Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 83 (34th Legislature, 1st Session)

34-1-83

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 First Session - Thirty-Fourth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 37 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XXXVII No. 83 -1:30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1988. ISSN 0542-5492 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

NAME ALCOCK, Reg ANGUS, John ASHTON, Steve BURRELL, Parker CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CHARLES, Gwen CHEEMA, Gulzar CHORNOPYSKI, William CONNERY, Edward Hon. COWAN,Jay CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DER KACH, Leonard, Hon. DOER, Gary DOWN EY, James Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DRIEDGER, Herold, L. DUCHARME, Gerald, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Laurie EVANS, Leonard FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen Hon. GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold GRAY, Avis HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry HARPER, Elijah HEL WER, Edward R. HEMPHILL, Maureen KOZAK, Richard, J. LAMOUREUX, Kevin, M.

MALOWAY, Jim MANDRAKE, Ed MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. McCRAE, James Hon. MINENKO , Mark MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fourth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation CONSTITUENCY Os borne St. Norb ert Thompson Swan River Fort Rouge River Heights Selkirk Kildonan Burrows Portage la Prairie Churchill Ste. Rose du Lac Roblin-Ru ssell Concordia Arthur Emerson Niakwa Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Fort Garry Brandon East Tuxedo Virden St.

Boniface Minnedosa Ellice Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Gimli Logan Transcona lnkster Elm wood Assiniboia Morris Brandon West Seven Oaks MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. Rossmere OLESON, Charlotte Hon. Gladstone ORCHARD, Donald Hon. Pembina PANKRATZ, Helmut La Verendrye PATTERSON, Allan Radisson PENNER, Jack, Hon. Rhineland PLOHMAN, John Dauphin PRAZNIK, Darren Lac du Bonnet ROCAN, Denis, Hon. Turtle Mountain ROCH, Gilles Springfield ROSE, Bob St. Vital STORIE, Jerry Flin Flon TAYLOR, Harold Wo lseley URUSKI, Bill lnterlake WASYLYCIA-LEIS, Judy St.

Johns YEO, lva Sturgeon Creek PARTY LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP PC LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC NDP NDP PC NDP LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL PC PC PC PC PC LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP LIBERAL NDP NDP LIBERAL

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, November 23, 1988. The House met at 1:30 p.m . PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition. It conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the peti tion read? (The Royal Winnipeg Rifles Foundation) PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr. Mark Minenko (Seven Oaks): The Committee of Sup ply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to repo rt the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move , seconded by the Honourable Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I am pleased to table for Members opposite copies of the Manitoba Minnesota Agreement on Economic Cooperation and Trade Opportunities which I signed with Governor Perpich on Monday of this week. Hon. Clayton Mannes& (Minister of Finance): I would like to table Supplementary Information for Legislative Review , for the Department of Finance '88-89. Hon.

James Mccrae (Attorney-General): I would like to table Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the Department of Attorney-General for 1988-89; and also Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the Department of Cooperative Consumer and Corporate Affairs for 1988-89. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions , may I direct the attention of Honourable Members to the public gallery where we have from the English Secondary Language Program at Sisler High School, nineteen Grade 8-12 students under the direction of Carol Grier.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) . On behalf of all Honourable Members , I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MIC Chairperson's Resignation Mrs . Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Culture , Heritage and Recreation (Mrs. Mitchelson). The lntercultural Council has lived under a cloud of uncertainty for some months and this Government has done nothing to ease the minds of the members of our ethnic community .

After months of sitting on the task force report, it was finally released last week , but the Minister was unable or unwilling to tell us exactly what the Government was going to do in terms of the recommendations. Now we have learned of course that the chairperson has resigned and that has been accepted by the Minister and in addition she has fired the executive director of the council.

Can the Minister tell the House today how can she expect the council to operate, in her words , at arm's length, when she is the political master of both the chairperson and its executive secretary and as the political master she has acted so unilaterally? *

(1335) Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question because I attempted to clarify it in Estimates last evening and I will attempt to clarify again today, that first and foremost we are committed to consulting in a broad way with the multicultural community to ensure that what they want, the recommendations that they make, are brought to Government and Government will respond to the recommendations that they make.

I clearly indicated last evening also in Estimates that the audit that was conducted on MIC clearly indicated that there was lack of communication in several aspects of the lntercultural Council. There was lack of communication between the executive secretary and the chair of the council. Those two people, Mr. Speaker, are appointed by Government. That is in legislation. It was set down in legislation in 1984 long before my time. Executive Secretary Dismissal Mrs. Sharon Carstairs {Leader of the Opposition): With a supplementary question on the basis of her statement.

The Minister has said that she believes in consultation in a broad way with the community. Can she tell us today how broad her consultation was with the council with regard to the firing of the executive director? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): As a result of the audit, I met with 3363

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 the executive of MIG and I clearly indicated at that time when I met with him about a month ago that it was up to the two Government appointees of the lntercultural Council to work together to cooperate and communicate together so that , in their role as an advisor to Government, they were bringing forward the recommendations of the multicultural community to Government so we could address them . If there is internal conflict within the organization, how can they possibly be bringing forward the recommendation s that we need as a Government to address the issues? So, Mr.

Speaker, I received a letter last week , a resignation from the chairperson of MIG and I will just quote to you from that letter, and it says right here , " One of the reasons for the decision to resign is that the behaviour and actions of the executive secretary continue to interfere with the business of council. " Mr. Speaker , we acted accordingly. Consultation with Council Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Will the Minister tell us if she discussed this decision with members of the council and did the council share the views of Miss Rebello about the communication difficulties with the executive director or are these difficulties the expression of the wishes only of the chairperson of the council? Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): One month ago when I met with the executive of the council, I indicated to them quite clearly that it was the two Government appointees on MIG who were going to have to work together cooperatively to ensure that the problems were being addressed . Those two people are appointed by Order -in-Council; they have been since the inception of the Act and, clearly, until that legislation is changed, we as Government have to act within the guidelines of that legislation . Bill No. 44 Ministerial Support Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, with a new question , on the Order Paper today is Bill No. 44. That Bill will indeed change the structure of the , Manitoba lntercultural Council. It will make the chairperson appointed by the council itself, elected by the council, and it will provide for the executive secretary of the council to be selected by the council and that there will no longer be political appointees to that board. Can the Minister tell the House today if she will support the principles of that legislation? *

(1340) Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, until I see that Bill I cannot comment on that, but I do want to say to the Leader of the Opposition (Mrs . Carstairs) - and I am somewhat disappointed that they would come forward with amendments to legislation on multiculturalism and on MIG when, in fact, we have a Task Force Report that has given us 68 recommendations with which to deal with .

I have clearly indicated to MIG and to the ethnic community at large that we are going to consult with them before we act on those recommendations , get their views on what should be done, discuss it in our Committee of Cabinet that has been set up to look at those recommendations , and come forward with new legislation next Session, not on an ad hoe basis , but including all of the recommendations and ensuring that we address them all. Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: Order , please ; order . Multicultural Committee Purpose Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker , with a supplementary question to the same Minister (Mrs . Mitchelson) . On November 14, this •i Ethnocultural Committee of Cabinet was struck . It has , not yet met. Can the Minister tell us today what is the purpose of this committee if they are not even to be consulted about fundamental changes to the Manitoba lntercultural Council such as the resignation of the president and the firing of the executive director? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr.

Speaker , quite clearly I have indicated that the purpose of the Multicultural Committee of Cabinet is going to be to look at the recommendations, coordinate the recommendation s from all of the departments of Government that are affected by those recommendations, bring forward the departmental recommendations after they have been looked at, coordinate that with the responses that we get from the ethnic community to put in place a comprehensive policy on multiculturalism for this -province . That is the mandate of that committee and that is what we are going to be working toward .

MIC Chairperson Recommendations Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Oppositi .on): With a final _supplementary to the Minister (Mrs . Mitchelson) , it is essential that as soon as possible the Manitoba lntercultural Council have a new chairperson and a new executive director. Will the Minister call upon the council to recommend to her their choice for chairperson and their choice for executive secretary , and will she then make those appointments? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr.

Speaker , in the letters tha t I sent out to the executive of the council yesterday , I clearly indicated that I would be meeting with them this Thursday evening , that is tomorrow evening , a meeting that has been set up. At that meeting I have requ ested that they come forw ard with recomm endations on who they feel th e chairp erson should be . Also I have indicated to them quite clearly in that letter that I am 3364

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 going to be asking them to put in place a process whereby there will be a public bulletin for the position of executive secret ary. Along with their input we will be appointing a new executive secretary. Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear! Well done. Inter-City Gas Rate Projection Mr. Jerry Storie (Fiin Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr . Neufeld). Today at 1: 30 ICG, Int er-City Gas, is making an application before the Public Utilities Board for approval of a 15 -year contract with Western Gas Marketing Limited.

Can the Minister indicate today what rate Manitobans might expect to pay as a result of this application before the Public Utilities Board? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Member for Flin Flan (Mr . Storie) would not want me to pre-empt the Public Utilities Board and I will wait for their decision. Rate Application Mr. Jerry Storie (Fiin Flon): Mr.

Speaker, could the Minister indicate what rate has been applied for by Int er-City Gas through this application for core customers, for small busi ness people, for residential consumers, the 200,000 people who use natural gas in this province. Can the Minister at least indicate what rate has been applied for, not what will be approved? * (1 345) Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): The Public Utilities Board, as the Member has indicated, is meeting this afternoon and they will be rendering their decision.

They will be taking applications from Inter-City Gas and they will be taking representations from anyone who wants to make a representation to them. When they come down with their decision, we will know. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, we have seen an astounding admission tod ay. This Minister promised Manitobans that he would be standing up and protecting their interests- Consumer Protection Mr. Speaker: Or der , please; ord er. Does the Honourable Member have a question? Mr. Jerry Storie (Fiin Flon): I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr . Neuf eld).

Gi ven that independent oil ind ustry consultants suggest that we should be able to achieve 15 percent to 20 percent decrease in the price of gas, can this Minister indicate what he has done, what tangible evidence he can produce before this House that he has done anything to protect the consumers for getting hosed from between $10 million and $15 mil lion this heating season? 3365 Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Inter-City Gas has been working with Western Gas Marketing to negotiate a price for Manitoba gas consumers. The Ontario Energy Board has been meeting.

The Ontario corporations that deliver the gas to the Ontario people have been meeting. We have been promised a price that is equal to the Ontario price. If we can get that price, we do believe it is a good price for Manitobans inasmuch as we have a 50 percent load factor and the Western Gas Marketing has agreed with TransCanada Pipelines that they will consider our price as though we had a 100 percent load factor, not a 50 percent load factor which we have. If we can get those prices, Mr . Speaker, I do think we have done a good job. Mr.

