Manitoba Hansard — 8 July 1991 (Sitting 80A, 35th Legislature, 2nd Session)

35-2-80a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

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 Speaker VOL. XL No. BOA -1:30 p.m., MOND AY, JULY 8, 1991 Printed by the Office of the o.-ns Printer; Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY Thirty-Fifth Leglslature LIB - Liberal; ND - New Democrat; PC - Progressive Conservative NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERIL LI, 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-Russell 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

4324 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA Monday, July 8, 1991 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PR OCEE DINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of E. Edwards, M. Cairns, I. Bomphray and numerous others requesting withdrawal of funding and the prevention of construction of The Pines project and to prevent projects similar in nature from destroying the community. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr. Marcel Laur endeau (Chair man of the Com mit tee on lndustrlal Re latl ons): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Industrial Relations. Mr. Clerk (Wllllam Remnant ): Your Standing Committee on Industrial Relations presents the following as its First Report: Your committee met on Friday, July 5, 19 91 , at 1 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Assembly to consider bills referred. Your committee has considered: Bill 39-The

Summary Convictions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les poursuites

sommaires; Bill 55-The Employment Standards Amendment Act (2) ; Loi no 2 modifiant la

Loi sur les normes d'emploi; Bill 56-The Payment of Wages Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le paiement des salaires; and has agreed to report the same without amendment. All of which is respectfully submitted. Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose), thatthe report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling Supplementary Information for 19 91 -92 Manitoba Government Services. " (1 335) Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us this afternoon His Excellency Dr. Kalman Kulcsar, who is the Ambassador of the Republic of Hungary. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERI OD Clvll service Appointments Independent Inquiry Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a number of individuals have been involved in allegations dealing with immigration consultants. A number of individuals have been involved with various other allegations.

We, of course, have been calling on the Premier, in light of the fact that all three of the individuals are documented to have been involved in the Premier's leadership, to have an independent inquiry on the hirings, the selections to boards, the handling of their activity in the public services. The Premier, of course, has denied that. Mr. Speaker, one of the individuals, Amarjeet Warraich, is well known to the Premier. He has been appointed to the Human Rights Commission, appointed without competition to a public service job, was involved in various concerns with the Public Insurance Corporation of Manitoba.

An internal report was prepared wherein a retired police officer took a statement, stating that Mr. Warraich brags of his political connections, connections he has with the Department of Immigration, connections he has with the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba. He apparently contributed $1 ,000 to the

4325 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 19 91 leadership campaign of Conservative Leader, Mr. Gary Filmon. We have been saying all along, Mr. Speaker, that no one is investigating the political influence allegations that arise from these three individuals. I would ask the Premier: Who is investigating the allegations of political influence with the Progressive Conservative Party, with the Premier and all the public allegations that have been made to date? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, we have all of the allegations that are being raised publicly being investigated by the RCMP and by the Civil Service Commission. We are dealing with matters that involve-if they are influence peddling, the RCMP will undoubtedly be coming forward with recommended action. Anything that they are dealing with we believe is beyond reproach. The RCMP investigation will not be influenced by us or by opposition, by news media or anybody else. They will do their job as they ought to, and we will abide by any recommendations and any action that they take. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier has continued to use the important but narrow investigative responsibility of the RCMP in terms of criminal matters to negate the other broader public issues. If the Premier's claim of a proper investigation was true, the RCMP would be investigating everything in our public affairs. We have the Hughes inquiry going on now because, of course, the RCMP and other agencies are confined to criminal allegations,

whereas other issues should be investigated by broader bodies. Mr. Speaker, the Premier has promoted, on an acting basis, Mr. Gajadharsingh, a person who again is well known to the Premier through his leadership campaign. He has hir ed, without competition, Mr. Warraich. Has the Premier to date met with the Civil Service Commission to give a statement on those hirings in the public service? .. (1 340) Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, I have not promoted those people, and I did not hire those people.

They went through a process that involved the normal Civil Service process, and the Civil Service has examined all of the ways in which those people were hired. I have indicated the one instance where there was not a competition hiring, and again, the Civil Service Commission has very readily identified the reasons and the rationale for the hiring. Those matters are being looked into, and I might say that the allegations that the member is raising with respect to influence peddling are ones that ought properly to be dealt with by the RCMP because that is an allegation of criminal wrongdoing.

They will indeed make a judgment as to whether or not there is any evidence to substantiate that allegation. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, individuals and citizens of this province are coming to us on a daily basis dealing with three people who have been involved directly with the Premier in terms of his leadership campaign and alleging political influence in terms of the public of Manitoba. Why is the Premier afraid to have an outside external investigation, an external inquiry, so that the public will be satisfied that not only has an investigation been done in a proper way, but is perceived to be done?

Why is he afraid of having an external inquiry? Governments have had them before. He has had them before. Why is he afraid in this case to have an external- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, we have indeed an outside investigation. We have the most objective, most rational, most admired people in Canada, the RCMP, doing a com plete an d thorou gh investigation of the matter. They are doing it based on any and all allegations.

If the Leader of the Opposition is telling us that he has information that he is not passing along to the RCMP, that he wants to use it for his own political purposes and he is deliberately withholding it from the RCMP, then he is going to have to have something to account for. He is the one who will be investigated next by the RCMP because that is not a matter that we want to see here. We want to see any and all evidence put before the RCMP, any allegati ons , any innu endo, any anonymous allegations put before them so they can investigate everything thoroughly.

They have been called in to investigate this matter thoroughly and completely. With respect to any appointments to public service jobs, that is being investigated by the Civil Service Commission. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that those are the same senior staff and the same people who were appointed under the

July 8, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MANITOBA 4326 NOP who will do that investigation. They are not political and it would take a two-thirds majority of this House to replace any member of the Civil Service Commission because, Mr. Speaker, they are intended to be arm's length and objective, and they will be as long as we are involved. Amarjeet Warralch Human Rights Commission Appointment Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The secret internal report by Peter B.

Mackid of Target Investigations into the Warraich Autopac claims documents serious allegations about the Premier's political appointment with respect to immigration and Autopac matters. Amarjeet Warraich was allegedly enlisted to help an individual, a Mr. Bishram, to bring Mr. Bishram's sister over from India. Instead, Amarjeet Warraich brought a different friend's sister over. When this was brought to the court, Amarjeet Warraich went back to Mr. Bishram and on two or three occasions allegedly offered a sum of $1 5,000 to Mr. Bishram- Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member for Elmwood, kindly put your question now, please. Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, this was done to protect the woman who was allegedly- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Elmwood, put your question, please. Mr. Maloway : Did the Premier review this evidence from MPIC in 19 88 before he reappointed·warraich in 19 90? .. (1 345) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, of course, you know when it comes to political influence on matters such as obtaining a real estate licence, one would have to ask how it is that the member for Elmwood (Mr.

Maloway) received his real estate licence when he was in clear violation of the requirements for a real estate licence. He knows better than anyone in this House how those things are influenced, because he has obviously had a personal hand in them. Mr. Speaker, with respect to those matters, settlements and decisions made by the MPIC are ones that we in this government have not gotten involved with at all. MPIC is an arm's length Crown corporation, unlike its operations when it was ope rated und e r the NOP, and the min ister responsible then, Mr.

Bucklaschuck, got involved with setting the rates, got involved with shredding their files, got involved witl'I altering the presentation of their annual financial statements to try and avoid showing a $30-million liability in terms of assumed reinsurance. None of those things are done under us, and cert ainly, per son nel matters and in dividual settlements, such as the kind that were spoken about by the member for Elmwood, are not matters that would ever come to the attention-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Maloway: My question to the Premier is: Given these continuing allegations, will the Premier now at least suspend his appointee from the Human Rights Commission? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member is suggesting that he has reasons and evidence and proof that the member is not qualified to serve. MPIC Clalms Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I have a final question to the Premier: If Autopac suspected fraud, then why did they settle the remaining six accidents out of court, especially since in the Calgary accident, Mr. Warraich had purchased seven insurance policies?

Why did they settle them and who settled them? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Obviously, I would not be aware of that. He would have to ask Autopac why they did. Clvll Service Appointments Independent Inquiry Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Le11der of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of this immigration debate has been going on now for almost a month. Tragically enough, one particular ethnic community seems to be bearing a great deal of the brun t of day-after-day investigation, allegations, comments in the public venue.

If for no other reason, would the Premier today not call a public inquiry so that people can believe that due process is being followed in the province of Manitoba and that one community will not continue to be victimized? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, there are two of the most independent and· thorough inquiries that anyone can ever want in this province

4327 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 1991 currently ongoing into all these allegations and into all of these suggestions of wrongdoing. The RCMP and the Civil Service Commission will report, and any aspects of their reports that require provincial action, that action will be taken, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Carstalrs: The Premier knows full well that the RCMP investigates only criminal charges. We do not know to date if there will be further criminal charges laid or not, and everyone is quite prepared to leave those criminal charges in the hands of the RCMP.

What we wantto see, however, is an investigation of the way in which appointments are made to the Civil Service which bypassed the Civil Service Commission. By the Premier's own admission, one of these individuals bypassed that process. Now why will the Premier not today call for the broadest possible independent inquiry, one that will not report by legislation to the Premier himself? Mr. Fllmon: Mr.

Speaker, I know that the member opposite has not been in government and is not aware that there are dozens and dozens and dozens of appointments that are made for term positions based on hiring practices that are called for and do not require the Civil Service Commission. I have said publicly the reasons behind the appointment of one individual who was appointed without competition, and that individual was appointed because of Affirmative Action and the fact that he was willing to take a decentralized position outside the city of Winnipeg. That has been acknowledged; that has been verified.

I do not understand what further she wants looked into. The Civil Service Commission is doing a thorough investigation of any and all allegations as to improper appointments. Whatever they come up with will be acted upon by this government. * (1 350) Affirmative Action Program Polltlcal Influence Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Given that a number of Affirmative Action employees of the Civil Service were let go in the recent budgetary cuts of this government, will the Premier now tell us if his Affirmative Action candidates also must be card-carrying members of the Tory party? Hon.

