Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 58 (35th Legislature, 2nd Session)

35-2-58

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Second Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speslcer VOL. XL No. 58- 1:30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 5, 1991 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Provines of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty -Fifth Leglslature LIB - Liberal; ND - New Democrat; PC - Progressive Conservative NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MclNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Rus sell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas lnkster The Pas St. Norbert Elm wood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY.

LIB ND ND LIB LIB ND LIB ND PC PC PC PC ND ND PC PC PC LIB PC PC ND ND PC PC ND LIB PC ND PC ND LIB ND PC ND PC ND PC PC PC PC PC PC PC ND PC ND PC PC PC PC ND PC ND PC PC ND ND

2909 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 5, 1991 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEE DINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Louise Dac quay (Ch airman of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Comm ittee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. *

(1335) INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Biii 71-The Mineral Exploration Incentive Program Act Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 71 , The Mineral Exploration Incentive Program Act, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. The honourable Administrator of the Government of Manitoba, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines, seconded by the honourable Minister of Government Services, that Bill 71, The Mineral Exploration Incentive Program Act;

Loi sur le Programme d'encouragement a !'exploration miniere, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. The honourable Administrator of the Government of Manitoba, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. The honourable minister has also tabled the message. Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have with us this afternoon Mr.

Doug Gourlay, the former member for Swan River. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon. Also with us this afternoon from Ecole Lavallee, we have forty-five Grade 5 students. They are under the direction of Yvette Dion and Sylvie Guerard. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Collectlve Bargaining Premier's Position Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, medicare is a sacred trust; GST is revenue neutral; we believe in free collective bargaining. What have they got in common? They are all statements made by Tories before elections and all promises broken by Tories after elections. On November 6, 1990, the Premier said, and I quote, in this House: "The fact of the matter is .. . there is no club and there never will be from this Government.

We will act in good faith at all times in the open free collective bargaining process with all of the employees with whom we have to negotiate." October 16, "I will repeat that the free collective bargaining process ought to prevail .... " Again, on Novem ber 5, Mr. Speaker, free collective bargaining was reiterated and articulated by the Premier. I would ask the Premier: Why has he broken his word to the people of Manitoba with those promises he made in this Chamber? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I wish that the memb er would quote me fully. That

2910 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1991 October 16 Hansard that he refers to says, "I will repeat that the free collective bargaining process ought to prevail and that they ought to go forward and attempt to resolve that at the bargaining table." Mr. Speaker, we were not dealing with union leaders who wanted to go to the bargaining table. We were dealing with union leaders who wanted to appeal to an independent third party arbiter who would give them something that they did not have to raise the funds for. This government will not raise taxes.

This government will not raise taxes to pay for this kind of- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Fllm on : Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has to try and remember that he is no longer a union boss, that he now represents the public at large and that he cannot say to the public at large, you are going to have to pay for this settlement, I am going to raise your taxes. He may say, Mr. Speaker, that is what happened when, of course, the NOP were in government throughout the '80s. They just raised taxes year up on year upon year. This governm ent is com mi tted to keep the taxes down .

This gov er nmen t beli eves in the free collec tive bargaining process where matters of this nature are settled at the bargaining table. Instead, we were faced with demands to go to final offer selection, demands to go to arbitration where some third party who did not have to raise the taxes or raise the money was imposing decisions that were not in the best interest of the people of this province. We have said, no, we will not accept that. Mr. Doer : The Premi er never answered the question of why he broke his word on November 6, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier never answered the question of why he broke his word that is contained completely and clearly in Hansard in unequivocal language. Mr. Speaker, we on this side believe in freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of democracy and the free collective bargaining process. We believe in a democratic process. Obviously the Premier does not stand by his word. That is obvious.

The next question is: Given the fact that the legislation that is in place now was passed by Duff Roblin in the late '60s to provide for an arbitration process, given that process has only been used one time in the public service of Manitoba where the settlements were very reasonable by an arbitrator, why does he feel that the legislation he has brought in that gives his cabinet overriding powers of scope and overriding powers of time-why does he feel that is more consistent with his words of free collective bargaining than the words of Duff Roblin, when he had the integrity to bring in decent legislation in this House? * (1 340) Mr.

Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, lf ind it interesting that we are talking about democratic rights when we have a union which refuses to even have its membership vote, a vote on an offer. If he wants to talk about the position of former Premiers, Mr. Speaker, I ask him to go back to the 14th of January, 1976, when NOP Premier Ed Schreyer put all of the workers of this province under AIB legislation to control their wages without any debate in this Legislature, with one stroke of the pen in a cabinet meeting.

That is the commitment of NOP to democracy, not even public debate, but with one stroke of the pen in the cab inet offic e, he did it. That is the com mi tment of Ne w Dem oc rats to open government, to the democratic process. That is what New Democrats believe should be done when they think it is in their interest. Mr. Doer: On February 7, 1990, the PC Manitoba Fund issued an appeal-o f course, the Premier is the leader of this fund as Leader of the party- that without a clear majority, the next and more difficult phase of the PC program to restore a much needed pro-business environment cannot be implemented.

Is this part of a hidden agenda that the Premier withheld from the people of Manitoba? Is this part of breaking his word to the people of Manitoba with this pro-business agenda, Mr. Speaker? Why did the Premier break his word about his commitment to the principle of free collective bargaining? Does his word not mean anything in this Chamber at all? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, as I had said earlier, no word was broken. We were not dealing with free collective bargaining.

We were dealing with people who did not want to bargain, who would not, in fact, deal with the bargaining process at the bargaining table, but said they were going to go to another

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2911 source that would give them more money than they could get through free collective bargaining. If he wants to talk about principles, Mr. Speaker, I will tell him what I am in favour of, what we stand for and what we have maintained, and that is a commitment to a strong economy and to jobs for people. That is precisely what we are doing, is to maintain a strong economy and to maintain as many jobs as possible versus the agenda of the union bosses whose mouthpiece is the leader of the New Democratic Party, who say that they do not care how many jobs are destroyed.

They are going to raise taxes or raise the rates in Autopac, as they did when they were in government, so that the seniors of this province, so that the students of this province will pay higher rates in Autopac, so that the seniors will pay higher rates in Hydro, in the Telephone System. That is their answer and that is not our answer. We are going to keep rates down-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. * (1 345) Minister of Finance Misinformation Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Yesterday the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-leis) talked about how we are dealing with the big lie from this government-one big lie. Mr.

Speaker, on a daily basis, that lie is getting bigger. The most recent example is from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) yesterday, who misled the House about wage increases in the Civil Service. Point of Order Hon. Clayton Manness {Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I ask for your counsel in this matter. The member has used the words "big lie." He has used the word "lie." He might be trying to play around with clever language, but I ask you to provide counsel to the House. I ask you to ask the member to withdraw those statements.

Particularly as a House leader and somebody who should be upholding the rules of this House, it is improper for the member to use that type of language. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, the honourable member for Thompson did not attribute the word "lie" to anybody in particular, but I would ask that the honourable member for Thompson to withdraw the remark of "misled the House." Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, our rules state that you cannot say that someone deliberately misled the House.

I will withdraw any imputations of that, although I leave on the record the fact that the minister misled the House which is in order and is parliamentary. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable member for Thompson. *** Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, he did so by saying yesterday in Question Period that increases in the Civil Service have averaged 63 percent. Is he referring to over the last 10 years, when in eight out of 1 0 years, civil servants have received less than the rate of inflation? Is he referring to labourers who received 36.4 percent, nursing assistants who received 36.6 percent?

When will the Minister of Finance put true and accurate information on the record in terms of the real increases to civil servants and the real cost of living? Hon. Clayton Manness {Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I stand by my numbers. I laid them before the House yesterday. I put forward the average Manitoba Government Employees ' Association employee increase from 1982 to 1990, nine years inclusive, and that represented a 64 percent increase. Also, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate for the record, during that period of time, my sources tell me that the consumer price index in the province increased by 43.1 percent.

Furthermore, the composite industrial average weekly earnings for that same period of time, the com bination of all the sectors including the public sector through that period of time, increased by 33.6 percent. If the member wants to disagree with my facts, that is his right to do so. I stand by my facts; I reject his. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the Finance minister is wrong. The figures on the average wage increases are considerably lower than the amount that he has put forward in this House and lower than the increase in the CPI.

The Minister of Finance is wrong, but I want to ask the mi nister again, because once again his credibility is in question in terms of putting facts before the House: Why yesterday, in Question Period, did he say that arbitrators are not taking into accountthe ability-to-pay question when I have here a transcript, a copy, of Justice Freedman's decision

2912 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1991 which awarded, or would have awarded, a 5 percent increase to lottery workers, which states specifically that ability to pay is always a factor in concluding a collective agreement and said he took that into account when awarding that decision, a decision this government is unilaterally overthrowing by Bill 70? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Manness: Mr.

Speaker, again let me begin by reciting-I will not recite the facts with respect to increases over the last nine years, but again, for the record, the numbers that I submit are correct, and the numbers the member for Thompson has are incorrect. I made the statement with respect to ability to pay, and of course, as you know, we are probably totally out of order at this point in time even discussing this issue, seeing as I am bringing the bill forward in about three-qu arters of an hour to provide the principals to the House. Never theless, Mr.

Speaker, in that presentation I will engage in debate and a discussion around the ability-to-pay principle and what it means and how it has been interpreted. I ask the member to be present in the House at that time as I put forward my point of view as to what is meant by ability to pay. I also could recite to the memb er ano ther arbitrator's award, indeed-and I cited it yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in answering a question-at which time another arbitrator indicated the ability to pay was not an issue to be brought forward, not a criterion to be considered during the consideration of award or development of award.

That is what the government had to take into account. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table information that shows the Minister of Finance is wrong. • (1 350) Collective Bargaining Minister's Position Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I also have a last question, and it is in regard to the complete breach of faith of this government in terms of final offer selection. The Minister of Finance, the government House leader, reached an agreement in this House to maintain it until the end of March. There are a number of people who have been in the process who have now had their awards overturned.

The legislation clearly includes a reference to the fact that selectors take into account the ability to pay. Why is this government House leader totally tearing up his agreement? Why is he going back on his word as government House leader to all members of this House and the public of Manitoba from only a few months ago? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am not going back on my word, and furthermore, I will again reiterate exactly the same response I provided yesterday-I provided it in the hallway after Question Period-and which I also provided to the member in this last question. Mr.

