands up to prattle about the strength of our exports is

252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 that in the same period of time our imports grew too, but they grew by more, 17 .4 percent Not a lot more, but some more. In other words, the picture is not getting better. It is getting worse. What is the trade balance? Well, unfortunately here too, the member opposite does not ever take time to inform Manitobans of the real issue and to engage Manitobans in proposing creative solutions. His solution is to increase the pace of the race to the bottom. The trade deficit for nine months this year, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is $981 million, right on track for another record, right on track for a $1. 3 billion deficit over the year, another Manitoba record. Mr. Deputy Speaker, members on this side of the House are criticized sometimes for being negative. I think there is a substantial difference between being negative and being truthful. If the truth is a bleak picture, if the truth is that our real unemployment rate is over 10 percent and our real trade deficit is $1.3 billion and our real import-export record is getting worse, if that is the truth, I think it is important that the truth be spoken.

If it is an uncomfortable truth, then let us work together to find a strategy to make that truth a more pleasan t truth to quote instead of saying that those who speak the truth are somehow despairing. This side of the House is not despairing at all. We have always had a vision of a fairer society, a just society, a society that says employment is more important than capital, that says that when you have to have a contest, people come first, not the owners of production. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me turn now to the question of the incomes of Manitobans.

In 1981 the ratio between those in the bottom 20 percent of the population in their income and the top 20 percent was about one to nine. The bottom 20 percent got $1 of income from the market for every $9 that the top 20 percent got. That was 1981. Twelve years later, the most recent year for which we have data, 1993, this ratio is somewhat different. In 1981 the bottom 20 percent got 4.8 percent of the market income in this country-not great. It got roughly a quarter of what their population numbers would suggest they ought to get in a perfectly fair world. By 1993, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, they got 2.2 percent, less than half what they got only 12 years earlier, less than half. The ratio now between bottom and top is one to 20. [intetjection] It would be very interesting to have the member opposite's comments on the record for her constituents. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the bishop that is the bishop of the area that I serve, his name is Barry Curtis. He works out of Saskatoon. He is the Metropolitan of the Province of Rupertsland.

He wrote in a letter that I received a couple of days ago that one of the major causes of violence in our society was economic injustice and income inequalities. Even as conservative a church as the one that the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) and I belong to, the Anglican Church, has recognized that economic violence is the same thing as physical violence. It causes people to be diminished; it causes people to have less of a sense of their worth; it causes people to fall out of the mainstream of society; it cause s people to not be able to be full citizens of the country in which they live.

Over the last twelve years, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Canadians have suffered grievously from the race to the bottom presided over by Prime Minister Mulroney and provincial premiers such as the one currently in office in this province. When you have worsened your share of income by a ratio of 20 to 1, instead of 9 to 1, then you have severely impoverished your population and their possibilities of full participation. Essentially, what these numbers are saying is that our employment policies have been a failure, that employment market income is not accessible to 20 percent of our population in any meaningful sense.

These are not lazy people. These are not people that do not want to work. These are not people who do not want to participate. These are people for whom there are no employment opportunities. So on that issue of the big vision I do not see any high marks for this throne speech. * (1 500) Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the question of environment, I will make only a couple of comments. The current debacle that is unfolding in Louisiana-Pacific's forestry licence application is yet another indication of this

December 12, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 253 government's inability to get it right. The science on which L-P's forestry application is based is so badly flawed that it caused a man of great integrity, Mr. Soprovich, to question publicly the assumptions of the sustainability of the forestry licence that was going to be granted. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Louisiana-Pacific is already claiming that the density of cordwood delivered to their yard is not of sufficient quality, and so, instead of paying someone for 19 cords on a truck, they are going to pay them for 15 .5 or 16. So the volume is a problem already.