Gary Fllmon (Premier) : Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Chlld Abuse Reporting Protocol Release Ms. Becky Barrett (Welllngton): Mr. Speaker, in 19 88, the child care office, the Child and Family Services directorate and the Manitoba Child Care Association agreed that there was a real need for a child abuse protocol specifically dealing with daycare centres. The Ma nitoba Ch ild Care Association approved a draft of this protocol in the fall of last year, and they were told in February of this year that the protocol would be released in March.

Can the Minister of Family Services explain why this protocol has still not been released? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services) : I want to assure the member, given allegations that have come forward in recent times, that it is very important that we have a protocol in place for the reporting of child abuse and that we have a consistent protocol that is consistent with the Child and Family Services agencies, the school system and the daycare community that work with children in our society. We are working on this, and we will be coming forward with that in due course. Ms. Barrett: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister explain why his child care office told the Manitoba Child Care Association in February of this year that the protocol was on the way to the printers and would be released in March of this year? Mr. Gll leshammer: I have indicated our concern with getting a consistent protocol together that will encompass all groups of people in the community who are working with young people in child care in the school system, in the Child and Family Services agencies. We hope to bring some new information forward in the near future. Ms.

Barrett: Can the minister now state that this child abuse protocol, which in its draft formulation did include consu ltation with the day care community , the schools and the health care providers in this province, as well as Child and Family Services, will be released immediately so that we can avoid situations such as those that have taken place in the residential care community? Why the delay? Mr. Gllleshammer: I have indicated in a previous answer that we will be coming forward with that in

July 8, 1991 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 4328 due course, and our commitment to having a protocol in place in the near future stands. Northern Health Care User Fees Mr. Oscar Lath lln (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, accord ing to a newspaper report , the Tory government's money-saving health policies could be life-threatening to the poor, the MMA is saying. A $50 transportation user fee for northern residents will cut the poor off from possibly lifesaving procedures, the MMA president said yesterday. It certainly has the potential to be a life-threatening situation. There is no question about it. Mr.

Speaker, like my colleague, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), I, too, have received nume rous inqu iries and petitions from const ituencies prote sting this government's imposition of a $50 fee. My question is for the minister. Can the minister table any study, a report he has, which concludes that the $50 user fee will not be harmful to the health of northern Manitobans? • (1 355) Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, for the last two months, I have indicated to my honourable friends, including too my honourable friend from The Pas during the Estimates process, that there will be absolutely free access for Northerners through emergency transportation services, be that through the Northern Patient Transportation Program, which is estimated to spend on behalf of taxpayer s for north ern Man itobans some $2.8 milli on in Northern Transportation Patient warrants for a variety of emergency and all needs. It is only in the elective procedures that the $50 contribution will be requ ested .

Any repeat procedures such as dialysis or chemotherapy will not be subject to the charge. Anyone who is on social allowance will not be subject to the charge. Any escort of a child will not be subjectto the charge. Ther e are more exem ptions than there are applicable circumstances where the $50 will be asked from the individual. In addition to that, Mr.

Speaker, as I have indic ated to my honou rable friends, the air ambulance will provide to northern Manitobans jet passage by air ambulance to emergency services in hospitals in Winnipeg, again at entirely no cost to those residents of northern Manitoba, but at considerable cost to the taxpayers of Manitoba. Mr. Lathlln: For the same minister: Given that unemployment, the high cost of living and the reliance on social programs are so much higher in the North than in the South, will this minister realize that men in northern Manitoba simply cannot afford the user fee program and cancel it? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, my honourable friend points out an excessive amount of social program needs. I would presume my honourable friend means social assistance to northern Manitobans. Mr. Speaker, where an individual is on social assistance, I have already indicated clearly that they will be exempt from the $50 contribution, so my honourable friend is creating a fear which he knows full well is not legitimate because he understands that those individuals will not be required to pay the $50fee. Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend cries out for those individuals in northern Manitoba.

The same individuals if they live in Swan River pay their entire costs of seeking, not $50, but the entire cost. I have pointed out on numerous occasions that a Northern Patient Transportation warrant could cost up to $700 for an air ticket to Winnipeg for an elective process of seeing a physician. The Northerner will only have to pay $50 of that $700 cost. All other Manitobans pay the entir• cost. Mr. Lathlln: Mr. Speaker, this government is really punishing the North. This government does not care. My last question is to the same Minister of Health.

Can the minister tell this House if he has any method in place to track the number of people who are going to be foregoing medical treatment because of the user fee and what the consequences of lack of treatment would be? Mr. Orchard: We cannot track something that is not going to happen because my honourable friend is not laying out an accurate situation if he believes someone is going to be denied medical services. That is simply false.

When my honourable friend talks about this government picking on the North, I have not heard my honourable friend criticize the $5-million public health building that has gone into Thompson, Manitoba, to serve the residents of northern Manitoba. I have not heard my honourable friend criticize the implementation of kidney dialysis in

4329 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 1991 Thompson so Northerners do not have to come south as they did during the NOP reign. I have not heard my honourable friend criticize the expansion of a mental health residence in Thompson for the service of the mentally ill in northern Manitoba, something unavailable during the NOP years. I have not heard my honourable friend criticize the Repap agreement, which will provide sustained employment to people in The Pas and northern Manitoba.

I have not heard my honourable friend complain about the expansion at lnco, because of the tax regime of this government, providing jobs, investment and wealth in northern Manitoba. * (1 400) Gasollne Prices Increase Justification Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, during the Gulf War, gasoline prices increased sharply. Consumers were told that the prices rose because war threatened the security of oil supplies.

As tensions decreased, the price dropped until last week when gasoline prices increased in a single day by 6 cents to 8 cents with no sign of increased tension in the Persian Gulf or any other explanation from the oil companies. Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg consumers are paying 6 cents a litre more for gasoline than the rural consumers, and the only explanation available appears to be oil company gouging. Can the Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs explain how the price of doing business went up 6 cents to 8 cents a litre overnight in Winnipeg, while remaining the same outside of the city? Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate, for the member's information, and I thank him for the question and appreciate the opportunity to clarify for the House what has happened in the last 12 months with gasoline prices. The gasoline prices we are currently experiencing are the same as they were last summer at this time. They did go up during the Gulf War crisis; they did fall down to a depressed level after the war was over, so they have stayed the same over the 12 -month span.

They are at the same level as they were 12 months ago, even though the price of crude today is $2 or $3 a barrel more than it was at this time last summer. We currently have the second lowest prices in Canada. Those provinces which have decided to regulate prices to have government control over prices have found that they are not doing the job for consumers that they had hoped they would be doing. In fact, just last week, one of those provinces decided that they could no longer regulate because prices have not gone the way they had hoped they would.

Prices will fluctuate around the province for a variety of reasons, Mr. Speaker, and I think I have gone through those reasons before. We will be pleased to do so again if the member wishes. Regulatlons Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface) : The former government commissioned Professor Costas Nicolaou to exam ine gasoline pricing in the pro vince. He recomm en ded agai nst di rect regulation of the price of gasoline, but the professor did recommend that the government lease service stations and sell gas as a method of regulating gasoline prices through competition.

Has the minister done a study on the feasibility of this plan to determine its implementation costs and the benefits consumers could expect? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): The member for St. Boniface is quite correct in that the former government, the NOP government, did indeed commission a study from Professor Nicolaou. I think they paid some $80,000 for it, then set it on the shelf to gather dust and did not implement it. The member is also quite correct in saying that report recommended against regulation.

I have taken the time to meet with Professor Nicolaou to discuss his current theories, very interesting theories. Of course, this government always apprecia tes emphasis on competit ion, and Professor Nicolaou is certainly emphasizing that. One of the things that is happening, of course, right now, Mr. Speaker, is that the federal government is investigating complaints under the Competition Act which they do when specific complai nts are brought to their attention to determine if there has been any violation of the Competition Act.

Professor Nicolaou's theories, while interesting, do require further study in that they do recommend a raising of gasoline taxes to subsidize the building of these gas bars, and we

July 8, 1991 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 4330 currently have amongst the lowest taxes in Canada. Thank you. Price Fixing Investigation Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, many people saw the instanta neous pr ice adjustment at almost all service stations as a clear demonstration of price fixing within the industry. Has the governmen t consider ed filing a complaint, or asked for an investigation by the federal government into price fixing by the major oil companies? Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): As I indicated just a moment ago, the federal government can, and does, investigate complaints under the Competition Act, and, in fact, is currently doing that kind of investigation. If anyone has specific complaints that they would like to have drawn to the competition bureau, my department would be very pleased to pass those complaints on to the federal people. Government Malllng U.S. Services Polley Ms. Rosa nn Wow chuk (Swan Ri ve r): Mr. Speaker, both the federal and provincial governmen ts are oper ating un der doubl e standards.

On one hand, they want to penalize Canadians who engage in cross-border shopping. On the other hand, they are engaging in these practices themselves. The federal government is now shipping mail through the United States. In February, the provincial government shipped mail from Grand Forks. Another example is MPIC and Mani toba Hydro pu rchasing fu rnitur e and equipment in the United States. My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.

What assurances can the minister give this House that this government will no longer use U.S. post offices and instead protect Manitoba jobs and services and do all mailing in Manitoba? Will they encourage the federal government to mail within Canada? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, more appropriately, that question could be addressed to the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme). Certainly within the Department of Tourism, mailings within Canada are generated through the Canadian postal system. We certainly encourage the use of the Canadian postal system.

On occasion, where there are significant cost differences and savings to the taxpayers of Manitoba, some distributions to the United States might be mailed from the United States. All mailings within Canada through our department are, in fact, being mailed through the Canadian postal system. We certainly encourage utilization of that system. Ms. Wowch uk: Kle ysen Tr anspor t Ltd ., a Ma nit oba firm , lost a bid to secur e federal government mailing contracts to a company that will reroute Manitoba-bound mail through the U.S., taking revenue out of Manitoba.

Can the minister tell this House what he has done to keep contracts with Manitoba companies, companies that will keep revenue in Manitoba, buy Manitoba goods and support local jobs and provide tax revenue for Manitoba? Has he contacted his federal counterparts on these matters? Mr. Stefa nson: Mr . Speak er, we cert ainly encourage-and we have said it many times in the House-the devel opmen t of economic opportunities and businesses right here in our province.