Speaker, the government watched very carefully even before the taunting of the members opposite, when the awards were announced, in asking us how we were dealing with it and how it was that we could allow or force a zero percent on the MGEA when indeed these awards were corning through and the member opposite-maybe not him, but many of his colleagues were taunting members here as to how they were going to handle that difference. Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you the government took very seriously and watched very closely those awards and read in great depth the decisions around those awards, and it became clear that the ability-to-pay provision in principle was not being taken into account. Consequently, the choices, as I said yesterday, were basically two or three: One, increase taxes; two, reduce services; or three, ask everybody to share by way of the bringing in of this bill, and that was the solution we chose. Biil 70 Crown Corporations Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, in August of last year, we watched the Premier of the province of Manitoba paddling his canoe down a river. Everything was fine. Well, Captain Canoe has struck and the piece of legislation which is presently before this House is Draconian in the extreme. Mr. Speaker, I would like the Premier to explain to this House why he stated that in 1988 the NOP lost the government because of, quote: their determination to control all of the decisions within their Crown corporations. How does the policy of this government differ from the policy of the previous government in that this

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2913 piece of legislation will, in fact, impose decisions upon Crown corporations? • (1 355) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thought that the Leader of the Liberal Party was going to be getting up to extract her foot from her mouth from yesterday, but I see she just put the other foot in to keep it company today. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Draconian action, I invite her to review what is being done today in pr ovinces that ar e under Libe ral prov inc ial governments. Firstly, let us take into account what is happening in the province of Newfoundland.

Yesterday, she said this legisla tion was far worse than other legislation because, firstly, jobs were cut and then the legislation was brought in. Let us talk about Newfoundland where 2,600 jobs, including over 300 nurses, were eliminated from the public service, and then a wage freeze was brought in, not just on the direct public service and Crown corporations, but the direct public service and Crown corporations and mun icipa l governm ent s and school boards-the entire public sector. That is Draconian legislation, Mr.

Speaker, and I would ask her to apologize to the public for misleading them by virtue of what she said in her off-the-cuff manner yesterday. The second thing is that we, as a government, have indeed maintained a hands-off position with the Crown corporations, and indeed all of their decisions are under the control of their boards. In this area, for the sake of consistency-as has been recommended by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Doer) in his comments during the Estimates debate in this House, where he said for the sake of consistency that any action should apply equally to the Crown corps because they set precedents for this government-we have been consistent in those areas in which the sole shareholder is the public of Manitoba and the sole responsible authority is this government- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Mrs. Carstalrs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All the clapping on that side of the House will not justify to the public of Manitoba why the Premier says one thing and does the complete opposite. Exclusions Mrs.

Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the legislation that has been tabled will indeed give this government the authority to roll back settlements for teachers, to roll back settlements for university professors, to roll back settlements for doctors if they so choose by regula tio n, not by legis la tion, but by an Order-in-Council in their secret cabinet meetings. Can the Premier tell this House Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Mrs. Carstalrs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier today state his intentions with regard to these groups of individuals, since he has given himself in this legislation the authority to act over them? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, very clearly what we are doing is having the authority to protect the public interest. My intention is to take that responsibility seriously and protect the public interest. We have said very clearly -(in terjection) Well, the member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is suggesting that we roll back the nurses. We will not- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

Point of Order Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr. Speaker, the Premier has lied. I did not say they were going to roll back. The Premier has lied in this Chamber. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for lnkster will withdraw that remark. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, out of courtesy for the Chamber, I will withdraw the comments- Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable member for lnkster. Mr. Lamoureux: But I did not say- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Unqualified. *** • (1 400) Mr. Fllmon: Mr.

Speaker, the member for lnkster has challenged whether or not nurses are included

2914 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1991 in this, and we have said, no, they are not included in this. An Honourable Member: What about your notwithstanding clause in the legislation? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite want to propose that nurses be included, let them do so. This government has said that the nurses bargained in good faith. The nurses went through a very difficult circumstance, and therefore the nurses have been excluded from this act. We have negotiated in good faith, Mr.

Speaker, and it is only those unions that do not want to negotiate, that instead want to turn it over to a third party arbitrator who has no responsibility to the public-t hat is what is unacceptable. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, to finish his response. Mr. Fllmon: Mr.

Speaker, I wish the member for Thom pson would get himsel f under control, because he is the one who, in talking about arbitration, said in this House on Wednesday, January 17 , 1990, quote: "It is fundamentally different from arbitration which stifles, which freezes the bargaining process .... " He said that arbitration stifled and froze the bargaining process, and that is exactly why we had to take the action. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable memb er for Thompson has already had an opportunity to put his questions. Closure Mrs.

Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Conservative government does not believe in the free collective bargaining process. It is clear they are not willing to keep a single one of their campaign promises with regard to the public and specifically those who work for the public in the province of Manitoba.

Will the government tell us today, since they obviously do not have the support of either of the opposition parties on this legislation, if they are now going to go back on another statement the Premier made just last week and invoke closure on this particular piece of legislation? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I again invite the member to examine what I did say. I said closure is to be rarely used, only after there is lengthy debate. -(i nterjection)- That is right. I could not think of doing it on a political whim, as the New Democrats did last week.

I want to assure this member that she will have the opportunity to show where the Liberal Party stands, to bring in amendments, to show us what she would do with this. If she wants to bring in more areas of public service as Pierre Trudeau did when he brought everybody into the legislation, if she wants to bring the private sector in, let her do it. If she thinks that Pierre Trudeau's approach is more open, more honest and more fair to bring everybody under this legislation, let her tell us that. She is a great Trudeau supporter, Mr. Speaker.

If she wants to do what Clyde Wells did, let her tell us that and bring that kind of legislative change in here. We will find out where the liberals stand. Instead of having the luxury of being everywhere and saying anything that comes into her mind, let us find out whether she has any principles. Shoal Lake Exploratory Mining Regulations Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radlsson) : Mr. Speaker, yester day, with the announcement of the environment regulations, we are optimistic about this government's intention to protect Shoal Lake.

After closer review, it becomes obvious that the regulations are not going to protect Winnipeg's water supply from mining. There is going to be continued cottage development and pesticide use in the Shoal Lake watershed. The resolution is also not in keeping with the city resolution that was brought in. My question for the Minister of Environment is: Why was exploratory mining and extraction not included in the developments prohibited in Area 2 in the regulations? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, I think it is pretty obvious that restricting any development within one kilometre of the shoreline of this body of water will restrict any kind of activity that could have a harmful impact upon the water source for this city. Beyond that, into Area 2 which is still within the basin of Shoal Lake, it seems to me that there is every opportunity to regulate and restrict any kind of operation because it specifically states that no

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2915 operation will be allowed to go forward that would use hazardous goods. Falcon Lake Envlronmental Protection Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radlsson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he is planning or aware of any mining plan for the Falcon Lake area, and why mining on the Falcon Lake area was not listed as the activities banned in the regulations? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, we spec ifically structured this regu lation to refer to the Shoal Lake basin , anywhere where the water flows into that lake.

We can very easily restrict any activity that will have unnecessary or detrimental effects upon this water body. Ms. Cerllll : Mr. Speaker, Falcon Lake flows directly into Shoal Lake. That means pollution from Falcon Lake is flowing directly into Shoal Lake. Environment Act Regulatlon Changes Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radlsson): For the same minister, why were the designations of the sensitive areas changed for these regulations from the regulations that were proposed earlier? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, a result of some rather extensive public consultation and a desire on our part to put forward regulation and a regulatory regime that we believe sets an example for the province of Ontario, so the member opposite can talk to her colleagues and encourage them to co-oper ate with us on this venture. Palllser Furniture Ltd. Emission Levels Mr. Dar yl Re id (Tran scona) : Mr. Speaker, yesterday the residents of Transcona held a peaceful demonstration outside of the Palliser Furniture manufacturing plant on Pandora East.

This demonstration was to draw attention to the fact that this plant and the Minister of Environment have ignored the hazardous emissions from this plant that are seriously affecting the health and the quality of life for families in Transcona. My question is for the Minister of Environment. Will the Minister of Environment explain to the people of Transcona why his department is not taking action to ensure that the emissions from this en vi ron me ntally polluting company cease immediately? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, I am as troubled as the member opposite is about the concerns that the people living in the area of this plant have raised. I want to point out to him and to the people of the province that we have spent six weeks closely monitoring the operations of that plant. We had an on -s ite oper ation sampling air, samplin g discharges, but we were unable to detect any chemical emissions that would have caused any concerns to the residents of the area.

We continue to be very concerned about the accusations that are being raised, but the fact is that the plant has put in place a wet scrubber to remove any potential particulate emissions from the air. Even as we speak, there is a member of my department on site checking out the concerns that have been raised. If anything at all can be shown to be in violation of the act, we will take that action. Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, our intention is not to force the jobs to the United States as the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) has suggested in this Chamber here a few moments ago. Mr.

Sp eaker, sinc e over 100 residents of Transcona attended this protest demonstration, will the Minister of Environment tell the House when specifically we can expect the results of his department's recent testing, and when the residents can expect action from his government to start to enforce the environmental laws of this province? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, to do what the member is requesting, of course, and move to fine or shut down Palliser Furniture, one should have some proof. The very extensive testing that has gone on has not produced evidence that there is formaldehyde available in the air.

I want to assure him that there has been a good deal of work that has been put into this operation by the Depa rtme nt of Envir onment with the co-operation of the people in the community and with the co-operation of Palliser Fur ni ture themselves. That information required some further extensive extrapolation on quantities to make sure that the air samples that were taken were properly monitored and extrapolated to parts per million and so on.

2916 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1991 That information, I expect, will be available very shortly. Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the minister still did not answer the question and give me a definitive answer of when we can expect that report. *

(1410) Environmental Laws Enforcement Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Since June 2 to 8, this week, is supp osed to be the National Environmental Awareness Week, and the residents are su pposed to contact their pro vin cial envir onmen tal mini stri es with environme ntal concerns, when is this Minister of Environment going to take his responsibility seriously and take action to impose sanctions on environmen tal polluters? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, as National Environment Week, I am more than pleased, for example, to have been able to announce the Shoal Lake regulations, which the memb er opposite, I hope, will encourage his colleagues to the east of us to work with us on that matter. If his idea of environmental awareness is to shut down companies without any evidence which can be gathered by careful monitoring and working with the people of the community, then I think he should stand up and say so. Cartwright High School Closure • Conclllatlon Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, my question is the Minister of Education and Training. For eight weeks, the children in Cartwright have not been attending school. For eight weeks, this minister has refused to take action. Last week, without any consultation with parents, without any consultation with the school division, he announced a conciliator. He told them that they should have a decision by Monday. That was the deadline for acceptance of the conciliator. Can he tell the House today why the school division was granted a four-day extension and the parents were never informed of such an extension? Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, indeed the decision that has been arrived at, at the Turtle Mountain School Division, is the responsibility of the school board.