The assumption about the cut is that all of the forest is equally accessible. Anyone who has holidayed or hiked or camped up in the Duck mountains or Porcupines or in Riding Mountain for that matter knows that there are deep valleys, deep ravines, and if you log those, you will have the same kind of effect of clear-cutting that you can see in British Columbia You have the same erosion, the same runoffs. L-P assumes that every tree is equally accessible. L-P's assumptions include that they will cut right up to the stream, no buffers, no 1 00-meter buffers, right up to the stream.

L-P's assumptions are that the forest regenerates in 70 years. Not according to the forestry officials. L-P's assumptions are that there are no losses to disease, no losses to fire. Tell that to Manitoba's fire officials and biologists. This application is a debacle; and, unless we have a federal environmental impact or a joint environmental impact process, Manitobans will not know of the debacle until too late. Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the Constitution. What do we see on the Constitution? Not a generous, broad vision that the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon) and the other ministers spoke about during the crisis in Quebec, the crisis of the whole referendum question. Not the generous vision of which he spoke on the platform at The Forks when I stood with other members of government opposite and with our own members and supported a vision of Canada. Not that generous vision at all, but a me-first, 1-want-mine. No willingness to look into the possibilities of new ways of going at constitutional reform. No openness to constituent assembly. No willingness to look at the generosity that is going to be required to save this country.

So let me move then to what are the commitments that the throne speech makes. First, we had a member opposite, I hope he is listening, from the Chamber of Commerce, a former president from the Chamber of Commerce who does not seem to know yet that he actually represents Riel, not the Chamber of Commerce. He spoke at great length about the virtue of banks that make $5.2 billion in profits while shedding employees like water off ducks' backs in one year.

He spoke in favour of repealing the Rand Formula in effect, and I would ask him, if he is so interested in repealing some of that legislation, would he also like to repeal the fee guideline structures for the Law Society and the fee-for-service payment structures for the Medical Association? Would you like to repeal all of those guarantees for professionals while you repeal all the other labour things that you are going to repeal? That would be an interesting question. Let us look at the commitment to openness, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Well, now we have a provincial senior civil servant no longer in the province sitting on a bunch of boards with a bunch of other people making arran gements. Some of them seem to be arrangements that benefited the civil servant in a fairly substantial manner. Let us have some real openness on this one, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let us have Ted Hughes or someone like Ted Hughes who is not one of the tra velling companions of the former civil servant in question, one of the people who travel to Switzerland with the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) and the former civil servant and travel with the Premier to Boston and the former civil servant. Let us have somebody genuinely impartial, genuinely from outside, to investigate what really went on in this nesting set of deals. It seems to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this government's commitment to openness is another one of those questions of conversions on the road to Damascus. This is a government that stonewalled on Lotteries, that stonewalled on the Jets, that is going to try and stonewall on Faneuil, that stonewalls on health care. When we ask questions, we get lectures; we do

254 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12 , 1995 not get answers. So if indeed the throne speech is marking a genuine change of heart, which I sincerely hope it is, we will look fo rward and be very pleased to welcome that change of heart. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we opposite are often challenged to be positive and to talk about vision. Let me share a couple of things that I think would be very helpful if the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) and others would like to take me up on them. We have in this province an absolutely wonderful opportunity for foc used researc h in some critical areas. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, you represent a constituency in which one of the most important resources in this province exists, that is, the University of Manitoba What many Manitobans do not realize, I am sure the honourable Deputy Speaker knows, is that on that same campus there are private research organizations, there are fe deral research organizations. We have in this province, and I have spoken to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Driedger) about this with no response other than a very brief letter that had really nothing in it, about the Freshwater Institute and about the experimental lakes research centre fo r which David Schindler won an international award fo r his work in directing and developing. We have an opportunity, if this government were proactive, if this government had a vision that it could express in a throne speech or in anything else, to foc us our research on the natural environment, on dry-land farm ing, on the new cash crops in agriculture, on specialty crops.