Storie: The Minister is announcing his hope before the Chamber rather than any assurance to the people of Manitoba. Public Utilities Board Consumer Protection Mr. Jerry Storie (Fiin Flon): My question is specifically to the Minister. Did the Minister instruct staff, has the Minister instructed staff to appear before the Public Utilities Board on behalf of Manitobans and request a 10 percent or 15 percent decrease in the price of gas, as is being achieved in Ontario, as should be available to Manitoba consumers so that they could save some $15 million.

Has the Minister done anything concrete to protect our interests? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): The Public Utilities Board is quite capable of reviewing the facts in front of them and they will be coming down with a decision on behalf of the Manitoba consumers. We in Manitoba have met with the people that we have to meet with and we do believe that the price in the end will be in the best interests of Manitoba consumers. Unli ke the previous Go ver nment who signed an agreement with Western Gas Marketing pre-empting the Public Utilities Board decision, we will not do that.

We will allow the Public Utilities Board to come up with their own decision. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Flin Flan, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Storie: My final supplementary question is did the Minister or anyone on his behalf intervene in those hearings?

Have they or will they-are they likely to intervene on behalf of the people of Manitoba, recommending that we achieve some of the savings that are being passed on to consumers in other provinces, that are being passed on to the Americans who are buying gas on short-term supply for as much as 80 percent less than Manitobans are paying for it? Has he done anything concrete? Mr. Neufeld: The Member for Flin Flan (Mr . Storie), Mr. Speaker, is obviously without knowledge.

We do know we are getting the same price, the agreement calls for us to get the same price as that given to Ontario consumers, and -(Int erjection)- if he thinks we

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 are getting a different price, then he does not understand it. If we get the same price as Ontario and we have a 50 percent load factor as opposed to Ontario's 100 percent load factor, we are getting a very good negotiated price. •

(1350) Senior's Transport Service Federal Funding Mr. Bob Rose (St. Vital): My question is for the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme) . We, in the Liberal Party, were pleased to see that the federal Tory candidate in south Winnipeg put her support behind Senior's Transport during the election campaign. She stated trans port for seniors would be her priority when she arrived in Ottawa.

My question to the Minister is will he immediately contact his federal colleagues to save Senior's Transport Service which faces imminent closure, thereby taking away a personal and inexpensive service for thousands of seniors in Winnipeg? Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear! Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Urban Affairs): I am sure the Member for St. Vital (Mr. Rose) knows the process of the STS. This was the lead role in the last couple of years by the city and the province.

The province is the last one to have left money on the table for that seniors' transportatio n a nd that was at the city's request that no participation be done by the city. We went on alone and if this province has put in $75,000 in this program, the ball is really now in the city's court. Provincial Payment Mr. Bob Rose (St. Vital): To the same Minister, as this Minister is well aware , five defea ted Tory candidates also promised in April during the provincial campaign to maintain this same Senior's Transport . We know that about $40,000 of that promise is still to be delivered by this Government.

Will this Min ister now make this final payment to keep Senior's Transport viable until decisions can be concluded by the federal Government and Winnipeg City Council? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, this Government has committed the $75,000 .00. We have lived up to our obligation. I hope that somewhere along the line the seniors' transportation can still carry on. However, this was a negotiated figure with the city. The Member was a member of the city at that time when the city did propose not to participate in 1988 . Expansion Mr. Bob Rose (St.

Vital): My final supplementary, the same question, the same matter . Has this Minister consulted with the Minister for Seniors (Mr. Neufeld) who advocates for seni ors-if I could rephrase the question and make it directly to the Minister in charge 3366 of Seniors. Has this Minister consulted with the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme) to maintain this valuable service to seniors? Will he indeed be urging colleagues to expand the service throughout Winnipeg as he undoubtedly knows was the original concept of the plan? Hon.

Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Urban Affairs): To the Member, just to clarify to the Member that the Minister and myself did meet with the senio rs ' associations and their concern the same time as ours was that they want to have a del ivery for all seniors throughout the city, all seniors . That was their concern and they expressed at that last meeting that they have been working along with the City of Winnipeg in making sure and allow the extended handi-transit system to at least go along its way and get involved.

To his benefit , the increase in that particular rider ship in the month of September, the increase from 87 to 88 in that same month is up about 40 percent of senior riders using that transit throughout the city. Family Court Rural Services Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): My question is for the Attorney-General (Mr. Mccrae) . Mediation and conciliation services are a progressive and important part of the Family Law system, I am sure the Attorney General agrees.

However , if home studies, the family assessment studies, as the court orders, cannot be done in a timely fashion, they do a great injustice to the people involved . It turns out that the parent who happens not to be in custody at the time of separation suffers that injustice if the home study is not done in a timely fash ion . Courts say four months or up to four months is acceptable and in Winnipeg we can get them done within four to five months. However, in Dauphin these home studies are taking up to eight months depending on available staffing.

My question to the Attorney-General is , will he today-and I asked him yesterday to do this-make a commitment to equal family assessment services throughout Manitoba? •

(1355) Hon. James Mccrae (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, as I think I pointed out yesterday, we must clearly be coming to near the end of a Session . Certainly the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) is a pretty good barometer on the quality of questions coming forward from the Liberal Party when he has to ask the same questions two days in a row. The Honourable Member, I responded to him yesterday respecting unification of the Fam ily Court in this province and of course an important part of that is mediation .

I gave the Honourable Member an answer yesterday about my feelings about the unification of the Family Court. I referred him to the extensive consulta tions that have been going on in my department. I suppose the Honourable Member would like to suggest that all of a sudden consultations are not an important part of

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 a process of providing these important services to Manitobans. suggest those consultations are very important. Mr. Edwards: I think it is a great shame that the Attorney-General sinks to personal attacks in view of the problems that are being faced by rural Manitobans in the Family Law syste m. Conciliation Services Study Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): My supple mentary question to the Attorney-General is a study, as I have been informed, has recently been done surveying the expansion of conciliation services around this province. Has the Attorney-General received this report?

If so, will he table it? Has he any intentions of expanding conciliation services beyond the Perimeter Highway and the City of Brandon to the other centres in this province that desperately need those services? Hon . James McCrae (Attorney-General): Indeed, extensive study has been undertaken. This is an opportunity for me to offer thank you to all of those people who took

part in the study reviewing Family Cour t services in the Province of Manitoba. lt is true, Mr. Speaker, that the residents of Winnipeg and Selkirk have had the benefit of a Unified Family Court system and it is true also, the Honourable Member does not have to remind Members of this particular Party about fair treat ment for all Manitobans. Indeed, it is because of that that I have been applying myself as dil igently as is possible for a Minister in Manitoba these days to the issue of unification of the Family Court and to providing services that are equal across this province. Mr.

Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. James, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Edwards: This Party, this Government, speaks of a commitment to rural Manitoba, but I think actions will speak louder than words. Manitobans, rural Manitobans, are not second-class citizens. Mr. Speaker: Order , please. Court of Queens Bench Additional Judge Brandon Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member have a question? Wo uld he kindly put it now. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): My final supplementary to the Attorney-General (Mr .

McCrae), a second Queen's Bench judge in Brandon could help with backlogs in Dauphin and would show a commitment to justice in rural Manitoba. Will the Attorney-General (Mr . McCrae) undertake tod ay, will he commit tod ay, to placing a second Queen's Bench judge in the City of Brandon, a position that is quite obviously needed by the numb er of times a Queen's Bench judge from Winnipeg has to go down to relieve? Hon. James McCrae (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I think the results of the federal election on Monday would back up exactly what the Honourable Member has said.

He said that actions speak louder than words. I suggest that perhaps the people of Manitoba outside the City of Winnipeg also recognize that actions speak louder than words and they elected Progressive Conservative Members all across rural and sm all-town Manitoba. So the Honourable Member, I take it, is very sensitive to election results not only last April but also on Monday. That perhaps gives rise to his questions today. They are hurting a little bit in those areas of Manitoba outside Winnipeg. Mr. Speaker: Order , please. Order . Fisheries Industry Small Mesh Net Survey Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Penner) and it deals with the issue of the long-term viability of the lakes involving the small mesh fishery that my colleague, the Member for the lnterlake (Mr . Uruski), had asked about some time ago on Lake Manitoba as well as Lake Winnipegosis. I want to ask the Minister whether he has completed his survey of fishermen in the north basin of Lake Manitoba and whether he has the results from that survey, and if he intends to abide by the feelings and recommendations of the fishermen involved? * (14 00) Hon.

Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, yes, we have finished our su rvey. The results of the survey of the north basin of Lake Winnipeg: there were some 78 percent of the fishermen who actually fish out of the north basin were contacted; the others we were not able to contact. Out of those 78 percent of the fishermen who were contacted, 49 percent said they wanted the small-mesh fisheries to be retained, and 51 percent indicated that they did not want the small-mesh fisheries retained.

The indication from the south basin of Lake Winnipeg indicates a fairly large majority of the fishermen who do support the retention of the small-mesh fisheries for that lake. Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not deal with the action that he will take. Lake Winnipegosis Small Mesh Net Policy Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): I would like the Minister to comment as well on the issue of the small-mesh fishery on Lake Winnipegosis. The lake has been closed for a number of years.

This is the third year to rejuvenate the pickerel fishery in that lake, and it came about as a result of cooperation of the fishermen and the communities, the Government at all levels. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have had this kind of cooperation, can the Minister indicate whether his staff and himself are continuing to pursue a small-me sh fishery on that lake that may undermine the success of the closure over the last three years in the pickerel population on Lake Winnipegosis? 3367

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources): There is at this time no consideration, or has been no consideration given, to allowin g three-inch-mesh nets on Lake Winnipegosis. Small Mesh Net Policy Consultation Fishermen Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Well, Mr. Speaker, I would advise the Minister to consult with his staff because there was a meeting held a month ago at which time there was a vote with only 59 of 182 fishermen present, and the staff of his department indicated that they were going to pursue this.

I ask the Minister to review that situat ion and to cons ider very carefully any such fishery on Lake Winnipegosis because there has been a great deal of confidence. I ask the Minister to check with his staff and also to ensure that he will not follow with the small-mesh fishery at th is time because I believe that will undermine the success of that and the confidence th at the fishermen have in that closure. Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.

Speaker, I hope I did not mislead the House, certainly there have been discussions with the fishermen on Lake Winnipegosis and th ere have also been requests from individual fishermen, and questions asked whether we would allow three-inch-mesh fishery on the lake this coming season . The indication that I have given to those fishermen and to my staff are negative, that we will not allow that and are not considering it at this time, nor will we consider it at this time.

If, however, in the future, there is a reason that we should implement a three-inch-mesh fishery, if it is deemed viable, then those considerations will be made at that time. Snowplow Safety Campaign Expansion Mr. Ed. Mandrake (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, we, the Official Opposition, welcome the Minister of Highways' Initiative On Snowplow Safety Campaign. Would he expand his safety campaign one step further? Many children are using the slopes on the Winnipeg cloverleafs for tobogganing . This practice is dangerous to the driving public, but much more so to our children.