Unlike members of the opposition, we do not believe in placing barriers around our province in terms of if she is suggesting that we create a local preference policy in this province, which I am hoping she is not, because clearly our Premier (Mr. Filmon) and our government has led the way in breaking down the barriers in western Canada with the signing of a western provincial agreement in terms of the purchases of goods, services and so on. He has also led the way in terms of a national agreement which now has the support of eight provincial governments with two more pending.

Certainly, we believe strongly in terms of open trade and activity throughout Canada and believe in Manitoba bein g very competitive within that environment and hope that the honourable member is not suggesting that we build local preference policies. An Honourable Member: Defend Mulroney, go ahead. Ms. Wowch uk : That is right, defend Brian Mulroney.

4331 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 1991 Resolution 30 Government Support Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): My final question to the same minister, if this government is serious about protecting Manitoba jobs and services, will they support a resolution that is coming up on U.S. mailing and allow it to go to a vote today, so we can send a strong message to the federal government that we are serious about protecting Canada's post offices? Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): ... the resolution at the appropriate time, but I think I have made it perfectly clear in terms of our commitment to jobs in Manitoba and in Canada. I think the announcement of last week with United Parcel Service is a clear indication of the support that the private sector is showing in the transpor tation and distribution field her e in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker. * (14 10 ) High School Bursary Program Reinstatement Mr. Dave Chomlak (Klldonan) : Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education and Training.

The good news is that the minister has finally answered the letter from the adult students at the Winnipeg Adult Education Centre. The bad news, Mr. Speaker, is the minister has it wrong again. In the letter, he indicates that he has some kind of evidence that indicates the High School Bursary Program did not help these students complete their high school programs, yet many have told us and have told him that without this money, they cannot continue their high school education. My question forthe minister is: What will he do to reinstitute at least the adult portion of the High School Bursary Program? Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, once again, this is about the third time the member asked this question. I will repeat the answer to him again. I will do it slowly so that it can really sink in. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, the adult bursary program that has been curtailed for this year is a program that we are looking at, but it was a part of the total bursary program for students who were attending high school. It was clear that those students who were not adults who were receiving bursaries, indeed, the bursary was not doing what it had been intended to do.

For that reason, there was some adjustment required. Mr. Speaker, I have indicated very clearly thatthe department is analyzing what we can do perhaps to change the approach that we have taken with regard to adult bursary programs in the future. Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, registration is six weeks away and while the minister studies, some students will not be able to return because the minister has cut out up to as much as $1 ,200 from these students who are on low-income wages. Will the minister today indicate to this House what he will do specifically for the adult students?

I will keep asking the question until the minister actually answers it. Mr. Derka ch : Mr. Spea ker, once agai n, the member for Kildonan has it wrong because there is no such maximum on student loans, or there never was such a maximum of $1 ,200 on student loans. The maximum on student loans was $550, and for those students who were on social assistance, they could receive up to $900. Mr. Speaker, indeed, there is an avenue for them to access some money through the social allowances benefits program.

I have talked to the Winnipeg School Division No. 1, and they are prepared to talk with staff from the department to ensure that if a bursary or if any kind of support is made available to adult students, that this support go directly toward educational costs so that indeed we do not lose some of the students after they receive their bursaries. Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speak er, my final supplementary is to the same minister. Obviously, the minister still has not talked to the Minister of Family Services, because he cut that same program that the minister is still referring to by $30 a month.

My final supplementary is: Will the minister at least acknowledge that all of these students pay a tuition fee and that they will at least institute a program to cover the tuition costs for all of these students attending the Winnipeg Adult Education Centre? I already tabled the document indicating that they are paying this fee, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, no one has ever denied that they are paying a tuition fee. Adult students who attend high school at the Winnipeg Adult Education Centre do pay a tuition fee.

July 8, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4332 The tuition fee that is paid by students, the adult students, from the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 catchment area is about $20 per program. For those from outside of the division, the tuition fee is comparable to any out-of-division fee that is paid for students attending schools outside of their division. Northern Health Care User Fees Mr. Jerry Storie (Flln Flon): Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health continues to mislead the people of Manitoba and mislead members of this Legislature about the nature of health care and access to health care in northern Manitoba. Will the Minister of Health, first of all, acknowledge that the air ambu lan ce is available to 33 communi ties in Man itoba, many outside of Manitoba, including Swan River, Dauphin and Brand on? Will he also acknow ledge that communities in northern and northeastern Manitoba have no doctors in the communities?

My question is to the Minister of Health: Will the exemptions that he talked about so glowingly earlier now include all remote communities in northern Manitoba where there is no doctor? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the exemptions that I indicated to my honourable friend do not apply to any particular community. They apply to all communities. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health knows as well as anyone that no other person in Manitoba has to pay $50 to go and see a doctor, minimum.

Isolated communities where there is no road access, where they have no alternatives and no doctor in the community are now going to be asked to pay $50 to see a doctor. My question is to the Minister of Health: When someone in Sherridon who does not have access to a doctor does not go because it is going to cost him $50 under this minister's new user fee to go and see a doctor, and he dies because of a heart attack, what is this minister going to do? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's question is a hypothetical question and therefore out of order.

I would ask the honourable memberfor Flin Flon to kindly rephrase his question, please. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I may be dealing with hypotheticals. We are talking about people's lives here. The president of the MMA has said that, yes, this is going to jeopardize people's lives. Doctors in northern Manitoba have said the same thing. My question is to the Minister of Health: When someone dies as a result of this policy because they cannot afford to see a doctor, what is this minister going to do? Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member's question is hypothetical one more time, and I would ask the honourable member for Flin Flon to kindly rephrase your question, please. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, my question then is to the minister: Will the minister act now to prevent the needless death of someone in northern Manitoba by eliminating today the $50 user fee for those people who live in communities where there is no doctor and there is no road access? Mr. Orchar d : Mr. Speak er, wher e such circumstances exist, they exist not only in northern Mani toba.

Ther e are many commu nities in southern Manitoba that do not have a doctor, and they pay the entire costs of accessing their medical services. Before my honourable friend gets caught up in his rhetoric and his fearmongering tactics of this program, my honourable friend might consider that the fearmongering that he emulates when he attempts to quote the MMA and its president, I simply remind him that this is the same president who indicated that a deinsuring of the removal of tattoos and asymmetric varicose veins might cause someone to die.

That was not accurate then, it is not accurate today, and it is not accurate when my honourable friend talks about it. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. Nonpolltlcal Statements 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 make a nonpol itical statement? Leave? Agreed. Mr. Chomlak: Mr.

Speaker, I am sure all members of the House will join with me in congratulating Natalie Kosteckyj, one of our very competent Pages who was recently chosen as valedictorian at Garden City Collegia te at their annual graduation ceremonies. In fact, Natalie just missed out in being ch osen as the award winner of the Governor-General's Medal because she only had a

4333 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 1991 grade point average of 90 percent. She only missed out because her twin sister received the Governor-General's Medal. 1 am sure all members of the House will wish Natalie and her sister success in the future, and because of her background, I would just like to say: Mnohaya e Blahaya Leeta (A Long and Blessed Life). Thank you, Mr. Speaker. *** Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Vital have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Leave? Agreed. Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vltal): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations and thanks to Grades 1 to 6 students at Windsor School and to Terri Roese, a mother and professional artist. My congratulations go because the students, under the guidance of Terri Roese and with the support of the sc.hool and others in the community, undertook and completed a massive project called Kids Saving the Environment. For those of you who missed the

article in yesterday's paper, the Sunday supplement of the Winnipeg Free Press, I will explain. The wall underneath the St. Vital bridge, where it crosses Kingston Crescent, was covered with graffiti, and instead of just leaving the graffiti there, thus giving the message to the children that they are not responsible for their community and let someone else worry about it, the students at Windsor School, with the very strong support of Terri Roese, decided to scrub off the graffiti and to paint a mural to forestall any further graffiti. This was no ordinary mural.

Terri, who, as I mentioned, is a professional artist, submitted a sketch to the City of Winnipeg. The theme of her sketch was "Harmony Between the City and Country Social Environment." This was in early June and the city approved both the sketch and the project and a month of hard work then began. You should know that this was no two-foot by two-foot painting. The mural was 90 feet in length and 14 feet high, and let me tell you, it was no small feat for Terri to get the scaffolding in place and to map out the mural so that the students could undertake the actual painting.

Despite difficulties along the way, such as the heavy rainstorm that we had about two weeks ago which washed away about 10 feet of the mural, Terri and the students worked very hard throughout June and the July long weekend to complete the mural. To protect the paint from the rain and the snow, when it eventually comes, the city will be applying a ceiling. Again, my thanks to the students and to Terri and those in the community who were involved in a project which made not just the students but those in the area far more conscious of their surroundings and their responsibilities.

I was very privileged to be involved in a very small way from the start, and I have to say I was very impressed with the enthusiasm and the hard work of the students and the very excellent support that they received from the community and from the school. The students of Windsor School showed that, with hard work, they could make a difference in their community. Thank you. * (1 420) Committee Change Mr. Edward Helwer (Glmll): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a change to the committee. I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs.

Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs for the Tuesday, 10 a.m. sitting, be amended as follows: The member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). Mr. Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call Bills 73 and 70? DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Biii 73-The Rural Development Bonds Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Downey), Bill 73, The Rural Development Bonds Act;

Loi sur les obligations de developpement rural, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). Is there leave that this matter remain standing? Leave? Agreed. Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): I would just like to add my comments to Bill 73. The rural bond issue that this government has put across, we here and myself on this side do think, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is a

July 8, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4334 bill that will benefit rural Manitoba. I know that rural Manitoba and the problems that we are having in rural Manitoba, an idea such as this, what benefit would be of great importance to certain areas to be able to invest within their own communities and for their own communities.

I know that, as past mayor of a small community where finances and such are very difficult to obtain from different governments, we have always looked for, questioned the fact of whether there would be a way that we could invest or a way that we could receive some extra finances to be able to do the things that we in rural Manitoba would like to as well as in other parts of the province. Bonds, such, with the denominations that are going to be available to the people themselves, will make it open so that they can either invest small amounts, large amounts. We will have the opportunity, Mr.

Speaker, to go to the government and be able to buy these bonds and such. In turn, your investment will in fact benefit your local community or your local municipality. The money that will be made available to rural Manitoba will give the opportunity, give the different municipalities and such and governments the opportunity, to be able to have the finances available to better their areas, to better their situations, to be able to improve their infrastructure, to be able to improve on their needs and that, roads, local town roads, local communities, Mr.