We have a great opportunity to foc us our research in the area of production, the machinery requirements, the shipping questions, the refining questions. If we really had a strategy here, would it not be nice to hear about it in a throne speech? Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have another wonderful opportunity in the area of health care. We have more community clinics per capita in Manitoba than in any province but Quebec.

If we really believed all of the stuff that the government wrote about the role of community clinics and their value, we would launch an aggressive strategy to develop more community clinics owned and operated by citizens, foc using on wellness, using a multidisciplinary approach. The governm ent has instituted a regional health plan, but they have no idea on what basis it is going to be regionalized.

Are we just talking about grouping together institutions or is this an opportunity to really look at the questions of health and wellness, look at the questions of the ownership of our health care system on the part of citizens who must take a responsibility fo r their wellness but who within our current system of delivery have a very difficult time in doing so, because the system is so topped down, so technically dominated by its major service providers? Thirdly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have a wonderful opportunity in the area of full employment.

We have a possibility of a small province with a very, very good record of labour relations. Far from the gloomy picture painted by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) and others opposite who complain about Manitoba's labour laws we have, apart from Prince Edward Island, the best record of days lost to strike.

We have a very, very good and progressive history of labour relations in this province, and that is generally a sign that our labour legislation environment is pretty well balanced. * (1510 ) Each side may have picayune complaints about the other, but in general, apart from the lamentable def eat of final offer selection, we have a pretty balanced situation in this province. Would it not be wonderful if the throne speech had the courage to say, let us talk about full employment?

Let us talk about getting our unemployment rate down to 5 percent instead of 7.5 percent or 8 percent and really if we measured it in the way that we measured it in 1990, 10 or 11 percent Let us make a commitment to full employment, not just a commitment to try and create some jobs-that is a good thing to d<rbut let us talk about full employment. Let us talk about partnerships with business and labour and education and have a strategy of moving towards full employment so that that terribly, terribly bleak picture of market shares of income which I spoke of earlier can be addressed and reversed. Finally, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, on the Constitution. Surely it is time to stop the games. Surely it is time fo r the Prime Minister of this country to stop the games of trying to trap Mr. Bouchard into voting against a

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 255 motion. Surely it is time for him instead to pull together with his provincial counterparts a vision of a country that is worth offering to Quebec, that is worth offering not just to Quebec but to Canada What is this federal vision? The federal vision is no Unemployment Insurance worthy of the name. It is now Employment Insurance and it does not really cover much. No social service is worthy of the name. We are not in that game anymore at the federal level. We are just going to offload that to the provinces and devil take the hindmost. No health care system.

We are going to oftload that to the provinces. What kind of a country do we offer, not just Quebecers but Manitobans and Albertans and Nova Scotians? When the centre does not hold, Matthew Arnold says, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. When the centre does not hold, when the centre has no vision, it is hardly a wonder that the constituent parts do not see much stake in that centre. This federal government and the previous federal government have spent their time in office creating boondoggles and gutting social policy and social programs.

I hope the Premier of this province will take a stronger, clearer and more collaborative approach to constitutional renewal, will not seek unions with Alberta, for example, whose interests have never been Manitoba's interests in Canada, because we have a great deal of interest in a strong central government. Alberta does not seem to care about that issue. We do not have common interests with Alberta in that regard. In concluding my remarks, I want to thank all members for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I want to express the hope that future throne speeches will have more substance, more vision, more breadth and more generosity in them than this one does. Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): It is indeed a pleasure to rise on this occasion in response to our government's throne speech for the Second Session of the Thirty-sixth Legislature of the Province of Manitoba. While it has been less than one year that the constituents of Rossmere elected me as their MLA, I found this experience both challenging and rewarding. Indeed, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it has been a privilege to be an elected official and a member of the provincial cabinet. It is a humbling experience to join this prestigious group of men and women and in my own way I hope that I can make a difference. I think that is what politics is all about, trying to make a difference. During the election and in more recent weeks I have spent a lot of time talking to my constituents in Rossmere on what they know to be important issues. Time and again my constituents in Rossmere have told me that governments should live within their means.