However, because of the fact that there are students who are out of school at the present time and there appears to be some outstanding issues with regard to information, I have offered to both parties, the residents of Cartwright and the school division, a conciliations person who might bring the two bodies together to resolve some of their differences so that indeed students might get back to the classroom as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, we were informed that the parents of the Cartwright area were ready to accept the conciliations person.

At that time, we contacted the school division, and because of activities within the school boar d and the community, all school board members could not attend the meeting. For that reason, an extension was requested until such time as the school board could bring its members together. My understanding is that they will be meeting this evening and that they will be informing us as to their decision after their meeting. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, last night was the regularly scheduled meeting of the school division, and they did not have a quorum.

They did not have a quorum because at least one trustee received a phone call suggesting that he not attend the meeting. Can the minister tell us why such an extension was granted to a school board that is not meeting at regularly scheduled meetings at which parents can attend and express their point of view? Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I am not responsible for running the affairs of the school board. If they did not have a quorum last evening, then I would suggest that is the responsibility of the school board to address, not mine.

We were informed by the school board that they would be gathering as soon as possible to consider this matter. They asked for an extension and an extension was given to them until Wednesday. Mr. Speaker, the conciliation officer who was offered to the school division and the community is a voluntary thing. If either one of the groups does not accept the conciliation person to resolve this matter, that is something that is within their own jurisdiction and their own ability to decide. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr.

Speaker, but assurance that there is quality education going on in the province of Manitoba is the responsibility of the Minister of

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2917 Education and Training, a responsibility which he refuses to accept. School Closures Guldellnes Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Can the Minister of Education and Training tell us today when he is going to directly instruct the school division that the school closure is a school closure, and he wants the guidelines followed so he can get those kids back into school? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, it is regrettable that the Leader of the third party would ignore The Public Schools Act, would ignore all the regulations that a school board should follow, the bylaws that are set down by the school board, and indeed would interfere in a matter that is completely outside of her jurisdiction. Perhaps that is because she has no responsibility and can stand up and make all kinds of statements that she does not need to take responsibility for. Mr. Speaker, in this matter, it is clear that the decision is the responsibility of the school board.

They have the responsibility to decide where the students will attend classes. They have made that decision; the community has not gone along with that decision. It is now up to the school board and the community to resolve their differences. Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to assist them, we have offered the services of a conciliations officer that will be paid for by the department. It is up to them now to decide whether or not they see such a service as being a valuable one or not. Seniors RentalStart Program Notice to Applicants Mr. Doug Martlndale(Bu trows): Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Housing said, on May 15, that some technical resource groups are more active than others, and that is why Roy Lev applied for Seniors RentalStart funding on February 11. On May 16, the minister again blamed the technical resource groups. We now know, from Housing Estimates yesterday, that there were 22 applications, of which only two were aware that money was available and that $1 0 million was available. Point of Order Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): On a po int of order, Mr. Speaker.

Traditionally this House has not called, or allowed for questions dealing specifically with Estimates questions that have been during the point of their consideration. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is a sensitive chord over in the opposition benches. I just ask the members to follow the rules of the House, that is all. Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order. The honourable government House leader did not have a point of order. *** Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the member for Morris (Mr.

Manness) did not stand up for Carman's Lions, and maybe they would have gotten the funding instead of Rotary Pines. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Burrows will put his question now, please. Mr. Martindale: My question is: Why were the other 20 nonprofit sponsor groups not told that $10 million was available in the Seniors RentalStart program in February 1991 , when Roy Lev and Rotary Pines knew the money was there? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minis ter of Hou sin g) : Mr. Speaker, what we have here again is the hypocrisy of the NOP.

I would like to quote from Hansard on April 22, 1991 , from the member for Burrows who said: "The third thing I would commend the government for is the elimination of the Seniors Re ntalSt art program .... I com me nd the government for chopping that particular program." That member ever since has been promoting the program, holding out that the NOP would somehow supp ort Seniors RentalS tart programs in this province. His words alone said, no, chop the program; we congratulate you for doing that. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Nonpolltlcal Statements Ms. Rosann Wowc huk (Swan Riv er): Mr.

Speaker, may I have leave to make a nonpolltical statement?

2918 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1991 Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Swan River have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave. It is agreed. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this is a very special time of year for many of us as we attend graduations of our children, our friends or perhaps even previous students. It is a time of celebration and a time to recognize accomplishment. I had the opportunity to attend a very special graduation in my constituency this last weekend.

After four years of hard work 12 students graduated with a Bachelor of Education from the BUNTEP program in Cam per vil le. Th ey are : Vivian Beauchamp, Gloria Campbell, Annette Chartrand, Linda Chartra nd, Zelda Cha rtrand, Pauline Genaille, Faye Guiboche, Adele Lafreniere, Linda Klyne, Sheila Ledoux, Jo Anne Ledoux and Linda Pangman. These graduates participated in the convocation at Brandon University on the 25th of May. On Saturday there was a community celebration which was very important to the people of Camperville, Pine Creek and Duck Bay. Also taking

part in the ceremo nies were five other people who will graduate this fall. They are Sherry Chartrand, Jo Anne McKay, Maureen Lavallee, Josephine Leclair and Tom Marcelais. The communi ty was extremely proud of two students, Faye Guiboche, who won the Gold Medal for Education from Brandon University and Adele Lafreniere, who won the Silver Medal. This is an extremely great accomplishment for the people of this community.

On behalf of all my colleag ues, I wish to congratulate the graduates, and I encourage them to get involved in the community wherever they go for they are setting an example and are the role models for many aboriginal and Matis people. As one of the community leaders mentioned at the graduation, Sophie Ledoux said, we are like a barrel of crabs that is pushed down every time we try to get out, but as each time one crab gets out, it is so much easier for the rest of us. * (1 420) Mr.

Speaker, this graduation made me recognize the value of the program, for most of these graduates told me that they would not have been able to get this degree had it not been for the program coming to their community. I was very fortunate to be at the celebration but other members who were invited were not able to be there. I ask them at this time to join me in congratulating these students on their great accomplishment. *** Mr. Dave Chomlak (Klldonan): Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Mr.

Speaker: Does the honourable member for Kildonan have leave to ma ke a nonpoli tical statement? Agreed? Yes. Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, Seven Oaks General Hospital is celebrating 10 years of caring and service to the people of Winnipeg. In the early 1960s, following the relocation of the Children's Hospital and the closure of St. Joseph's Hospital, the citizens of north Winnipeg began making proposals to the government for a general hospital. In 1972, after years of discussion and negotiatio n, approval was received to begin construction of a 326-bed hospital to be called Seven Oaks Hospital.

Those who started with a vision and a dream are to be commended for their years of ge nerous contribution of time, their organizational skills and their dedication. We in north Winnipeg and all of Winnipeg are proud of the achievements of the hospital and all those who through their hard work and dedication have done much for all. The hospital and its people have been the recipient of many awards, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps the best award is the admiration that the Seven Oaks Hospital has in the hearts and mi nds of all Winni pegg ers and Manitobans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. *** Mrs.

Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Could I have leave for a nonpolitical statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Leave? Agreed. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, at lunch time today, along with the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), who was representing the government, I attended the kickoff of Fight Abus e : End the Silence campaign for 1991 .

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2919 This campaign which will now be taking its caravan across the province to a variety of locations encourages all those who have any knowledge of child abuse to end the silence by making that knowledge public. It is important for all of us to understand that there are still many, many children who are abused both sexuall y, physically and emotionally, who never have that abuse reported. We know that children have to frequently tell as many as seven to nine people before they are believed and before that abuse is ultimately reported.

All of us as politicians have an obligation, I think, to help promote this campaign. I join with all the members of the House, because I believe that each one of us will do so if we can. I make a suggestion, which I will be implementing for the next little bit, which is to simply type at the bottom of my letters, "Fight Child Abuse: End the Silence." Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call the bills in the following order: Second Readings, Bill 70;followed by Debate on Second Readings, Bill 38, Bill 6, Bill 44.

At this time, I would ask the members whether there is a willingness to waive private members' hour? Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour? No. Leave is denied. SECOND READINGS Biii 70-The Public Sector Compensation Management Act Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccr ae) , that Bill 70, The Publ ic Se ctor Compensation Management Act;

Loi sur la gestion des salaires du secteur public, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions over the past six months, I have tried to provide this Legislature and the people of this province with an insight into the state of the province's finances and to point out the acute reality of the fiscal challenge facing Manitoba. If there is one area that this government prides itself in since the election, it is that it has been consistent.

It is a hallmark of this government as to the openness associated with what it is trying to do to put the province again onto a strong economic foundation. Again, on that point, I can tell you whether groups in society have been totally suppor tive of us or not. Of course , when you govern, you have to make decisions and from time to time you make decisions that are not favoured by groups and individuals in society. To those whom I have spoken to, at least they have given us some credit with respect to trying to be consistent.

Over the next two years, if this province is to successfully meet the challenge of true economic renewal, we all must pull together to share the bur den through moderation and co-operati on. That means all of us, Mr. Speaker. That means the members on the other side of the House representing their constituents and indeed everybody in this province, because we are in serious times. As I have said in the past, before starting along the path of economic renewal, this government or indeed any government must put its own House into order.

Economic renewal cannot be achieved if our own finances are out of control, I mean, Mr. Speaker, to go beyond that, if indeed our finances are put out of control by somebody who is not accountable whatsoever to the taxpayers of the province of Manitoba. That is an underlying theme of the presentation that I am to make this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, public sector salaries constitute the majority of all government expenditures. We needed to show leadership in this area if public confidence in our ability to manage was and is to be maintained.