Speaker, where the community will be able to use the finances and improve themselves to be able to bring investment in, bring businesses in, bring tourism in. Money is as scarce as it is now for rural Manitoba. We here feel that any kind of a financial break will be of great benefit to the rural Manitoba people, to the communities. Mr.

Speaker, as far as the bonds go, I would like to see, of course, a little assurance of the investment on the bonds themselves, the return. -(in terjection) Well, the minister makes comment on that but, I think, is well aware that, if you want the people to be able to invest in their own communities and invest in bonds as such, I think that they will be looking for a good return on their money so thatthey will be able to benefit as well as bene fi ttin g the rural communities that they are.

I know myself, being a rural member, I find that there are many numerous things that we could use in Manitoba, in rural Manitoba, and we are not able to achieve them. We are not able to achieve them because we do not have the finances for it. We cannot get the finances for it. An improvement on the sewer or improvement on the road, on the main road, improvement on the building itself, there does not seem to be any money available to these rural villages and towns and such.

We do need something, and if this is one way that we can achieve the financial assurances, that we, a municipality or a village such as my own, can be able to get and have access to the money to be able to improve, as I mentioned earlier, some part of their infrastructure so that for us-especially for tourism, I mean, anything that we can do ordevelopmentthat we want to institute within the community or something that we want to put on to bring tourism in.

Tourism, I think, municipalities, the villages and that will also benefit if the towns in rural Manitoba are able to have the access to finances to improve themselves, that are going to improve the tourist business. They are going to bring people into the community. It is going to improve financially the small businesses within the towns themselves, Mr. Speaker. Again, I do say that I think we could, with this bill, get a better idea of it as far as getting for your investment and, at the same time, being able to help rural Manitoba.

Also the term, there is no guarantee of a term, so certain parts of it, we would like to see perhaps improve or get more clearance on, but in general, I think on my behalf here, I believe that, even though there are improvements that can be made, I believe that the idea is warranted and , with proper assessment or proper control of it, will be able to improve the financial situ ation for all rural Manitobans and be able to help everyone in turn. Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to close by saying that we here and people from rural Manitoba are always looking for a way to be able to improve the situation in our small communities, invest in our small communities and be able to have what other areas and towns are able to achieve in the city. (Mrs.

Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) Rural Manitoba is an important part of this province, as in other provinces, and I feel that any way that we can achieve an improvement for rural Manitoba we will support and, as long as it benefits the people of rural Manitoba, I see no reason not to do anything but support it at present. Thank you, very much.

4335 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 1991 *

(1430) Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the Rural Development Bonds. When I heard about the Rural Development Bonds and I heard the minister speak about them, I want to say that I really hope Manitobans will invest in their own communities, because if we can get that to happen, then it will be good for the communities. At this point, I do not see much incentive for the people to invest in these bonds, because for people to take their money out of the banks and invest in bonds where they have no guaranteed interest, I think people will hesitate on it, particularly because when this program was announced, according to a newspaper

article that was published shortly after the program was annou nced in Dauphin, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) had said that the subscriber would be paid a fixed interest rate for a particular period of time. That is what the

article said. We would have to check with the minister if that was the intent of the bonds, to guarantee some interest, because if that is what it was and if that was the promise that was made during the election and now there is no interest guaranteed, I feel that Manitobans were misled during the election period, to think that these Rural Development Bonds would cover some of their interest. I am referring to an

article that came out of the Free Press, and I will share it with the minister later on. It is telling us what the Premier said about the bonds when he was in Dauphin. That is the

part I wonder about. If there was a guarantee of interest during the election period, what has happened to the interest now, or was that just someone reading something into the program that might not have been there? I would like clarification of that from the minister. I have some concern also with the projects. There is no limit on the size of the projects. What will happen to those smaller communities, because $1 O million is not going to go very far if some of the larger communities start to invest and there will not be money left over for the other communities?

I hope that this government, if they are serious about this project, they will commit more money to it so that all communities can benefit from the program. I hope that is not just an empty promise from this government, because when you really look at the program, the government is not putting one cent into the program. They are planning to revitalize rural Manitoba on the backs of the local people. They expect the local people to put their money in. This government is not prep ared to mak e any commitment, and I find that quite disappointing.

If you are committed to the rural community then you, as a government, should be putting some money into it. An Honourable Member: $10 million. Ms. Wowchuk: The minister says, $10 million. When will that $10 million be put in? I think if the government is committed to rural Manitoba you have to have a little bit more than lip service, saying to the local people, yes, you have to invest in your local communities. You have to invest to save your communities.

If the government wants those rural communities to survive, they have to put something into it, not continue to put more costs onto them, for example, cut ting back the funding on the regional development corporations. Those are the very people who would have helped to implement this program, and instead of supporting the regional development corporations, this government has cut back on their funding.

That is speaking out of both sides of your mouth, when on one side you say you want the small communities to thrive and grow, on the other side you are saying, yes, but we are going to take away services, the exact services that will help to implement these programs. The government also expects an awful lot out of rural Manitobans by offloading all the costs onto them that they have, the costs that have gone to municipalities, the increased taxes that the people are going to have to pay because of this government and then they expect the people to invest in them.

As I say, I sincerely hope that this is not an empty prom ise and that people will invest in their communities. I hope that it is not an empty promise such as decentralization was. It was a promise that was supposed to save rural Manitoba, Madam Deputy Speaker, a promise that was going to bring all kinds of jobs, and instead, what did we have in this budget? In the last budget we had the very jobs, that were supposed to be decentralized, cut. There is the economy.

There are the people who are making some money, who have the extra money who might inves t in thes e bonds, but this government has instead chosen to remove many of those positions that would be of benefit to the rural

July 8, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4336 communitie s. I believe they have really let Manitobans down. They have also cut back on many other services to rural Manitobans that will have an impact to this program. If you are going to have economic growth and industry coming to the smaller towns, you have to have services there to support them, you have to have something that will attract them. If the services are poorer in rural and northern Manitoba than they are in the southern part of the province and in the cities, it becomes more difficult to attract people and industry.

We have seen many signs of that from this government. We have seen user fees being put on northern people. We have had the dental program cut. We have had the removal of audiometrists in rural Manitoba. These are the services that would be an incentive for people to come to rural and northern Manitoba. It will not make a difference closer to Winnipeg, because it is very easy for those services to be aceessed, but when you get into the Far North and into the remote communities, it will be difficult. It is going to impact on whether or not people will be attracted.

Even if the local people invest their money in these bonds, which as I said I hope they will, but for them to attract industry you have to have some incentives there. If it is a reduced service that is available to the people through medical services, through educational services, through tourism, if there are not things to attract people, they are not going to want to come and live there. If they are not going to want to live there, how will we attract these industries?

Along with a lack of understanding for the rural people, I think that this government has also shown a lack of understanding for the farming community, which will also impact on rural investment. By privatizing many of the services and reducing services to farmers, the farming economy is going to go down. How can we attract other agricultural industries to the rural community? As I said, I hope that this will be a successful program. I did not get that impression when I was in the constituency over the last few days.

There was hesitance on many people's part, however, they are waiting for more information and, of course, they have waited for almost a year now. This promise was made in August and by the time any money actually gets off the ground or into the communities I am sure it will be into 19 92. As I say, I believe that this government has gotten a lot of mileage out of some of their election promises. I hope that they will fulfill them just as I hope that they would fulfill and come clean on some of the other promises that they have made but not fulfilled, for example, the Interest Rate Relief Program to farmers.

They promised $27 million to farmers and-- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that debate on second reading of all bills is to be strictly relevant to the bill being debated. Ms. Wowchuk: The Rural Development Bonds do impact on all of the rural community and they impact on the farming community.

As I said, I hope the Rural Development Bonds are not another empty promise, because rural Manitobans have had many empty promises from this government, including the Interest Rate Relief Program which they promised and got a lot of mileage out of $23 million and actually only spent $14 million. I hope that this program is successful. I look forward to debating the bill in committee. I hope that we can actually see some commitment from this government to the rural community. I look forward to debating it further. The idea is a good idea provided that the people will invest.

I think that this government will have to have some strong commitmentto the rural community, which we have not seen from this government since they got a majority government. Thank you. Mr. Edward Connery (Por tage la Prairie): Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me some pleasure to stand and speak on what I consider a very, very important bill, Bill 73, The Rural Development Bonds Act.

I think we want to compliment very sincerely the minister for bringing this bill in and getting it in in this session, because the time for rural development is now--not sometime in the future, but now. * (1 440) I want to also commend the minister for his thoughtfulness in consulting with people, ensuring that what we are putting together is what will work in rural Manitoba. I had the opportunity to having the first committee that he has sent around to discuss it with rural members in Portage la Prairie. I must say that the three people he had there, especially Bob Swain, who conducted the

4337 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 1991 informational meeting was very well briefed on his material. He knew it very well and the people after were very enthused. They asked a lot of questions, they had some suggestions and this is the whole idea of this committee travelling the province.

They think they are going to do some 28 or 30 communities to allow for local people to make suggestions as to how the regulations can be drafted to ensure that this Rural Development Bond works the best for all of the communities in Manitoba, not just in southern Manitoba or outside the Perimeter, but, indeed, northern Manitoba, that all communities, all Manitobans can access the opportunity to develop their own communities. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to read a quote from the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). It was in the Portage paper and I must say that Portage people are incensed.

When you read the whole articl&-and I will deal with the Liberals on a later vein. The Rural Development critic, Rosann Wowchuk, said Tuesday she wonders if the lack of a promised return, unlike the successful HydroBonds, will likely attract any interest among investors. I cannot see why people would take their money out of the bank for it. Then both opposition critics also expressed concern that large projects such as natural gas or water supply service might overshadow money available for smaller projects.

Madam Deputy Speaker, those words, the original words, the return on investment, indicates to me that the member for Swan River has totally missed the intent of these development bonds, totally missed the total intent. The intent of these development bonds is not to ensure that everybody in rural Manitoba maximizes the return on the investment that they would put into these bonds. That is not the intent. The HydroBonds are that intent. If you are a good investor and you are looking only at your own narrow, selfish pocketbook, then you put them in HydroBonds.