People of all political stripes feel taxed to the limit, and it is important for the government to continue getting its house in order. It is my opinion that the recent balanced budget legislation goes a long way to ensuring that Manitobans do not pay more taxes and indeed ensuring a strong future for our children.

I am indeed proud of my government's accomplishments in this regard, and I would remind you that this is in spite of the sharp contrast to the dismal performance of the members opposite from 1981 to 1988, when in spite of a booming economy, the NDP with their tax and tax and spend policies increased the debt in this province at a time when they should have been running balanced budgets. At a time when it was possible to run balanced budgets, they were out of control. I spent some time in Ontario.

What was remarkable in the last couple of weeks in speaking to individuals is not so much the anger at Bob Rae and the New Democrats. They were angry enough at them for ruining that province, but they were also furious with Mr. Dave Peterson, the prior Premier, who in the best of times in Ontario, the best of times was running a $3.5-billion deficit At a time when the balanced books should have been there, he spent and spent and spent, and that was exactly the philosophy of the NDP government between 1981 and '88.

For job creation, and many of you will remember the job creation of the NDP back in those years, the $200- million scam. They created jobs, of course none of which exist anymore today. They created jobs that in fact did not exist. Companies would lay off people

256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 only to be hired by other companies because they could get these government grants. This went on continuously. When lawyers in the Department of Justice said, let us get stiff contracts so that when people are being loaned money on these agreements, the response was always, well, we do not want to scare people away from getting this money. We want them to use this money. They wanted to spend the money. They did not care whether there were any permanent jobs created.

There is incident after incident after incident of jobs being created on the books when in fact no other employees were being hired, a simple shuffling of the cards, a simple shell game. That was the kind of job creation that the NDP did in the years from '81 to '88, and that is the kind of job creation that does not work. We know that government does not create jobs. The private sector creates jobs, but governmen ts can facilitate the creation of jobs by creating the appropriate environment in which to invest. I am satisfied, and I am speaking to the member for River Heights (Mr.

Radcliffe), that ifhe understood it, I could not make it any simpler and I will not want to go on on that point. If they cannot understand that then we on this side should be continuing on with what we have to say, and I did not mean to slight the member for River Heights. I have a high regard for him and indeed I have a high regard for the members opposite, but it is not as high but I do have a high regard for them. In any event, in our throne speech, this speech refers to our government's commitment to focusing on fostering continued economic grow th and job creation, real jobs and real job creation.

I would like to take a few minutes to talk about how Manitoba must adapt and change if we are to grow and prosper in the next millennium. There are two key global trends that are immediately apparent, trends that we ignore at our peril. Actually, they are not trends, they are facts. The facts are, the globalization of trade and the globalization of investment capital. Canada is a trading country. Manitoba is a trading province. Indeed, Canada probably relies on trade more than any other economy in the world, including Japan.

In spite of Japan's well-publicized trade disputes with the United States, Canada is the United State's largest trading partner, and the United States, by far, is the largest market for Manitoba * (1 520) Manitoba products, even though we market our products to the majority of countries around the world, the United States is our primary market. All countries and jurisdictions around the world want to trade, so the competition is vigorous and only the most efficient will prosper. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I recently read an

article in the business

section of the Free Press in October 19, '95. I do read it from time to time to see what the other side is saying, but in this case the other side in fact is agreeing with our Ministry of Trade and Tourism. That

article talked about Manitoba exports soaring. I would state that that is an

article that should in fact have been on the front page of the Free Press. I would like to quote from that article: Manitoba exports finished in 1994 nearly 30 percent ahead of 1993 levels and to date-that was October 19-they are up another 26 percent. I admit there are imports, but that is the nature of business and developing your infrastructure so that you can trade. We are no longer simply hewers of wood and haulers of water which the members opposite would like us to continue to be. The members who talk about retaining the Crow rate that held western Canada in chains for a hundred years.