Last December, I rose in this Legislature to lay before the members and the taxpayers of our province our governmen t's position regarding funding for public sector wage settlements. Without including Crown corporations, this government designated a wage envelope exceeding $2 billion to fund the salaries of people working for government. Within that was a smaller envelope to fund the increases of several tens of millions of dollars, to fund the increases, Mr. Speaker, and I ask members in the House to remember that point.

In essence, we established a target of an average, and again I underline the word "average," 3 percent increase for

2920 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1991 all those employees drawing salaries from the public purse. Mr. Speaker, I did not say that everybody would achieve 3 percent, indeed as some writer did in one of the local papers today. I clearly said that there would be some groups in the public sector who would be expected to take less than 3 percent. Indeed I said that there would be some that would be expected to take zero. That was clearly laid out for all Manitobans December 14 last. We have been open and we have been consistent with respect to our message.

We stated that, in order to recognize the relative imbalances within the Manitoba public wage sector, some groups will receive greater increases while other groups will receive less. Mr. Speaker, we said only one group of publicly funded employees could expect a settlement in excess of all others, that being the nurses. We have delivered on that commitment. To hold true to that commitment, we have to exercise the option that we did, in part, to hold true to the commitment that we made to the nurses.

We cannot let some third party, without accountability to the taxpayers of this province, bring in awards that would break faith, not only to the public statements we made on December 14, but particularly break faith with the commitment that we had made to the nurses of this province. • (1 430) Mr. Speaker, that sets into place the setting as we, the government, came about to make our decision with respect to the introduction of Bill 70. Mr. Speaker, there are no mores. I firmly believe that Manitoba is at a decision-making point in its economic history, where difficult choices have to be made.

The government takes no delight and no satisfaction in bringing down Bill 70, but beyond all, we are a government. That means we were elected to govern. That means we were elected to make decisions and at times very difficult decisions. We have three choices. As I said yesterday in Question Period, we can raise taxes and hurt our chances, severely hurt our chances, for economic renewal, or we can find more money by jobs and services to people, or we can ask everyone to share the burden through these difficulttimes and put aside their wage demands for one year. Mr.

Speaker, the government today in conjunction with a major concern from Ontario, Royal Trust, were involved in a joint announcement that will deliver 200 jobs to the province of Manitoba, specifically to the city of Winnipeg. That announcement today occurred because of only one reason-more than one reason, but mainly one. That is, that company, that corporate body, the officials in that company saw that there was a government in place trying to hold at a constant level, vis-a-vis the other provinces in Canada, the taxation level. That was the main basis on which that announcement is made, no other. No other, Mr.

Speaker, no other. An Honourable Member: Where are they moving from? Mr. Manness: And where are they coming from is the answer, Mr. Speaker. An Honourable Member: Where are they coming from? Mr. Manness: To this province because, firstly, they see a government that is trying to maintain the cost wage and wage ratio, trying to hold the productive basis down, the productive cost side down of their equation, Mr. Speaker, and they are looking favourably on this province.

To let the deficit, i.e., taxation rates, run wild and frustrate that is totally out of keeping with what the people in this province want and indeed the philosophy of this government. Mr. Speaker: Order, please . Point of Order Mr. Jerry Storie (Flln Flon): Mr. Speaker, the minister is straying somewhat far from the principles of the bill. He is also being misleading, even contradicting his own press release. I am wondering if the minister would entertain a question. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Flin Flon did not have a point of order. ••• Mr. Manness: The choice is clear.

It is not an option to raise taxes that will scare away jobs and not only that, hinder against those who are looking to come, Mr. Speaker, in investment, and hurt any chance for economic renewal. That is not an option. It is not an option to cut jobs and services that the people of Manitoba deserve. The members now, since I have brought down the budget and they have become aware of the

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2921 Estimates, have berated us on a daily basis for reductions in some areas of programming. So, Mr. Speaker, those two options are unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, the third option can only be the same one that I referred to on December 14 last, that all of us, indeed not only the members when the members supported the bill before this Legislature which froze their salaries, indeed all of us who take money from the public purse.

Everyone of us has to share and over this period of time, over some period of time as defined in the act take zero, not as receiving zero, but taking a zero percent increase leaving still significant amount of remuneration for all of us. Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear. We have asked everybody to set aside their demands for one year. With government revenues virtually stagnant, we ask the remaining public sector employees-no w I am talking the remaining outside of the nurses-to share with the challenge of preserving jobs and services.

Only by keeping the wage settlements down can we protect the maximum number of the services important to the people of this province. In December, we met with Mr. Olfert and staff to discuss creative solutions to this problem. There were none, Mr. Speaker, forthcoming. What Mr. Olfert had to offer was this: build a coalition, go to Ottawa and ask for more. That was one of the solutions. The second solution was to tax the corporations more. Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that the corporations will simply impose that onto the consumer. The consumer is you and I, and the consumer is every member of the MGEA.

That will have the greatest negative impact on disposable income. That was another one of the creative solutions of the Manitoba Government Employees' Association. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, I can remember that they asked us not to consider externalizing any activity of gove rnmen t, partic ul arly the governance associated with the community colleges. As I can recall, to the best of my ability, those were the three creative solutions offered by the MGEA at that point in time in December. In January, we offered our civil servants-and our battle at this point, and I want to say this, is not with our civil servants.

This government understands the commitment they make to the service of all Manitobans through the provision of services. Our battle, if there is one, is with the union leadership of the employees. Mr. Speaker, the civil servants in January, we asked our civil servants to take no wage increase in the first year and a two percent increase along with the opportunity to participate in a revenue-sharing formula in the second year. That offer was about choices.

The MGEA had to choose between keeping their wage demands in line with limited tax dollars, or they could choose to opt for larger wage settlements which could ultimately result in fewer jobs. That was a choice. Just like we were faced with choices, the MGEA also was faced with a choice. They did not want to talk. They chose higher settlements. On February 6, our Premier (Mr. Filmon) met with Mr. Olfert on a one-to-one basis to once again discuss creative solutions. Once again, there were none forthcoming. On February 13, the Premier, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and myself once again met with Mr.

Olfert and his executive to explore creative solutions. The ideas were to ask the federal government for more money again or raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, on May 9, the government revised its offer on the condition it be taken, and the offer at that time was to extend security of employment to the end of this fiscal year on the condition that the membership be provided with an opportunity to vote on that offer. The MGEA's response was to immediately reject it with no hope and with no vote to their membership. Just last week, May 30, again our Premier and Mr.

Olfert met once again on a one to one to explore any creative solutions that could lead to a negotiated se ttlement. Yet agai n , there was nothing forthcoming. Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that today we were again berated by members opposite for not allowing the collective bargaining model to go forward, free collective bargaining, to use the words of the members opposite. On five occasions, three of them where the Premier and the leader of the MGEA were in the same room, not negotiating through third parties, tried to work towards some resolution through the free bargaining system.

The head of the MGEA said, no, we are going to lay our case at the table, at the feet of an arbitrator, and we believe we will do much better through that system.

2922 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1991 Also over the period of the last three months, we have become growingly aware the province's ability to pay is not being taken into account by arbitrator selectors. So I suppose then, this discussion, the principle behind the bill and the reason we brought it in, the rationale, breaks down when you strip away all of the wording, comes down to basically two or three points. Firstly, what about this ability to pay? What does it mean, and to what should the government give higher order?

Does it give higher order to the arbitration model which already in itself is different as to free collective bargaining, or does it give a higher or der to democracy which says this government is in place to govern? Indeed, Mr. Speaker, and I will quote in due course from the Leader of the Opposition when he said cabinet ultimately has to make decisions. * (1 440) Where is the higher order?

Is it arbitration of the day or is it the government trying to protect the best interests of the taxpayers because indeed the arbitrator of the day has said, and I can quote as I did yesterday, that ability to pay is not at issue. Mr. Speaker, as I said, in my view that is what the issue is. In my view the days of an arbitrator providing an award, particularly in the case of the MGEA where the government did not even have a say as to whether or not we go to arbitration, the government representing the taxpayers of the province does not even have a say.

The arbitrator coming down with an award, accountable to whom? Accountable to nobody. The members opposite when they get up to debate on this have to say who protects the taxpayer. They have to address that question, because if they fail to address that question, then what they are saying is they do not care about jobs, they do not care about taxes, and ultimately they do not care about the economic renewal that is so necessary for this province. This is what the Leader of the NOP had to say, I believe it was in the session of '89, when at that time we introduced legisla tion dealing with judges' remuneration.

The Premier at that time in debate, February 22, 1990- sorry, it was the session early '90 when we were talking, and I forget what bill this was on at that time but was dealing with judges' salaries. The Leader of the NOP at that time was strongly opposed. He said that this Legislature should not deal with judge's salary, having come through an attempt by three people to come forward with a report. He said, Mr. Speaker, and I quote page 5497 of Hansard: " ... I believe that Cabinet should make that final decision." Mr.

Speaker, I do not claim to be a labour expert, but I do know that free collective bargaining is free collective bargaining. Free collective bargaining is not FOS, free collective bargaining is not arbitration, and free collective bargaining, in some respects, is not coming to the Legislature. Free collective bargaining is the employer and the employee across the table coming to some conclusion as to what is the best deal under the circumstances.

The ability to pay and the ability of the government and the taxpayers to pay can never, ever be forgotten, and the philosophy of this government is that it never, ever will be forgotten. Mr. Sp eake r, again I want to address the issue-t he member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and I had a disagreement today as to the facts around increases. I am not going to stand here in my place today and say that he will not be able to bring forward a listing or table of numbers, raw in form, which indeed will be able to make his point.

I want to indicate that the basis of our 64 percent increase was built on looking at classifications through government and seeing what has happened in those classifications, not only on the base-rate wage , but taking into account also in some instances the benefits, looking at the total payroll. Nobody can argue with me when I say that the average MGEA salar ies, sinc e 19 82, have increased 64 percent. Just, one has to look at the total remuneration.

I am mindful of the zero percent years, but when one takes into account the wage bill and the earnings and the benefits that go with it, which are taxable, when one looks at that, my statement is correct. When the member wants to talk about the rate-over-rate , year-to-year comparison, he could probably make his argument and his point, but the reality is, when one wants to compare our civil servants in comparative terms compared to others, to the other provinces, we rank third, and you will never hear the Labour critic from the opposition party say so. It is not our analysis. This is important, Mr. Speaker.