If you are looking to develop your commun ity, you take a little opportunity to get involved in those bonds and do not look for the return on your own pocketbook. Get rid of the selfishness for one change and start to look about your community. Get involved in your community. There are a lot of people in rural Manitoba who are prepared to put up money, and if they get zero return, their only concern is that the capital is guaranteed. That is what is guaranteed. There is no guarantee on return on that investment.

You put it into your community for five years, and with some luck and good committees ensuring, yes, there should be a return. It might not be nine and a quarter or whatever HydroBonds would do, but it will maybe be 5 percent, 6 percent, 7 percent, 8 percent. We hope even higher than HydroBonds, and that is a possibility. I know that, after our meeting in Portage la Prairie, there were many people who said, I have some extra money that my income is not dependent on.

I am prepared to put that money out for the community, because when the community is successful, business people in the community become successful, real estate people become successful, home builders become successful, because that community is now thriving. It is going forward. It is developing. It is building. It is creating jobs. The service industries, the stores all expand, and everybody is much more economically viable than they were before. This is what the Rural Development Bond is all about. Get away from the selfishness that you have of what is there in it for me. That is typical socialist rhetoric.

Socialists take; they do not give. Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) sits there laughing, but what did he take on the constituency allowances? While it was legal, was immoral and unethical, and as the previous Minister of Finance for the NOP said, it is legalized theft. Now that is how they look at it. What is in it for me? Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that it is important that the member for Portage, when he is mak ing his comments, should be germane to the bill that is being discussed here today.

He seems to have wandered away from the topic at hand, and I ask you to call him to order on that, please. Madam Deputy Speaker: I have reminded all members that debate on second reading should be explicitly relevant to the bill. *** Mr. Connery: Madam Deputy Speaker, you better believe I am germane to the bill. Being germane to

July 8, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4338 that bill is development of your communities, and that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about selfishness and Vme syndrome that we see so often. We are talking about we, the community at large, in rural Manitoba. We talkaboutthe I, we's. We saw two members of this legislature, one some time ago and one in this session, who did not repay their education loans. That is the Vme/we. Get away from that. Get back into giving something for a change instead of taking out of society. That is what this bill is going to do.

It is going to allow people to give to society. Point of Order Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): This member, first of all, is out of order. He is not germane to the bill. Madam Deputy Speak er, he is also casting aspersions on members of this side. The question for the member is: Has he paid his $1 00,000 back? Has he paid his $1 00,000 back yet? He is feeling in an altruistic mood. let him pay it back. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Connery: Madam Deputy Speaker, nobody has to cast aspersions upon members opposite.

Just their conduct is enough to let the public know what they are like. I do not have to cast aspersions upon them. I will say that listening for a few minutes to the member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) at least made some sin cer e comments about rural development and the need for rural development, and acknowledged that this bill and the Rural Development Bonds migh t have some very significant input to rural Manitoba. He talked about those sorts of things as the le ader of the liberal Par ty (M rs. Cars tairs) said. Economic development, he talked about tourism, and he talked about roads.

I did not see the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) really understanding what could be done with this money, butthe member for the Interlake, I must say, did understand what the Rural Development Bonds could do. The member for Swan River says we are going to develop rural Manitoba on the backs of rural people. Once again, the member does not understand what it is. The government is guaranteeing people's money. They are guaranteeing the principle that you put into the development bonds in case something should go wrong.

Hopefully, not many will, but in any case when you get into a large group of investments, some do not succeed. Member s op posite , of cou rse , would not understand that, because they have never got into anything to ever have something fail. They have never tried anything, and they have never created a job. So we can understand why they do not understand it. Nevertheless, Madam Deputy Speaker, those are the facts of life. I would hope that more members from the NOP party would be like the member for the Interlake and for a change look at something a little more positive in a proper vein.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I think my greatest anger, my grea test frustration, my greatest disappointment, and that of all rural development has to be reserved for the leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs). We have a leader of the liberal Party who continuously downgrades, bad mouths, belittles, does all kinds of things to rural Manitoba. let me read a quote from the paper, and there are qu otes in here. liber al lea der and Rur al Development critic, Sharon Carstairs, says the Tory governm ent's trea tment of rural Mani toba's economy leaves her wondering if there is any money out there to invest.

Rur al Manitoba obviously is just a destitute country where there are no finances. There is no money to invest. Well, maybe if the leader of the liberal Party would go outside of the perimeter of the city of Winnipeg and saw whatthere is rural Manitoba, yes, there are people out there who have money in rural Manitoba. In fact, there are some very- Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): In all parts of Manitoba, unlike your .... Mr. Connery: Well, the member for lnkster says, she has been in all parts of Manitoba. Then she sure has not learned very much.

As a school teacher, you would think that she would go around the province and be learning something. Further to the comments she made, I really want you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to try to comprehend a leader of a political party making these sorts of comments. She also qu esti oned whether gr oups of volunteers from individual communities can be relied upon to provide clear-eyed judgment about a

4339 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 1991 project's viability. There is nobody in rural Manitoba who has any brains, according to the Leader of the Liberal Party. They are a bunch of dumbbells, according to the Leader of the Liberal Party. I take extreme exception to those comments, and I can tell you, all of rural Manitoba takes exception to those comments. * (1 450) She goes on to say you do not usually find people in ru ral Manitoba with br oad experie nce in evaluating these kinds of things. It is these kinds of things. It is not economic development. It is these kinds of things.

Those people tend to gravitate to the city, so we only have in Manitoba intelligent people in the city of Winnipeg. An Honourable Member: Who said that? Mr. Connery: The Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), the Leader for the member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who was saying how bright she is just a minute ago, said she was so bright and had travelled all of Manitoba. That is his Leader whom he has kept in there. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are people who specialize in those kinds of things, and they do not usually live in rural Manitoba.

I would say the members of the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Party of Manitoba should demand that she resign. If she does not, throw her out, because she is an insult. She is an insult to rural Manitoba, and as a rural Manitoban, I do not think rural Manitoba should have to put up with that kind of stuff. Just this morning, during Question Period, the member for River Heights, the Leader of the Liberal Party, made some comment, he only has Grade 8 education. She said that from her seat across the House. So now, if you do not have a university education, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are a dumbbell again.

I have to acknowledge, I am a dumbbell because I do not have university education. I am sorry. Point of Order Mr. James Carr (Cresce ntwood) : Without debating whether or not the member for Portage is a dumbbell, he is wildly taking out of context remarks that were allegedly made by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I understand that one has to be careful in the House in imputing motives, and as I say, we do not want to get into a long debate about whether or not the member for Portage is or is not a dumbbell, but certainly his comments attributed to the memb er for River Heights are entirely inappropriate.

Ma dam Deputy Speake r: The honou rable member for Crescentwood does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Connery: The member for Crescentwood questions whether I am a dumbbell or not. I guess he also, because he has a university education, maybe thinks that, if you do not have that, you do not qualify for some higher ability. Well, there are lot of people in this province who have grown up with the school of hard knocks and do not have university education. I, personally, Madam Deputy Speaker, would have preferred going on to university, but I did not.

Nevertheless, in rural Manitoba, we have an extreme number of very capable people, and I would like to point out a few names of people who have been rural members. Arden Haynes, who is head of Esso, is a rural Manitoban. What about D.W. Friesen in Altona, the largest printer in Canada in rural Manitoba, but if you are in rural Manitoba, you must be a dumbbell. That is according to the Leader of the Liberal Party. She said you have to be a dumbbell. What about the Penners of Steinbach? Penner trucking, one of the largest in Canada in rural Manitoba-th ese people are doing a tremendous job.

The success of those people in rural Manitoba add to the success of Winnipeg because they do business in Winnipeg, and a healthy rural Manitoba will make a healthy Winnipeg. What about Stow's at Graysville, a seed cleaning plant? What about Lorne Hehn, the head of the UGG? What aboutthe Kents from Virden just right now putting into place the Can-Oat for milling of oats right in Portage la Prairie, a $1 6-million operation that is going to employ 50 to 60 people to sell oats all over the world, Madam Deputy Speaker? The Kents are from rural Manitoba. They come from Virden originally.

What about Stuart Craig and his TV business and radio out at Brandon? You know, I look at Brandon, Portage, and we can look at Altona all with the large cities outside of Winnipeg with the small towns, in all of them we have a lot of very intelligent people. What about the Triple-E trailer company in Winkler? What about the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) when she says there are no smart people? What about

July 8, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4340 Mr. Clements who was an MLA from Russell who sat with the Liberals? Is she saying that he was a dumbbell, because he did not come from Winnipeg? Harold Cleme nts was the memb er for Roblin-Russell and, in spite of his being a Liberal, I thought he was a very good person. I had many times the opportunity to talk to him. He was a very intelligent person, but he came from rural Manitoba. Therefore, in the eyes of the Leader of the Liberal Party, he is not able to be intelligent and to make decisions on rural economic development.

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I really do suggest to the Liberal Party that they take a look at their Leader. If this is the sort of comment that they support from their Leader, I think that Manitoba has a very tragic day when that is the perception of rural Manitoba. I know it is not from all members of the Liberal caucus that are here. I do not think the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr) agrees with those comments .. I do not think the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) agrees with those comments, because I think those are two honourable Liberals who sit in this Legislature. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) Mr.

Speaker, I would strongly suggest to those members that they have a leadership review, because that member should resign if she has any cou rtesy, any decenc y at all, after making comments like that and other comments that she made on decentralization like, who would want to move to Portage or Selkirk? Are those the kinds of things that come out of the mouths of a leader for rural Manitoba? I think not. Mr. Speaker, I do once again want to compliment the Minister of Rural Development. Some of the people call him James Bond now because of the bond issue. I think it is great.

I think this minister is very sincere in what he is trying to do for rural development, and I think we are on the right track. I ask for the support of all members on the opposite side and especially those in rural Manitoba to work with the bond issue, work with your community, because that is where it has to come about. The government cannot impose prosperity on a rural community. It has to-well, the member for Dauphin laughs, but of course he has never gotten involved in economic development. So, Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister once more and hope all members will. work to further the Rural Development Bond.