My question to the Honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedge

r) is what action will he take to restrict or control the use of these slopes by the public for recreational purposes? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I think the safety of our children and all people are paramount to this Government and I think to all people in this Legislature. The suggestion that is made by the Membe r, I am prepared to take that up with staff as to whethe r there is some way that we can develop an awarenes s program. People still are the masters of their own destiny, so to speak.

We can warn them and I think we could probably look at the possibility of doing that. I do not know whether we can necessarily force them not to use public property. Highway Cloverleafs Parking Restrictions Mr. Ed Mandrake (Assiniboia): This is my first supplementary. I am sure all Honourable Members in this House have seen vehicles parked on top of these slopes which causes a safety problem. My question to the same Minister is will he take action to ensure that the vehicles are restricted from parking on the edge of these slopes? Hon.

Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I would like to indica te that I will take the matter under advisement and possibly check with the City of Winnipeg people as well and see whether we can maybe develop an awareness program that is going to be conducive to safer use of the pub lic property . Highway Cloverleafs Snow Fences Mr. Ed Mandrake (Assiniboia): My final supplementary, will this Minister consider the use of snow fences to act as a barrier between the slopes and the highway so that the children cannot accidentally wander onto the highway thereby endangering the ir lives? Hon.

Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): As Minister of Highways, I have enough problems getting up the snow fences to keep the snow off the highways . I would like to indicate that I will look at the various alternatives in terms of how we can make these areas safer. Education Tax Amendments Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): My question is for the Minister of Agriculture, dealing with his Farm School Tax Program. The Minister during Estimates and continually has maintained that farm families are receiving more benefits under their program than previously and that this program will stand.

In a recent survey of one municipality that I was advised of in eastern Manitoba where they had 255 full -time farm families in that municipality, 249 of those farm families received less support . Six of the farm families received more support . Can the Minister indicate to us and tell us how his program is providing greater support when in this municipality, some $50,000 less support was given to farm families? Is he prepared to make changes in that program? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I would like to remind the Member that the program we have in place this year will pay out some $12 million.

The program he put in place last year paid only $9 milli on. That is a 33 percent increase . The inequity of education tax on farm land is well known. Our program reduces the education tax on all farm land to all landowners in the Province of Manitoba. It does not selectively say to one farmer, you shall have a 10 percent reduction in your tax, the next farmer a 40 percent reduction , the next farmer a 70 percent 3368

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 reduction. We are giving an equal program to all farmers of the level of 25 percent of the inequity they are paying in terms of education tax. That is the equity we brought to the program. Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. Absentee Owners Mr.

Bill Uruski (lnterlake): Can the Minister indicate how he can call it equitable when he indicates that $3 million more is being spent this year and $2 million of that $3 million is going to outside interests such as lawyers, doctors and others who are absentee owners and are not farming this land by virtue of the changes in the progr am, that you do not have to farm the land, you have to own it? How can he justify that? Mr. Speaker: Ord er, please. * (1 41 0) Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): There was considerable criticism of the program that was in place last year-discrimination against wives, widows, retired farmers, people who are legitimately paying the tax. I can tell the Member that I, just on Monday, spoke to the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and there is a high level of acceptance of the program because it recognizes the inequality that exists and the rebate is going to the people who are paying the tax. That is the right way to do it. Mr. Uruski: I wish the Minister of Agriculture would stand up for Manitoba farmers rather than land speculators.

Review Mr. Bill Uruski (lnterlake): I ask the Minister of Agricultur e whether he is prepared to acknowledge that thousands of Manitoba farm families are in fact losing benefits under the program this year? Is he prepared to reconsider the program as it exists and make changes to it? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I find it reprehensible that the former Minister of Agriculture referred to 25,000 farm families as land speculators. That is incredible that he would make that stat ement. We recognized the inequity of the education tax on farm land.

We forced the former Government into making a program last year. We have an equitable program this year. That program will be built on in the coming years. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order . Rafferty-Aiameda Project Legal Intervention Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr . Penner). We are aware of the filing of the statement of claim in the Federal Court of Canada and Manitoba by two farmers from Saskatchewan being im pacted by the Rafferty Aiameda Dam on their farm land.

There is also the lik ely court injunctions by the Canadian Wildl ife Federation and also by SCRAP, a citizens group. The Minister and his staff have had more than a month to review Manitoba's position vis-a-vis these court cases, and also given the Minister's wishes to see North Dakota's environmental im pact assessment on the Souris expanded to cover the full length of the river and our own Manitoba study pointing up the lack of information. The question, Mr.

Speaker, is this Minister now able to tell Manitobans how his Government is prepared to avail itself of those court cases for the obvious advantage of our province by playing the role of intervener so as to better look after Manitoba's interests? Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources): lt is quite obvious that the Honourable Member opposite has not paid much attention to what the people of Manitoba have said about the lack of water in this province. The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr . Downey) and myself met with many of the councils in western Manitoba about three weeks ago.

We met again with them last night. The indication to us was very clear and the message they left was very clear. They said, we also want the same types of structures built in Manitoba to retain water in Manitoba that will dr ought proof Manitoba and supply water to communities in Manitoba. We want to alleviate farmers and people from towns, in rural Manitoba, alleviate them from having to haul water up to 30 miles. Attorney-General's Role Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): My first supplemental question is to the Attorney-General (Mr. McCrae).

Given the sign ificance of the Rafferty-Aiameda project and its potential im pact in Manitoba, can the Attorney General tell the House whether he was consulted by the Minister of Natural Resources on the potential for court intervention? If so, what was the Attorney General's response to that request? Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources): We are well aware that there is some question in Saskatchewan by some groups as to whether some of the actions taken by the federal Government or the Saskatchewan Government is in fact legal or not. That is not up to me to question.

What I am responsible for and look after is the Province of Manitoba. I have seen absolutely no reason why I should ask the Attorney General whether we should intervene or not. River Management Control Board Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Wo lseley, with a final supplementary qu estion. Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): A final supplemental, Mr. Speaker, on November 21, we saw the demise of Mr. McMillan, the federal Minister of Environment. Possibly this can be attributed to divine justice. 3369

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 The Minister continuously parrots in newspaper clips , on the television , about this river management control board that wil! come in place on the Souris. The question is how does he expect to have an effective river management control board on a systems basis when he does not have data on a systems basis for it to be working with? Hon . Jack Penner (Minister of Natural Resources) : I think , Mr. Speaker, it is to some credit to the former New Democratic Party administration that they in fact did put in place a data collective system on the Souris River .

Because of their action , we have now five years of data on quality of water in the Souris River. We also have data on quantity of water in the Souris River. As I said before , I think it behooves all of us, those of us who represent Manitobans , to make sure that the best interests of Manitobans are served. I have said continually that my responsibility wilt be to Manitobans, is to Manitobans and remains to be with Manitobans . Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired . SPEAKER'S RULINGS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Orders of the Day, I have a couple of rulings for the House .

I took under advisement , on October 24 , a point of order raised by the Honourable Member for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) respecting the words , " would do much better if she stuck to the truth, " _spoken by the Honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon) with reference to the Honourable Member for St. Johns (Ms . Wasylycia Leis) . To allege that an Honourable Member has not told the truth may be discourteous but it is not unparliamentary . However, a statement that an Honourable Member has deliberately or intentionally not told the truth is unparliamentary .

In this instance, the Honourable First Minister 's words did not contain any suggestion that the Honourable Member for St. Johns had deliberately or intentionally not told the truth . I must, therefore , conclude that the words complained of by the Honourable Member for Churchill were not unparliamentary . I have another ruling : On October 27, the Honourable Member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) rose on a matter of privilege relating to the fact that he had been denied admittance to an embargoed news conference staged by the Government.

I took this matter under advisement in order to review the case presented by the Honourable Member for Brandon East , the advice offered at the time by other Honourable Members , and to consider relevant precedents and references in the authorities . When a matter of privilege is raised , the Speaker must be satisfied that it is being raised at the earliest opportun ity. I am satisfied that thi s was don e. Matters of privil ege in this Hous e are usu ally raised immediately before or immediately after oral questions .

As Honourable Member s may know, parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by' Members of the House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions . According to the authorities, privileg e is concerned with the special rights of Members strictly in their capacity as Members in their parliamentary work. *

(1420) In dealing with a similar issue , Speaker Jero me of the House of Commons ruled , in 1975, that privilege is limited to the duties an individual must discharge as a Member . Speaker Lamoureux of the House of Commons also made a similar ruling in 1971 . The issue raised by the Honourable Member for Brandon East did not relate strictly to his parliamentary work . It was not a duty he must discharge as a Memb er. Therefore, it may constitute a grievance or complaint but it does not satisfy the conditions of privilege . I must , therefore, rule that this issue is not in order as a matter of privileg e.

NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kildc>nan): Mr. Speak er, could I have leave to make a non-political statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member for Kildonan have leave to mak e a non -political statement? (Agreed) Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, today is a very special day for the 15 million Sikhs all over the world . It is the day when the founder of the Sikh religion , Guru Nanak , was born on Novemb er 23, 1469, in Punjab , which is now in Pakistan. By historians, he was called a prophet of the modern age. He was a prophet of peace and love and friendship .

He preac hed God as one and equality for all men and women. He preached for the dignity of the human race, the dignity of labour and the sharing of the fruits of labour with all human beings. He preached resistance against hypocrisy and injustice. He travelled to most parts of the world to carry his message . Guru Nanak was succeeded by nine gurus who carried his message and today the Sikh faith is spread all over the world. Thousands of Sikhs have made Canada their home and they are enjoying the fruits of freedom . They are contributing to building this nation .

Guru Nanak 's message is playing a significant role all over the world . I am personally proud to be part of the Sikh faith. His prayer was, " Let there be peace for everyone. Let there be progress and prosperity for everyone.'' I am sure all the Members of this House will join with me to extend best wishes to the members of th e Sikh community in Winnipeg , Manitoba , and Canada for this special occasion . Thank you . 3370

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 COMMITTEE CHANGES Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr . Praznik), that the composition of the Standing Commit tee on Industrial Relations be amended as follows: Ducharme for Mitchelson. That the composition of the Standing Commit tee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Helwer for Olson. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the Bills in the following order: Bills No. 41, 40, 18 , 24, 28, 29, 21, and the remainder in the order printed on the Order Paper. SECOND READING BILL NO. 41-THE LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT Hon. Edward Connery (Minister of Labour) presented Bill No. 41, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du trava il, for second reading. MOTION presented. Mr. Connery: Mr. Speaker, it is im perative in the Province of Manitoba that we have a fair and balanced labour legislation. We have to have legislation that is not balanced or weighed in favour of management or of labour . Legislation that is balanced or weighed in favour of management deprives workers of their rights, jeopardizes their safety and health, could im pact on their income, and could lead to labour unrest and possibly strikes.