I want to put this out on the record. The

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2923 government of Alberta co-ordinates a survey. This is an interprovincial data exchange of government, of eight benchmark government sector positions. All Canadian provinces respond. In other words, peer government is broken down into eight sectors. Manitoba ranks third with only the province of Ontario first and Quebec second. Of the eight positions -and what are the positions, Mr. Spea ker? I will tell you .

The positions are these: corrections officer, child care counsellor, social worker, forester, institutional ser vice worker, el ectrician, Clerk I and II, progr ammer ana lyst-those eight positions, representative of Civil Service everywhere across the country. When you look at the wage rates in those eight categories across Canada, Manitoba ranks third.

Our correction officers receive the fourth highest rate of pay; child care counsellors, the second highest; social workers, third highest; forester, second highest; institutional service worker, second highest; electrician, third highest; Clerk I and II, third highest; programmer analyst, fifth. When you take a simple average of all those numbers, we come to third, yet, Mr. Speaker, when you want look at economic rank, the ability to bring in tax revenue, this province ranks seventh.

Nobody is going to refute those num bers, because it says very clearly that our servants who provide such important service to the citizens of our province, in a comparative sense, are well paid. Mr. Speaker, I had to read carefully the Free Press editorial which called into question my naivete with respect to why it is we brought in the legislation and this whole area of ability to pay, and I keep coming back to it because to me it is so germane. *

(1450) Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty hearing the Minis ter of Finance (Mr. Manness) because of some of the personal comments the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is making to members on this side. I would ask you to ask the Minister of Health and other members to perhaps pay attention to the Minister of Finance so that the rest of us, who are listening, can listen to his comments carefully. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the opposition House leader. Those members wishing to carry on personal conversations can do so just outside the Chamber. *** Mr.

Manness: Mr. Speaker, I read seriously the editorial in the Free Press today, talking about this ability-to-pay concept and why it is that probably arb itr ators in the past and maybe even today-certainly it has been our experience that they have over the past number of awards, even though the member quotes one award indeed where Justice Freedman certainly does mention it, and I acknowledge that. I took seriously, I read seriously, the editorial, and I tried to compare that to the legislation in The Labour Relations Act, where a reference is made with respect to the ability to pay.

I tried to put in my own mind how it is that the arbitration model-and I know it is long standing. I know it is held closely to the bosom of those who, of course, are very involved in the labour movement, but my experiences through arbitration is that we have lived through a period of 25 years now where governments have been borrowing, borrowing money. It is the root problem that we have today to deal with, so I guess to the casual observer who says then that takes a higher order than the government's problems, it appears that our legislation in some respect and the rationale behind it is naive. Mr.

Speaker, I reject that because I say, what is more important-what is more important? I am sorry I cannot get off this point. Is it some arbitrator who is unaccountable to the people, saying to the taxpayers of the province, you will pay more, whether it is today or tomorrow, you will pay it, or indeed the government's right and responsibility to make that judgment? That decision and ultimately the decision whether or not to bring in this legislation impacts upon the taxpayer and, therefore, ultimately is at cross purposes, as I have said before, and I repeat this, with our posteconomic renewal.

That is what this debate is all about. This debate is whether or not the government has the right, indeed the moral right-ce rtainly it has the democratic right-but whether it has the moral right to step in at this particular point in time to extend, not to reduce salaries, but to extend contracts that are in place, a rate of pay that is in place, for the ultimate well-being of our province.

2924 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 5, 1991 Mr. Speaker, when we drew up the bill two principles were important to us. We said, as I said yesterday in Question Period, we did not want to retroactively impose this on settlements that had already been agreed to, signed, and indeed where the flow of increased remuneration had started. We did not want to take back payments, increased salaries that had already started to flow.

We also said that the scope, in the designation of those groups that would fall under the full scope of this, that we would try to keep that down to a situation and to a focus that would fall mostly on those tha t are go ver nmen t- funded or government-owned institutions. In our view, the Crowns, because we are the shareholder for the people of the province of Manitoba, by necessity had to fall under the purview of this act. Our logic went beyond whether or not the Crowns may have a profitable bottom line. What we said is, if there are groups out there--there are many people out there who do not have jobs.

We are asking people also by way of this bill to take no increase. To us, indeed, if we allow rate increases reflecting salary increases to flow through the Public Utilities Board process as if an automatic rate of inflation increase were to flow through that process, that would be unfair to Manitobans. Consequently, we exercised our right as the shareholder of the Cr owns, an d we said that those groups of employees who are affected should come under the purview of this bill. Mr. Speaker, we tried to keep the focus there.

We chose not to broaden the focus to include school boards, municipalities and, indeed, universities. We also said that if those groups are not going to take into account the seriousness of the situation, and others in the public sector-and again let me state for the record, I am not talking at the private sector. This bill has no input whatsoever to the private sector. That was the manner in which we tried to focus the bill, and they are the two underlying principles. Again, not wanting to retroactively impose and, secondly, trying to define the scope. Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, and I have heard his attacks, very carefully has to say which way he wants this legislation to go. Which amendments will he move? He says on one hand that arbitration models are the highest order. On the other hand he says, and I quote it, that cabinet should have final say. Which way does he want it? Which amendments will he move? Will he move to extend the powers of the bill to include those which he deems are outside of it or to enshrine arbitration, which itself, as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has said, stifles free collective bargaining? Mr.

Speaker, I only ask, particularly the media, particularly those political pundits who are going to be very actively watching the discourse that goes on on this very important bill, that they also impose or impress upon the NOP some degree of consistency, because free collective bargaining is not arbitration, and free collective bargaining is not cabinet edict either, and I acknowledge that. There are major differences between those views, and obviously the NOP are going to have to come up with a consistent position. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.

Carstairs) says we have hit the Civil Service doubly hard. This bill is not an attack on the Civil Service. It may be an attack on their leadership for failing to understand or heed the government message over the past six months, the consistent government message, for failing to take our offer to their employees, for failing to share. I can assure you this is not an attack on our Civil Service. I do not know why, and someh ow some spe ake r from the opposition is going to have to tell us why our offer was never ever taken to the membership. The members talk about, they call us fascist.

They keep throwing that word across the House, Mr. Speaker. An Honourable Member: No, they did not say that. An Honourable Me mber: This is fascist legislation. Mr. Manness: Well, no, there is a member in the back there who called us fascist. There is no doubt about that. Mr. Speaker, I chose not to rise and put on the record, but, yes, it has been called fascist legislation. The members then have to tell me why it is the union leadership would not take our offer to the membership, verbal. I would like an explanation of that somewhere in the course of the debate on this. * (1 500) Mr.

Speaker, the major details of the bill are important and I, of course, will not go into clause by clause, that would be out of order. The bill itself, and I will just address it in this fashion-I just wanted to point out in the

definitions area that it does not include some officers, and the excluded officials are

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2925 there. I want to assure this House and put on the record that deputy ministers will not be given increases. Crowns will be asked to- their senior officers and indeed their senior management will be asked to include in their consideration of wages the spirit of this legislation. Political staff will be receiving no increase. MLAs and cabinet members will receive no increase. Mr. Speaker, there is a clause that lays out in the bill-there is a reference made to June 3, 1991, that was yesterday.

It includes, of course, in this particular ref erence, those Crown attorneys who had received a 5 percent increase, Legal Aid lawyers who had received a 5 percent increase, the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation, this legislation is well known, supersedes the Freedman award, those Crown corporations involved in FOS, all in process, CUPE under Health, MGEA arbitration and of course IOUE. Mr. Speaker, some are going to argue that we should let FOS run its course and then impose zero percent.

I say to you that FOS will be allowed to run its course in the private sector, but our revenues are such that we cannot allow arbitrated awards in the 5 percent area to come down. In all honesty, that was part of government's consideration behind the development of this bill, because a 5 percent award, had it come into being, would have meant a $30 million increase to the bottom line of the government in one year. That would have rippled right through all of the public sector, and I say the impact on the government would have been in excess of $1 00 million.

That is why somebody had to stand up for the taxpayers of the province. Members can say nonsense. They can call me any name they want, and that does not bother me. The reality is you cannot dispute the numbers. You cannot dispute the numbers of what a 5 percent settlement would have meant to the bottom line. Nobody in this House can dispute that. Mr. Speaker, our employees of government have taken zero percent for eight months. We asked them to take zero percent for four more and that request was denied. And I asked the question, why? Why, and maybe the members opposite can answer the question.

Who cares about the $1 00 million impact not in one year but for every year ever after and the compounding effect of that? Mr. Speaker, we are extending agreements by one year. What we are saying is there is going to be a window and every one that comes open during that period of one year somewhere will be caught in that window. If for some reason, some group escapes that window, we will hold for ourselves the power in cabinet to extend, not extend forever but extend, by way of regulation, to the end of 1992. We are hoping that is not necessary.

Just like we are hoping it is not necessary that we have to, after a decision is reached with respect to fee

schedule doctors, that we will not have to use any powers of this act. Mr. Speaker, as you know the ability to pay principle which was so fundamental to the agreement that we reached with the MMA that that is not taken into account. There are bills under this, there are powers within this bill to ensure that again another settlement, out of keeping with what everybody, most people in the private sector are doing through these difficult times, what a significant number of public people have done.

Also the commitment we made to the nurses and trying to be consistent through all of this, we will use the powers of this bill if necessary. I agree with those who say that there are strong powers in this bill. I cannot deny it. It is because of that that I cannot deny that the government put a sunset into so that this legislation will fall by the wayside relatively quickly in terms of the reality of the finances of the province over this year and the next year. The bill and again I made reference to the fee

schedule provision and I made reference also to the sunset clause. I have made reference also to the powers cabinet has provided for itself within a particular section, but through it all one cannot forget what is happening in other provinces. As the Premier (Mr. Filmon) indicated, we are the sixth province to bring this in. We did not bring this in, the other provinces did not bring it in because there were any politics in it for them. I do not believe that the Pr ovince of Newfoundland-in response to the question of the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.

Carstairs)-1 do not believe Premier Cly de Wells brough t in his legislation because he was going to garner favour with the Civil Service. There, of course, as the Premier said, layoff restraint announcement made on the Budget Address of March 7, up to 2, 100 actual positions and 500 vacancies to be eliminated.