Thank you. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Biii 70-T he Publlc sector Compensation Management Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 70, The Public Sector Compensation Management Act;

Loi sur la gestion des salaires du secteur public, and the motion of the honourable member for Thomps on (Mr. Ashton), The Public Sector Compensation Management Act;

Loi sur la gestion des salaires du secteur public, be not now read a second time, but be read this day six months hence, standing in the name of the honourable member for lnkster, who has 22 minutes remaining. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr. Speaker, the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr . Connery) inspired me somewhat in some of the remarks that he had made and how he managed to stretch one's imagination when it comes to the whole question of truth. When we take a look at Bill 70, we see the treatment from this government, his government, his leader, of the whole public sector.

This is not the first time we have seen this type of treatment. We can point out to the former minister, now member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery), the whole question of decentralization and what this government has done for rur al Man itoba when it comes to decentralization. * (1 500) The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and this government is treating decentralization in the same fashion in which they are doing Bill 70. It is very, very relevant, so I am going to continue on. The public service has been shafted by this government not once but twice.

The first time they were shafted by this government, and some would say lied to by this government, for the first time, was on decentralization. What happened on decentralization, Mr. Speaker? The province, the Premier, in Brandon, made an announcement that hundreds of Manitobans or Winnipeggers were going to be moved outside of the city of Winnipeg and put into rural Manitoba. Hundreds of Manitoban positions were going to be taken out of the city of Winnipeg and put into rural Manitoba.

4341 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 1991 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I will remind the honourable member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that the question before the House is Bill 70, The Public Sector Compensation Management Act, and also on the motion of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that this question be not now read a second time but be read this day six months hence. I would remind the honourable member for lnkster to keep his remarks relevant to said bill. Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the first opportunity that this government takes to shaft the public service is in fact on decentralization. The government told these individuals that they were going to be sending them out of Winnipeg into rural Manitoba. They said one thing in terms of numbers, put in the minds of many civil servants a lot of fear in terms of having to move or lose their jobs. Now we have before us Bill 70, that is once again telling public servants that they are not going to rece ive any wage incr ease s-selected civil servants, not necessarily the individuals like Oz Pedde, who received a 14 percent increase.

After Friday, I had an opportunity to visit with a couple of constituents, one on Marion Road, and the first thing that she wanted to talk about was in regard to Bill 70. The comments were that she herself is a civil servant, she is at the lower pay scale, if you will, and felt that it was unfair for this government to freeze those wages of people of the lower income while, at the same time, people like Oz Pedde are receiving the increases, that in fact it is going to hurt the lower-paid employees of the Civil Service more so than it would those who are on a higher scale. Mr.

Speaker, that is a legitimate argument. Many of the points she had expressed, I had concurred with entirely, but because the government has failed to be able to negotiate in good faith with the MGEA, with our civil servants, they had to resort to bringing forward a bill, in which they are the only employer that can do so, bringing in a bill, that freezes their wages. That is the complete opposite of the free bargaining process.

It has united the labour force like it has never been united before, and I believe the government is going to have to be held accountable for what they have said and what in fact they are doing. I want to go back to some of the debates during final offer selection, where the Premier talked about the whole question of free bargaining, the whole question of free bargaining process. I would ask that you bear with me because there are actually a few quotes regarding final offer selection, the casino workers and the whole question of management relations. It starts off, Mr.

Speaker, with final offer selection, where the Premier asked: Why is labour against it, Madam Speaker? Firstly, they find it is a totally unwarranted intrusion into the free collective bargaining process. They prefer to settle their differences over the bargaining table. They do not want to have a heavy hand of government with an imposed arbitrator, whether that arbitrator be from a selection list or from the Manitoba Labour Board. They do not want to have the heavy hand of government imposing on them a settlement, particularly a settlement that might ultimately contain none of their proposals, not one.

I do not think that is unreasonable. I do not think labour should be criticized for taking that position. In other words, in a negotiated or mediated or a normally arbitrated settlement, no side gets everything. Each side bends a little, gives a little. Each gets some of what they set out to achieve, and they at least feel that they have achieved a compromise of sorts. Mr. Speaker, this is what in fact the Premier has said in reference to final offer selection. What has the Premier done with Bill 70?

What he so happily preached only months ago about the free bargaining process, what was good for the private sector, he has thrown out the window when it comes to the whole question of government negotiations. It is a double standard. What is good for the private sector is not good enough for the public sector, and that is wrong. This government has been deceitful to the public of Manitoba, and this is a good example in which we have seen very clearly how they have been so deceitful, unfair and cruel to the government workers. It goes on. The Premier wants to talk about good labou r management relations .

Many of my colleagues around this chamber know how important it is to have good labour management relations. I do not think that could be emphasized long enough, hard enough, the fact that you need to have that in order to make successful negotiations, to be able to come up with the compromises that are needed in order to settle labour contracts, whether they be private or whether they be public.

July 8, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4342 What did the Premier say? We want to ensure that the collective agreement that is binding on both parties is acceptable to both parties. This promotes harmonious labour management relations in the workplace. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I see the one party is getting what they want, but I do not see the other party is getting what they want or anything close to what they want because we have the Premier and this government telling the union movement, the Civil Service, that in fact they are going to have to settle for what the government is in fact giving them, while just a number of months ago the Premier talked about good labour management, talked about how badly it is necessary, or how necessary it is to have settlemen ts reached , tha t there has to be give-and-take from both sides.

A few months ago, he talked about that, but he has abandoned that concept as well. We talked about the casino workers. I made mention of that previously in my opening remarks on Friday. The casino workers, as all of us are well aware, went on strike. They felt strong enough in what they believed that it was in their interest to go out and strike, to fight for what they believed they were entitled to. They were out for a number of days, actually just over two months, on the picket lines day after day and had an agreement of sorts to go into the final offer selection process. What happened there?

We had, the government-before I actually say what happened from there, I should quote to you what the Premier (Mr. Filmon) told the striking workers. It goes, from the Premier, • ... 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 is what the Premier told the casino workers back then. What is the Premier telling the casino workers today? Whatever we might have said to you before is all out the window. What applies now is Bill 70.· Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the Premier has violated many trusts that were bestowed upon him when he was elected with a majority government back in 19 90, in September. I would argue-w e had a minority government, what I believe a majority of Manitobans wanted and support to this day-that we would not have seen a Bill 70 before us today, that the government of the day would not have had the tenacity to bring forward such legislation that would be so Draconian to a certain fashion, that the legislation-t hat they would have been forced to sit down and negotiate in good faith, to bargain in good faith.

After all, that is what the Premier himself said that he believed in. Whatever happened to that belief? I wanted to conclude on terms of the free bargaining process on another quote from the Premier, where he talks about both sides should be listening and how important it is for both sides to listen.

It goes, • . . . we believe that negotiated settlements should take into account all legitimate factors that are brought to the bargaining table by both sides." Once agai n, Bill 70 allows the government to do what it wants but does absolutely nothing for our civil servants. • (1 51 0) This government and this Premier will tell us that it is because of budgetary constraints that they have to invoke the freeze , that they are unable to negotiate the zero percent that they want. I believe that the will of the government was never there to try an attempt at negotiating a zero percent increase.

I believe that in fact this was one of the things that this government was considering back in December. They were looking at invoking a zero percent, and if they did not think they were going to get the zero percent, they were going to be bringing in legislation of this nature. Mr. Speaker, I did want to talk about Oz Pedde, an appointment from this government, where there was a 15 .4 percent increase from his predecessor which brought it up to $1 50,000.

The government talks about constraint while at the same time they are giving a 15 percent increase to someone who is on that type of a scale, yet the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the Premier try to defend what they did in terms of the increase to this particular individual while telling everyone else in the Civil Service that they deserve or will warrant a zero percent increase, the 15 .4 percent can be justified. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says, and I quote: The reality is that we are talking about two different issues. Well, Mr. Speaker, to the public, it is not two different issues.

We are talking about individuals who work for the government in one capacity or another, one of them, that one being on the upper end of the civil servant wage scale and those being on the lower end. Which one is getting the increase? The Premier tries to defend it by saying

4343 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 1991 it is not an increase, it is a decrease. That was in regard to the fact that Mr. Pedde was making more in the private sector. As if that is going to make the public civil servants feel that much better by saying something of that nature. I find it completely amazing that a government can be so insensitive to the needs of our Civil Service. If the government felt that they could not afford the increase, anything more than zero percent, they should have brought it in a harder faction to the MGEA to put forward their case.

The government in December talked about, well, we have a choice. Mr. Speaker, they said we have a choice. We either have to lay off or the Civil Service is going to have to settle for no increase of pay. That is what we were being told back in Dece mber. Mr. Sp eaker, not only has this governmen t seen the wisdom of laying off individuals, they have also chosen the pay freeze. Once again, we see a government that has not been honest and straightforward with the public. Mr. Speaker, that is the way it has been for the whole process.

We take a look at the lower-end Civil Service, and we talk about the disposable income. We see that the city taxes are increasing. You have the Hydro rates that are increasing, fuel tax increases, MPIC rates are increasing, your property taxes. The list could go on and on and on-we have the GST- while, at the same time, we are telling individuals to expect a zero percent and we are going to be laying off individuals, staff positions . Hundreds of people are laid off, hundreds of positions are permanently taken away, commitments that this government made are being denied to the public or to the Civil Service.

That is wrong. This government should be sticking to what they have said. Whether one agrees with what they are doing or not is beside the poi nt. When you make a commitment, whether it is the decentralization, whether it is the wage freeze versus layoffs, you have to stick to your word. You cannot continue to treat the Civil Service-afte r all, they, too, are professionals. They, too, deserve the respect from whatever government might be inside this Chamber, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that this government has brought forward legislation that could have been-it would not necessarily have been necessary to have the legislation here had the government been more persistent at sitting down and doing their best to try and negotiate some type of an agreement, Mr. Speaker. We have seen in the past when negotiated agreements have been low. We look at 19 84 where we had, I believe it was an increase of close to 1. 5 percent. Mr. Speaker, it is not unrealistic to believe that Mr. Olfert and the MGEA are reasonable people. I would suggest to the government, to the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) and, in fact, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), that, in fact, these people are reasonable, that you can sit down and you can say what it is that you are trying to accomplish. Mr. Speaker, we have seen where increases have been moderate. A 1. 5 percent increase is nothing when it comes to other negotiated agreements. It might not necessarily have been as high or as low as the government would have liked it to be, but I believe that we could have come very close to the zero percent. We might even have been able to get the zero percent through negotiations.