On the other hand, labour legislation weighed in favour of unions causes labour unrest and strikes. lt also causes businesses to reconsider their role in Manitoba. We have to determine will busine sses remain in Manitoba if we do not have a good business cli mate? During the reign of the previous Government we saw head offices move, mainly to eastern Canada but some went to Alberta. We lost a lot of very valuable jobs during the time that the previous Government was in power, and especially in the later years when the full im pact of their legislation came to bear.

In many ways the previous Government did many things to destroy the business climate of this province. One big factory in southern Manitoba which was prepared to make a major expansion said because some of the regulations that Manitoba had, and not very many, but were excessive and they did not think they would be able to expand in Manitoba. (Mr .

Deputy Speaker, Mark Minenko, in the Chair.) Du ring the time that I was critic for Bus iness Development, I had the opportunity unfortunately to 3371 see many businesses that took a look at Manitoba and then went to other jurisdictions because of many reasons-the payroll tax that is excessive, because we have a payroll tax that Calgary and Regina or Alberta does not have; our excessive corporation tax-they did not come to Manitoba. In fact, there was an

article in one of the magazines and I met the consultant in an elevator not too long ago and we dis cussed the issues that prevent busi nesses coming to a province that has legislation weighed in favour of one side. So he reiterated that yes, indeed, when companies are looking at coming to Manitoba, they do take a look at all the various aspects: where the markets are, where their raw product is, do we have a good labour force. And in Manitoba, we do have an excellent labour force.

In fact, Manitoba is known for having a good labour force, a labour force that is motivated to work and is prepared to put out production. That is why we see those businesses that come here really look for this sort of labour and we had that opportunity. But he said, and again, that payroll taxes and labour legislation that is balanced too heavy one way creates labour unrest and so they would not come to Manitoba. I think that Bill No. 33 that was entered by the Member for Thompson (Mr . Ashton) is another Bill that would indicate excessiveness on the part of the previous Membe rs of the previous Go vernment.

Thos e recommendations in that Bill would put Manitoba far and ahead on the leading edge of any other province in Canada. Busi nesses do look to a province to have a balanced opportunity to be able to compete with other provinces. That does not mean that labour should be taking the short end of the stick but it has to be a balance of legislation that allows busi nesses to be successful, and when they are, they create jobs. As we know, we inherited over 40,000 unemployed from the previous Government and we are going to have to work very hard.

We are going to have to work very hard to turn that around and ensure, as the federal Government has done-the federal Government has done a wonderful job in job creation. They have created hundreds of thousands of jobs that were not there before. We have one of the lowest unemployment rates nationally, while ours is in around the same ball park. Manit oba traditionall y has had a mu ch lower unemployment rate than the rest of Canada and we look forward on this side to trying to im prove that so we put more people to work.

One of the simple little things that the previous Government did that is very destructive to businesses is that the safety level, the occupational exposure level for a substance that is harmful is 50 parts per million, that is the safe level. But if one person out of 100 or 15 0 people can only tolerate 30 parts per million, they say then that the workplace should have to come down to 30 parts per million, even though it would cost millions of dolla rs to do so, rather than find a position for that employee somewhere else where they can tolerate whatever it is.

So we all as employees have some dif ferent tolerances and some people are susceptible to whatever is in the air, whether it be dust or other chemicals. We see some people have a low resistance to lead levels.

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 Others have a high resistance, so common sense when we are doing labour legislation and developing regulations has to be done in all safety, but not ridiculo usly. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was obvious that a lot of the legislation put in by the previous Government was put in by some union leaders who were looking for their own edification and to improve themselves. They were not concerned, they were not doing it because of the interests of the workers.

They were doing it for the interests of themselves, and this previous Government, because of their financing from the unions, allowed that to happen. * (14 30) Whatever we do, whatever Party is in power, the bottom line is what is in the best interests of the workers. lt is not what is in the best interests of management, not what is in the best interests of the union leaders, but in the best interests of the workers. lt is quite interesting to note also that, since I have become Minister of Labour , even this previous Government was unfair to some labour unions and gave them very little time, and so they were very selective in those that they supported and catered to.

Under this Government we do not cater to one group or another. We treat all equal. We give all groups an opportunity to have input into what we think is good labour legislation. lt is going to be a balance and it is going to be good for the workers of Manitoba. There is some perception that, because we are Conservatives, we are pro-labour- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Connery: -anti-labour , you are right-tha t we are, but that belief has been expounded by the NDP that if you are Conservative you have to be anti-labour and anti-unions.

Nothing is further from the truth and I can tell you that as Minister of Labour I believe in collective bargaining. I personally am a member of a marketing board which is collective barg aining, and I believe in the process of individuals and busi nesses and farming groups to have that ability to sit down and to look after themselves and to do things that are in the best interests. I think our marketing boards, as brought up by the critic for Agriculture, should know that marketing boards are protected under the Free Trade Agreement.

Of course, he is alluding to the fact that they think marketing boards will have a problem. The problem is not going to be with marketing boards if the business groups and farmers in this communi ty do not take advantage of free trade, then it does not matter what they have in place. Free trade is a window of opportunity. That is all it is, a window of opportunity for those who are ambitious and have foresight to go out and get it. We are concerned about the rights of unions and about the rights of workers.

We are developing right now, to go along with it, a new labour code that was started by the previous Government to deal with employment standards, holiday with pay, vacation with pay and the construction industry wages, to bring it up to date and to ensure that all workers in Manitoba have some protection and have some minimum standards. 1t is non-unionized people, non-unionized workers who in many cases do not have access to some of the minimum standards and this new labour code will bring that up to par to ensure that all workers in Manitoba are fully protected, and rightfully so.

We get many groups in and labour groups that are concerned about things that are happening in Manitoba, and as a Go vernme nt we have taken these very serious ly. Some of the groups that have come in have talked to us about companies that are using piecework workers to bypass payroll taxes, income taxes, Wo rkers Compensation, many things along this line, and we are moving to stop this sort of activity because it is unfair to those companies that are unionized. lt is unfair to those unions and it is unfair to workers.

Another area is in bankruptcies where the first support is to large busi ness and the employees do not get an opportunity to get their full wages. I have a serious concern. I am told that the federal Government now is taking a look at this particular aspect of bankru ptcies because it is not fair. An individual worker cannot afford to lose a week or two of pay where a large company or a large bank or a large financial institution has that opportunity. There are also some very serious concerns within the federal changes to the Pension Act and even with our own Act in the line of pension splitting.

My speech was written just prior to the election on the 21s t. I had some comments made to the fact of free trade and to the fact that the NDP, with Ed Broad bent and Bob White being opposed to free trade and where they already had their investment. I think now all Manitobans can look forward to having a fair shot at investment all across Canada and not just in those areas where they already had their money and had their free trade through the Autopac.

While those comments are redundant, I think it is a fact of life that Members opposite were against free trade on the NDP side because of the union connection, and the Liberal side, I think because politically -(I nterjection)- Well, if they did not understand, that really is unfortunate. I think they took the political route that there was an opportunity to scare people. I am pleased that the people of Manitoba saw through that and voted in more Conservatives than Liberals.

All across Canada, we did well and we returned a majority Conservative Government that is going to continue on the route that they had prior to the election. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Ord er, please; order. I realize that all Honourable Members would like to participate in the debate on this Bill but perhaps they would allow the Honourable Minister of Labour the courtesy to put his comments on the record. Mr. Connery: Bill 61 was introduced by the previous NDP Government in 1987 and it was proclaimed in January of 1988. We vigorously oppose that legislation. lt was opposed by the Liberals as well.

I am very pleased and I believe, as words I have heard, that the Liberal Opposition is 3372

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 in opposition to this Bill. I am pleased that they have the foresight to support something that they know is not good for the labour clima te in Manitoba. So I salute them for their insight into supporting us on this Bill. Bill 61 was opposed by a large number of unions and by management. They insisted that it was intrusive int o the free col lective bargaining and it left an imbalance in the favour of unions.

The legislation allowed the union side to decide, between 30 and 60 days prior to a collective agreement coming to an end, to have a window of opportunity to ask for final offer selection. If they did not take that advantage, management could ask for it, but management could not refuse the final offer selection but unions could refuse it or through their membership vote reject final offer selection. The second window was 60 to 70 days after a strike had been implemented. Once again, both sides had the right to ask for final offer selection but on the labour side they could refuse it and management could not.

A lot of the labour unions felt that this led to long strikes because one side or the other would be obsti nate knowing that final offer selection could come along. I think we have a lot of strikes that we really did not have to have. A lot of the unions said that this legislation flies in the face of free collective bargaining. Collective agreements need to be freely negotiated, not under pressure, and it has to be acceptable to all parties as opposed to being imposed upon by a third party. That is what happened when you went to final offer selection.

Some third party who maybe not even knows and understands all the ramifications of the union and the management would make a decision. lt made winners and it made losers. Nobody could get one or the other. This left a bad taste in many people's mouths if you were a total loser and got nothing that you had asked for. lt is the role of Government to ensure that there is fairness and balance in the rules set out for the labour relations communit y. By speaking to this legislation, we will once again encourage the concept of bargaining in good faith with a minimum of Go vernment interference.

I have a copy of the list of people who applied for final offer selection. This one only shows 29 but there was one that came after. There were 30 applications to final offer selection and only two were finalized by the selector. I think there were 11 agreements reached before the selector made his decision. What happened, once they got to the realization that my gosh, if we leave it up to the selector, we are either going to win or we are going to lose and we do not like that. I think what they did then was went back together . There is no question, they got back together and had- * (14 40) Mr.

Harry Harapiak (The Pas): Serious negotiations. Mr. Connery: Yes, as the Member for The Pas (Mr . Harapiak) says, then they got to serious negotiations. If there was not final offer selection, we might have seen serious negotiation long before that 60 days. We 3373 have seen some real serious strikes. We saw one out in eastern Manitoba that was a very, very difficult strike. When you get a one-industry town and you have that industry on strike, you have a severe economic impact on that communit y. That happened in that particular case.

Of the people that opposed final offer selection when we went to comm ittee, of all the unions that opposed final offer selection, not one of those unions asked for final offer. Not one. There were 17 requests by one union. Seventeen out of the 30 were requested by one union. That is why they called it Bernie's Bill. I would like to read a few of the comments that were made by people who went to comm ittee. I think it was quite interesting. First of all, I would like to read the union groups that were opposed to final offer selection.