2926 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1991 A one-year wage freeze for the entire public sector with the current year of collective agreemen t repla ced-r ep laced, did you hear tha t word?-re placed by zero. (Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) In Nova Scotia, Mr. Acting Speaker, there were no votes in it forthe Nova Scotia government to bring in a two- year public sector wage freeze announced in the Budget Address to be effective immediately. Pay equity suspended for two years. No tax increases. Two percent ceiling on social programs. Fee

schedule physicians to be included in the freeze. What are the politics in the Province of Nova Scotia bringing in that legislation? Absolutely none. An Honourable Member: The Tories. Mr. Manness: What were the politics of Premier Schreyer, and I will quote it

chapter and verse and if the members want I will show Premier Schreyer's signature, Mr. Acting Speaker, and I am glad somebody said that. I have a document in my possession dated the 25th day of February, 1976, signed by one Edward Schreyer. That was not forced upon the government of Manitoba. There is also one in Saskatchewan, I believe, from Premier Blakeney. Mr. Acting Sp eaker, these times come. Governments have to be in their place to deal with them, because if they are not, the wage loss and the job loss that will occur tomorrow will magnify this several times.

That is the reality, if you are not in position. Let us talk about other governments, the Liberal government of Quebec. They announced on March 19, 1991 , a wage freeze to cover the entire Quebec public sector, but there were two options associated with that. Mr. Acting Speaker, British Columbia, a compensation fairness act where all of the powers as to whether a settlement, one through arbitration, was fair or not were embodied in the body of one person. So we are not breaking new ground in this area.

Again I reiterate, there is no politics for the provincial government to bring in this particular- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Speaker, I just want to close by indicating that members of our party will certainly be rising to debate this issue over several times. I know there will be many points put on the record with respect to this particular bill. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) Let me close by saying, and again by reiterating what I have said on several occasions, we had three choices.

We either could increase taxes; we could either throw more people out of work-and, indeed, I am not talking about hundreds, Mr. Speaker, because I believe a 5 percent award would have translated into 1, 000 or more-or we could ask everybody to share. * (1 510) Mr. Speaker, this is a common-sense bill under the times. This bill is in short duration. This bill is asking our public servants to share. This bill, hopefully, is asking the labour leadership to be fair and open with their members and ask them to share. I know that the rank and file members today of the public sector are prepared to share.

I know that, and I know that because common sense would dictate that when many of the neighbours have no jobs at all. I would then ask all memb ers to understand the rationale as to why the bill was brought in at this time and to provide some support to it. Thank you very much. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking, but I would like to ask, is this our custom on second reading to ask questions for clarification? Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Thompson have leave to pose a question to the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) for clarification? An Honourable Member: No. Mr.

Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member for Thompson, I would like to advise the House that I have been advised that the honourable member for Thompson, in accordance with Rule 33.(2), is a designated speaker for the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), therefore has unlimited time on Bill 70. Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I want to indicate from the beginning that I find it amazing this government would not extend the courtesy that has been the tradition of this House for members to ask questions on second reading for clarification.

I had indicated to the minister that I had full intention of speaking on this bill and, indeed, I will speak. An Honourable Member: Ask the question. Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I will be allowed to revert to that position, I will ask questions because it is important that we have responses. I have about

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2927 three questions for clarification based on the bill, which is our tradition, and I have much more in the way of comments. If there is leave, I believe the government may have reconsidered. I wanted to ask the minister, he referred to in terms of discussions on fees and in reading this section-and I do not wish to discuss the specific section, but the wording is very general. It talks about being able to deal with fees in a general sense made directly or indirectly by the government of Manitoba to persons not otherwise covered in the act.

That could be a very sweeping provision. It could include virtually anyone who is funded directly or indirectly. It could include contractors who receive government contracts in the way I interpret this. What is the intent of that section? Is it intended to be that sweeping or has the minister intended to have the fees on a more restricted basis? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Speaker, the question will be answered this way: Certainly, we are not looking for sweeping powers within that particular clause or any other that talks about the application of this act to any collec tive agreem ent on any terms and conditions that the Lieutenant-Go vernor-i n-Council considers appropriate. If one wants to read a

section in isolation, one may want to come up with that

interpretation, but that is not the way it is done and the member knows it. The member knows that if he were to provide this to a court of law for

interpretation, they would take into account not only the title of the bill, but also the general provisions in the act. Very clearly, this bill is applicable only to the public sector; furthermore, if that is not clear enough, I stand in my place to tell the member that this bill does not apply to the private sector; and furthermore, in those areas which maybe are hard to determine as to whether they are nonprofit or whether they are government and so on and so forth, we have the power through the budgetary process by way of granting to exercise pressures in this area. Mr.

Speaker, I say to the memb er the designations of the area are as shown here. Those that are not included would not include those to whom he refers. Mr. Ashton: A further question for clarification again on a similar note. I would point out to the minister that while this bill is entitled The Public Sector Compensation Management Act, there is no specific definition of what public sector is, and fur ther elements of the bill would extend the application of all or ·any part of this act to any collective agreement on any terms and conditions that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council considers appropriate.

Once again, is the intention of this to be as broad as the wording indicates or is the intention to be more narrowly prescribed in terms of the intent of the government, which is basically what we are debating on second reading? Mr. Manness: These are wide powers. They grant us the right to designate, in addition to the three or four that we have indicated here. Conceivably, they could in due course be applied by our

interpretation to municipalities. We have no intention, at this time, to involve ourselves as to the application as it is towards municipalities. It could in time, I suppose, apply to universities. Today, as I stand here, we have no intention to apply this to universities. In due time, I guess, it could be made applicable to the MMA fee schedule. As I stand here today that is not the intention. Mr. Ashton: A final question for clarification once again.

One of the features of this bill is that it applies not only to contracts that are under negotiations, but contracts where arbitration or final offer selection has been initiated, in some places where awards have been given. As I read the bill, it basically says that any of the discussions in negotiations that have proceeded up to that point are null and void. There are a number of examples under final offer selection which are currently going to be voided by this bill, where agreement has been reached on everything except money.

Is it the intent of this bill to prevent people from being able to, by mutual agreement, reach agreement on issues other than wages, including working conditions, for example, technological change? As I indicated, there are some that are in the process that are in that situation. Is that the intent? If not, what is the intent of the sections in this bill that deal with it? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if we are talking about the same particular specific clause or not, but we have tried here.

It came to our understanding that in some situations, out of a whole list of items that had been negotiated, a conclusion had been reached, an agreement had been reached on many other than just wages. We

2928 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1991 just did not want to, by this bill, lock in the concessions granted by employees toward maybe working to a higher wage component. What we have said is we would like to wipe the slate clean. This, basically, is protec tion for the employees-those negotiations.

It could be construed by some, seeing that we have introduced this bill, and seeing that there had been agreement on nonmonetary issues up to this point in time, that the employer can just say, well, okay, we have agreed on this in the past, but now I cannot offer you any more than zero because that is what the law is. We have said, uh-uh. That is not fair to the employee. In that case, the slate is wiped clean and then we can begin negotiating on all of the other conditions. So that is the sole purpose of that aspect. Let me conclude, Mr.

Speaker, again, with respect to the powers of the bill and say that the rationale is that, in general, we cannot anticipate anybody else at this time, but we are going to watch very closely other provincially funded organizations and act to protect the taxpayers and the integrity of our budget. * (1 520) Mr. Ashton): There will, indeed, be more questions throughout debate on this bill. I will, at this point, proceed to make some comments on this bill, Mr. Speaker. I want to indicate that I have received the designation from our leader to exceed the 40 minute period.

I do not anticipate speaking quite as long as the former member for Churchill did on final offer selection, but the way in which this government is dealing with this, this particular bill may change that, not just in terms of myself, but in terms of other members of this Legislature, because on a daily basis in this House, we are seeing in the words that were used yesterday by the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia- Leis), words that were used again today, we are seeing the big lie.

We are seeing on a daily basis whereby we are seein g this government bring in, in this particular case, an item of legislation that is one of the most Draconian items of legislation ever introduced in this House. In order to support that legislation, Mr. Speaker, they are using figures, they are using arguments that are not factual and are fallacious, and I will deal with that, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) anticipated, in my comments. I will deal with the unfactual information that this minister has brought forward. I will deal with that.

What this government is also doing on a daily basis is twisting, twisting what is happening. This is a government that is violating every tenet of free collective bargaining. This is a government that is violating every provision of our labour relations in terms of bargaining in good faith. We see it even again today. I will deal with every single one of those items and the rather pitiful attempts of the Minister of Finance to focus this as being a battle between the government and union bosses. (Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) I have a message, Mr.

Acting Speaker, for the government and they will find this out, that the 48,000 Manitobans who are affected, and the many more who may be affected under this bill, will speak directly to the minister and he will find that the so-called uni on bosses ar e democra tically represe nting their mem bers, and there are members today -(i nterjection)- Well, there are people in this Chamber today who say that they are wrong. I would like them to talk-I note members in the gallery currently represent workers from IBEW, Local 2034.

I have talked to representatives of unions and shop floor workers from across this province over the last number of days since this bill was introduced and their message is that the government has broken its word, the government cannot be trusted, and that what we are seeing from the government on this bill is nothing more than a thinly disguised attempt to live up to the Tory ideology which always seeks to attack working people, in this case the public servants of this province, to use them as a scapegoat for their own economic incompetence and, in particular, the economic incompetence of the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) because that is what is at root. I wish to deal with a number of other items, Mr. Acting Speaker, in dealing with this. I want to deal with some of the statements that have been put on the record by the Premier (Mr. Fllmon). I want to deal with some of the statements that have been put on the record by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that are not only not factual, but misled the people of Manitoba and members of this House.

I want to deal with what I consider, in looking back at the history of Manitoba, to be one of the saddest cases of abuse of government authority, of government fiat.

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2929 Yes, I will use the word "fascist" in terms of this legislation because, Mr.

Acting Speaker, how can you not describe legislation such as this which by government fiat, which arbitrarily, retroactively brings in a wage freeze which freezes the wages of people who played by the rules for six, seven and eight months of bargaining in good faith, who have gone through a final offer selection, gone to arbitration, have received awards under final offer selection, and then have been told by this government, we have changed the rules, it is, heads I win, tails you lose-how could you not describe that as fascist legislation? To the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) who talks about other provinces, we will indeed compare other provinces. We will compare the record of this government as 1 Oth out of 1 0 in terms of economic indicators. You know, our minister likes to talk about Ontario. The conference board is predicting that they will be the first to lead Canada out of a recession. They are pr edicting tha t this government will be the last, Mr. Acting Speaker. We will talk about economics. To the minister who likes to play this as being something that is being done by other provinces, and I watch with amusement when he uses the example of Newfoundland.