Maybe I have more faith than the Minister of Finance when it comes to dealing with the MGEA. Mr. Speaker, once again, in terms of the-I know for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who brought it up on several occasions, there were certain unions that had made application through final offer selection. Everyone was of the opinion that no legislation-at least no one anticipated that legislation of this nature would be introduced, would be brought in to try to deny those decisions of the selector from taking effect.

As the member for Thompson mentioned on numerous occasions through his marathon speech, he talked about an agreement between the three House leaders. He talked about the perception that, in fact, March 31 was when final offer selection would be repealed. In fact, that is when it was repealed, but there was no indication at that time that Bill 70 or a bill similar to Bill 70 would be introduced that would prevent final offer selection and those unions that chose to participate in final offer selection, them being denied the agreement. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the government is being somewhat petty when it comes to that issue. I believe that the government and particularly the Premier (Mr. Filmon) should at least honour what most people in the public sector, the Civil Service, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party believed was the intent of the proclamation of final offer selection. We had certain parties, certain

July 8, 1991 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 4344 unions that went on strike that selected to go for the final offer selection and, in fact, have been denied their agreed settlements. To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the public at large wants all of us to act responsibly. I do not believe that the public is saying that we have to give them 5 percent, 10 percent increases. I do believe that the public wants us to treat our civil servants professionally.

We believe-I believe- that, in fact, the public does want us to respect agreements, to respect the free bargaining process and do what we can to get the freeze, but do not use legislation when you make the commitment to the free bargaining process, when you did not indicate to the Civil Service or the public that, in fact, this is what you were going to be doing. On that note, Mr. Speaker, I thank thee for the opportunity to be able to say a few words on this particular bill, and I look forward for it to go into committee. Than.k you. • (1 520) Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, in speaking to Bill 70, I plan to discuss the labour relations clima te un der the Conse rvative government, the fiscal problems of the Minister of Finan ce (Mr. Manness), the par ti cularly objectionable parts of Bill 70, the lack of fairness in this bill and the broken promises of the government. A short few years ago, the number of days lost to strikes in Manitoba was very low. I believe we used to have a good relationship between government and unions in this province.

Even when the Cons ervat ive governmen t was a mi nor ity government, labour relations were not all that bad until the government decided to withdraw final offer selection. Then we began to go down the slippery slope of deteriorating relationships between unions and this government. What happened when they got their majority? Well, immediately, their highest priority, one of their first priorities, was to withdraw final offer selection and they did. Then they started to alienate the different sections of the union movement, first of all, 10 ,000 nurses.

Then they forced the casino workers to strike and left them out for a long time. Now, they are alienating 48,000 civil servants. I am reminded by my honourable friend across the way that I joined the picket line for the casino workers, and indeed I did, and I am happy to say that I did. They appreciated my support and I would be happy to acknowledge that I walked anyone's picket line if they had a justified strike that needed my support.

However, this bill takes us much further than any of the previous actions of this government, and under this Tory government, labour relations between government and labour are at an all-time low. Secondly, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) believes that this legislation is necessary. He believes that it is necessary for economic reasons. However, Bill 70 reneges on a promise made by the Premier (Mr. Film on) who said, we will act in good faith in supporting the free collective bargaining process. Now the Minister of Finance would say, well, that was then and this is now.

He would have us believe that the economic situation in the province of Manitoba is so much worse now than when the Premier made those remarks in November 19 90, that this legislation is necessary. However, I believe that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has the resources necessary to make projections. For example, he should have been able to project that the deficit was going to go up. He should have been able to project that revenue was going to go down. He certainly has the resources on his staff in his department to do that.

He should have been able to anticipate that because of the recession, costs such as social assistance were going to be greatly increased, I believe something like $20 million in 19 91 -1 992. I believe, however, that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and his government misled the House, the public, and all public sector employees by saying one thing in the recent past and doing another by Bill 70. Now, the Minister of Finance would say he had no choice.

He would say that he only had two ways to move, one of which would be to increase revenue, and when you increase revenue, that mainly means increasing taxes, and he would say that, politically, that was impossible in Manitoba. He would say it was unacceptable for his party to do that. The other direction that he could go -( interjection)- I have not been listening to the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), I can assure you of that. The other direction that the Minister of Finance would say that he could go would be to decrease expenses. Well, has he done that? Yes, he has certainly done that.

He has cut programs, he has cut grants, he has cut civil servants, and many people would agree that any further cuts could not

4345 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 1991 be justified. In fact, many of us would argue the cuts he made could not be justified. Has he done everything that he could do to increase revenue? Has he said to Ottawa, has he said to his counterparts, here are ways in which you can increase revenue. No, instead he has said this province is suffering because of decreased transfer payments from Ottawa. Has he encouraged the federal government? Has he made suggestions? Has he told them where they could get the money to increase transfer payments? No, he has not. Are there areas where he could be encouraging?

Well, yes, there are. He could be saying to the federal government, let us start taxing corporations that do not pay any tax. Let us start taxing individuals who do not pay any tax. The most recent personal income tax statistics show that in 19 88, there were 14 0 wealthy Canadians with incomes of $250,000 who paid not one cent in tax. -(i nterjection)- Now, I am not talking about paying more tax. To the honourable member opposite, I am talking about taxing people who pay no tax right now.

If the member was listening, he would have heard me say that the most recent personal income tax statistics released show that in 19 88, there were 14 0 wealthy Canadians with incomes of $250,000-plus who paid not one cent in tax. That is an increase of 40 percent over 19 87's total of 10 0 wealthy individuals. If you look at people who earned over $50,000, there were 5,430 people who paid not one cent in tax in 19 88. At the same time, those poorer Canadians with incomes of $1 5,000 or less who paid taxes actually paid on an average $71 more taxes under tax reform in 19 88 than in 19 87.

This completely contradicts Michael Wilson's spin on his latest tax statistics when he said that the tax system became more progressive and that the burden of taxation was reduced for more Canadians, especially for those with low or moderate incomes. (Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Why should any Canadian with an income in excess of $50,000 be given the right to pay not one cent in income tax when Canadians living at or near the poverty line are paying taxes and have actually seen their taxes increase? That situation has become worse because of the goods and services tax.

In the goods and services tax, there is a loophole that probably not many people are aware of, and that is that you have to have, I believe, over $6, 10 0 income in order to apply for the rebate in order to get a refund on the GST that you pay for goods and services that you buy. If your income is too low, and that includes a lot of single people on social assistance, you cannot qualify for the rebate, you cannot even apply for it. Now, let us look at proportions of personal income tax and corporate income tax and what is happening between 19 84-85 and 19 89-90. The personal income tax increase was 77.4 percent.

What was the corporate tax increase? It was only 38.8 percent, increased between 19 84-85 and 19 89-90 . If corporate taxes had just increased at the same rate as personal and sales taxes combined, the deficit would have been $4.4 billion lower. This is part of the answer to deficit reduction, not freezing government program spending which would only force Canada deeper into a recession. Have we ever heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) quoting these statistics?

Have we ever he ard him in a speech urging the feder al government to tax people that are not paying any taxes at all, people over $250,000, the people over $50,000 a year? Have we heard him urging the federal government to tax corporations that are paying no tax? Well, no, of course, we have not. • (1 530) There are numerous members of the Business Council on National Issues or their associated companies which paid little or no tax. Here are some examples.

Brascan, 19 88, pretax profit $262.8 million, taxes paid, zero, but they did find $50,363 to donate to the Conservative Party of Canada and $24,320 -(i nterjection)- I will talk to you later about that one. Confederation Life Insurance, 19 88, made $62.5 million, did they pay any tax? None at all, but they found $1 1 , 18 6 to donate to the Conservative Party of Canada and $1 0,553 for the Liberal Party of Canada. An Honourable Member: Did they give us any? Mr. Martindale: Do they give anything to the New Democratic Party? Well, of course not. What about Power Corporation?

Power Corporation in 19 88 made $214.5 million of pretax profit. Did they pay any taxes? No, but they got a credit, $2.1 million. How much did they donate to the Conservative Party? $72, 14 3. How much did they donate to the Liberal Party? Well, they donated $76,000 to the Liberal Party.

July 8, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4346 An Honourable Member: How much did we get? Mr. Martlndale: The New Democratic Party got nothing at all. What about Bramalea Ltd.? In 19 88, Bramalea made $35.5 million profit, zero paid in taxes, but they found $1 2,625 to donate to the Conservative Party, zero to the Liberals and zero to the NOP. What about Xerox Canada Inc.? In 19 88, they made $74.6 million. Did they pay any taxes? No. Did they donate to the Conservative Party? Yes, to the tune of $1 1, 559. Did they donate to the Liberal Party? Yes, $1 2,553. Very interesting, Mr.

Acting Speaker- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member to make sure that his remarks are pertinent to the bill. Thank you. Mr. Martlndale: My remarks are very relevant to this bill since this bill is about a government claiming that they have no money, and I am suggesting to the Minister of Finance where they can find the money, or suggest to the federal government that they find the money. If they just tax corporations and tax individuals who are paying no tax whatsoever, then there would be more revenue to share with the provinces, including Manitoba.

My third objection to this bill is the parts that are retroactive. This bill covers contracts reached under binding arbitration or through final offer selection since last September. Even those unions which do not depend on the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) are forced to have collective agreements rolled back under this bill, namely, the Crystal Casino workers. This retroactivity was applied to the International Union of Operating Engineers. They were on strike for two months; they used final offer selection; they received a 4.5 percent wage increase, and what happened?

Rolled back to zero- their selector, David Bowman, had some very interesting things to say. He said, and I quote: Workers are not responsible for government's financial woes, and it was not right for the province to take wages from one group to pay another. A very interesting comment from someone who is involved in the final offer selection process. I came across a very interesting editorial in the Portage la Prairie Daily Graphic for Thursday, June 13 , 19 91 .

The headline says, "Gov't shouldn't change rules after the factl" "The government giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other" is the opening sentence in this editorial. "Mem bers of the Ma nit oba Government Employees' Association and others working for the province felt first-hand the effects of this age-old axiom when Finance Minister Clayton Manness introduced legislation to freeze wages and roll back increases. "Months of negotiation and hard work were wiped out in one fell swoop as the minister explained that the cupboard was bare.