The Canadian Manufacturers Association-no, this .is the employer group.- (Interjection)- lt is a union group. Are you opposed to the Chamber of Commerce working to im prove business in this communi ty? The Member for Churchill (Mr . Cowan) says they are quite a group all right. They are quite a group like unions that are working to develop their busi nesses which creates jobs in the long run. Mr. Jay Cowan (Churchill): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, just so that the Member-and I will assume that he misheard what I said from my seat-on a point of order just so that he does not leave the record incorrect, what I said, and I have to admit, I was mocking the comment of the Minister when he said the Canadian Manufacturers Association was a union.

I said that is a union group all right, as if the Minister knew what he was talking about in this particular instance. lt was not meant in a derogatory fashion towards that group or any other group. lt was just meant to identify that the Minister has sometimes trouble identifying what is a union group and what is a business group in this province. I think he leans more towards the busine ss groups in all instances. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for Churchill does not have a point of order. A dispute over facts is not a point of order. Mr. Connery: If the Member had been at a mike, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and the people could have all heard the tone of what he said, they would realize- Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Yes, I heard it. Mr. Connery: See. I have support on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let us take a look at what unions were opposed to it: the Manitoba Association of Health Care Professionals, Commu nications and Electrical Wo rkers of Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Em ployees, Manitoba Organ ization of Nu rses Assoc iation, Confederation of Canadian Unions, Canadian Association of Ind ustrial, Mechanical and Alli ed Wo rkers, and International Ladies Garment Wo rkers Union.

All of these unions spoke in opposition to final offer selecti on. I have a few selections from the

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 commi ttee hearings to put on the record and to let people know and especially some of the new Members opposite what some of the people said. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not a union. This is the Manitoba Fashion Institute. lt says, "The entire concept of this Bill is so misguided and so lacking in rationale and fairness that even the group who are perceived to be the beneficiaries are in violent disagreement amongst themselves," indicating the unions.

"Not one firm in the private sector perceives this Bill as benefitting anyone or containing any redeeming features which might balance its potential for disruption." The Manitoba Assoc iation of Health Care Profess ionals: " ... damage the collective bargaining process by encou rag ing parties to consider an alternative resolution process before collective bargaining actually occurs." He goes on to say, "Few if any of the selectors would have a full familiarity with the parties to a dispute.

A selector might, for the sake of a higher wage offer made by management, feel compelled to select management's package even when it may contain provisions that might reduce the hard won rights of workers to job secur ity, income protection, pension rights and the like." He also goes on to say, "lt is a Russian rou lette approach." He carries on to say, "There is nothing to preclude final offer selection from being an option to contract negotiations.

Such options might be written into a collective agreement." What he is saying is that final offer selection is available if both sides want to use it and can make use of it. Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the Machinists, Local 44, "Although a strike, especially a lengthy and costly one, is the least desirable outcome of the free collective bargaining process, the cure offered by final offer selection is worse than the disease." He goes on to say, "Studies have shown that FOS works best when the number of issues in disputes is small and of a quantifiable nature.

But a perusal of the selection of collective agreements will show that a majority of the clauses are essentially non-monetary, faced with a mix of mo netary and non-mone tary quantitative and qu alitative issues. How is a selector to decide which offer is more fair and reasonable?" Those are just a few of the comments that were made by some of the unions in opposition to final offer selection. We have many ways if people want to settle disputes. In the Department of Labour , we have the Conciliation Department, which is under the dir ectorship of Mr.

Jim Davage, and they go out and they work with parties to come to a resolve of a dispute. They will work on behalf of both management and labour to bring them to a common ground and to settle. We also have the Labour Board. If there is a serious case, they can still carry on to the Labour Board where there is an adjudication made to resolve the dispute. We do have employment standards to help workers to resolve some of their problems with management so they do not have to go to the Labour Board or into court.

So there are many ways that we can help management and labour to resolve their differences and hopefully not end up in a strike. A strike is very destructive to that. In closing, I just want to say that in our Bill No. 41, we had decisions to make. We could have, as we have done, outright repealed the Act or we could have amended it to make it fair to both sides. That is what would have been done so that management would have the same options that the union side and labour had. We decided the full repeal would be the best approach. lt was an approach that I think is fair.

Voluntary final offer selection is still available to both parties if they so desire. In closing, I look forward to the support of Members opposite to bring fairness back into this labour legislation, and Mr. Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. Mr. Cowan: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would also inform you, as I have given you pre-notice that, under the Rules, I have been asked by my Leader to have unlim ited time in response to this particular Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member is referring to Rule No. 33.(2)(

a) I believe. * (1 450) Mr. Cowan: Yes, thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, first let me assure the Member for Portage who just spoke, the Minister of Labour (Mr . Connery), that we will not be supporting the repeal of the final offer selection process. I want to spend a few mo ments toda y explaining why it is based on our initial inclination when we brought the final offer selection legislation forward a year ago and also more importantly based on the experiences to date, that why it is that we will not be supporting the repeal. I want to start off my remarks with a comment by John F.

Kennedy which I believe is appropriate to the debate before us tod ay. John F. Kennedy said and I quote, "Let us begin anew remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, that sincerity is always su bject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." I believe that quote is appropriate because what we are talking about with the final offer selection process is a way to improve the process of negotiations. The Minister of Labour (Mr . Connery) seems stuck in the old concept of negotiations as being a win-lose process.

I have given some considerable time to the study of negotiations, both the study of the theory of negotiations, the art of negotiations, and the signs of negotiations. I can tell the Minister that the emerging trends, and I believe they are the appropriate ones in negotiations, are not that of win-lose, but that of win win and in fact have gone beyond win-win negotiations to no-fault negotiating.

I want to explain a bit later in my comments today why it is I believe final offer selection fits in with that new trend, the emerging trend, the innovation in negotiation that is allowing negotiators, whether they be for private industry or unions, or whether they be for Go vernment or non-p rofit corporations, or in whatever capacity they serve, to structure better agreements. The advice that John F. Kennedy gave us so many years ago is probably good advice gi ven that negotiations play such a prominent role in the life of each and every one of us. Negotiations in fact are only 3374

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 a desire to make things different and a desire to make things better. Negotiations are designed only to change the status quo and in order to do so, groups have to sit down and determine how it is they can best change that status quo, not only to meet their own needs but to meet the needs of those with whom they are negotiating.

Given that negotiation plays such a prominent role in all our lives then and all our actions are in one way or another related to negotiations, and given that negotiations play such a promin ent role in the develo pment of collective agreements between employers and employees, it is im portant that we have before us all the tools avai lable to make those negotiations work. Nowhere are negotiations more important however than when labour and management sit down to work out their differences and to bargain for their wages and their working conditions.

As im portant as those negotiations are and perhaps even more so because of that im portance, agreement is sometimes hard to find and settlements can be elusive. The Minister himself referenced in his remarks several times the difficulty in reaching agreements that results in strikes and lockouts. Because of that and because both labour and management want to avoid strikes and lockouts to the extent possible, they together have developed a set of tools to assist them through difficult negotiations and to help them develop effective bargaining techniques. A large numb er of those tools are familiar to all of us.

Colle ctive bargaining itself, mediation and conciliation, binding and non-binding arbitration. Of course the ultimate weapons and the weapons that one would want to avoid if at all possible and use judiciously if necessary are strikes and lockouts. Now those dispute resolution mechanisms which were designed to help labour and management avoid strikes and lockouts did not just pop up out of thin air. Neither did they appear all at the same time in one neat tidy package wrapped up with a bow and presented to union negotiators and management negotiators and said, here is your tool box of negotiating techniques.

No, they evolved over time as the art of collective bargaining itself has evolved over time. In many instances in their day, these procedures, procedures that are very acceptable to us now and com monly known and commonly used such as mediation and conciliation, and binding and non-binding arbitration, were new and innovative responses to new circums tances just as is the case with final offer selection today.

I have tried to put myself in the place of a negotiator who was first approached with the idea of mediation, or first approached with the idea of conciliation, or first approached with the idea of binding arbitration or non binding arbitration. I believe that they probably found those new processes that were being suggested to them at the time to be somewhat frightening. Indeed they were somewhat frightening as history tells us to those who first chose to use them, just as is the case with final offer selection. Put yourself in the position of those first choosing binding arbitration.

To them it was an entirely unknown process. lt was a process full of all sorts of unanticipated dangers and fraught with unseen perils. The same could probably be said for the strike and the lockout when it was first developed as a tool to resolve very difficul t-to-resolve impasses. Notwithsta nding those early fears and trepidations, those earlier negotiators must have felt when trying out new tools and weapons those mechanisms worked.

They worked because people had the courage to try them in the first instance, to put aside their own personal fears, to put aside the concern about what unseen perils are out there in order to try to develop better negotiating techniques that would lead them to settlements over difficult issues. Because of the foresight of those early innovators and because of their courage, we no longer have to rely solely on raw power and brute force as a way to resolve otherwise irreconcilable differences. Those forerunners of the process that we have today improved upon the art and the science of negotiation.

Both management and labour and indeed a third party, the public that they represent, are better off today for the work that they undertook in spite of those concerns and fears. Like those earlier innovations final offer selection is one of the newer tools available to negotiators as part of a package of dispute resolution mechanisms. Just as with every one of those early innovations there were concerns and questions. As a matter of fact, there are still some concerns and questions about final offer selection. There were questions about how it actually works. There are questions about its potential impacts.

There are questions about how the process will help in reconciling disputes. Fortunately for us most of those questions have already been answered by experiences in many other jurisdictions that have already used final offer selection as a way to improve upon the process of negotiations. Those experiences repeated themselves in Manitoba. I want to come later on in my speech to the comments made by the Minister of Labour (Mr . Connery) with respect to the number of times that final offer selection was not used.

I think upon reflection and if he truly tries to understand the process and what it means for labour relations and the im provement of the labour relations in this province, he will see that the fact that the final offer selection has not pursued its process all the way to the arbitration is an indication of the success of the process and not the failure.

Even notwithstanding that positive experience that we have had over the past little while with 30 cases of final offer selection, the Conservatives -and I am told that they have the support of the Liberals on this issue-intend to repeal that legislation which has worked so well to date. * (1 500) Now, I am only basing the assumption that the Liberals are supporting the Conservatives on what I read in the paper, the fact that the Liberal Leader (Mrs.

Carstairs), when this legislation was introduced last Session, voted against it and the comments on the Minister today who indicated that the Liberals and the Conservatives are lining up on this particular issue to ensure that final offer selection is repealed. 3375

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 1 hold out some hope that is not the case, although politically it would not be disadvantageous to see Liberals and Conservatives line up against labour on this particular issue, but I believe that this issue goes beyond partisansh ip, that this issue goes beyond political motivations, that this issue is one of crucial im portance to the future of collective bargaining in this province.