I know he uses that to target the Liberals, and I know that the Liberals have done similar things to what this government is doing in other provinces including in Newfoundland. I say that if this government has its way, we will end up like Newfoundland, not just in terms of legislation, but in terms of their economic situation. They have traditionally had the weakest economy in Canada. This minister and this Premier (Mr. Film on) are doing their bes t to put Man itoba righ t there with Newfoundland in terms of economic circumstances. We will talk about the comparison, Mr. Acting Speaker.

The bottom line -(in terjection)- and to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), who is nowhere to be found on this issue, where was he when this fascist piece of legislation was introduced by this government? Where was the Minister of Labour? Why has he not spoken for Manitoba workers? What credibility will he have with Manitoba workers when he sits down at the table and tries to explain where he was when this bill was brought into the cabinet and brought into the Manitoba Legislature? The Minister of Labour has failed Manitoba workers. -(i nterjection)- Mr.

Acting Speaker, I apologize to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) if the volume offends him or if the message in any way offends him. I might say to the Minister of Natural Resources, I am probably going to be doing him a favour, because he is going to be hearing it, not from myself as Labour critic, not from other members of the opposition, but from many of those workers from across the province who fee l absolutely and fundamentally betrayed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon). We are not just talking about the normal cynicism that develops about politicians.

You know, when I hear from people I talk to, when I go door to door, complaints about politics and politicians; at one time I feel disappointed, that public service, that representing people in the Legislature or in the House of Commons should be taken in such a negative light. When I hear people talking about politicians saying one thing before an election and another thing afterward, when I hear people saying that politicians will say anything and do anything for political purposes, when I see them talking about politicians breaking their word, breaking their promises, Mr.

Acting Speaker, and I look at this government, and I look what they are doing on a daily basis, and I look at what they have done in this bill; is there any wonder that there is such cynicism about politics and politicians? I want to say to the people of Manitoba, and I want to say in this Legislature, Mr.

Acting Speaker, to the government, that while they may play the politics of the hidden agenda, while they may say one thing before an election and after an election, while they may say something, while they may give their word as this government House leader did on final offer selection and then break that word by bringing in this in sidious piec e of legi slati on, that the New Democratic Party will not play that same sort of politics.

We will never support a government that tries to attempt to turn working Manitobans, of any sort- whether they work for the public or the private sector, we will not let this Conservative government attack the working people of Manitoba and use them as a scapegoat for their own economic incompetence, Mr. Acting Speaker. That is the bottom line. We heard it again today. We heard talk about the deficit. We heard pious words from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) saying that they are not attacking workers. They have nothing against the Civil Service, Mr. Acting

2930 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 19 91 Speaker. Well, I do not acceptthat. That is nottrue. It is not the philosophy of the Conservative Party. In every election I have either run in or worked in, I have run against or worked against Conservative candidates who have used one or more scapegoats. One of those scapegoats has always been the public service, and the minister knows that. That is the Conservative ideology and the philosophy to ratchet down the size of government. So let him not hide from that reality.

Even that Minister of Finance, I am sure, would not deny that in his own philosophical outlook in terms of politics, that is part of it, restricting the size of government. So let them not say that is not part of their policy. Let them not say it is not what they do when they are in politics, when they are in elected office. What did Sterling Lyon do? What was the first thing that Sterling Lyon did in terms of the Civil Service? He laid off hundreds of civil servants saying to the public service of this province that they were somehow responsible for all the perceived ills that the Conservatives saw in society.

What has this government done? History has repeated itself. The first thing they did when they got a majority government was attack the public service of this province through layoffs and now this insidious, fascist legislation that freezes the wages of public servants after they have just eliminated over 950 positions, Mr. Acting Speaker. They say they have nothing against public servants or the individual workers out there. They will lay them off. They will freeze their wages, and they will gladly go out there.

I know they will do it because they have done it before, and they will try and use it for the utmost political advantage. Well, the New Democratic Party will never be a part of all owing them to use people as scapegoats, whether it is public servants or anyone else in this province. • (1 530) The blame for what is happening in the province of Manitoba should lie with this government which believes that the best that a government can do is do nothing. We are seeing the results of that, Mr. Acting Speaker. We saw it under Sterling Lyon. We were 1 Oth out of 10. We are seeing it now under this government.

We are again 1 Oth out of 10. That is the problem with their philosophy. They are always looking for somebody else to blame other than themselves. They should go look in a mirror and then they will see who is responsible for the mess that Manitoba is in currently. So I want to deal with the facts. I want to deal with the pious words. I want to deal with the background, Mr. Acting Speaker, with what is happening. I want to deal with the background of Bill 70 and just why this piece of legislation has to be, in my mind, one of the worst pieces of legislation in Manitoba history, the worst pieces of legislation.

I want to put it in context. I want to read into the record some of the words that the Premier spoke in regard to collective bargaining, Mr. Acting Speaker. I am going to put that into context, what an average Manitoban would have believed going into the 1990 election. I want to quote, October 26, 1989-this is before the election-at the MGEA convention. The Premier said: If the union believes it is in its interest to put in anti-pri vatization or no-lay off clauses, that is part of the whole bargaining process. You believe in it, and we believe in it, and we will carry out our responsibilities under it.

A direct quote of the Premier reprinted in the MGEA magazine. I want to stress what he said. We believe in it, and we will carry out our responsibilities under it. I want to compare that in a few minutes to what has happened. Dur ing the election, once again before the election, MGEA questionnaire and I quote: We are committed to repealing final offer selection. We believe this mechanism is inappropriate and can undermine the collective bargaining process.

Any further significant changes to Manitoba labour laws or The Civil Service Act would only be undertaken after consultations with the public, business and labour. I want to emphasize what it says . Any further significant changes to Manitoba labour laws or The Civil Service Act, that is what the Premier said to the MGEA in a signed document, the questionnaire. He went on further to state, and I quote: We believe that negotiated settlements should take into account all legitimate factors that are brought to the bargaining table by both sides.

Some bargaining units are including as a request protection from the goods and services tax for their members. As management, we would seek to balance to requests of MGEA negotiators for the fiscal capacity of the province, protection being afforded other workers within the province.

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 2931 Once again, a commitment to the give and take of the collective bargaining process, a direct quote. The Premier continued this after the election. October 16, 1990, on the casino strike, he said: " . .. the very first thing that I responded to them was, please return to the bargaining table, have your differences worked out through the free collective bargaining process. That is why the process exists. I support it, and I assume that you do.

That was my initial response to them. n He went on further to say, and this is a direct quote agai n: "I will repeat that the free coll ective bargaining process ought to prevail and that they ought to go forward in an attempt to resolve that at the bargaining table. That is the process that we as a government support, and I would assume the New Demo crats sup por t that process. I cannot understand why they would want to do anything other, such as bargaining here on the floor of the Legislature and entering into a labour dispute." That, Mr. Acting Speaker, is the end of the quote from October 16, 1990.

Further, from Hansard, I quote: " ... the very first thing that I responded to them was, please return to the bargaining table, have your differences worked out through the free collective bargaining process. That is why the process exists." October 16, 1990. On November 5, 1990, once again from Hansard, the Premier said: "We have the same mechanism that every government has had.

It is called the free collective bargaining system." "We have determined steadfastly that we would let the Crown corporations be operated at arm's length on business principles that would be set by policy of the government, and the management decisions and ultimate determinations made, under the aegis of the boards of directors, by the management of the corporation." It goes on further to say, and this is again a direct quote: "For all of those good and valid reasons, there is not an attempt on our part to influence decisions that are management decisions in a free collec tive bar gai ning process betwe en management and its employees." He went on further to say, and this again is a direct quo te from the Premier: "T hose Cr own corporations obviously are encouraged to as much as possible to harmonize their own dealings so that they meet government or they meet government objectives.

At the same time, we do not go to the step of setting firm top-line guidelines." That again is a direct quote from the Premier. He goes on further to say: "If we did, I would suggest that, to avoid the kind of event that the member is talking about, we would have to apply those guidelines to every public sector agency within the aegis of government and that would include teachers. There would be no sense in setting a limit for all Crown corporations and not applying that limit for settlement to teachers or to university professors and staff. We would have to go the full bore." Another quote, Mr.

Acting Speaker, an interesting quote, November 6, from Hansard. This is the Premier again. The Premier of this province said: "The fact of the matter is, there is no club and there never will be from this government. We will act in good faith at all times in the open free collective bargaining process with all the employees with whom we have to negotiate." What more do we need to see in the way of the words of what they said before the election and as recently as November? Mr. Acting Speaker, now we are dealing with Bill 70.

Bill 70 has shown that the words of the Premier on October 26, 1989, in August 1990, on October 16, 1990, on November 5, 1990, and November 6, 1990, were all not true. We have seen that the Premier was not telling the truth about the true policies of this government. All this pious talk about collective bargaining and free collective bargaining meant absolutely nothing when it came to this Finance minister and this Premier and this government looking for a scapegoat, the public service of this province.

It calls into credibility every statement made by that Premier and that Minister of Finance, because if we could not believe them in signed documents before the election, if we could not believe what they said to the MGEA convention, if we cannot believe what they say in this House; we can believe nothing that this government has to say on any issue affecting labour relations or the working people of this province-absolutely nothing. They stand there piously again today and say that they are not attacking public sector workers.

Their big battle is with union bosses, and they still talk about free collective bargaining. Let us deal with just how much this bill violates the words of the Premier, just how much it makes that Premier out to be someone who can no longer, in terms of the

2932 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1991 province of Manitoba, have people believe anything that is supposedly a commitment on the part of this government-coll ective bargaining, free collective bargaining. This bill and the attack on public sector unions launched by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) as part of the introduction of this bill violates every tenet of free collective bargaining, every tenet-one of the basic tenets, free collective bargaining.