"In a time when many people in the province are facing layoffs and unemployment, he explained workers should be happy to have a job. "Certainly a valid point, but not very comforting to a person who has just seen his raise (most not even equalling an increase in the cost of living) cancelled. "Nor, does it excuse the way in which the wage freeze was enacted. "The government has been fully aware of the financial constraints it is facing for some time-and was cer ta inly aware of the situation when negotiations took place on a number of contracts.

"Instead of being upfront with those affected and in tro ducing the legisla tion in advance, the government chose to drag employees through the process-b uilding up their hope, only to shoot them down a few months later. "While this process is undoubtably legal (once the appropriate legislation passes), it certainly is not very ethical .... "Given the way these people have been treated, it is hard not to sympathize with them-regardless of how you feel about unions or civil servants. "The government and its represen tatives negotiated these contracts in good faith and it should honor them." An excellent editorial.

My last objection to this bill in terms of extremely objectionable parts of it is that it gives power to the cabinet to extend the application to any collective agreement. I think that is why members on this side have been referring to this bill as being Draconian because of the kind of power it gives to cabinet. Fourth, I would like to address the lack of fairness. This bill exempts a number of groups. It exempts governm en t-e mployed doct ors . It exem pts university employees. It exempts judges although, to his credit, the Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) has

4347 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 8, 1991 said that the judges will not be getting a raise. In general, this bill exempts high-income groups but not low-income groups. It does include all the lowest-paid civil servants. It covers MTS workers but not the chief executive officer, so there is a lack of fairness in Bill 70, which we find objectionable. Finally, Mr. Acting Speaker, I have a quiz for government MLAs, and the quiz is, who said the following? Quote No. 10: Who 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 negotiaten? Who said that? Premier Filmon said that on November 6, 19 90. Quote No. 9: Who said, "The fact of the matter is, there is no threat, 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 negotiaten? Who said that? The Premier said that, November 6, 19 90, Hansard, page 81 8.

Quiz No. 8: Who said, " ... we have established a target of a 3 percent average wage increase for all those employees paid by Governmenr? Who said that? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said that, December 14 , 19 90, Hansard, page 31 17 . Quote No. 7: Who said: What has changed is the realization that to throw an additional group of people out of work to maintain the integrity of the budget is not a preferred option, not at all. Then services will certainly be significantly reduced, and unquestionably, the economy again will not, you know, will not respond to that type of move? Who said that?

The Minister of Finance, correct, June 3, 19 91 , in a press conference. Quote No. 6: Who said, "We have the same mechanism that every Government has had. It is called the free collective bargaining system"? Who said that? The Premier said that on November 5, 19 90, Hansard, pages 805-806.

Quote No. 5: Who said, "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 decis ions, and ultima te determinations made, under the aegis of the boards of di rectors , by the ma nagement of the corporationn? Who said that? That was Mr. Fllmon. Quote No. 4: Who said, "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 collective bargaining process between management and its employeesn?

Who said that? The Premier said that. Quo te No. 3: Who said, "Those Cr own corporations obviously are encouraged to as much as possible harmonize their own dealings so that they meet Government policy or that they meet Government objectives. At the same time, we do not go the step of setting firm top-line guidelines"? Who said that? The Premier said that. Quote No. 2: Who said, "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"? Who said that? Premier Filmon said that. Quote No. 1: This is the last and the best one. Who said, "A majority is a majority is a majority," September 11, 1 990? I think that remark is relevant to all the other remarks because this government finally got to do what they wanted to do all along and, once they had a majority, they did it. • (1 540) Bill 70 is one of the ways in which they are doing it.

They are doing it to workers in this province. They are doing it to civil servants in this province, but they are not doing it fairly. They are not doing it to chief executive officers, and they are not doing it to high income groups. It is workers that are getting it in this province. -(interjection)- and are they enjoying it? No, they are not enjoying it, and people on the opposite side said they have been hearing from people. Well, we have been hearing from people as well. What we are hearing is quite different than what government members are hearing.

I think they heard that message outside on the steps of the Legislature in recent days. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) For this and many other reasons, we are going to oppose this legislation. We are going to vote against this legislation and we think at the very least

July s, 1991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4348 that if the government does not withdraw it, they should at least amend it so that it is fair, so that it is not retroactive and so that it is uniformly applied, and it is not draconian by giving cabinet extraordinary powers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. James Carr (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, you know, some politicians like to say that they are afraid of being quoted incorrectly by members of the press.

I think it is far more dangerous in our profession to be quoted correctly, and if we are not quoted correctly by the press, we are always quoted correctly by Hansard. This is not only a tribute to the fine people, members of the public service who work in Hansard, but it also has to do with ministers who put ideas and thoughts on the record for which they are often very, very sorry.

In the course of the next few minutes I hope to prove that ministers of the Crown cann�t claim that they have been misquoted, that they may want to rewrite a little history and take the quotes which have been accurately reflected in the recorded proceedings of this House and perhaps have some second thoughts. Mr. Speaker, I entered this debate on Bill 70 from a particular point of view, and let me put my bias out on the table before I even begin.

I have an uncle who was part of the Public Service of Canada for 30 or 35 years, and what he ingrained in all of those who cared to listen, and we cared a great deal about what our uncle had to say, was that the public service was the most noble calling of all, because what you do, not unlike our own profession, is that you serve the people. You set aside some advantages that are available out in the private sector in order to accept your responsibilities as a public servant.

That was not an insult to the people who decided to go into the service of the people of their province or the country, but rather, it was a compliment. I look through the proceedings in debate over this bill and on relevant material that has been put on the record by some ministers, and I see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), in justifying a 15 .4 percent increases to the president of the Manitoba Telephone System, said that we did it in order to get the best.

We offered an $1 8,000 raise to the new president of the Manitoba Telephone System because we �(interjection)- Well, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld) says it was not a raise . We ha ve to dea l with this kind of misinformation all of the time in this House. It was a raise compared to the person who held the job previously. That is a matter of public record and cannot be denied. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said that the reason a 15 .4 percent increase was offered was because it was necessary to attract the best available person for the job.

Well, by implication, and it is not a giant leap in logic, you have to ask the question, what does that say about the 48,000 public servants who are being offered zero? What that says, by implication, is that the government is not interested in getting the best. The government is interested in using the most powerful hammer any government has, particularly a majority government, which is to impose by law, by statute, a wage freeze on the public service of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, that drives at the very heart of this issue, and that is an issue of fairness and an issue of breaking faith. What did the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) of Manitoba and his Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) and the Minister of Finance say about the collective bargaining process, which is really what is at stake here? The nub of this issue is not zero percent, one percent or two. The nub of the question is the breaking of faith with the people of this province, the 48,000 public servants who are subjected to this Draconian piece of legislation against what the Premier and other members of his government had said in the past about collective bargaining. Let the Premier say that this is not an accurate quote.

When he sums up debate on behalf of his government today or tomorrow or whenever, let him deny that he said, on November 6, 19 90, "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." Does the Premier deny that he said this? Does the Premier deny that he said a few months later, " ... 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." He said this to the casino workers, the very employees who were out on strike who had a settlement reached. That settlement now has been rolled back by the very Premier who put on the record that he supp orted the free bargai ning process. Mr. Speaker, that is breaking faith. There is nothing more serious in the relationship between labour and

4349 LEGISLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MANIT OBA July 8, 1991 management than breaking of faith from one side to the other, because what does that do to the environment in which there will be negotiations next year, five years from now, 20 years from now? They will always be looking over their shoulder. They will be looking at the Order Paper that we look at every day in this House to see if there is not going to be yet another piece of legislation which confirms that the government has broken faith with the very people who we are here along with to serve, the people of Manitoba. The Premier (Mr.

Filmon) said again and he says, I will repeat that the free collective bargaining process ought to prevail. Is the free collective bargaining process prevailing today in Manitoba? No. If it is, I challenge the Premier to stand up and tell the people of Manitoba that it prevails in the wake of Bill 70. This is the Premier who said, that is the process we as a government support. 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. These are not my words. These are not the words of the member from Concordia (Mr.

Doer). These are not the words of the Leader of the Liberal Party. These are the words of the Premier of the province, and if we cannot take at face value the word and the commitment and the position put forward by the Premier, who are we to believe? • (1 550) Mr. Speaker, this is not the only example of breaking of faith, and let me just use one other to create a little focus for what we are trying to get at.

On September 4, 19 90, the Premier said, and this is one week before the election of September 11, 19 90, that his government was dedicated and committed to the continuation of a tripar tite agreement to renew the core area. Well, what happens just after the government is elected? The Premier (Mr. Filmon) says, whoops, whoops, the position of our government one week before the election is not the position of our government several months after the election. These quotes that I am using here from 19 90, this is not from 19 44.

This is last year, not on an issue that is trivial or tangential to the guts of how we govern our affairs as a province. This is what is absolutely at the heart of the way government does business and that is the way it treats its own employees. How more accurate a measurement or yardsti ck can we use on the integ rity of a government than how it treats the people who work for it? So, Mr. Speaker, I continue in quoting from members opposite. The Premier (Mr.

Filmon) says, vis-a-vi s Crown corporations, that there is not an attempt on our part to influence decisions in a free collective bargaining process between management and its employees. Mr. Speaker, is Bill 70 in any way influencing decisions in a free collective bargaining process? You bet it is. It guts the free collective bargaining process. I continue. The Premier said all of these organizations have said that the bill- this is FOS-- represents a gross interference with the free collective bargaining process. Will the minister listen to these people and withdraw the legislation?

So the very arguments that the Premier was using to withdraw FOS, which has subsequently gone the way of the dodo bird, is to do exactly the same thing only three and a half years later, three and a half years later in this chamber as Premier of a government, and how about the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) who after all is responsible for the Civil Service Commission?

The Minister of Labour says, and I quote, again this is not from some decades gone by, this is from November of 19 90: While governments must occasionally take action to protect and preserve public safety, and there may be exceptional circumstances where intervention is warran ted, thes e circum stances must be exceptional. So even the Minister of Labour is saying that the burden of

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-2-80a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 2nd hansardpdf 80a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	afd27c2157d20b65615f3746c6743e2154749433

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