If you talk to the member for Wolseley's husband, who is a historian, he will tell you of the terrible effects that that Crow rate had on our economy, where we shipped all of our goods and products to eastern Canada so the eastern Canadians would get the value of our prod ucts here. When the federal government removed that Crow rate, western Canada should have been applauding. Eastern Canada should have offered to continue the Crow rate because, as a result, jobs and producers are coming to Manitoba

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 257 We are benefiting from that progressive attitude towards trade. In my own constituency of Rossmere, Palliser Furniture is an example of a business that is prospering from trade. Officials of Palliser Furniture tell me that they are expecting to see a 30 percent increase in exports over last year. This is extremely positive economic growth which is occurring right in my own constituency. Palliser is poised to become the greatest private sector employer in Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

You can go anywhere in Canada and people will talk about the quality of furniture that they produce in my constituency. I am glad that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) recognizes the importance of that employer in his constituency. An Honourable Member: I have five pieces of it in my house. Mr. Toews: I am glad to see that he is buying that furniture. The trade that has developed as a result of opening up the boundaries has benefited this province. Some people argue about free trade and say, let us not have free trade, let us keep the walls up.

The fact of the matter is, whether we recognized it or not, free trade was happening, free trade was simply a recognition of the reality of the global marketplace. Had we kept up our boundaries, had we kept denying people entry into our country, world trade would have passed us by. What we want to do in this province and what we have done and what we will continue to do is to create the climate that attracts the investments and creates the jobs in my constituency, in the constituency of the member for Transcona, in the constituencies around this province.

We recognize that we have to continually examine our laws to ensure that they are indeed fostering this growth, attracting this investment to create those jobs, because it is not simply jobs that they are creating. They are also creating the tax base, the tax base that goes to pay for our social programs, our health, our education, our family services programs. These are programs that we require.

In respect of some of the issues that we should be looking at, I recognize that Manitoba has a relatively good record in respect of its labour relations climate, and generally speaking I believe that our Labour Relations Act has served our community well, both business and labour, but clearly there are constituencies in our business sector, in our employee sector, indeed in our unionized employee sector that have not benefited from this act, that have been alienated from this act. There have been concerns raised about issues relating to the Rand Formula, and you heard my colleague for Riel (Mr.

Newman) speak about the Rand Formula. We all know what the Rand Formula is. What in fact the Rand Formula says is that those workers who are part of a bargaining unit, who get the benefits of a collective agreement, whether they are members of the union or not, should also pay for the services that the union provides to them. I have no problem defending the Rand principle, the Rand Formula It is an historic compromise, and it in fact does a great good generally speaking for workers who need a collective voice.

The problem is some of our labour legislation does not recognize that employees wish to speak in a different voice, not just through the collective bargaining. We have to understand what these people are saying, but I do not think that means that we get rid of the Rand Formula. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water.

What I suggest and what I think, if you talk to many of the people who raise these concerns, is that they feel they do not have any say, any real say, in the operation of the union, in the accountability of the union to the employees, and so there are ways that one can address that particular concern. And I think, in 1985, when amendments were brought to The Labour Relations Act, the government of the day recognized that unions must be accountable to the membership which they serve, which they are simply, in law, agents of. * (1 530) The union member or the employee is the principal; the union is the agent.

The government in 1985 recognized that principal, and they brought about the

258 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 requirement that before you go on strike you must get the consent of the majority of the employees so that you have a strike vote, union accountability to the members which they serve. Similarly, the government of the day brought in the duty of fair representation. They were required by law to fairly represent each member of that bargaining unit. Union accountability to the membership, that is placing the horse in front of the cart the way it should be. I think in that context we have to look at other areas.

Now we are requiring employees who are members of a bargaining unit, not jut union members but all employees, to pay according to that Rand Formula, and those employees are entitled to know what their union dues are going for. They are entitled to know. The member opposite knows. The members opposite know exactly how much money I earn, and it is right that they know. They know how much I spend, and they have a right to know.