So I hope that they will reconsider their earlier positions and perhaps agree with the New Democratic Party that final offer selection has worked in this province and should be given a chance to continue to work. lt is important, however, that we put what is happening today, the repeal of final offer selection into the proper historical context, because what the Conservatives are saying today is no different from what they have said any time a New Democratic Party Go vernment attempted to bring forward progressive and innovative labour laws.

The Minister himself said that there is a perception that the Conservatives are anti-labo ur. I can tell the Minister of Labour (Mr . Connery) that what he has done today with the repeal, or the attempted repeal of final offer selection, is going to in many ways subs tantiate, confirm and prove that his Government is in fact a right-wing Government that is anti-labour . Let there be no doubt about that.

He can shake his head to the negative all he wants as he sits in his seat, but the truth of the matter is when there is a piece of legislation that can help resolve strikes, that can help avoid strikes, that can help resolve lockouts, that can help avoid lockouts, that is put in place in this province and it is working and they repeal it, we can only assume that they are repealing it on the basis of a phil osophi cal approach that has historically been and continues to be today anti-labour .

When the Liberals sidle up with them on this piece of legislat ion, let them know what they are doing as well, because they are stepping into that anti-labour camp. They are stepping into a camp that is repealing progr essive legislation that attempted to even out the balance of power in industrial relations. Let us listen to what the Minister said today about why they are repealing this legislation. Every time new labour legislation was brought before this Legislature by an NDP Government, the Tories responded in a time worn and typical fashion. lt was their typical right-wing anti-labour approach.

Every time they oppose progressive labour laws, Conservatives are quick to point out that they are not anti-labour , but they believe that this legislation by the New Democratic Party gives the unions too much power over business. That is exactly what the Minister said today and he su bstantiated his concern for fairness and balance by referring to a conversation he had in an elevator with some management consultant over what causes people to relocate and to locate their new industries in different jurisdictions.

I have done a very comprehensive study of relocation factors with respect to relocation of industries and the movement of industries from different jurisdictions. I can tell you that the final offer selection never showed up in any one of those studies, nor does the labour relations balance rate very high on the scale.

The Minister, in going through his own comments, said when he met that consultant in the elevator that and I list them in the order in which he lis ted them these are the things that influenced the location of industry in certain areas: markets, raw products, a skilled labour force, taxes-he referenced particularly the health and education levy-and labour legislation.

When he talked about labour legislation, he did not talk about labour legislation per se, he talked about labour unr est and, yes, employers are concerned if a jurisdiction has a large number of strikes and lockouts, because they know strikes and lockouts result in lost produc tivi ty, they result in lost time, they add cost to the com pany. They also know that they create negative labour relations, divisi ve labour relations, a divisive working relationship between employers and employees that, in the long run, do not add to their profits or their productivi ty.

So the Minister in suggesting that they are not anti labour is trying to refute what has been commonly accepted. They are singing the same old story every time new legislation is brought forward, only this time now they are singing in two-part harmony with the Liberals, because the Liberals are siding with them in this attack on labour . But their bias, both historical and currently , is essentially a pro-business bias. There is no doubt about that.

If one accepts the fact that the interests of labour and business are not, in all instances, the same then one would be also safe to assume that on occasions, the needs of labour are somewhat different than those of the employers. One could assume that the needs of working men and women are sometimes different than those of the employers.

Although they share some common gr ound and although they share some common objectives and they rely each upon the other for their own economic health and well-being, within that framework, within that context, the assumption can be made, and I believe it is a safe one, because it has been proven historically to be the case, that they have differing needs. Governments have a responsibility to address those needs.

A Conservative Government, and based upon the Liberal support for their actions in this instance, we can guess that a Liberal Government will quite naturally address the needs of labour and busi ness differently than would an NDP Government, historically both of them have sided with their business friends and their corporate sponsors. (Mr . Speaker in the Chair.) lt is interesting to reflect back momentarily on some of the vitriolic debate that went on about this particular Bill when it was brought forward. Some of the things that the Conservatives argued, they are arguing again today.

The Conservatives argue that Manitoba does not need any changes to our labour legislation because things are working very fine, thank you very much. They are working just fine and they will continue to work just fine as long as an NDP Government does not change the law and drive business away. lt is interesting to note that the only time they have something good to say about labour relations in Manitoba is when an NDP Government has announced changes to the existing legislation. That is the only time they have 3376

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 anything good to say about it. The Tories will lament, as they did today, the labour relations climate in this province day after day after day after day until it comes time to change the law. Then all of a sudden , as if by a miracle, the labour relations climate overnight becomes one of the best in the country with just the right balance of power and , furthermore, it will stay that way unless a nasty NOP Government comes forward and changes the law again . Listen to what Mr.

Spivak said when he was Conservative Leader in 1972, at a time when the NOP introduced major changes to The Labour Relations Act. He said and I quote: "Mr. Speaker, we have labour relations in this province which are the best in the country", in 1972 he said that. He then goes on to say that this new NOP legislation at the time, which was a reform of the labour laws, may well upset the balance and conditions will worsen. His praise of the existing system must have come hard to his lips, given that an NOP Government had already been in power for three years at that time .

The world or at least the world in Manitoba had not yet come to a crashing end . By the way, those sentiments were echoed time and time again by his colleagues in the House who bravely prophesied that this new legislation in 1972 would bring ruin to the pro vince. So what happened in 1982 when first contract legislation, new labour legislation, reform of the process was debated?

We hear from the Conservatives and we hear from their business friends about what a fine labour relations environment we have here in Manitoba, and how any new NOP labour legislation would upset the deli cate balance that serves us so well and bring ruin and despair down upon our collective heads . Again, more changes to labour law in 1984 and a Tory band played on again. Remember that infamous June 26, 1984, advertisement that the Conservatives in this House were so proud to quote ; they would puff our their chests and they would lower their voice .

They would say, we are right because our friends in the Chamber of Commerce and the Manufacturing Association say we are right . They would quote this June 26, 1984, advertisement that was put in the paper by the Winnipeg and Mani toba Chambers of Commerce, the Manitoba Mining Association and other employment groups, that spoke threateningly and I quote: "The dark cloud over Manitoba and the peril that Bill No. 22, more labour relations legislation meant for all Manitoba." •

(1510) The Member for Lakeside, from his seat, says exactly what he said from his feet at the time, that in fact that dark cloud did hang over all of us. Remember that ad and how it started? The Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) and the Member for Portage (Mr. Connery) could probably quote it verbatim because they used it so often in their speeches. But I want to, in case they have forgotten exactly how it started, remind them. It said : "Up to now our management and labour relations in Manitoba have been in relative harmony.

Indeed, our record for solving problems through discussion at the bargaining table is outstanding compared to other provinces ." Outstanding, indeed! Two years after they were saying that there was going to be ruin and devastation because we brought forward first contract legislation. A number of years , a decade and some after, they had said this province would be ruined because we brought forward labour reforms at that particular time . They say the same thing all the time .

All is well, and any changes to labour legislation will bring about the end of the labour relations world, and civilized men and women know it.

The adver tisement went on to predict-and it was supported and substantiated by the Conservatives of the Day, and the Liberal of the Day- because of first contract legislation , and I quote : "Free collective bargaining, as we know it in Manitoba, is finished, a thing of the past ." It warned, and I quote again: "Big brother will make decisions for us." It forecast that many young Manitobans will have to leave Manitoba to find jobs elsewhere in the country, facing a huge unemployment problem . Bill No. 22 is a complete disaster for Manitobans .

The fact is that unemployment has increased both relatively and absolutely since the Conservatives came in power and that unemployment under an NOP Government under this legislation with some of the lowest unemployment in the entire country. Now, instead of leading the country or being second with respect to our employment and the jobs that we have created here, we are third. I can predict that situation will deteriorate as well if the Conservatives continue along the path they have charted out .

That ad also, and the Tories in this House also prophesied that businesses both big and small would flee the province to escape this legislation. (lnterjection)- Well, the Member for Portage, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Connery) says, "And they did. " You know, I live not too far from a main highway going south and I live not too far from a main highway going east and west and the second-best constituency in the province, outside of Churchill. An Honourable Member: Who is your MLA? Mr. Cowan: -and an adequate MLA represents the area, at least for the time being, perhaps .

Perhaps we will have a better MLA in the future, or a worse MLA in the future, I do not know. But given the circumstances of the day for the Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Angus), I have to tell him that it probably is the second-best constituency. No, I am going to have to change that because the way things are changing it is probably the fifth or sixth-best constituency, but it ranks in the top ten. The fact is though, when I drive to work I do not see moving vans moving large industry out of the province, small industry out of the province.

As a matter of fact, I see job creation records since the time this legislation was introduced that were the envy of some of the other provinces . So what they said was going to happen did not happen , not then. It did not happen before when they said it. The ad prophesied that big and small businesses 3377

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 would leave; they did not. The Conservatives in the Legislature parroted the pleadings of their friends in the Chambers of Commerce, in the Mining Association and other employer organizations. As a matter of fact, an

article from the Free Press, dated June 30, 19 84, it read and I qu ote: "Opposition Leader Gary Filmon said the Bill has shattered harmony in labour management relations." Another

article from the same paper, a bit later, July 3, 19 84, read and I quote: "Gary Filmon summar ized his Party's position. They could not understand why the Government was attempting to destroy the fragile balance between labour and business.

This legislation would be just another road block to job creation and investor confidence." They say the same thing every time and I say that and I give this bit of history to my friends in the Liberal Party because they have not sat through all those changes, and perhaps they have not had an opportunity to go back and read the Hansard as to what the Conservatives said every time labour legislation was brought forward. Because what they were saying then did not prove to be true, and what they are saying now which is exactly the same thing does not ring true.

Well, once again, when we are talking about a changed Labour Act and the Chamber Commerce and some Conservatives are again talking about what a fine system we already have in Manitoba, and how well it was working before we brought forward this legislation, and why did we have to change it because if we did change it the last year we would all suffer unspeakable catastrophes and calamities. I am not overstat ing what they said. I read you exactly what they said on the record. They talked about shattered labour relations.

They talked about a "dark cloud over Manitoba." They talked about businesses fleeing the province. They were the ones who used that same old tired right-wing rhetoric and overstated the case. They predicted disaster in 1972 and it did not happen then. They predicted dis aster in 19 82 and it did not happen then. They predicted dis aster in 19 84 and it did not happen then. They predicted dis aster last year and it did not happen then either. They were wrong before and they are wrong now.

Yet, they are attempting today to change legislation that I believe can be proved without a doubt to be helping to prevent strikes and lockouts; legislation that is helping build a better labour relations clima te; legislation that is im proving the collective bargaining process in this province so that we avoid strike and lockouts which is what employers are really concerned about, more so than almost any other aspect of labour relations.