It has been a tenet since the mid-1930s, recognized in legislation in Canada since the 1940s, since the Rand decision, is the concept of bargaining in good faith. I want to deal with that right off the bat. Has this government been bargaining in good faith? I want to provide evidence that, not only has it not been bargaining in good faith with the unions of this province, it has also not been bargaining in good faith with the opposition in this province and, by ex tension , the people that we re present. Bargaining in good faith? let us take the example of the casino workers.

The casino workers were on strike last year. They walked the picket line, received a small wage increase. What did the Premier say to casino workers? He said, return to the bargaining table, which they did. What did the Premier say to the casino workers? Let us resolve our differences. I just quoted into the record, and I want to stress again what the Premier said. He said, work through the process. let us not have this strike; let us work through the process we have established in Manitoba, which they did. The government brought in a bill to repeal final offer selection.

There was an agreement amongst all parties that there would be no repeal prior to March 31 . The casino workers, represented by the Manitoba Government Employees' Association, used their right under the legislation of the Province of Manitoba to apply for final offer selection. • (1 540) Let us look at what that involves, Mr. Acting Speaker, final offer selection involves a process whereby both parties have the opportuni ty to present what they feel is a fair settlement. Both sides did, and what happened? The selector is Martin H. Freedman, Q.C. The selector brought in a decision May 28, 1991 .

I want to spend a bit of time on this decision, because it shows just how dishonest the approach of the government on this bill has been, when this minister talks about having any principles whatsoever behind the introduction of this bill. I would encourage people to read through this because it shows just how clearly the government lost at the bargaining table, lost at the selector stage and is now coming in and arbitrarily changing the rules. The decision was quite clear about the basic issue. It stated there was only one issue in this final offer selection and that is wages.

The employer offered no increase in wages, the union seeks a 5 percent increase in wages.

She should spend some time looking at the background of the Manitoba lotte ries Foundation, its position first as an employer at the temporary casino at the Winnipeg Convention Centre and in other areas of the provinces starting in 1984; how, in 1988, the union was certified as a bargaining agent for employees of the employer employed in the casino operation and effectively, as was pointed out by the employer, that as of the summer and fall of 1989, Manitoba lot teries Foundation began to recruit for a full-t ime, year-round casino to be run out of the Hotel Fort Garry.

The majority of the approximate 130 positions at the new Crystal Casino being recruited from the existing pool of casual employees, and how the MGEA established a bargaining committee and collective bargained with its new committee began on December 28, 1989, achieved the first collective agreement under legislation in Manitoba. In fact, the Crystal Casino opened December 29, 1989. Although the first collective agreement was realized, it was subsequently a long well-pub licized strike that resulted in a 35 percent hour lump sum settlement for the workers involved.

That was the backdrop-first contract, a bitter strike. Instead of an alternative the next time around, the alternative being, Mr. Acting Speaker, final offer selection, which was part of the legislation introduced by the Province of Manitoba in the 1980s by the NOP government, legislation that was specifically not going to be repealed until 1991 , in March, which the minister knew would include the casino workers.

The Finance minister and the government House leader knew that they would be included and yet he agreed, by his word, by signed agreement, with the two opposition House leaders not to repeal final offer selection until March 31 , which would include the casino workers.

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2933 I want to give the minister some idea of what the issues were involved, because I think he is being particularly unfair when he gets up with his pious statements and his underhanded attacks, supposed union bosses, when he ignores the situation facing workers, who he is catching now with this insidious piece of legislation. There were some significant changes in the bargaining units because of the shift to the Fort Garry Hotel as asserted by the union. There were new classifications, new hours of work and new rates of pay which were arbitrarily imposed on employees. The bargaining unit was reduced to approximately 130 members,

whereas there had been a poll of 250 to 300 workers. Mr. Acting Speaker, that is why there was a strike. That is why the bottom line is, we had a situation whereby this ended up, when the strike did not resolve all the issues, being sent to final offer selection. Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, let us proceed further and look at the background of the people that this minister is now denying their rights under legislation to a decent, fair settlement. Let us deal with that. The selector looked at the situation in terms of the Crystal Casino and the classification issues.

The selector then proceeded to look at the question in terms of wage increases, the 5 percent increase, pointed out the union cited increases in the cost of living and provided data in that respect to support its argument that the increase was justified. In terms of the em ployer position he said, inserting that no increase was warranted, stressed a number of factors. Most significantly it stressed the overall economic condition in this province. It relied heavily on the ability-to-pay argument.

Well, the Finance minister yesterday said that selectors do not adequately take into account the ability-to-pay question. What did this selector do? I want the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to be listening intently on this, because I expect him to withdraw his comments, as made in Question Period yesterday, because they are categorically wrong in terms of anything that has anything to do with final offer selection and in particular in regard to this selector decision. Selecting one of the final offers, the law stipulates that I may take into account- this is a direct quote, Mr.

Ac ting Spea ker, from the selector's decision-(

a) The terms and conditions of existing or any previous collective agreement between the

part ies ; (

b) The te rms and conditions of employment, if any, negotiated through collective bargaining for employees performing the same or similar functions, the same or similar circumstances of the employees in the unit; (

c) Changes in the cost of living as reflected in the consumer price index for the city of Winnipeg, published from time to time by Statistics Canada; (

d) Where in the opinion of the selector the employer has provided sufficient information in respect thereof, the continuity and stability of employment for employees of the unit. I want to stress this. This is directly from the legislation in the Province of Manitoba that governs final offer selection, and I will hope that the Finance minister will have the courtesy to read this: (

e) Where in the opinion of the selector the employer has provided sufficient information in respect thereof, the employer's ability to pay. I want to repeat that section. It is right from the act. It was quoted by the selector: Where in the opinion of the selector the employer has provided sufficient information in respect thereof, the employer's ability to pay-make it clear, Mr. Acting Speaker, that was clearly part of it.

There are other sections that have to be taken into account, in the discretion of the selector, which will assist the selector in deciding whether a collective agreement between the parties, which is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, is more likely to result from the final offer of the union or the final offer of the employer. What can be more fair and balanced than that? What could have satisfied the concerns of the Finance minister better than this legislation, which talks directly about the ability to pay? Mr.

Acting Speaker, perhaps the Finance minister doubts that the selector, having quoted this section, would use it. I want to deal with that to show just how wrong the Minister of Finance was and just how wrong and unfair this piece of legislation is. He stated: Certain material were provided to me relating to the employer- this is the selector. Its most recently published annual report for the fiscal year ended 1990 indicates that it is a Crown agency of the provincial government answering to the Minister responsible for Lotteries (Mrs. Mitchelson).

The report states, its aim is to maximize long-term economic returns to the province while maintaining a high level of business integrity and social responsibility. It then goes on further to deal with the role of the Crystal Casino and says that since

2934 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 1991 March 1983, when it was created, until the time of the annual report, the employer generated some $314 million to support numerous charitable and religious organizations-$314 million, Mr. Acting Speaker. The selector pointed out that the Crystal Casino is becoming an important feature of Winnipeg life. There were 1 14,000 guests that visited the casino. It says, in the 1989 fiscal year the net income gen erated by all operations of the employer approximated $57 million; and in 1990, the same number approximated $54 million.

It pointed out the casino appeared to net about $1 .5 million in the three months ended March 31, and said that while there was not definitive information for the year ending March 31 , 1991, the union estimated the casino netted about $1 5 million. * (1 550) The selector stated, and I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) will read this decision, that this number was not challenged by the employer. In other words, there was clear evidence in the submissions of the ability to pay for the Crystal Casino. It further noted that when it was initially opened in 1989, the Min ister responsible for Lotteries (Mrs.

Mitchelson) who is here today, had estimated that earnings from the casino's initial flow year of operation would be about $1 0 million. In argument, the employer acknowledged that results had been achieved. In fact, they had been exceeded, and the government was quite willing to state that. Mr. Acting Speaker, the minister is talking from his seat, but he should know that the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation is specifically attached in terms of discussions in this bill and that he made reference to selectors. This is the most recent selection decision.

This is one of the groups that is finding now that it is being a victim of this particular bill. This is from a Minister of Finance who says the ability to pay is not taken into account. He is wrong, and I want to continue to prove comprehensively and conclusively to this Finance minister that the basis on which he has made this move in this particular case is absolutely and fundamentally wrong. This minister was wrong, and this bill is based on erroneous assumptions about the process. Mr.

Acting Speaker, the selector dealt with the ability to pay, then dealt with the fact that the request was for five percent across the board wage increase, indicating that the union prese nted evidence relating to increases in the cost of living. There were statistics brought forward in terms of that indicating an increase in the cost of living for Winnipeg residents of 6. 1 percent was the situation at the time mentioned. What was the un ion requesting, 6.1 percent? No, it requested 5 percent.

In fact, the selector pointed out it was somewhat below the increase in the cost of living and then once again pointed out this information was not challe nged by the employer. It could not be challenged, Mr. Acting Speaker, because it was correct. The union went beyond that. It did not just deal with situations in terms of the overall figures, it presented information on other public sector awards as pointed out by the selector.

They included settlements, awards where the employer is the Pro vince of Man itoba -t he Man itoba Heal th Organization, certain municipalities which receive indirect funding, employers such as Legal Aid lawyers, government-em ployed doctors, members of the Manitoba Nurses' Union, members of two locals of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, who I believe are employed with the Workers Compensation Board. These wage settlements, awards range from a low of 4 percent-to have cost-of- living increases as the standard, I would just like to point out-to a high of effective increase of 9.2 percent.

These were settlements that were negotiated that are within the jurisdiction of the Province of Manitoba that range between 4 percent and 9.2 percent, and the casino workers asked for 5 percent. The selec tor pointed out there were some differences in terms of time periods involved but said they are, however, relevant and that he took them into account.

The union also provided further information not just about Manitoba, but about the major public sector wage settlements, which he said-and this is the selector-te nd to support its submission that a 5 percent wage increase would be well within the range of such settlements and, if anything, would be below the range, Mr. Acting Speaker. The selector took into account that fact. Ther e was discussion about other issues including tipping, and discussion on that particular area. He pointed to the obvious difficulty in terms of dealing with such an issue and the fact that his basic

June 5, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2935 decision had to deal with the wages involved. What didthe selector decide? !will quote: My view is that the union has made out a case for some wage increase. This was an independent selector who looked at all the facts-the ability to pay; who looked at all the facts such as settlements in Manitoba; w

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-2-58
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 2nd hansardpdf 58.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a02b54cd58375286a3023d42fd3fcf512475bda5

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