The reaso n they have a right to know is because my salary, my expenses are paid by the taxpayer of Manitoba We take money under compulsion of legislation and give it to the Legislature to determine how that is spent. So there is a compulsion on the part of the taxpayer and that requires accountability on my part. Similarly, if we say that employees are required by legislation to pay their own money to a union, similarly they are required-that is the union-to be accountable in a public way. In a public way they retrieve that money; in a public way they should be accountable.

It makes sense and that is simply union accountability to the employees whom they serve. In a recent meeting with the Manitoba Federation of Labour they expressed concern about the mandatory disclosure. This is an issue that I have raised with employers, with unions, with employees over the past six months, because I did want their input. This is what the Manitoba Federation of Labour said, they talked mandatory disclosure. This is an amendment that addresses a nonexistent problem they state.

For example, the Canadian Labour of Congress and the Manitoba Federation of Labour includes its financial statements in convention kits that are distributed at every biennial convention. This information is distributed to delegates, observers, guests and news media, whether they are members of one of our affiliated unions or not, so they are saying, we disclosed this information already. Well, in fact, if the unions are already disclosing this information, what is the problem with the amendment? We are simply recognizing what the unions in fact already say they do.

They say they give it to the news media So members opposite should say, well, if the governing party wants to introduce legislation that requires them to produce it, what is the big deal? The unions already are saying they are disclosing it; they are disclosing it to the news media So it is not a big issue. But, simply, what it does is remind the unions that they are accountable to the members whom they receive statutorily derived union dues, the members' own money, not government money-the members' own money.

I have said already, I support the Rand Formula Let us not throw out the baby with the bath water, let us just put a little bit of accountability, as the unions were required in 19 85. One of the other ideas that we have been circulating is the idea about compulsory vote on application for certification. Now, prior to the 1985 amendments, the situation used to be that a union filed an application, and from the date of application to the date of the actual hearing, there was a long period of time, sometimes 30, 60, 90, 120 days.

That situation was not acceptable because there was improper interference with union members' wishes during that period of time or employees' wishes. There is no question about that. That, in fact, happened, I agree. So what in fact the government of the day said was, well, we will put in date-of-application legislation which says that the date that you file your application, an employee can never change their mind, and we will do it on membership cards. So you get somebody to sign a membership card, file the application. That employee can never have a second sober thought about

December 12 , 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 259 what in fact he or she has done. So we have moved from a situation where employers could take advantage of employees to a situation that is rife for problems regarding the signing of union membership cards. What we are saying is, again, let us not remove the protection in respect of the interference by employers, but let us not let the. unions have an open hand in terms of using improper tactics. Let us get balance in that respect.

The balance that I would suggest is appropriate is that when the union has signed up 40 percent of all members in a specific bargaining unit, they can then apply for certification. The union- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have a couple of members who seem to want to have a conversation across the way. The honourable Minister of Labour has the floor at this time, and I would appreciate hearing him, so if these honourable members want to carry on this conversation, they can do so in the loge. The honourable Minister of Labour, to continue, please. Mr.

Toews: So what we are saying is that, yes, the union has a right to file for certification at 40 percent, of signing up 40 percent of the members. They can go to the Labour Board and have a secret ballot vote in a short period of time, five days, in order to prevent any improper employer interference, and not only the employer interference, but we can ensure then that the employee has a second sober thought in terms of determining whether or not he or she wants in fact to join the union. I am not talking about changing the balance here. am not talking about changing the balance between employers and the unions.

What I am saying is, let us change the balance vis-a-vis unions and workers, so that the unions are truly accountable to employees, so that unions in fact are the agents of the employees as required in the

preamble of that Labour Relations Act. * (1 540) Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members from the loge to please not heckle from there. I am really having a great difficulty with the voices coming across the Chamber. Mr. Toews: In respect of any specific employers or employees, I want to say one thing: What The Labour ·Relations Act says is that union business is employee business, and what we want to ensure is a fair process, that in fact the employees have a fair voice in determining whether or not they want a union to represent them.