They are concerned that when they come to a province that they not be subject to unnecessary strikes and that they not be put in a position of having to undertake unnecessary lockouts. The Minister talked a bit about his concerns about final offer selection. ln order to address the issue of final offer selection, one has to plough their way through all that Tory rhetoric and some of the Liberal rhetoric from the last time around, and the Tories' transparent criticisms and venomous aspirations against the labour leadership, unions and the NDP. One has to put that aside and attempt to ignore it.

The real issues as identified primarily by those outside of this building revolve around several key areas of final offer selection. Those concerns, and there are concerns that were exhibited and expressed either through questions or criticisms, are not unexpected. They are not unexpected now, they were not unexpected a year ago, they are not unexpected now nor should they be. Any new change or any new innovation begins with some uncertainty and some question that mu st be analyzed and addressed. People basically do not like to change unless they are convinced that change is going to bring about positive results.

Fortun ately, in the final offer selection there is some experience in other jurisd ictions that give us some insight into questions about its use and potential im pacts and, as I indicated earlier, those experiences have been borne out in Manitoba in a very short period of time. So we should examine some of the criticisms we have already heard about final offer selection in the context of what has happened elsewhere.

The first misconception and it is a misconception even although the Minister of Labour may believe it fervently, it is a misconception. lt only shows his lack of understanding as to how the collective bargaining process works, is that final offer selection takes away the right to strike. Nothing could be further from the truth. The legislation, as we put it in place here in Manitoba, very clearly places the decision on whether or not to go to final offer selection or to go on strike with the members of the barg aining unit who must ultima tely bear the consequences of either action.

That is where those decisions should be made. They are made in a democr atic fashion by democratic vote, by the members of the bargaining unit, and that is where the legislation that is being repealed today delegated the decision-making process. lt does not take anything away from labour , it does not take anything away from the workers on the shop floor, or in the factories, or in the mines, or in the mills. In fact, it adds to their ability to bargain in good faith with their employer and reach a fair settlement where possible. * (1 520) Let there be no mistake about it.

Even with final offer selection there are going to be strikes and lockouts. Some issues just do not lend themselves to the final offer selection process. We have seen in Manitoba over the past li ttle while in those 30 cases that have proceeded to final offer selection where there was a strike, final offer selection was suggested as a way to resolve that strike. The bar gaining uni t who had legitima tely and democratically voted to go on strike, voted against final offer selection because they did not think it would meet their needs.

That happened in my own constituenc y.- (Interjection)- I will get to what the Minister is suggesting or asking right now with respect to the prevention of strikes. Disp utes revo lving around senio rity, grievance procedures do not lend themselves well to any form of arbitration or thir d-p arty intervention. Final offer selection probably would not be an option in those and 3378

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 many other instances but the fact remains, notwithstanding that, that there will be situations where bargai ning has broken down for any number of reasons and arbitration or final offer selection can be used effectively to avoid strikes and lockouts . It will be up to the employees under the existing legislation , it has been up to the employees, to decide whether those circumstances warrant final offe r selection or a strike. In that case final offer selection offers the opportunity to prevent labour-management strife. That is all, nothing more , nothing less.

It does not take anything away, it only adds . It allo ws for one more opportunity to reach a nego tiat ed agreement before an employer and employee feels compelled to resort to a lockout or a strike . On the other hand, there have been some who have said that final offer selection is too attractive as a replacement for a strike and consequently it would stop parties to a collectiv e agreement from bargaining in good faith . They suggest that final offer selection would soon become the preferred option over that of good faith bargaining.

By the way, that is exactly the same argumen t the Conservatives used to oppose first contract legislation in 1982, and they are not repealing first contract legislat ion primarily because it was in place long enough to be shown that their arguments were wrong in 1982, just as they are wrong today . They misunderstood the process .

They misunderstood the role that first contract legislation would play, and that they were oppo sing that legislation out of a right-wing approach to labour relations that pays littl e attention to fact , little attention to experience or little attention in trying to provide an innovative bargaining atmosphere. What do they say? It is a Member for whom I have no longer a Member of this House - but a Membe r for whom I have a great deal of respect and that is the previous Member for St. Norbert, Mr. Mercier . What did he say about first contract legislation in 1982?

" Too easy not to negotiate, too easy to circumvent the bargaining process, and the entire concept of collective bargaining in this province may deteriorate or be destroyed ." I do not know if the present Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Angus) for whom I have respect agrees with the previous Member for St. Norbert but their Parties are lining up together on this particular issue. What he said on that day did not come to pass . Obviously his concerns and that of the Conservatives of the Day failed to materialize.

They are not repealing that legislation because it was good legislation when it was brought in and it is good legislation today. Their predictions of doom were unfounded, just as they were in'82, just as they were in '72, and time once again proved them wrong. Mr. Speaker , it is interesting that when they came in power from 1977 to 1981 after predicting all sorts of negative consequences of our labour legislation , they did not touch our labou r legislation during that period of time . They said that labour legislation when it was being passed would bring ruin upon the province .

When they had fou r year s to repeal it in majority Government they never touched it. Thank goodness that they can be brought to their senses from time to time , even although it is a difficult process . Thank goodness that they can see their mistakes from time to time. All we are suggesting in this particular instance is they allow this legislation , final offer selection to work its way out as did the earlie r legislation in '72, as did the first contract legislation in 1982, to the point where it can be proven to be either right or wrong legislation for our province.

I think to date the evidence shows that it is good legislation, but even giving them the benefit of the doubt, let it go on for another couple of years to see if their predictions of doom and those of the Mining Association, the chambers of commerce and the dark clouds and this shattered harmony come to fruition. I do not believe they will because I believe they are wrong once again. On first contract legislation, I do not know how many have been in place now. In 1982 to 1986, I think there were 12 first agreements that were decided by the Labour Board under first contract legislation .

Remember they said it is going to be too easy not to negotiate and people will jump to use first contract legislation. Well, in five or six years, only 12 first agreements were brought which is less than 5 percent of all the certifications that were granted during that period of time for the first time. I make that point and I am going back to that point because I think history has some lessons which we should take advantage of. One of the lessons of history is every time they have approached labour relations from the right-wing perspective they have been wrong.

Experiences in other jurisdictions by the way where final offer selection has been used successfully for over a decade, show very clearly that it does not discourage good faith bargaining . As a matter of fact the contrary is true . Final offer selection has encouraged good negotiations in the jurisdictions which has been used. Mr. S.A. Bellan, states in his

article in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal entitled "Final Offer Selection- Two Canadian Studies and an American Digression " states the following and I quote, "Both parties reported considerable pressure were generated by the final offer selection deadline after mediation . Each preferred to reach agreement through negotiation rather than risk a complete loss in arbitration.

Obviously the pressure of final offer selection keeps negotiators at the bargaining table rather than forcing them or even enticing them away, and the Minister suggesting that the fact that the selector has not had to be used in over 90 percent of the final offer selection applications, applications as an indication of failure of this Bill shows how wrong -headed his approach is. The fact is it shows that the Bill is working and that is not myse lf talking only and that is not the New Democratic Party talking only, that is Mr. S.A.

Bellan in the Osgoode Hall Law Journal who says that exactly what happened in Manitoba has happened in other jurisdictions. It forces people to negotiate because they do not want to leave up to the arbitrariness of an arbitrator the issues which are important to them. It keeps them at the table. Mr. Bellan in that

article was 3379

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 examining Canadian examples of final offer selection that did not take place last year, or the year before, or the year before, but took place in the mid -Seventies in Ontario. He drew eight conclusions from that review. Four of them dealt with the concern that final offer selection discourages good faith bargai ning and let us hear what he had to say about those four. One, and I am quoting from his article, "There was significant convergent pressure to appear reasonable in the eyes of the selection officer.

So what it forces individuals to do is to put forward a reasonable proposal to move away from the negotiating proposals that are sometimes not unreasonable in the context in the negotiations where you have a win-lo se situation, but to move toward s each other's positions where you want a win-win or a no-fault solution." So it forced them to do that.

Secondly, and I quote again, "Both sides felt strongly motivated to settle the agreement thems elves for personal satisfaction and to avoid the risk of complete loss at arbitration and yet both felt that final offer selection gave the parties a large measure of control than did conventional arbitrati on." That is exactly what has happened in Manitoba. We have, I do not know the Minister said 11 cases, my count is 15 cases where final offer selection was applied for but they were settled before the arbitr ator had to make a decision. That proves that the legislation is working.

As a matter of fact, I believe there are only two that actually went to the selector. One was agreed to or the employer's position was agreed to and the other was the union's position was agreed to.- (I nterjection)- Yes, the Member for St. Norbert (Mr . Angus) had asked if I permitted questions. Yes, I would. Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): By leave, I wanted permission to ask a question of the Member for Churchill and he has consented. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member tor St. Norbert have leave to ask the question of the Member for Churchill? (Agreed) Mr. Angus: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Member for Churchill address his remarks on the Bill to answer the question? Is there anything in the Bill that prevents binding arbitration? Is there anything in the Bill that is being introduced by our colleagues from across the floor that prevents the two parties from agreeing to a binding final selection arbitration. Thank you. * (15 30) Mr. Cowan: I will get to that point a bit later because that is the reason why the Bill was brought forward in the first instance.

When we talk about balance and fairness, and we will get to that point later on in the comments, I will explain to him why the Bill is important. The fact is that there is nothing that prevents final offer selection. The fact is that there was very little final offer selection, if any-1 do not know of any cases-b ut there may have been one or two before this Bill was brought forward. There had been 30 cases of final offer selection after this Bill had been brought forward.

What that means to me is that the Bill is encouraging a new and innovative form of conflict, resolution, dispute, reconciliation that prevents long, drawn-out strikes and lockouts. The third point that Mr .

Bellan made, "Both felt that the time frames set in advance prevented a stalemate from developing and kept talks progressing albeit slowly at times." In other words, and that is what we had in our Bill because there was a time frame, people were encouraged to keep talking because they knew that there was going to be a day of reckoning sooner or later and they were going to have to decide on whether or not to proceed with final offer selection. So let us try and resolve it before hand. Fourth, Mr.

Bellan quoting again, "Both parties felt compelled to justif y their positions during negotiations by reference to concrete financial data in preparation tor the final offer selection criteria of reasonableness. Indeed, both reported that the final offer selection deadline encouraged 'realistic', and Mr. Bellan quotes that specifically, highlights that, 'realistic' bargaining throughout the process." That is not the NDP talking. That is not the Manitoba Labour Movement talking. That is not the Members of this Legislature talking. That is Mr.

Bellan talking to the Osgoode Hall Law Journal based on his experience in final offer selection. lt runs contrary- Mr. Enns: You believed Justice Hall when he was talking about Medicare in free trade . . . your own conviction Jay. Mr. Cowan: The Member for Lakeside attempts to deflect attention away from a very well thought out and reasoned analysis of final offer selection that runs contrary to his own right-wing, preconceived mentality with respect to labour relations.