We want to ensure that the system minimizes improper interference by employers and minimizes improper interference by unions, so we are talking about accountability of the union to the workers. That is what unionism is all about, in my understanding. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the criticisms that members opposite talk about in terms of changing the balance, I say those are invalid criticisms when one looks at the relationships between employers and the unions. I do not intend to monkey with that balance.

If there is some fine-tuning that needs to be done, that is fine, but what we in fact want to ensure is that the employees have a fair shake in this system. That is what my concern is. There are other things, I think, that members opposite could work together with me on in respect of changes to our legislation. I talked about creating a climate that is conducive to investment, conducive to the creation of jobs. We want to do that. That is what The Labour Relations Act should be doing, creating jobs, helping us create jobs, helping us employ people.

There are areas, for example the Employment Standards legislation. I know years ago studies were done on that, and we know we have to modernize that legislation, and I know years ago steps were taken to clarify what the law is so that small employers, so that employees, so that unions can understand the framework under which they are operating. We know that there are contradictory provisions and statutes that make it very, very difficult for people to carry out business.

We have to look at some of this legislation that does not necessarily require any substantive changes but that sets out a clear code which can be

260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 administered easily by government and followed by employees and employers. If members opposite have concerns about the dedication of this government to protecting workers' rights, let us work together to clarify some of these laws. When we have inspectors going out into the workplace trying to determine what in fact should be done, a lot of times the most confusing thing is the legislation itse lf.

So I hope that the members opposite have been somewhat reassured by my comments, that I am essentially satisfied with the labour legislation, labour legislation which in fact is accepted as principle right across Canada. If we look at the 1985 legislation that was brought in here in Manitoba by the then NDP government, where did they get that legislation from? They got it from Tory Ontario. They brought it in from Tory Onta rio, and they put a few bells and whistles on it and said here is our great reform in legislation. It was simply Tory legisl ation from On tario that was brought in.

Now when Bill 40 was brought in by the New Democratic government in Ontario and then Mike Harris changed it with Bill 7, essentially all he did was revert to the legislation that existed in Ontario in 1985 which was in fact adopted by the NDP government here in Manitoba. So the general principles of all labour legislation in whatever province you are in is essentially the same. We are not arguing with that. We just want some accountability, some more measure of accountability which clearly members opposite recognized back in 19 85 when they brought in that Tory legislation from Ontario.

I would now like to take a few moments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to talk about health care. As mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, an affordable, accessible health care system remains a high priority as this House is well aware. The reductions in federal support will have a huge impact on Manitobans and that is all the more reason why we as a government and we as a Legislature need to keep our fiscal house in order so that we can provide an affordable and accessible health care system. That means that we will have to make reforms in the health care system. I totally support the Minister of Health's (Mr.

McCrae) endeavours in this regard. I would note that Manitoba devotes a higher percentage of its budget to health care than any other province in Canada. We agree with that position. Ninety percent of all new tax dollars go into those three essential areas of spending-Health, Education and Family Services. We are committed to that. I tell you, what then separates us from the New Democrats? An Honourable Member: Fiscal responsibility. Mr. Toews: Exactly. The member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) said fiscal responsibility or maturity. That is what we do. We have the same values that you have.

We believe in a health care system. We want our old people to be protected. We want our young people to be protected, but what we want to do is ensure that our health care system is sustainable. That is why the people of Manitoba voted us in power here because they recognized that we are the party that can create a sustainable health care system. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the federal government's reduction in transfer payments has huge implications, and we have to work together. We must be proactive in addressing these issues.

The recent labour unrest at the University of Manitoba is an example of what happens when institutions such as universities must become financially accountable. I know that there has been much criticism levelled against the professors in that stri ke. Well, I think that is only half the story. My learned friend from Transcona (Mr. Reid) can snipe from the back benches because he does not have to come up with any constructive ideas. He never has, and he never will because he will be there. But I appreciate the fact that he is always chirping in the background because one day a miracle might happen.

He may in fact have something positive to contri bute, and I await that day. I have faith in human nature that some day that may in fact occur. Now the universities must become financially accountable. It is not just a matter of saying the professors have to become fmancially accountable or responsi ble, it is the administration too, and it is the government. It is not just an issue of saying, well, let us lop off an arm here or lop off a leg here. We have to reform the institution. That is what we have to do in

December 12, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 261 education; that is what we have to do in health care. That is what we are committed to doing, and, in that respect, the positive contribution of members opposite is welcome. * (1 550) I would also like to talk about the Workers Compensation Board which I am responsible fo r or the act which I am responsible fo r. We note that in places like Ontario, where the board is essentially financially bankrupt, $12 billion in the hole, losing at one point $10 0 million a month, a board of a government losing that much money.

Our government here has moved from a quarter-billion-dollar unfunded liability to a point where within the next fe w years we will be at a balanced budget situation with that board without reducing benefits to workers. Now tell me, who is protecting workers? The Ontario NDP who have bankrupted the system or the Conservative government here in Manitoba who, through wise fiscal management, has saved that board and ensured that those premium dollars keep on coming in from employers who support this program? There are all kinds of things that we have been doing. What we have to ensure is that we adapt.

I note the members across the way talk about my past association with Great-West Lif e. I am proud of that association. I was a public servant fo r 15 years. I went to that company, and I learned new ways of approaching problems. They, in fa ct, have adapted with the times. They are a company to be proud of. There are other companies such as Conf ederation Lif e, 125 years old, a major pla yer in the insurance market that did not respond to the times and was gone, all their jobs gone, all the tax base gone, all the money for social programs gone.

So what we want to do is encourage companies to come here to a fm ancially viable situation where they can create employment and we can continue to care fo r our people who need the care of government programs in health, education and fa mily services. Thank you. Ms. Diane McGiff ord (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it certainly was a most interesting union busting speech from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), heartily endorsed by a rather exuberant Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh).

I noticed that the Minister of Labour spent approximately 30 minutes busting unions, five minutes on health care and then about five on education, so I suppose this is an indication of his priorities. I want to say, as I begin, that it is an honour fo r me to represent the constituency of Osborne. My first duty, of course, in this House is to speak for all the people of Osborne, to voice the full range of their concerns and their issues. I will certainly endeavour to do this duty with responsibility, with respect and with diligence.

Furthermore, as the critic for both the Status of Women and Culture and Heritage, I am proud to work for the full and equal participation of Manitoba's women and for the preservation and development of Manitoba's culture and heritage. We live in a time of backlash. Many of women's hard-fought-for gains are under siege. We need only to look to Ontario- Point of Order Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): I wonder if the member would be willing to entertain a question, for clarification, on one of her earlier comments in this speech. Mr.

Deputy Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point of order. That will be up to the member when she has completed her speech. *** Ms. McGifford We live in a time of backlash. Many of women's hard-fought-for gains are under siege. We need only to look to Ontario where second-stage housing for battered women and services are threatened or may have disappeared by now, so swift and swooping is Mike Harris. As well, we know that arts and culture and heritage are under seige. Heritage Canada and Mike Harris have both been busy.

Manitobans are continually barraged with dizzying phrases like "doing more with less." Well, let us acknowledge once and fo r all that, while in some situations creative modifications in revisioning may

262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA December 12, 1995 make this possible, in many situa tions doing less with more is like right-sizing, that is new-right dogma, mere cant and political language-as George Orwe ll would have put it, doublespeak. Doublespeak or political language for George Orwell, and here I quote from him, is language designed to make lies sound truthful and to give an appearance of solidarity

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-6
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 6.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8b404b8f765571b07db2764b1b3b28e0f41b15a9

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