Let me tell him that I have read through almost, let us say, a good dozen to a dozen-and-a-half articles and excerpts from books on final offer selection. The overwhelming majority substantia tes what is being said here. The overwhelming majority of experts su bstantiate the fact that final offer selection provides for a more reasonable approach in negotiations. Let me tell you why that is a concern. Mr. Enns: . . . expert said the same thing about the Free Trade Agreement and how it would not im pact on the Social Services. Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order.

All Honourable Members who wish to participate in the debate will have the opportunity to do so. At present, the Honourable Member for Churchill has the floor. Mr. Cowan: What bothers me about reading that is I miss ed one expert. I did not happen to run across a management consultant in an elevator. That is the only expert that the Minister of Labour quoted in his entire speech; a management consultant in an elevator telling him that labour unrest is one of the reasons why people do not come to Manitoba. How does he respond to that? He repeals a Bill that is bringing labour rest and 3380

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 better collective bargaining to this province. How long headed can one be? How hard he has to bite his lip to go against what is obvious to anyone who takes the time to study the issue and apply his rig ht-wing approach in spite of all the good advice that is given to him. (The Acting Speaker, Mr. Edward Helwer, in the Chair.) Why does a reasonableness factor come into bear? Why does the fact that both parties felt strongly motiv ated to settle the agreement themselves come to bear? Why am I spending so much time on that particular issue?

Because in his news release, dated No vember 17, 19 88, the Mi nister of Labour (Mr . Connery) said that they are repealing final offer selection. Why? Because, "Under final offer selection, employer and employee representatives present their final offer to mutually agree upon, select, or choose one option or the other 'by its nature,"' said Mr. Connery, "final offer selection is an all-or-nothing proposition that creates a winner and a loser. This can lead to animosity between the parties and certainly lessens the commitment of one side to the contract." lt is not the case at all.

If he is wrong in his basic assumptions about repealing the legislation, why is he getting support from the Liberals? I want to show as best I can using this form why it is I believe he is wrong and why it is I believe the Liberals should change their position on this Bill. (lnt erjection)- Another misconception about final offer selection is exactly what the Minister said. That is because the arbitrator picks one package over that of the other, there will be clear winners and losers when the final offer selection process is over.

Again the experiences in other jurisdictions such as the previous one show that such is not the case. The American experience is the same. James Stern, another expert, in a paper prepared for the Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Arbitration, wrote the following and I quote; and I ask the Minister to li sten to this because he has fallen prey to the misconception and the misunderstanding that Mr. Stern tries to correct. There is a good deal of misunderstanding about the process on the part of individuals who have not been involved with final offer selection.

As for any damage wrought by the winner-take-all aspects of the final offer arbitration awards, it has not caused either the winners or the losers to condemn the procedure on this ground. And going back to what Mr. S.A. Bellan said, because he is even more conclusive in his analysis that final offer selection does not cause winner-loser problems, he says: Final offer selection merely reflects the broad win-loss notion of the collective bar gaining system and in fact by generating convergent pressu res on the parties, they may be so close together that animosity is lessened at the end of their arbitration process.

Frankly, by forcing the parties to compromis e rather than risk everything at arbitration, the result is likely more 3381 acceptable than if an arb itrator him self comprom ised the two positions to reach a settlement. He later states in the same

article that final offer selection, and I quote again: Enhances the possibility of a settlement by the parties without recourse to arbitration and the results appear to be acceptable both in terms of the imme di ate disp ute and the ongoing employer-empl oyee relationship. So in fact history rejects a notion, the notion that was put forward just a few days ago by the Minister of Labour (Mr . Connery), that final offer selection decisions create future problems. Those with experience in the process and those others who have studied it in their work report that in actuality the opposite is true.

The parties are brought closer together to try to be more reaso nable because of the convergent pressures during the selection process and there is oftentimes less animosity following the process than there would be under other cir cumstances. Stanley Jevons stated: Peculiar as this procedure seems, there are in reality dis ti nct advantages in it, the most important being that any demand made by either party must be strictly reasonable and capable of being supported by good evidence so that it has at least a good chance of being accepted.

What is most interesting about his comments on this new and unique bargaining tool is that they were made in- Does the Minister of Labour (Mr . Connery) know when those comments were made? Let me read the comments again. Let us see how well the Minister has studied this issue, see if he understands the histor y of it.

The comments were by Stanley Jevons: Peculiar as this procedure seems, there are in reality dis tinc t advantage s in it, the most important being that any demand made by either side must be strictly reasonable and capable of being supported by good evidence so that it has at least a good chance of being accepted. Mr. Angus: In case. Mr. Cowan: Well the fact is that comment was made in 1915. lt was made as part of Mr. Jevons' book on the British coal trade. Final offer selection was used in the early 19 00s for several years in setting wages.

But more recent histor y confirms as well the fact that final offer selection forces reasonableness and that reasonableness when put together reduces hard feelings and does not result in the suggested win-lose mentality after the contract is settled.

Another mis conception we have heard from the Conservatives about final offer selection is that unions or indeed management could lose major gains such as seniority, the right to grieve, or even management rights if they were to submit to final offer selection and either the union or the employer would develop an extremely reasonable package with one exception on a major issue in the hope that the arbitr ator would choose their package as being the most recent one.

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 Again, history proves that just the opposite is true. Mr. Bellan addresses this mis conception in this article. He states: Another criticism stresses the possibility that the arbitr ator may be forced to choose between two patently unreasonable offers,

whereas arbitral discretion could shape a reasonable compromise or collective bargaining to force a test of strength. Firstly , to suggest that the likelihood of such an occurrence is remote. Few unions or companies wish to risk everything at arbitration rather than compromise themselves. Furth er, even fewer negotiators would risk losing face so dr amatically in front of both their superiors and their cou nterparts by backing a losing side. Consequently it is argued that the bargainers themselves have a vested interest in closing the gap, even if a col lective agreement could not be reached.

Secondly, the result would likely be not better under conventional arbitration which wo uld probably impose a settl ement unacceptable to either unr easonable party , while colle ctive bargaining would merely have one side eventually knuckle under. Finally, Mr.

Bellan states, the criticism ignor es the very real convergent pressures reported in case studies which are generated by final offer selection. * (15 40) So the possibility of major gains being eroded or lost during the final offer selection process is extremely remote and, to my knowledge and that of others who have studied this issue, it has not been a problem. The Conservatives think it is a problem and I think I am going to address why they think that is a problem later on in my comments. They do believe it to be a problem but the experts do not. Those who have studied it do not.

Those who have used it do not. No, the fact is that they are out of tune with what is actually happening. The fact is that final offer selection has proven to be a valuable bargaining tool which narrows the issues and miti gates against one side trying to take advantage of the other for fear of appearing unreasonable or losing everything. Another criticism we have heard, primarily from the Conservatives but also from the Liberals and from the business communit y, is that final offer selection gives too much power to workers and their unions.

We heard the Minister say that in his speech again today when he talked about fairness and balance. The fact is that the workplace is not fair and balanced. The fact is that it has never been fair and balanced. The fact is that the employer has certain powers that are not available to the employee, and the fact is that the employee has certain powers that are not available to the employer, but in the jungle where there are no laws the power belongs to those who flow the capital, the power belongs to those who have the cash, the power belongs to those who can hire and fire.

One need only review the history of management rights arising out of The Master and Servant Act to understand why it is that the workplace has been unbalanced for so many years and why it is im portant that progressive Governments set about to make the workplace more balanced, to make it a fairer place and to try to balance out the competing interests because, as I indicated earlier in my comments, there is no disagreement that employers and employees sometime s have di fferent needs that mu st be addressed. But final offer selection does not do a lot to upset the balance.

As a matter of fact, I am going to quote Mr. Bellan again because he says it equalizes the power among the different parties involved in negotiations. I know some of you are growing weary of hearing the quotes, but I think it is im portant that people understand that what I am saying here is not said capriciously or is not said without some understanding of the issue and is not substantia ted by experts.

I would be more than happy to sit and listen to the Minister or any other Member of this House or any other Member generally or any other individual who wishes to bring forward expert opinion that sugg ests the contrary to what is being said in this speech tod ay. lt is important to listen to the experts and Mr. Bellan suggests that final offer selection, "may be considered to afford some advantage to the weaker party." I would suggest that this weaker party in one instance may be a small union against a large business, or in other instances may be a small business against a large union.

In either of those instances, final offer selection will indeed giv e some comfort to the weaker party. In other words, final offer selection tends to make the balance fairer rather than to allow an unfair balance to continue. Again the Minister is entir ely wrong in his understanding of the situation when he suggests that the repeal of final offer selection will provide for a fair and balanced labour relations cli mate. lt will not.

I guess that the levelling of the playing field in order to avoid a stonger party pulling a weaker party through an unnecessary strike or lockout is something that the Conservatives and the Liberals oppose, because that is what this legislation does and they oppose this legislation. That is exactly what they are telling us when they oppose giving workers in Manitoba the right to choose final offer selection over a strike or a lockout. That sort of law of the jungle style of collective bargaining and the im pact it has on our society has to be rethought in this day and age.

Now I am not certain how final offer selection would have affected the strikes that we have seen over the last little while, but anything that would help us avoid the violence and the problems that we have seen historically has to be at least worth a try at the very minimum. One should want to try it out to see if it works, to give it a chance.

Maybe final offer selection could help in those situations where because of one party being much stronger than the other or one party thinking it is much stronger than the other, which happens in some cases, or because there is an imbalance one party resorts to a strike or lockout, final offer selection could help stop that process. Just a couple of more criticisms that we have heard about the legislation. This was a criticism again that 3382

Wednesday, November 23, 1988 was referenced by the Minister and I think it is probably at the crux of the issue. I think this is probably what bothers the Conservatives most about final offer selection. That is that only the employees have the ability to vote on whether or not the final selection process will be start ed. The Conservatives, and I include the Liberals in this until they change their mind, are opposed to giving working people this right to control their own destiny in their own workplace.

They would rather see them forced to strike or they would rather see them subjected to a lockout by the employer than see final offer selection be determined democratically by them by a vote. The lockout by the way is a situation that is unilaterally im posed by the employer without any say in the matter by the workers, usually not a democratic decision. You do not call up the stockholders. You do not call up the board of dir ectors.

A strike is a democratic decision. lt is done out in the open and it is done by a vote. lt is done by a vote that is carefully controlled with respect to being democratic and being fair. Not the lock out. If there is some unfairness and unbalance in the way in which things happen today perhaps it is the right of the employer to lock out employees without a vote. That to me is unfair because when the employer locks out the emp

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-1-83
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 1st hansardpdf 83.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8dd676201e10c72bad97437714a93e64039eb587

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